User talk:Localzuk/archive3

The article is baised it is in light of people with alot of the critism removed, it needs to be reviewed. Kjones1985 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger
Okay, you you're a wiki-know-it-all, or rather a person who settles wikipedian type 'incidents' by mearly relaying policys rather then thinking things through. Okay. Thats fine.

Policy making 101, if you can't enforce it, don't make it. If wikipedia really cared about forcing people to sign talk pages they would insert the signature notation at the end of each paragraph. Rather simple to implement I might add. Now if your a wiki-sig-editer you will go into the history and retrieve my IP and put it on display. While the wiki-know-it-all will throw some policies over, in a rather condencending type manner. I wonder if these wiki-know-it-alls actually believe that the people they are contacting are oblivious to the policies they relay back to them, or it those wiki-sig-editers actually think that adding in the user info will help someone.

Lets take a look, first off any essay based on a singluar topics validity violates WP:NPOV :p. Therefore those are irrelivant. Personally I continue to believe that Guidelines are in greater need of inforcement for the simple fact that most people ignore guidelines. Lets look at 'society' for a better view on guidelines.

There is a bridge that converges 2 lanes into one, one side is suppose to yield to the other. It is considered a 'guideline' to stop at a yield sign if you can't make it, so naturally people will continue into the other lane and honk when the people with the 'right of way' go passing by. Policies are what people are told they should do, but never question why. 'Do not go above the speedlimit', sounds good right? But what is a 'speedlimit'? Technically, the speedlimit is a ratio between the hazards of the road (be it bends or pedistrians) and the cars ability to navigate against such hazards. It thus becomes appearnt that many 'speedlimits' are incorrectly measured. Some individuals take a step forward and ignore the policy (and subsequenatally get pulled over) while many bleak minded people follow the policy without questioning validity.

The point, which you will never agree on, is that policies reflect views that people once agreed upon but probally do not pretain to the situations of this day and time. Guidelines, however, are rapidly mutating and conform to the circumstances for which they are needed. The same can not be said for policies.

And, if you want to really get down to it, adding the section back into the article will still violate WP:NPOV (Unless I misunderstood what was being said lasttime) as no part of an article should exibit a POV. If I am wrong then further insult to Wiki Policies, that means that I can go into an article (such as FPS (which already violates NPOV)) and (using FPS) say that 'Halo sucks and is unoriginal' as long as I have the sources to back it up? That would be stupid... However, if my sumerization is correct then even inserting the articles contents back into the main article will still constitute a WP:NPOV violation for the section it was inserted in. And if you 'suppose' that the Positive-POV in the article neutralizes the Negitive-POV then the article, as a whole, breaks WP:NPOV.

Finally, I would like to note how much Wikipedia needs true inforcement. As of late there have been only 4 supports and 3 objects. In my book that isn't even a true conensus (80% and nothing less), never the less, only 5 days later the article has been merged into the firefox article.

Finally2, I personally believe that Wikipedia Articles should follow an anotative bibliography type approach rather then the state they are in as of late. Sure, as a wiki-know-it-all you preformed a wiki-merger type action elongating an existing article. I understand that as the article was entirely POV merging it into a more NPOV article might 'help' but wiki-mergers are bad ideas at the core. Often articles which don't need to be merged are merged, and that creates complications, expecally merger type tactics. People don't "merge" articles (most of the time) they sumarize an article and DELETE the accumilated information. So not only is the data less accessable, but it also is a cut down version of the original.

If you do contact me, don't relay WP again. That type of move is automatron and quite frankly is one that an ignorant person preforms. Simply knowing the wiki link of a policy does not constitute intelligence, (Yes, I know I can't spell...), sumarizing the WP is actually a more intelligent move then providing the link as it proves that you read it, and incorporating a POV into the policy shows that you understand it. Hopefully, if anything, this singular fundemantal concept is contemplatable and acceptable by you. (Seriously, anyone can wiki-link an article.)

131.247.243.121 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Elections
Hi Localzuk. I believe that the added information is useful for some people and indeed does appear on other countries pages for instance. It cannot possibly be doing any harm. It is up to each user to add as much as they like/know - I cannot not add something just because the surrounding article does not contain enough other information - that is up to those who know about/want to to add. I agree most of the articles on places in the IOM need expanding with other info as well as the election stuff I am adding/have added. The current table format was suggested to me by another user and I believe it is far better than just the text in subheadings. Manxy3 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy
Yes.--Red Deathy 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DocEss
Hi Localzuk. I, quite, frankly, have had enough of this incredibly uncivil editor. I plan to go to WP:PAIN today, citing his most recent reply to you at the Wikiproject as the most recent in a long line of personal attacks. I just wanted to let you know.  Rockpock e  t  17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh....
Can you please explain me why a guide for a game is removed whereas an external link to a page selling the game stays. How is the link I add commercial spam when all it has is a guide on the game whereas the 2 links above are filled with "Buy Sim City" ads.

Please reply :)

Spelling corrections
Ah, that makes sense. It looked wrong when I read it with an "s", so I checked Google and it said it was a mispelling. Thanks for the info =) Yurimxpxman 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: RFPP
Yeah, I know I should. Will do from now on. Any specific one you need a reason for? -- Steel 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I had a look just now and only saw one I didn't give a reason for. -- Steel 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PC
Hey Loco. There was a guy who called me PC. I thought you'd find that hilarious. I'm still laughing 20 minutes later.DocEss 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Newsmedia
No. Newsmedia with fact checking editorial oversight isn't the only suitable source of information. Peer-reviewed academia is also suitable source of information. Please remember that this site is supposed to be an encycropedia. Proper encycropedia article about death penalty would not have source even from Amnesty International. Anyway, in general publishing, there are no such safeguard and I have to again stress that wikipedia is not free for all. Otherwise, what stop someone from sourcing their info from a book which claim "Holocaust didn't happen". When professional journalists or academia publish books or articles, the source of verifiability is not from the authors but the publishers. That is why it is explictyl stated that blog entry by these professionals have to be backed by newsmedia or academia. For example, The Skeptical Environmentalist was published by Cambridge University Press which peer reviewed the book. So despite the controvercial nature of the book, it is a verifiable source of info. But NPOV demand that such book are attributed explictly so that people who read the article are aware of the source.

Steven Best, as the article about him states, is "an American animal rights activis". His books doesn't appear to be the same as the ones he published in peer reviewed journals or newsmedia. Wikipedia is yet vague on this issue so it may or may not pass the threshold of inclusion, but either ways, NPOV require that any information source from him should have explicit attribution rather than mere citation. And please remember that I do not have to know anything about animal right to delete content from the article. I merely noted that BUVA isn't like Mancehster Evening News or BBC. It's a quite easy rule to follow and can save you a lot of hussle. Vapour

I can see that you are not that familiar with this site. It doesn't really matter if one, two or 10 people disagree with me. I have seen several voting process where super majority was overruled because majority argument had no basis on policy. As of your worry about loss of contents, there are vast amount of information you can get from newsmedia, most of which are avialable online. If you know someone who is an university student, you can access to almost all major academic journal online too. The amount of reference you can get from these places determine the noteworthiness of the topic. I have had similar experience when editing martial arts related topics. Some people couldn't accept the fact that their enthusiasm are not well reflected in avialability of information from third party sources. Many unsourced contents do survive for a long time. I, myself, few times wrote large amount with very little reference. And I'm aware that my Engrish isn't that easy to read. But, in some instance, such contents do survive for a long time because some unsourced contents "looks" unbiased and reliable so people leave it alone. But I can't use these appearance as an excuse when someone invokve the verifiablity criteria. I invoked the policy in SHAC article because soapboxing was quite blatant, such as monkey photo (sourced from SHAC) or videos (sourced from huntingdonsuck.com). Moreover, allocating large portion presentation only for one aspect of topic would be biased reporting. Yes, even major news media do that often. And if it is sourced from these places, there is nothing one can do about it. But in this instance, so many news about HLS's difficulty come from outside of verifiable sources, which somewhat have effect of promoting the appearence of SHAC's effectiveness. And that I find to be not NPOV. Vapour

Selection Method
Can you please tell me how were the already listed sites selected?

SoftwareTipsandTricks contains MANY more sections not just howto's. List of Startup Applications in Windows XP, Necessary Files, SYS Files, Windows XP Articles, Windows XP Easter Eggs etc...

Larger than some of the sites listed.

SoftwareTipsandTricks was listed before. You removed it on October 1st.

Or you only want your "friends" sites to be listed? Do you want me to show "howto" section in your friends sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rareviolet (talk • contribs).

Bands from Coventry
Looking at the article named Coventry, it appears that at least two other bands – The Specials and The Selecter came from Coventry. In addition to Bolt Thrower, the category (if created) would not be empty. While I respect the original author's view that some of the band come from Birmingham, it does not mention this fact in the text of the article. Indeed, it appears from what Spearhead is saying, only one member comes from Coventry so perhaps it would be better not to mention the fact that they are from Coventry at all, unless they are currently based there. It is not my intention to be argumentative and I am more than happy to create the category. Bubba hotep 08:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also: Attrition, Adorable, The Primitives, Broken Dolls, Mawda, Ludicrous Lollipops. Bubba hotep 08:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of this new information, I have created the category. Bubba hotep 09:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OR on Make Love, Not Warcraft
I'm glad to see that someone else cares about WP:OR around here... I hope you'll continue and remove more Original Research from the "Characters' Warcraft data" section, which is completely unsourced and filled with OR such as "it looks like a...", "be considered a...", "he might also be a...", "suggests that he is...", etc. I personally think the entire section is inherently OR and should be removed entirely, but I'm currently shouted down by WoW-detail obsessives. wikipediatrix 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And it appears the shouting down will continue for a while. Keep the flag flying! Johan Aruba 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal template
Thank you very much. There has been a rash of foolishness today. Cheers. L0b0t 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Criticisms of..." sections
Sorry to pester you but over here at Sons of Confederate Veterans we are starting to get into the whole delete the criticisms discussion. On the PETA talk page you posted this quote "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales. Where, pray tell did you find that as I would like to source it for this discussion? On a side note, I played 40K from Rouge Trader in 1989 until version whatever in about 1998. Haven't looked at any GW product since 98 or 99. Today went into a GW store here in New York and DAMN!!!!!!! That game has come a long way and gotten very, very expensive. Time was, you got 3 Rhinos in a box for $9.99, now it's 1 Rhino for $24.99. Cheers. L0b0t 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for running down that source. Do you still play 40K?  What armies are you fond of? cheers. L0b0t 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Chaos is pretty cool. For me it's always been a modified Squat/ Imperial Guard force, sort of a Guild exploration army searching the galaxy for lost Standard Construct Templates.  Then my marines: The Emperor's Hammer, my own chapter based on Forge World Mars and very heavy on Tech-Marines and Adeptus Mechanicus.  My first and undying love however, has got to be my Orks, must be the anarchist in me.  Cheers. L0b0t 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks?
Localzuk, Complaining about abusive behavior is not a personal attack. Threatening to "report" me for doing so, and accusing me of things I did not write (eg. mentioning anybody by name), is much more of a personal attack on your part. Please stop your bullying or I will report YOU to WP:PAIN. Nrets 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Category
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. There's been so much messing around with these categories, I'm not sure there's much point in trying to put things back the way they were. What do you think? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist?
Localzuk, I was wondering when you were planning on making the RFC on the use of the word terrorist in the al-Qaeda article. I strongly agree with your position that the Words_to_avoid should be abided by.


 * If you would like, I could make the RFC if you will be to busy Trojan traveler 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

? editing local pages
Hi, I saw you'd put in a request for suggest bot to identify pages you might like to edit & I noticed you are from Somerset. I've been trying to do some work on Somerset, Geology of Somerset, History of Somerset etc & the pages linked from them in an effort to get them up to Good or even Featured standard - would you fancy haing a go a some of them?&mdash; Rod talk 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. I'm not actually from somerset though, just live here. I do work at a school though so have access to some books on the area. I'll have a look.-Localzuk(talk) 11:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Isle of Man
Hi Localuk,
 * ''Can you explain what you mean by '[r]m template (not a country)'? Do you mean the Isle of Man is not a country? ...

According to ¶1, the Isle of Man is a "Crown dependency". The template currently redirects to  (previously , i.e. it needs (and is slated) to become its own standalone template carrying the Dependent and other territories of Europe. Hope that helps!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk)

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 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush twins
Please note that threats of revert warring (and then partaking in it) violate various policies on Wikipedia. Notably, WP:3RR and WP:POINT. Please also note that you would be violating WP:CONSENSUS. Removal of well sourced information, which is not contrary to WP:BLP will be considered as vandalism and as such, all of these are likely to get you blocked.-Localzuk(talk) 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly I have never talked to you. Therefore, you need to assume "good faith."  Based upon the above comments.  I do not believe that you are.  You never responded to the underlining issue involved.  In the Al Gore III article, there are editors who have decided to keep out all references to Al Gore III's legal problems.  Now, in the Bush twins articles there are editors that have decided to put this information in.  It is blantantly POV.  You never responded to that issue.  You are only focusing on blocking me.  That is NOT good faith.  I would encourage you to follow the Wikipedia rules and discuss the underlining rule.--Getaway 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Response
I'm cleaning up the article. I always thought that good articles was more important than a small trivia section, and the phrases in question are very clearly trivia and having them anywhere else clutters up the article. -- Scorpion0422 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia, sources, and rules
Thanks for weighing in on the trivia removal issue. You know, I started working with the pop-culture stuff because I needed a break from the contentious bickering at the PETA and Iranian issues articles. Who knew that trivia could cause so much stress. I've signed on to the WH40K project, I have a pretty extensive knowledge of everything 40K related from 1987-1997, and almost all White Dwarf issues #1-232. Stopped playing in 1997, first they (GW) took my Slaan, then they took my Squats, then they took my Genestealer cult, then my Orky Freebooters then, instead of bringing back Slaan, Squats, and Genestealer cults, they came up with space skeletons (Necron) and space witches (Dark Eldar). So I grew disgusted and my garage has been packed full of lead armies ever since. It's kind of a secret treat to get back into the game but I don't think I'll let the missus know about it yet, she would not aprove. Cheers. L0b0t 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

firefox
Removed Personal attack. Localzuk(talk) 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi Localzuk, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam ( T / C ) 06:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point
Did you see what you appended to the end of your sentence? An emoticon. BTWm you can get that graphic through. So, do you think that this was an example of good faith or even called for? -- Avi 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Two copies of the same info?
Do we really need two copies of the same info on PETA's anti-euthanasia arguments in the history section? I originally wrote the first as a paraphrase of the source. Then Crum introduced the exact same material using the exact same wording that PETA used. Which is fine except that the second clause of one sentence, and the following sentence, say EXACTLY THE SAME THING TWICE. I tried to remove the redundancy and give the benefit of the doubt to the additions Crum made. Then you reverted it to the redundancy. Can you go in and clean that up and try to only state PETA's arguments against euthanasia once, or would you like me to go in and erase the other end of the redundancy and leave the one you re-instated instead (which would then be reverted by Crum)? --Animalresearcher 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Banners on Animal Rights pages
Basically, because those articles, in one way or another, directly relate to whichever family of mammals (cats or dogs) is mentioned in the articles. I tried to ensure that I only put the banners on pages which have specific content related to either felines or canines. Basically, these projects are now in the process of figuring out what all falls within their scope, and as a member of both, I am trying to help them locate the articles, so that they can be assessed and, if possible, improved. It should be noted that "improve" in this sense does not mean "increase the amount of 'X'-related content", just "improve the article." Once they are tagged and assessed, then the articles will be eligible for collaborations from either or both projects, appearances on the portals of either or both, etc. And please note that only those which explicitly have a directly stated tie in the article itself have been added, barring obvious cases like Humane society and the like. The stated scope of both projects is such that any and all articles related to the animals fall within their scope. Once the tagging is accomplished, the assessments will be worked on a bit more seriously, and then, maybe, all the parties interested in the pages can help to bring them up to a higher standard of quality, hopefully good or featured article quality. Of course, if you would prefer that the banners not be there, you can feel free to remove them. Badbilltucker 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your call, obviously. However, pretty much the only way any project lists an article as being "related" to their project is through the banner, so, unless you can think of some other way to indicate their relationship, you've just told two projects that their input on those pages is basically not welcome. Also, though I haven't checked myself, I would hope that you allow the banners to stay on those articles which relate specifically to individual animals within either families. Good luck with your project. Badbilltucker 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just for reference, you might be interested in reading WP:OWN; you may be facing other issues regarding it in the future. Again, good luck with your project. Badbilltucker 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote your last statement, you do not think they would. No person or group owns any article. I was indicating that you appear to be placing yourself as the final arbiter in these decisions, and any individual who unilaterally places themselves in the position of arbiter is generally going to encounter difficulty down the round. Again, I have no objection to having the banner removed. Both projects have enough articles to work with as it is, and removing the implicit obligation to try to work on a few articles makes it that much easier to bring up to standard the others which other people have not unilaterally determined our projects are irrelevant to. I hope that answers your question. And, again, good luck with your project. Badbilltucker 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Boldness applies to the articles per se, not the talk pages. The problem, as I see it, is that you have yet to be able to make that differentiation. Also, you explicitly said "based on your long experience of the articles." I will not address the fact that statement brings the ownership issue back. But that long experience is based on not having any input from other groups. You are thus fallaciously thinking that earlier circumstances under different conditions (in this case, the absence of the banners) will remain identical after circumstances change. Again, I am somewhat relieved personally to have the articles absent. The fifty or so members of the Cats project have quite a few articles to deal with, and I personally will not miss these. I cannot say that others will agree with me, however, so you may face the same circumstance again. I am basically sending this message to you to try to indicate that you have yet to perceive the difference between boldly trying to improve an article and unilaterally telling others that it is, in effect, your group's property. Again, good luck with the articles. Badbilltucker 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last response. You will note that the new dogs project is about two months old, and that so far we have tagged somewhere in the neighborhood of over 1000 articles and is currently having the dogs portal considered for elevation  to featured portal status. You will also note that the banner which you removed explicitly states that the articles fall "within the scope of" the project, which does not imply ownership. I was, in effect, putting the banner on so that, when the tagging is done, the articles can be assessed for quality and then the projects can work to bring the ones which will most easily benefit from cooperative work up to good or featured article standard, whichever is more reasonable given the status of the article. You seem to think that indicating something falls within the scope of a project, as I had done, is at the same level as having someone else, after the fact, unilaterally and somewhat arrogantly say, in effect, "No. mine," which is substantively what you are doing. And this attitude of yours may well have kept the articles from receiving any improvement from outside your group. Again, good luck on your articles, as you appear to think that no one outside of your group should have any input on what you seem to think of as your articles. If I am correct in that supposition, and I hope I am not, then you will need all the luck you can get. Again, I will not personally retag the articles, and, frankly, have no interest in trying to get you to see something you clearly do not want to. Good day and good luck. Badbilltucker 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Communism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Mind your business.
I was talking to Haber, not you, guy. I've read virtually every policy on this site, and NPA is a problematic policy used to get rid of editors the establishment doesn't like. If you were more than an uneducated child, you may realize this. What the fuck did this have to do with you? Nothing. That's one of the big problems on Wikipedia. Too many people, ignorant of the situation at hand, feel obligated to snoop and snitch and post dire warnings. Come on, this encyclopedia is a laughingstock IRL. Get thee to a cult deprogrammer and get the Wikilove taken out of you. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Localzuk, please do not discourage people from communicating with me on my talk page. Haber 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

On changes to ALF page
Localzuk: appologies if this wasn't clear, but I was preparing to add a "criticisms" section to the page to encompass much of the material I took out. That was to take place today. Also, much of what I removed was NOT sourced or was out-of-context quotes from the source material. Additionally, I was cleaning up the page to make clear distinctions between the ALF and other groups such as bands of mercy. I mean, there's a whole section about a bands of mercy action in the middle of the page! Talk about confusing for a reader. I'll finish up what I was doing and then let's talk about the appropriateness. apologies for my lack of clarity.--C.lettinga 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'll wait until I hear back from you. Also, the section wasn't about bands of mercy, it was about arm, my mistake. Also, I took out obvious npov vios, such as the section on the reported branded "by the ALF." If one reads the source material, it is very clear that this was NOT an ALF action, something which should be obvious by the type of action that it was. Also, the section about the fish deaths "as a result of ALF action" is silly and unsubstantiated. Yes, some fish most certianly did die, but all 15,000?? That's not even in the source material. At least claims like these should be in a seperate "criticism" section, which I would love to add, but do not belong in the main body of the article. Your thoughts?--C.lettinga 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response...read the discussion on "criticism" sections. I'm still inclined to think that they do more good than harm, but certainly the trolling aspect is noted. And there seems to be some ammount of concencious. So I'll simply try to include other relevant material to clarify npov. thanks--C.lettinga 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Thanks
No bother, you're very welcome. Absolutely my pleasure to help. Snoutwood (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

re: User re-appears
I've blocked him as a sockpuppet. He'll probably create another one, and as long as he's civil with that one, then that's fine. If he isn't, though, then that one'll also wind up blocked. That's just sort of how it goes... it's too bad, really, since all he needs to do is behave with courtesy. Ah, well. Let me know if anything else happens and I'll take a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawn of War
I posted a response to you there in the talk. Cheers --DarthBinky 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Biljana Plavšić
Your nomination of Biljana Plavšić at AFD was incomplete. Please see WP:AFD for the three step procedure. I'm sorry, without know the grounds you propose for deletion I can not complete the nomination for you. RJFJR 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, it seems that when you nom'd Dragan Nikolic (war criminal), there were some formatting errors. I tried to fix it, and I think it's ok now. Let me know if there are any problems. Doc  Tropics  17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to help; Deletion listings and process can be confusing sometimes. It appears that the "Dragan" AfD has been deleted by another editor with the edit summary reading "...belongs in RfD". I didn't even realize there was a category for "Redirects for Deletion", so I guess we're both still learning : ) Doc  Tropics  18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA Warning
With reference to your npa warning, I have no idea what the user "New Babylon" is talking about. As you can see, that user's postings are barely coherent, verging on gibberish. I am surprised that you have taken "New Babylon" seriously. Lestrade 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * I have no memory of ever attributing any quality whatsoever to user "New Babylon." However, "homosexuality" is a neutral predicate and not an insult. Also, the origins and causes of that sexual disorientation are fair subjects of discussion, as are the etiology of child molestation and serial murder. To have a verbal exchange about those topics is not forbidden in our society at the present time.Lestrade 20:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Joseph Stalin
I have no involvement in the editing of this article whatsoever, save to revert vandalism. If an admin is to be able to prevent Wikipedia from being completely taken over from vandalism, we cannot construe removal of vandalism as having been involved in editing the article, or we'd never get any vandalism reverted. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

refs
I think those particular ref tags were citing Wikipedia articles, which is listed as an unreliable source in the policy page. If there's an exception for episode capsules on Wikipedia, I was not aware of it. Natalie 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I must have misread the ref. My mistake. Natalie 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy
I see you added an infobox to the Ron Jeremy article that states he has a 3.25 inch penis. What is your source for this information, as well as all the other material you added to this article? Frise 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ALF Supporters Group
just wondering why a current list of prisoners for a prisoner-support group isn't encyclopedic; certainly this information seem eminently useful for anyone trying to get info on the ALFSG. thanks!--C.lettinga 10:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, point taken. I suppose I thought that since the list was a more manageable size...but I generally think that you're right. Should have thought of that before spending so much damn time on that list. (sigh)--C.lettinga 10:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye!
Goodbye, Localzuk. I am now left from Wikipedia. Bye. Jonaz5197 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU violation
Your recent edit to Microsoft Windows has been reverted. Fair-use images must have a detailed fair-use rationale justifying their use in each Wikipedia article. You forgot to add one for this image and so your edit was a violation of WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiberium Wars Reference Retrieval Dates
These references were not retrieved by you on December 18, rather they were retrieved by me over this last week. The date of 18 December wrongfully credits you as the main editor responsible for these new references in the article's history page. I want the correct dates of retrieval for each and every one of these reference links re-added by you, immediatly. 84.192.112.171 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You already acknowledged that my primary concern ulitmately is the quality and the factual accuracy of the articles that I involve myself with. Thus you only need to aim this same realization to the retrieval dates issue, and you should be able to conclude that I above all else simply want the article to be an accurate reflection of reality in all its aspects.  Indeed, always assume good faith Localzuk.  As it was, the retrieval dates as you originally left them were not an acurate reflection of reality however and thus I wanted them fixed.  I'll agree it's a minor issue at the end of the day, though.  And thank you for the praise on my edits by the way.  I'm a (very) long-time fan of the Command & Conquer series, and I feel Wikipedia gives me a unique opportunity to finally return something to these games and their fan communites for the countless hours of fun I've had with both of these things over the many years.  And I'll continue to do my best to make these articles something that we can all be proud of as C&C fan(atic)s. 84.192.112.171 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your impulsive edits on the Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars article endagering article quality
I've reverted your most recent edits to the C&C 3: Tiberium Wars article, as you incorrectly labelled them as original research, weasel words and POV. I will elaborate on this.

1) The disputed content of; " the exploitation of which the Brotherhood is notoriously adept at through its combinations of futuristic guerilla warfare with uniquely advanced Tiberium-based technological prowess. "

I suggest you carefully read this article on the matter;

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquer3/news.html?sid=6163297&tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&click=topslot

2) The disputed content of; "and are well known to fight and willingly die for either"

I suggest you carefully read this article on this matter, which I have also linked as a reference to this article as of now;

http://www.ea.com/commandandconquer/news.jsp?id=7

3) The disputed content of; "It is as of yet unknown if the race has also been officially designated as "the Scrin", or indeed if they effectively even are the Scrin"

This is content which is 1) factually correct as the official name of the side is yet to be revealed by the game developers and 2) directly relevant to the article as the subject of "the Scrin" literally symbolizes the many unanswered questions which the players/fans of the Tiberian Series were left with after the events of the prequels to C&C 3.

At this point it should be noted that when an editor considers factually correct and directly relevant content such as the three above cited examples as POV or as original research, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the in-game balancing between the two iconic sides of these games on the part of that editor, as well as a lack of basic understanding of the official and canon in-game lore of the Command & Conquer Tiberian Series as a whole. I would strongly recommend that you carefully read the above links I gave you before you proceed to make any further edits to this article. The gamespot link features a recent article by the game's lead developers on the balancing of the two sides. The second link of the official C&C3 website will update your knowledge on the official and canon in-game lore of the Command & Conquer series. Thank you. 84.192.112.171 06:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Regarding your retort on the matter
Sources, as has already been shown, are freely available for all two of the main two cases of disputed content, making the arguments through which you made the attempt to justify your recent edits to them on the C&C 3 article invalid. You apparently were not aware of the existence of these links nor of the information contained within, however ignorance is neither an excuse nor a justification for the arbitrary removal of factually correct and directly relevant information from an article -- in the same manner that you were lacking proof that the information was correct and valid, you were lacking proof that this same information was incorrect and invalid. Next time, consult with other editors on the article's talk page and directly request reference links to any specified disputed content which could validate the information contained within, however do not proceed to arbitrary removing what may yet prove to be factually correct and relevant information to an article beforehand. As it is, your removal of the disputed content on the grounds that it was "original research", compromised by "weasel words" and "POV" was done on baseless assumption itself, and as such it was corrected by me. I do not require approval to revert edits of which I can confirm they are harmful and/or otherwise disruptive to the informative quality of an article.

Lastly, my previous comments, in which I strongly recommended to you to carefully read through the links that I provided before you make any further edits - and to the sections of "The Plot" and "Sides Overwiew" of the article in particular - still stands, as your most recent edits demonstrate that you are inhibited by a fundamental lack of understanding on both the in-game balancing of the C&C series, as well as on its official canon. This may potentially render you unqualified to be one of the primary editors of the Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars article.

Thank you. 84.192.112.171 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-educate yourself on the feature of proper tagging as an alternative to arbitrary deletion of content here on Wikipedia. Content which is disupted, rather than confirmed as incorrect and invalid additions to an article, can instead be tagged in order to request a reference link through the  tag, or can be openly questioned to be original research through the  tag.  As an editor who by his own admittance has a poor working knowledge on the subject of Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, it is certainly advisable that you begin to assume a less radical posture and give editors who, again by your own admittance, peform good work on this article the benefit of the doubt through adding proper tags, rather than the arbitraral deletions of what soon after proves to be factually correct and relevant content.  Again, when in doubt, refrain from arbitrarily deleting content under baseless assumption, and instead seek to ensure and enforce the factual accuracy of the article's content through tags in any article the subject of which you have little working knowledge on.  84.192.112.171 17:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel I should bring it to your attention that I wholeheartedly welcome such outside mediation, as it may bring the following facts to light about your value as an editor to this website;


 * 1) That you repeatedly make accusations that I refuse to abide by core policies, while I have in fact labored to add proper and valid reference links to each of the content which you were originally found to be deleting under questionable judgement in the recent past. Questionable as in, your judgment in this matter was proven to be poor.


 * 2) That you repeatedly make the accusation that I refuse to abide by core policies, while I have at the same time also labored to add proper tags to all the disputed content pending the addition of such valid reference links.


 * 3) That you continously meet calls for a less radical stance in removing content from articles - which you by your own admittion have little working knowledge on - with a distinctly hostile and adversarial mentality.


 * Indeed, I consider this very mentality to be at the root of this conflict altogether. Outside mediation may reveal it as such, and thus I welcome it.  Moreover, if you do not initiate it then I will do so in your place.  And I will not fail to give each of these matters their due attention when offering my testimony to the mediator(s).  A merry christmas.   84.192.112.171 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the possibility that my more limited knowledge of core Wikipedia policy has made me overlook the fact that a tag is not a suitable substitute for a reference link, even when intended as a merely temporary substitute.  I will happily remove it if the mediator(s) confirm(s) this to be the case in the near future, however I am not inclined to revert my last edit as of yet as I no longer consider your word on this matter sufficient.  From my part, I shall inform these mediators in detail of what I believe can be verified as the source of this adverserial climate between two editors. 84.192.112.171 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking over the current tone of your posts and when re-evaluating the situation as well, I'll agree that it may be time for me to take a step back at this point as well. It's been a rather bad day, and I suppose my underbelly has been getting the upper hand in my last few posts.  I'll remove the Scrin part until I manage to refind the article which I based this possible Scrin connection from Tiberian Sun/Firestorm to Tiberium Wars on.  It's perhaps worthy of note that I have always agreed with the Original Research tag on top of the article, and have been laboring to give us all a reason to have it removed from the page the same as I've managed to do with the clean-up tag.  Time will tell if I succeed in this.  Also, feel free to delete this entire section from your talk page.  It's a little unfair that I as an unregistered user have no such talk page to forewarn other users that I too can be prone to get into editing conflicts. I continue to have no interest in registering myself, however. 84.192.112.171 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

n00bs
Can you tutor me as to how to deal with those &quot;clueless newbies&quot; who do not understand the copyright laws? :D &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Animal rights activists
Hello. The animal rights movement category was not divided "up into smaller, seemingly pointless, mini-cats" by the addition of Category:Animal rights activists in any way, as at the time of my addition it was only a member of Category:Activists. Your opinion that "it makes then entire thing a mess and overly complex" doesn't make any sense. A proposal on Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights is not required to sort Activists by issue, nor does it impact your project in any way when ARA is only a member of Activists. This is a typical people by occupation/interest categorization that cannot be categorized as ARM. The reasons you give for "disagreeing" and supporting your reversion of cited categorization does not appear to be valid or supported by any kind of argument as far as I can tell, other than WP:OWN. If you wish to continue this discussion, please refer to actual categorization guidelines (like Wikipedia:Categorization of people and others) and join me on Category talk:Animal rights activists. Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. In my message above, I  requested that you take the discussion to the category talk page so we could discuss the issue.  Instead, you took this discussion to my talk page and discussed me, not the category.  Please don't do this again. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved your messages to cat talk. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)