User talk:Lmcelhiney/Archive1

License tagging for Image:Ashley McElhiney.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashley McElhiney.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ashley McElhiney article--Help!
Hi – no, you're all good; underscores are the same as spaces here in titles. Let me know if you need anything else. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My browser just crashed and I lost a couple paragraphs I'd typed, but to summarize: I don't get her page with or without the underscore on search, most likely because some articles containing her name are more popular than her article alone but also possibly just because her article's new. If the Search button works for you, it may be because it's grouping the words together in the same way as if you enclosed the name in quotes.

My advice is to not worry and let the software take care of things for you. Extra redirects probably won't make this article more easily searchable, and links from other pages will probably matter more in the end. In a little while, the new article will propagate to Google and that along with other referring Wikipedia articles will be a greater source of hits than the Wikipedia search function.

On a side note, just using the "Go" button always brings me to her page where the "Search" button fails. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob and Tom Radio: The Comedy Tour page deleted
Hi, if you go here you will find the name of the admin who deleted it. You should ask him why. HTH. BlueValour 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, there is no warning period or warning about its pending deletion. However, as you offered to improve the article, I will undelete it. Sorry for my mistake. --210 physicq  ( c ) 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Bob and Tom Show
Thanks for your note on the vandalism to the Bob and Tom Show article by User:12.218.236.176. Take a look at Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut WP:AIV). Take a look at the instructions to editors; it is a place to report vandalism after the editor has been warned &mdash; steps which should be taken prior to reporting the vandalism. This page is monitored by many administrators, so you will get a quick response. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

David Hermance
Thanks for the kind words and for starting that article! It takes a while to get the hang of doing bios. One thing to be mindful of is cutting and pasting. It's important to write everything in your own words to avoid copyright issues. Thanks to your good research, I just had to format things a bit. Keep up the great work! Jokestress 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates
Hi there. There's a whole slew of warning templates at this page. If you scroll down a bit, you can see a table with the template name, as well as how it prints out on the page. Let me know if you need anything else. Joyous! | Talk 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use the + tab to create new sections
When you add a new section to a page, please don't edit an existing section to create it. All that does is tell me you replied to or modified that other section. In talk pages, you can create a new section by using the + tab on the top of the page. -Will Pittenger 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You edited a topic I was watching in User talk:Jokestress; namely, FYI: You forgot subst: when warning User talk:72.84.195.236. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lmcelhiney! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have had several reports of this problem, unfortunatly though I am not in a position to determine either the cause or any potential fix. Try leaving a message on http://amidaniel.com/smf/index.php?board=11.0 AmiDaniel's forum] (there is not much of a response to messages on his talk page), and let me know if you find anything out. Sorry about this, Prodego  talk  22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It might have been because your name was lowercase on the approved list. That shouldn't cause problems, but.. I had some problems with recent changes as well, make sure it isn't being blocked(it reads an RSS feed), and that it is set properly. Make sure to click update if it is on manual, of course. Restarting VP usually works for me. Prodego  talk  20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism edit.
Hey, I just hope you realize that this "vandalism" I made to my own discussion page... well it isn't vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2help&action=history Good intentions though, just letting you know. 2help 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry that I inadvertently reverted your User Talk page. I immediately restored it.  My point in the warning was that you made a nonsense edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center, as you have to a number of other articles, which have also been reverted.


 * I think you are confused. I reverted the vandalism to Collapse of the World Trade Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&action=history ... what other edits were you considering? 2help 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message re RMS Titanic
Got your message. Wasn't me. I reverted the vandalism. Check the edit history. Thanks. Kablammo 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) And compare my last version with your reversion. Thanks. Kablammo 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; it happens. Now if you want to see some really laborious vandalism, take a look at Chanhassen High School, which for some reason still hasn't been deleted.  Cheers.  Kablammo 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography on Beatles Page
Fair enough, but please don't revert my whole edit.

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Flashlight
from your userpage

dear Larry, I am sorry, I am new to Wiki, just not understanding what am I doing wrong while editing the Flashlights page, what is wrong in that link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.72.22.53 (talk • contribs).
 * Hi 212.72.22.53,


 * I understand being new, however, within 2 days, you have twice had your added website removed. Rather than just e-adding the external link, it would be better to read the ongoing discussion on the Flashlight page to see how to avoid problems like this.


 * Compared to the other websites, the one that you wanted to add does not provide significant new information. In addition, the purpose of the article is satisfied with having a couple of good review sites.  The list does not need to include all review websites.


 * I hope that this helps you to understand the edits that were made.


 * Lmcelhiney 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Poets of the Fall Discography
I don't quite understand why you reverted my edit in Poets of the Fall article. Could you give me some reasons? --wlodi 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I guess it happened because I accidentally replaced the whole page with Discography-only section; it was caused by my computer crash and then Firefox's automatic back-up feature. Then Corpx classified it as an act of vandalism, Wiki sent me a warning and there we go. Thanks again for reverting to my version. --wlodi 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Brady Quinn
Larry, Thanks for the thoughtful message regarding the revert of my edit. I understand your point of view (as well as the original author's) and I think it's a good topic for discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't discussed and went straight to print.

Because it is Quinn's Bio, it's hard for me to support topics that i feel are not factually based. The references to "big games" and critiques of Quinn's play seem to be severely opinionated. As someone that has followed Quinn his entire career, as I'm sure you are guilty of as well, it tends to aggravate me when people spew/repeat typical uniformed rhetoric. (I am showing my own bias now!)

For now, I'll let it go and wait for any sort of factual support.

Again, thanks for your message,

fuhreeus

--- Hi KelleyCook,

I certainly can understand your misunderstanding, but the section you deleted (regarding Brady Quinn's record) was not the work of an anonymous serial vandal.

Per the article History, User: Phydend had corrected the last of that anonymous vandalism at 1545hrs. Your edit at 1603hrs simply deleted a section that I had marked as "unreferenced" yesterday. It probably has some opinion therein, but it should not have been deleted pending someone determining that statements were factual or not.

Could you please revert it to the last version by User: Phydend or my last version User:Lmcelhiney as I'd rather not be blocked on the "3-revert rule."

Thanks for taking the time to correct this.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Have added the official Won-Loss record for 2003-2006 for the yearly rivalry games from the Official ND website.

Lmcelhiney 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Brady Quin
Hi Fuhreeus,

I reverted your edit which removed the unreferenced section on Brady Quinn. I did this, not because I believe the statements, but because it was the work of another editor, it did not appear to be vandalism and it might be based on fact. It is the other editor's or our opportunity to actually review the statistics to verify the statements. Or for someone to cite a reference to support the claim. Many of us are very supportive of Brady Quinn (one of the reasons that I monitor this article), but Wikipedia is based on facts. Some of these are probably factual statements--another editor had attempted to place his 4-year statistics up there last night, but failed in the formatting.

I laud your desire for justice, but we need to give the opportunity for fact to be found. If it is not with a day or so, I will removed it for being unreferenced, myself.

So, please don't take it as an attempt to support the negative. Let's let the facts support whatever they support at this point.

Thanks for listening and for your patience.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 13:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, I responded to your message on your discussion page


 * (Copy attached)

''Larry, Thanks for the thoughtful message regarding the revert of my edit. I understand your point of view (as well as the original author's) and I think it's a good topic for discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't discussed and went straight to print.''

''Because it is Quinn's Bio, it's hard for me to support topics that i feel are not factually based. The references to "big games" and critiques of Quinn's play seem to be severely opinionated. As someone that has followed Quinn his entire career, as I'm sure you are guilty of as well, it tends to aggravate me when people spew/repeat typical uniformed rhetoric. (I am showing my own bias now!)''

For now, I'll let it go and wait for any sort of factual support.

Again, thanks for your message,

fuhreeus


 * Hi Fuhreeus,


 * First of all, a very minor point... Please always sign your User page entries with 4 "~" as shown below the edit summary box:  Sign your name:


 * Yes, I have been a Notre Dame fan for over 50 years! I am very impressed with Brady Quinn and believe that he'll be playing on Sunday soon--unfortunately, for the NFL's last place team.  Just as Rick Mirer did.


 * I've been keeping pretty close tabs on this article for a couple of months and have reverted a lot of vandalism--mostly homophobic references.


 * I agree that it should have ended up on the Talk page first, but there are 100s of new editors every day and many don't take the time to understand WikiPedia or read the guidelines. This is why I immediately wrote to you after I reverted the article.  I wanted you to understand that I didn't feel either edit was vandalism, but it any case, the information needed citations.


 * This might he commonly spouted on talk radio, but that might not be factually based. At least this other editor "impiles" that some of the things are based on the record.


 * Again, thanks, I'll review this over the next 24 hours and see what happens.


 * Thanks for taking the time to do this, in any case.


 * Take care,


 * Larry


 * Lmcelhiney 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lmcelhiney 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Toojburn
Hey. I doubt the image is PD-self too. The user has been reported on WP:AIV, as it seems to be a trolling-only account. Hopefully an admin will check all of the user's contributions. Prolog 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for watching my back!  Lmcelhiney 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rickson Gracie edit
Hi there, I just got warned for vandalism (this page). Really sorry about that, I was just trying to revert vandalism by the anonymous editor, and reverted to the wrong version by mistake. I saved the page directly without reading properly. Sorry again, and thanks for the revert. :) --Nithin 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

D12
I was RC patrolling and was reverting vandalism to D12, which had been vandalised several times by different IPs and users. I went to the history and saw your name and the diff showed vandalism but I wondered if the was maybe an edit conflict gone wrong? I didn't want to slap a warning on your page without checking because you seem to be a good user. Thanks Farosdaughter 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking! I just removed a Death Prediction for 1/3/2007 and a nonsense line manually because no VandalProof rollback was available.  I probably should have looked back further in the history, as you did.  I do TRY to be a good user! :-)  Happy New Year!  Lmcelhiney 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All good then! Happy New Year to you too! No doubt we shall meet again on the old RCP :D Farosdaughter 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Howard-Browne edits

 * HI Lmcelhiney - I have serious issues with the above article and would love to support you in helping to wikify it and remove the POV statements. Pedro 1999a | Talk  21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pedro1999a,

Well, I appreciate your willingness to support.

Be Bold!

It is amazing what power we have when we do some research--virtually all of what was added today was copied directly off of their website. No citations. No copyright notices for the images. Oops...

Delete, delete, delete.

I try to have a totally NPOV when it comes to editing even though it is something with which I don't agree or even find offensive. Unfortunately, some have agendas to get past and they typically don't read, understand or agree with the guidelines and policies.

I recently rewrote and merged the articles on Nails and Manicure to get rid of POV and pull fashion stuff out of the anatomical article. I bring it up as an example of following the guidelines on an article for which I have not specific knowledge or interest.

Look forward to our further collaboration.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lmcelhiney. Great re-work of the article. I am watching with interest pending any reversions! Thank you! Pedro 1999a | Talk  08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My profile page
Something went wrong with my profile page. The text that was supposed to be on the left side is now crunched up in the column of my userboxes, and I don't know why. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is caused by

, but I don't understand why. It was never a problem before. You can see what it's dong here. It's dumbass, so I don't understand it. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, well first of all, it appears that everything was shoved into an Infobox... When I removed it, it spread the user boxes across the page, but left most of your text at the bottom (as before?).  Well, there are some non-standard box sizes in there, so it spacing things out funny--leaving lots of blanks.  But, I put the code that I'd sent you in at the very top of the page and it reformatted as you can see.  Here is the clue that comes from the non-standards respacing things.  You can't format stuff like this by flowing it or it can overwrite other text.  I believe that the code that I used is good because it is like an HTML stylesheet to format the "spaces" for the userboxes.  SO, if you want to view it and try out the formatting code, great.  Or, I can help if you want.  Please let me know as it might just make lots of sense to you right now.  At worst case, call me on 850-2002 tomorrow and I can talk you through some of this...  Larry  Lmcelhiney 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I had originally and still want, was the infoboxes in a column along the right like a sidebar with the main info at the left. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I misunderstood what was going on. I finally realized that the template that you were using for du-0 was broken.  I just stole the code from the template and placed it on your page (and above).  Works fine, I believe.  I wsn't going to leave the new formatting, I was just trying to see what was causing it by forcing it into a known condition and then got too busy at work to finish with the analysis.  When I looked back to last month and your User page was still bad, I realized that the only thing that was common was the template code (which was broken).  So, now you have the code in case you want to change it locally...  Lmcelhiney 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! --Scottandrewhutchins 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollback
Never use rollback or similar features when reverting except in cases of vandalism. My edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center was definitely not vandalism.--MONGO 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor was his... Lmcelhiney 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I didn't use rollback or popups feature as you did...doing so is wrong unless you are reverting vandalism. If you continue to misuse the feature, you can be blocked from editing.--MONGO 20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your patience in guiding me, I do appreciate your insight! I guess I just didn't realize that... Lmcelhiney 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit...
According to Chick's numerous "On Air" statements, this saying was an old family good luck saying which was said on the first day of the month. Lmcelhiney 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lmcelhiney, if life were "The Office" you'd be Dwight. Either you are Chick or you feel compelled to be the keeper of the aforementioned, self-appointed no doubt. Jccox58 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know of Dwight of "The Office," though I assume that you are not attempting to compliment me. On the other hand, I have seen and talked to Chick about this article...  Lmcelhiney 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It just seems odd...Why would someone feel compelled to keep watch over information, as closely as you do, if you are not Chick and/or related to him? Also, I have seen and spoken with Chick, and believe me, it was all good. Jccox58 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian views of alcohol
Hi! I saw your recent tightening of Christian views of alcohol. On the whole, I think it was good work, but I did notice that you modified some of the (rather extended) quotations without inserting brackets or ellipses for the changes. Did you find the quotes to be inaccurate? I checked the MacArthur quote under #4, which is currently wrongly cited -- it should be -- and found it to be accurate, meaning that ellipses are required for your deletion. Also, I think the sentence at the beginning that listed advocates of abstentionism with citations is useful for putting a some names to the idea, so I'd like to restore it. (Please respond here.) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 11:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Flex, Yes, the LONG quotes should have "..." inserted.  The point is, they are long quotes.  Since you have the links, there is no need to have the entire quote.  That is editing.  Regarding the long list of names...  Try to establish an NPOV, rather than name dropping.  A few, recent, names would be much more powerful than an overpowering list.  The key point being, if this is such an important section, maybe it needs to be a separate article with a set of salient points here.  It is significantly larger than the other two, supposedly "equal" points of view, even with my reductions.  Please understand, I don't drink myself and find that there are good points here, but there is no neutrality in a lot of this article.  Some editors would probably cut a lot more than I did.  (Oh, and by the way, some of the quotes are from the 1980s--is there recent discussion and new material?)  Thanks for getting back with me and I would be very interested in working with you to achieve a better article.  Take care.  Larry    Lmcelhiney 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've revised my previous edits by rewording to eliminate the long quotation and added ellipses. I think that adding short quotes from your prominent theologists list to these 5 points would be the best way to identify the proponents.  Lmcelhiney 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First, note that I am not an abstentionist, I didn't compose the text in that section, I'm not pushing an abstentionist POV or "name dropping," and they're not my theologians. Second, please assume good faith and check your facts before making accusations.

In reality, I wholely agree that the section on abstentionism needs to be rewritten and reduced and that its substance should not be made up almost entirely of (short or long) quotations. Even so, I think the list of names at the beginning is useful for putting some names to the position -- it demonstrates that it's not a bunch of fundies outside of mainstream evangelicalism (which is not an entirely inaccurate description of prohibitionism's advocates).

BTW, I added an ellipsis that you missed to the MacArthur quote mentioned above. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, obviously we were not communicating... I was making no accusations nor allusions.  My referents above were to the article, not to you or your editing or suggestions.  I know that we were both trying to improve the article and my reference to POV was related to how it should be changed, not who created it.  I should have been more complete and said, "[We should] try to establish an NPOV, rather than name dropping [as was the previous direction]", but I was rushing off to work when and trying to write something quickly.  Not sure what "fundies" are...  I'd like to see a more parallel structure in the three different focal points, but don't have time to do the research, myself.
 * My original entry onto this article was to remove most of an online sermon from the 1980s which had been used verbatim. You seem to have been involved with more similar articles than I.
 * I hope that this brief explanation helps to smooth the waters. I am looking forward to any improvements that we can make.  Thanks for understanding.  Take care,  Larry  Lmcelhiney 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I think we're on the same page. I want the article's POV to be improved as well. Aside from the abstentionism section, do you think it needs much POV work? If so, where? (BTW, fundies is shorthand for fundamentalists). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar encouragement, Larry. :-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry, Since you've taken an interest in this article, would you give us your two cents at Talk:Christian_views_of_alcohol? Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Springfield Park School
I was wondering where you keep getting all of the statical info for the Springfield Park Elementary School wiki thank you.


 * Hi, Just do a Google search on the school name. LOTS if information comes up.  Look at where they got their data and it is usually back to the VA Dept. of Education--a good source.  But if you want more, contact the school administration directly.  They would usually love to add or correct information.  They are on the Internet, so they probably have email addresses to the Principal, etc.  Get everything that you can with citations.  Especially anything printed and then read and rewrite and add the citation.  Go to the other school sites that I mentioned or the ones in Henrico County Public Schools and look at the information that their website shows.  Ask this school for the same sort of information.  Hope that helps. Good luck! Lmcelhiney 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Bob Kevoian
(Copied from User:209.43.19.157)

Hi 209.43.19.157,

Your continued removal of material from this article without explantion of your reason could be thought to be vandalism. Your addition of a comment directly into the article visible text is not appropriate. If you want to ask questions or provide information, you can:


 * Add information to the article talk page
 * Add a hidden comment
 * Contact the other editor on their User: talk page

Please consider creating a personal account rather than remaining anonymous.

Thanks for understanding.

Larry

Lmcelhiney 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heywood Banks
I can live with your edit to the Heywood Banks article. By the way, I live north of you, in Kokomo. Thanks, Reid Hochstedler 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! I remember Kokomo well, having worked for a while in South Bend and communting each week from Indianapolis :-)  Are you into your family genealogy, thought I saw some reference in passing over your Talk page?  My website has my father's side back to 1760.  Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit
Hi there, your recent edit took away a relevant section from Bollywood. Mistake, I presume? I have reverted it &mdash; Lost (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, seems from the edit times that you and I were both reverting at the same moment. Yours must have hit first!  Thanks for the heads up.  Take care,  Larry   Lmcelhiney 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikified
Hello, I am trying to make this one article wikified, also I did provide few sources, hopefully you can review few things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .User_talk: BoxingWear

I, too, am trying to improve the Baker article. Unfortunately, my attempts to improve the writing on the page as well as remove weasel words, insertion of rumors, etc., are continually reverted. Let's work together to improve this article. MKil 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil


 * That is 100% not true, I am simply putting correct information, also Mkil had lots of problems with other users in the past. I simply want article to look good, i am not doing anything wrong, this man demands self evident truth, something that already exists in the world he wants evidence, he had problems with calling rocky greatest, as some people consider him, i gave links, he reverted, I would like this user no longer to bother others, sure, he can reply well and may be he means well, but he is not doing it right, so even if he means well, eventually problems arise, I was asked by others as well to look into his problems. Here's some evidence, this guy HAS SERIOUS BEHAVIORAL problems, 3 rule revert, so this happened last year with others... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR

Every time I try to fix something, he keeps on inverting his own story, on the Baker talk page, I truly explained myself, on rocky marciano page, others tried to explain. He simply does not listen, will not listen,then when he gives an argument, he writes a whole book, repeats himself and adds stuff totally irrelevant to the situation, tries to revert the given, something already well, well known.User_talk: BoxingWear

OK, please don't use MY talk page for your personal disagreements!


 * OK, BoxingWear and MKil, You folks need to work together to resolve this, please.  The Talk page is longer than the article!  Here are two examples which are similar to this article:  Tony Gale and Marcel Cerdan.  Note, that both are basically a blob of text on the page without citations. Now, look at Rocky Graziano, Al Hostak, and Sugar Ray Robinson for example which have been WikiFied.  Note the use of an introduction and sections which pull together common information.


 * Use WikiPedia (as I did to find these articles) and Google to find other sources of information and cite your sources. (That doesn't mean just putting an external reference at the bottom or having WikiLinks within the article.)  Then, once you have the facts and all agree on them, you can write the article and have minor disagreements over the way something is said.  Right now, there is so little material there and so many weasel words (many, some, about, etc.) that the article has no chance of being retained over time.  The guidelines here give you lots of information about what an article should look like and how to use and cite sources.


 * As painful as it might seem, you might be better off in simply rewriting the entire article than trying to piece together improvements. Every time that you swap edits back and forth, it draws attention on the Recent Changes page and brings in folks like me.  By the way, I have absolutely no interest in boxing--just  in making WikiPedia better (not perfect, but better).


 * Please write to me if you want additional guidance or suggestions. Thanks for listening.  Larry

Lmcelhiney 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I tried and tried and tried to reason with this man, not only that he is taking away important information on Baker, he is doing the same with Rocky, if you go on my talk page, it has been explained, other users complained, so, try to block that guy, he is killing very important informtion, e.g. Chuvalo fight, date sep 9, keeps on reverting, i mean, he is hopeless, this is now vandalism, he has his own agenda, and other users reported that problem to me. He should not be allowed on wiki, he creates problems. Besides I was a pro boxer, I know a little bit more. The problem is, he keeps on putting words into my mouth. Another point, on marciano page, he reverted my edit abour rocky's military service, i deleted united kingdom reference, since he did not provide evidence of that, this is not a self given, we need to know that for sure, he needs to provide sources, i wanted to add myself he delivered ammunition to soldiers in France, but I have no link to prove it. User_talk: BoxingWear

All I ask is that my edits and BoxingWear's edits be compared and judged on their merits. Mine are better written and avoid the use of weasel words. This disagreement is becoming quite childish, I'll admit. It's unfortunate that it has to reach the level where we are drawing the attention of others. MKil 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned.

Please take this argument off of my User page...

Lmcelhiney 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned.

Please take this argument off of my User page...

Lmcelhiney 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse me, I have a perfect record here, nothing wrong, always follow all the policies, did nothing wrong, only corrected things, the only person who should not be allowed is mkil who is a vandal. - I mean, I do not want to create war edits, but this guy should not be here, again read what I said above, he had problems before, he says he cleans up some bad grammar, a little true, but he kills tons and tons of information. Again, i am glad he corrects certain words, but man alive, he kills so much more, he kills all the contributions from other good contributors. -Boxingwear Boxingwear

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User: Lmcelhiney
No problem, you must be doing something right in order to get your userpage vandalised! I have been on the receiving end myself many times before. —JeremyA 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mike armstrong 20ppi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mike armstrong 20ppi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic Projector
Hiya, I made some changes to the Cyrillic Projector article, but since I'm one of the people actually listed on the page (and my website is listed among the references), I'd feel better if someone else reviewed my edits, to head off any WP:COI concerns. If you have time, could you please take a look, and verify my changes? Thanks. --Elonka 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka, Not a problem, it will be later today or tomorrow from my schedule.  I can see some refs from the Kryptos article which could be added as well.  Take care,  Larry    Lmcelhiney 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rex Martin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rex Martin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)