User talk:Lord Pistachio/Archive 2

40 Glocc
I copied it from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JpGrB/Sandbox_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikskill (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bangkok Southerners
Hi there - apologies for the blank space in Bangkok southerners. I'm a real noob to wikipedia and it was my first page and didn't realise it blanked out. Hope I haven't offended or confused anyone. I have developed another page, so best to keep Bangkok southerners deleted. Cheers Sb27 Sb27 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring Coffeehouse
This is a non-profit part of a religious foundation and is not a business/corporation. Many well known people have gone through this institution and many significant socil/politcal activities have been organized in this place. I plan to add many more details about this institution in the next few days. Do not delete!

Indianapolis
Hey there, I was wondering why you decided to delete all the information about the Indianapolis government from the Indianapolis page. Thought I'd get your take on it before considering reverting it. --   JT   Holla! 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, man, that's on me. I totally went into a mind fart when I looked at the Diff.  Great work, btw.  <__<  --    JT   Holla! 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not at all clear that "Unigov legislation was never intended to affect any city other than Indianapolis." The population threshold could have been set much higher back in 1970, and/or indexed for time, but wasn't. It was set at 250,000; perhaps to garner support from Ft Wayne representatives, which then had a population of 174,000. Indeed, it's hardly a stretch to say that Unigov was one motivation for former Ft Wayne mayor Paul Helmke's large scale annexations while in office. If indeed Unigov was only intended to apply to Indy (a thesis I disagree with), it's not the only legislation to have "unintended consequences". Duke Ganote (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Luke
Thanks! They're not my pics, obviously, but I found that link and had to make sure everyone else saw them! --   JT   Holla! 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find on the FieldTurf source. I was looking for one, but wasn't able to find one!  --    JT   Holla! 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation
Hello! You should really reevaluate your interest in this. That "sockpuppet" is my partner in the Police Department of which I work. He is also an editor (however not as active as I). I asked his opinion and he wrote what he felt on the subject. I would suggest that you check out WP:CALM and try not to take things personally and stop looking for things that aren't there. After all, this is just Wikipedia. I assume that you did some sleuthing on the user that "supported" my cause. I helped him get his account going a few weeks back, so that is why I am on his history. Believe me, if I were to create a sock puppet...you wouldn't know about it. If you have any questions regarding my "integrity" please feel free to contact me at any time. I would also recommend that you assume good faith in the future. Before putting allegations on someone, perhaps you could bring your thoughts to their attention first before making such malicious allegations (that is a fairly bad thing to accuse someone of without getting one's facts together first). That's water under the bridge, and I realise that you are still somewhat young and perhaps a little overzealous. But, back to the issue at hand; I wouldn't be opposed to a merger if you are so adamant on doing something, because the BSUPD is still on the List of law enforcement agencies in Maryland. And to keep the consistancy (within the list) perhaps we could simply put a redirect to the main university article. I think this is a fair balance for the both of us, don't you? It would be very wiki of you to remove the allegations from my page now that I have explained who Orthodoxpharoah is. Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio


 * Yes I know what a "meatpuppet" is as well, and no he wasn't acting under my "direction" either. He asked what I was typing, I explained it to him, he said he wanted to comment, so he did. Why is that so hard to believe? In retrospect, I can see how it would look like obvious sockpuppetry (and that could be your first clue though, doesn't it seem a little too obvious?). Maybe I would think the same thing you are, however I know for a fact that I would do a bit more investigating before making allegations that could get some banned on circumstancial evidence. Perhaps you should remain objective from your own agenda. You realize what you are doing, right? If you push this thing through it'll block everything that I've done up to this point, because of your own personal vendetta and circumstantial evidence that isn't true. When investigating a "crime" the number one rule is: stay objective, of which you are failing miserably. If you're going to look at circumstancial evidence, look at all of it (i.e., does the suspected person have an established history on the site? What contributions has the suspect given? Does the suspect have a history of suspected sockpuppetry? Does the suspect have a history of starting or participating in heated debates? Does the suspect fit the "profile" of a user that would have sockpuppets? Does the alleged sockpuppet fit the profile as such?) Do some more sleuthing before you establish your own opinion and lynch a user. I challenge you to find a "yes" to any of those questions. I do understand, however, that sometimes it is hard keep a cool head when situations get to this point and it's "fish or cut bait" for our own cause. All I ask is that you remain objective and consider all options. Because this is annoying for me as well. Thanks. Sallicio (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
 * I agree with you. I think that you are correct. The BSUPD article would probably be more effective within the parent article (and not deleted totally). Orthodoxpharoah should not have commented on the AfD. However, I still feel that it was in poor taste to throw me into litigation to challenge my integrity and my being an alleged puppetmaster without inquiring from the source, first. I am aware that I am relatively new to the Wikicommunity, but I make it a point to assume good faith (unless it is an obvious attack, e.g., so-and-so is an a-hole), stay impartial, and look at the facts relative to the law (i.e., wikiguidleines) as they appear, without blinders. Those qualities are necessary for me to function effectively on my real job, so perhaps it comes more obviously to me than others (which I fault myself for not being more aware of). I hope this makes sense to you and hopefully this experience will enable both of us to be more productive members of this community. I do not hold grudges and (I like to think) am easy to get along with, so if you need any assistance on anything or have questions related to (real-life) law enforcement, don't hesitate to ask! Sallicio (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

CCC
Thanks. HoosierState was the one going with him to begin with, and I stumbled on it. I don't know anything about the guy, but I totally agree that he should find better things to do with his time (time that you and I pay for, btw) than run a muck on Wikipedia. --   JT   Holla! 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Dover
Hi. Grateful if you would look at my comments on your speedy deletion. I was a bit dubious about the section I refer to in it when I did the transfer but thought I would check it out along with the all the other non-referenced material: it unbalanced the rest of a pretty poor article anyway! Can I suggest the alternative is to block it all out - as I say there was no idea of doing that when it was part of the main Dover article. Regards Peter Shearan (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out! I was naturally completely unaware of what had happened. I was in any case in the process of rewriting most of it, since as I remarked IMO it was poorly composed, and there are some inaccuracies and/or sweeping statements (a visit to Richborough (Rutupiae) tells us that it was the start of Watling Street, and not Dover, for example). I shall now go ahead and do so - presumably I can use what is now the blank article to do so - or should I change its title - History of the town of Dover perhaps? Regards Peter Shearan (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the History of Dover page, because I can't see that there is a copyvio - see my reasons on its talk page. Happy to discuss.  —S MALL  JIM   10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ewerf
Who are you to say what an Ewerf can or cannot be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlebot (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much for the award. You've done a great job yourself! HoosierStateTalk 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how do i send messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMA270993 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Landon IP
An article that you have been involved in editing, Landon IP, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Landon IP. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wood carving knife
Just a friendly note on Wood carving knife. I declined your speedy because there's plenty of context in the article. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Life, Love and Family
An article that you have been involved in editing, Life, Love and Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Life, Love and Family. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dustin Harding
It appears you judged this AFD entirely based on a single role he had at the start of his career. Could you please check and possibly reconsider based on his latest roles? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Iceland Crisis Response Unit.
Dear Lord Pistachio,

I was a bit disappointed to look up the ICRU page that I had corrected in February. As you see I´m not a fervent wikipedia contributor like you and may not have modified it in a correct way but labeling it as vandalism was a disappointment for me.

I have studied the background of the ICRU as a part of my studies at the University of Iceland and some of the information that I corrected was not only currently wrong but has also never been true. A quick example is the size of the unit, being at around 20 at the moment (haven´t gotten the exact latest figures at the moment but the number is decreasing due to budget cuts) and was at the time of the edit around 25. At its heights in 2004-2005 it held over 32 positions around the world in NATO, UNIFEM and other organizations with some 75-80 people working in a given year (some on rotation basis, other only for the project varying for example from 3 months to a year) not close to the 100 person paramilitary unit that suggest a standing force of a 100 persons.

Similarly it would be quite a stretch to call the unit a "paramilitary unit" when even during the times of the PRT work of the ICRU or when it was a lead nation in running Kabul international airport it had at most 20 employees under arms at any given time, all hired specifically for the project period, some lent from the police, coast guard and others but not on a standing basis like I would expect a paramilitary unit to be set up.

What surprised me the most was that you removed the sources I had added, the yearly reports of the ICRU, information straight from the horses mouth as one would say. (unfortunately information in Icelandic is more widely available than in English)

I wanted to contact you first before I tried to modify the page again and ask you for your feedback on how I can change the page in the most effective way to prevent the changes from being labeled vandalism again,

best, change131 Change131 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your quick reply as well as the explanation on vandalism, as I said in the post above I´m new to editing wikipedia so it is good to learn how things work around here. ;-) I will restore the changes to the page and make sure that how the information relates to the sources is better displayed.

Thanks again and keep up the good work, best, Change131 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

40 Glocc
Thanks for saying it's a decent article. Sadly, that's all it is, decent. It hasn't been updated in a while, and I've been meaning to re-tackle it. The original is located here. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)