User talk:Pairadox/Archive 1

Welcome to my talk page

Talk page box taken from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)
 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page. In some cases (e.g. you request it or it's been a while without a response), I will also copy my reply to your talk page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

CBS Mandate
(originally posted at Jgera5's talk page) Since you started the CBS Mandate article, I'm wondering if you have any sources to substantiate the claims made in it. As noted on the talk page, there are some serious problems with the article as it now stands. Pairadox 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply Jgera5 posted here) You know what? It's been like well over a year since I've even been to that page, as I don't recall since the last time I've been over there. I forgot it even existed.

I've since improved on my Wiki skills. The page could be deleted as unnecessary or something.

Sorry to cause any confusuion.Jgera5 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pairadox, care to clarify on my talk page what you specifically want me for on this matter? Flyer22 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Usurpation
Hi Pairadox. Sorry I missed your post, I tend to be quite busy. Your suspicions are correct, your account is too new to be usurped. Six months (or thereabouts) is typically the point where usurpation becomes an option. I suggest that you wait a bit. Regards, Deskana (apples) 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice/info. I figured you had missed the question. Pairadox 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Bennet
Thanks for the message. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I agree it should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George cowie (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Tereus to Philomela (princess of Athens)
I think you were too hasty to delete the content on the Tereus article and redirect to Philomela (princess of Athens) instead. There hasn't been any discussion about this for more than 6 months and the article has developed a bit since then: it had seven Interwikilinks, 1 1/2 dozen links from other pages, and the Category:Fictional rapists. The links show the interest in this character, disputing the assertion of unnotability. If the guy is notable for only one thing (the rape of his wife's sister and his subsequent treatment by the women), that left enough of an impression in Western mythology to warrant his own article. Also, the removal of the article on Tereus himself removed his entry in Category:Fictional rapists - which can hardly be applied to Philomela's article. I suggest you undo the Redirect on Tereus and start a new discussion on Talk:Tereus. Michael Bednarek 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't start the same conversation on three different talk pages - it's confusing and not very conducive to a cohesive discussion. (Not to mention annoying.) Pairadox 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You suggested on Talk:Philomela (princess of Athens) to restrict that discussion to this page (User_talk:Pairadox). The reason I posted on the other two pages (Tereus, Philomela) was to allow input from other interested editors who might watch these pages. I wholly agree with your statement that this is confusing, leads to a fragmented discussion, and is annoying. However, I can see no other way to notify those interested. Michael Bednarek 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no I didn't; I directed people to Talk:Tereus. The best way to notify people is with a notice and a link to the location of the discussion. But I'm really over this now; you've reverted the article, left discussion items at at least three places and I have no interest in continuing on a topic I don't care about. Pairadox 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in the future you may want to consider a different opening line than "User XXX was YYY"; as the policy on personal attacks states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Pairadox 03:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you merge?
Why did you merge the torm article to seanchan? They are not the same thing. Torm are creatures handled by a group of people known as the Seanchan in Robert Jordan's fictional Wheel of Time universe. A merge request had been put there ages ago before people began to clean it up. Why did you not bother on the talk page at all? I had already commented as such. If you notice, the other Seanchan creatures each have their own pages. Please undo or justify. Thanks.Polkapolkapoker 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did I merge the two? Because it was a stub article that wasn't likely to grow, had an unwieldy name that wasn't likely to be used in a search, was written completely from an in-universe perspective, didn't link to many other articles and had rather poor quality sources (a fan site and another wiki). Three other editors supported a merge and the reasons of the other two besides yourself who opposed it weren't compelling. Pairadox 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if those are rules in wikipedia. I am, admittedly, a bit short on the knowledge of all wikipedia rules and regs, but that's part of the darn problem.  I was under the impression that any piece of information was worthy of inclusion in wikipedia.  What is the harm in such an article?  I was also unaware that potential for growth was a necessary feature.  And unweildy name?  What kind of justification is that?  And where are the other editors' opinions listed for the merge?  One other opinion of an editor who merged a completely different article (list of creatures)?Polkapolkapoker 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are too many applicable policies and guidelines to list here, but I suggest you start with Notability (fiction) and Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Pairadox 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Mauleon copyvio - not.
There may be many reasons to delete Rebecca Mauleon, but copyvio doesn't seem to one of them.

Did you look at Talk:Rebecca Mauleon where writes: I am the creator of this biography and the subjects (sic) manager.

I suggest you remove copyvio on Rebecca Mauleon. Michael Bednarek 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did read the talk page and I don't believe that statement releases the copyright. Whether or not the same person wrote the text (an unproven claim in any case), if it appeared on her website first then there is an existing copyright for it there. There is a procedure for editors to release the copyright and it doesn't appear to have been followed here, or at least I can find nothing to support that. An admin with more knowledge about these issues will look at the article and make the determination. Pairadox 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Military terms
(copy of message left at User talk:Mzajac) Re: List of modern infantry-related terms and acronyms and List of modern AFV and artillery-related terms and acronyms. You seem to be the only one who expressed an opinion on the merge (and a rather logical one at that). Would you be interested in performing the merge? It's been almost a year now... Pairadox 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I've merged them at Glossary of military abbreviations.  Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-08-28 06:02 Z 


 * Excellent, and thanks for the quick work and reply. I don't look forward to merging lists... ;) Pairadox 06:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rohtas, India
The article was originally created about Rohtas, a town near the Son River in Rohtas District of Bihar. Along the way contributors added information about Rohtas Fort in Pakistan. I don't think the articles should be merged, as they should be two separate articles about two separate different places, but the all the information about Rohtas Fort mistakenly placed there should be moved to the appropriate article. Tom Radulovich 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've rolled it back to a 9 November 2005 version, just before all of the extraneous info about the fort was introduced. Pairadox 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning?
I haven't even said a word on the EJ and Sami page for 4 days yet you post a warning on MY talk page? You had no right to do so as I have not talked to you or said anything to you. Do not put false and unnecessary warnings on my talk page unless you can back up your false accusations. You put a warning on today and had no right as I have refused to talk to you and have not said anything since last week. What is your problem? CelticGreen 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As clearly shown in the NPA warning which you have deleted, my problem is this talk page post in which you call me a liar and imply that I am full of shit ("So are your eyes brown???") If you don't like the warnings then I suggest you calm down and comment on articles, not editors. Pairadox 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are assuming facts not in evidence and cannot give warning for your assumptions. I can ask any question I want and my mood is not your concern, I couldn't be calmer if I had just gotten a massage.  You have constantly harrassed me and I don't appreciate it and now you are falsly accusing me of vandalism.  Go look at what you've done and see what is vandalism and what isn't. You are trying to control a page and you don't like that someone one let you.CelticGreen 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that you called me a liar. That justifies the No Personal Attacks warning. It is a fact that you have repeatedly and without consensus removed tags asking for sources without providing any sources. That justifies the Vandalism warning. Pairadox 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you have REPEATEDLY removed content without a consenses. Your vandalism warning was a joke and you can't second warning someone if you don't first warn them and since there was no vandalism your warning was unfounded.  Stay off my page, stay away from me.  Why can't you get that through your head?  I hate you, you hate me.  Isn't it best we stay away from each other?CelticGreen 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the evidence does not bear out your version of events. I have removed the same block of content three times. The first was my initial foray into the article on 11 August 2007. The second was after Flyer wrote on 11 August 2007 that "using the words 'many' and 'some' several times within an article on Wikipedia without a reliable citation provided for using those words [that it] becomes truly original research," which I took to be agreement with my initial edit. The third, on 23 August 2007, was after you edited the talk page several times without addressing the points and IrishLass had deferred to RadiantB, who had commented on the line-by-line comparison, and only those items where we agreed. Compare that to the nine times you/IrishLass have reverted my edits to preserve the unsourced and weaselly versions that obscures the unsourced statements problems.
 * A level two warning was appropriate according to WP:UTM because at this point I do not assume good faith in your reverts - they are clearly intentional and are not intended to improve the article, merely to preserve a version you prefer. You are wrong in your assumption that I hate you; I don't care about you enough to do that. If you think we should "stay away from each other" then you are free to find other articles to work on. I don't plan on going anywhere until the article complies with Wikipedia policies, and warnings will be issued for flagrant breaches of user conduct policies. Pairadox 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been in that article longer than you and I'm far more stubborn than you. I was there before you arrived and I'll be there long after you're gone.  Take your warning and do what you will but it was unwarranted and you are aCelticGreen 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Living Church of God edits
Thank you for your edits on the LCG page. How do I link the cites I've used in the article into the reference section of the article? Webrown70 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would suggest you start by looking at WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, Help:Footnotes and Template:Citation. What I often do is to copy this blank template   and fill in as much info as possible. I'll do a couple to show you how. Pairadox 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

welcome
Thanks for the welcome, and yes apparantly I am a Star Trek fan according to my user name and page. lol DeepSpaceFan 05:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Former IP addresses
"This editor has previously edited under the IP addresses Special:Contributions/24.4.253.249, Special:Contributions/24.6.65.83, and very briefly Special:Contributions/67.161.36.50 and Special:Contributions/24.6.209.4. After the ISP started changing IP addresses frequently, I chose to create an account to facilitate the tracking of my contributions. Pairadox 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)"

Jews in Arabic articles
Stop adding Jew culture into Arabic Muslim articles. like u did in Malik article. Malik is based on Mughal empire and Arabic meaning of Malik. there is no relation with Jews. Maliks are Mughal empires who were Kings of Afghanistan/Pakistan and India. there is no relation with Jews. infact Maliks are present in only Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs.

If you would like to add Jew culture in Malik article then goto discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using phrases like "Jew meaning" and "Jew culture." Many people find such wording to be highly offensive. Pairadox (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Klein
Hello Pairadox! The IP who reverted your change on this article is one who we previously guessed to be Aaron Klein himself (see Talk:Aaron Klein). I have no idea why he would object to including that paragraph about the elections. It's probably one that he himself inserted earlier. This editor is not noted for his extensive interaction on Talk pages. Losing that paragraph would be no great loss, in my opinion. EdJohnston 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And somebody else reverted them. I guess with enough eyes it's possible to keep it relatively stable. Pairadox 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Berry Hall
Hope I'm correct in posting this message here, if not then my apologies. I added some words to the page on New Berry Hall, but you undid them - any reason why? "the late 1980s" is NOT correct for the demolition date. I visited in August 1992 and I am certain that it had JUST been demolished, because a friend from Solihull Council called me up to tell me that and we went to check it out. I still have one of the bricks! regards James Murray 80.176.88.36 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't believe you, it's that your edits counted as what is known around here as Original Research. To use a wild analogy; somebody edits the Elvis Presley article to say that he's now working at a KFC outside Memphis, and they know this to be correct because they saw him. Now do you see the problem? Nobody else is able to verify that. If the Memphis Register, or whatever the paper there is, reported that Elvis was working at KFC, then it could go in (right below the reports of his death, of course). It's all about the sources. Quite honestly, if you hadn't made a point of saying that it was based on first-hand knowledge, it probably would have stayed. Sorry 'bout that... Pairadox 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's "interesting", although I can kind of see your point. What info do you need to back it up? How many times have you visited the place? 80.176.88.36 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the policies and guidelines on Reliable sources, Verifiability, and No original resources for more information. They explain it much better than I could in this space. Then again, if you put the info back in without announcing that it's based on your personal experience, I bet nobody would notice... (but you didn't hear that from me ) Pairadox 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Looks like you finally knuckled under :) Eleland 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well... My ISP wasn't cooperating and kept changing my IP address every few hours after lulling me into thinking they were more stable than that. Pairadox 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those Comcast tech support guys are total bastards. Useless, horrible people. And they mute their phone in order to yell and swear at the customer, just to blow off steam. I swear we they edit Wikipedia during support calls. Uh, my friend told me. Hehe. Eleland 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ROTFLMAO
 * Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day. And at least now I know who to contact when I need some real support... Pairadox 05:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I miss Comcast -- they were so much better than TimeWarner Cable...--SarekOfVulcan 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

68.32.50.29
Hello. I saw under User talk:68.32.50.29 that you had given this user his last warning after his edit to South Philadalphia, but what you didn't know was this user vandalized more, and this time to the Donald Trump article. I gave the information to Cool_Blue in his talk page because I have reported vandalism to him before, but he has not signed in for a while. He had edited the Donald Trump article, writing "Donald Trump is the f*****g man" for the first sentence in the article (except he put the actual letters, not the stars like I just wrote). You may want to block this person permanently, as they seem to be trouble. I didn't want to give a warning myself, because I would prefer that an administrator such as yourself do so.

Your decent Wikipedian,

Loghead1 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pairadox, I see that you are so firm in personality when it comes to your work on Wikipedia...that you have been presumed to be an administrator. Flyer22 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really hate the wording of the "final" warning - it gives the appearance of some sort of authority to block. Pairadox 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, vandals have to know that it's their final warning somehow, of course. Flyer22 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree, I just don't care for the wording, with the emphasis on "will be blocked," as though it's a done deal. Pairadox 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock notice
We do not put sockpuppet notice up on an user page linking it to an IP addres, or vice verse. Anyone is free to edit whether logged in or otherwise, or both, so not as the user is not banned from Wikipedia. Please take a read of WP:SOCK where it starts A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts.

You have a content dispute with the user, please sort it out on the article talk page, and do not abuse user warnings. -- KTC 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Abuse is a very strong word. I was merely following the example found in the case of User:Jebbrady, where I saw other editors placing tags on his IP addresses and filing sockpuppet reports. Jeb was warned by admins and eventually blocked more than once for continuing to edit as both IP and registered users. For the record, the user I tagged, User:71.103.230.250/User:Elunicocarlitos is not communicating on the article talk page and chooses to revert instead. Pairadox 10:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only a problem for someone to start editing under multiple identities if they are doing so to evade bans, or circumvent policies such as 3RR, appear to have more support than they actually do in debates etc. This is not (as far as I can see) what the user was trying to do. From what I can see, the user was making good faith edits to an article. Now I agree you point regarding infobox was correct (see article's talk page), and I have reverted the page to that extent, but accusing the user of deliberately using multiple identities in ways that's forbidden is too far in my opinion. KTC 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeb was warned and blocked multiple times, not for any of the above, but because the use of editing variously between IPs and login was disruptive to his contribution history. I saw the same thing going on here, including ownership of articles. The worst thing I did was act on bad information being disseminated by admins. Pairadox 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Now, let's see if we can sort this page out shall we? :) KTC 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. Pairadox 11:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK
I'll focus on improving articles from now on, thanks.-- Digipatd · Talk  · Play 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

cite news template
Could you help me with this? how do I access and use the tempate? Thanks for your help. Bigglove 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The page I usually start with is Citation templates, which lists some of the various ones available. After I've choosen which one to use, I usually click on the link and go that template. There's a blank copy there with most of the available parameters; then it's just a matter of copying the blank template and filling it in from the source material. Pairadox 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. Bigglove 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing references
The only thing that is kind of embarassing is that I'm bad at doing the code for referencing. I can tell you the book I got it from and the ISBN no. and everything if you want to do it for me. Either that or teach me how to do it. The book is "The Instant Astrologer" by Felix Lyle and Bryan Aspland. And the ISBN no. is 0-312-19427-7. But I'd actually prefer that you teach me because I actually get in trouble alot because I don't reference things. I tried it at first and it went good but the last times I've tried it everything went haywire. So... if you could teach me. Thanks. Lighthead þ 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I'll explain on your talk page so it's easy for you to find in the future. Pairadox 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! You're like the biggest lifesaver... you know it's like you know that stuff exists on Wikipedia but until someone points you in the right direction you don't know where to start. Thanks again. Lighthead þ 05:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your help on the Reflist project! I'm really surprised, that people are turning out to help! :) SQL(Query Me!) 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. [[Image:face-grin.svg|20px]] Pairadox 05:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Leland Jensen Predictions
About your tag on Leland_Jensen, I agree with the principle, but the BUPC and its editor are very defensive about thier POV. The only way to effectively answer them after they remove contrary content is to actually quote the source directly in the body of the text — otherwise you're accused of bias and lying, and the points are removed and denied. Unfortunately, the sources are not available online, so they have to be reproduced to be acknowledged. MARussellPESE 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, are you guys talking about me over here? Kidding. Thanks Pairadox for your time. This matter could use some fresh eyes. He's right, I can be tough on our critics, of which there's no shortage. But, I don't live in a total state of denial. Obviously here our critics get their say on the respective articles. Would you agree Pairadox that it would be a challenge at best to have a section like this one in question without relying on quotes? Your tag suggests there's too many, correct? Should we be trying to agree on which make the point, and scale it down, or get rid of them and just source them in the notes? Jeff 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, guys, I'm flattered by the attention, but I'd rather keep discussion of specific article contents on the associated talk page. That makes it easier for others to review what has been said. I'll start a new thread and copy your posts there, if that's okay with both of you. Pairadox 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

William M. Branham
I noticed you have restored the article issues box - I have no problem with that, but it would be helpful to those who are interested in trying to improve aspects of the article, if you could indicate on the dicussion page at least some of your major specific concerns. For those of us who are still rather new to Wikipedia it would be very helpful. My particular interest is It needs additional references or sources for verification. (If you have already done so, and I have missed it, I apologize). Rev107 10:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My internet connection went down as I was writing the talk page bit. As soon as I have the time to reconstruct the rather elaborate post I wrote I'll post it, but basically it boils down to disagreeing with the reasons for it's removal. Pairadox 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate your doing so. It seems rather arbitrary to flag issues without giving detailed reasons for doing so. Without this information, editors cannot address your specific concerns ... or debate them if they think your reasons are inadequate. Rev107 07:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

Talk page box taken from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)
 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

Superboy
What is there to discuss? We have a paragraph that isn't directly relevant to the character and is redundant with the section already in Superboy. Everything after that is either implied to connect to the last paragraph, which violates WP:NOR as we have no reliable sources for the analysis and conclusion, or is trivial. ' 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

prophecy or prediction
FYI, the quoted researcher says:

"He is well known for a prophecy that a nuclear attack would be launched on 29 April 1980 that would annihilate one-third of humankind. Before and after that date, three researchers conducted interviews with Jensen's followers in order to gauge their reactions to failed prophecy."

I'm not going to insist on saying prophecy, because it's not a big deal, but it was how the sources put it. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Warren
I saw that you removed my additions to "See Also" section as two of the entries are already reference in the body. I'm new to Wiki editing, etc. so please tell me why you can't have a reference in both places? It seems that having relevant references all together helps in navigation, etc. CarverM (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle I agree with you, but consensus is to list in a See Also section only those wikilinks that aren't in the article itself. Otherwise, the See Also section is subject to list creep. Pairadox (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, thanks. You are welcome to erase this entry. CarverM (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Riverside High School
The Current Events page keeps getting edited because the other information is wrong. Oregon State never sued. A letter was written to the principal of the high school and the deal was worked out to change the logo to a different version of the beaver. The school is not changing the name of the mascot. All of this may be important to the community members and it seems to be a sore spot for some also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversidebeavers (talk • contribs) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The information being removed is from a published source. If you have updated information, feel free to ADD it to the article. Do not simply remove sourced information because you think it happened differently. Pairadox (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will either attached the newspaper articles or just stop objecting to the word "sued". As long as the changing of the logo misinformation does not return. Documentation for that comment can only be sourced to a copy of the December 19 Board of Education meeting where the question was asked and answered. So what you are saying is that the better way to handle this situation would be to document the differences instead of correcting someone elses work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversidebeavers (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. If conflicting information from reliable sources is available, then both bits of info should be included with appropriate citations. Pairadox (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for reverting my talk page. is in a vengeful mood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. What exactly was that doing, anyway? I clicked on a couple of different things, trying to figure it out, but got scared off when I got some notice about it possibly compromising my account. I guess a better question is, am I at any kind of risk? Pairadox (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gehrig - Lutheran
There are endless websites that assert Gehrig was Lutheran, a fact that one user has tried to bring in. Given that his parents were German immigrants, it's not much of a stretch. Of course, (1) a citation, and (2) a reason why it matters, would be nice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, though the family may have been Lutheran technically, the book Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrig, by Jonathan Eig, makes the statement, "There is no indication that he or his parents ever practiced as Lutherans."


 * That's one of the tricky things about religious affiliation. Is it determined by practice, membership, self-identification, or some combination of the three? Pairadox (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this quite applies, but I recall a story Groucho Marx told about two men he knew in Hollywood, one of whom had a back deformity. The one guy said, "Did you know I used to be Jewish?" The other guy said, "Did you know I used to be a hunchback?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in here. And I'm glad I found this site again, but that's another story. Look for "Otto Kahn Story". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And while we're on the general subject, how's your German? Check out the item "Everybody Works But Father". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the beef?
What sockpuppet and how is what you revert to better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidianblackboard (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Asgardian Pairadox (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn

 * It's so much more fun sitting at home with the popcorn, huh?
 * I would like to invite your comments AND EDITING to this page. Enlarging and Referencing. Making it better, thorough, nd excrucioatingly NPOV (either way... "Just the facts, ma'am.").
 * Any assistance is appreciated. VigilancePrime VigilancePrime (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the caps, I'm going to be bold and start making changes. (I've had at least one tweak in mind since you posted the first bit on the ACS talk page.) If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and we'll talk it out. Mind, I'm about done for the night, so I'll probably just get my toes wet for now. Pairadox (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like fun. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Patton Boggs LLP
Could you please explain why you removed the information on controversial clients on this webpage, which is supported by references? I first thought you worked for that firm or are paid by them, but looking at your webpage you seem to be a committed Wikipedian. I would appreciate if you could restore the information you took out or provide an explanation. Feel free to reply on this page.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, look again. I didn't remove it, I moved it up into the retitled section now called "Notable clients." (They all look controversial to me.) And it isn't referenced, BTW, which is why I added a fact tag. Pairadox (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ironically, given the above, I found the article because somebody else had expressed concern about conflict of interest edits at the COI noticeboard. Pairadox (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Sorry for having jumped to conclusions. I will add the reference right now. And thanks for having edited the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob, these things happen. And thank you for taking the time to ask - it's so rare to see that. Hmmm, I might even rustle up a Barnstar for you for that one. :D Pairadox (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has great rules, but as you say not everyone follows them. I am trying to do my best and I am glad you appreciate it!--Mschiffler (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) And thanks for the barntar!--Mschiffler (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you right back! Pairadox (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Mercury
Well, THAT was a bizarre discussion. I love people who insult everyone, and then talk about how polite they are. I rarely see this person's comments, but I'm pretty sure she's the same person who, about six months ago, wrote "My facial expression is none of your business." Kind of sad, really. Mandsford (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ehhh. I find WP:LAME helps in these situations. Pairadox (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For reverting the unexplainable vandalism to my page last night. Who removes the "leave a message" banner? Anyway, I appreciate the revert you did. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you. It gave me the opportunity to steal a copy of the banner for myself :D Pairadox (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you are welcome in return. KellyAna (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BIG ORANGE BANNER
Welcome to my talk page


 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

should i watch on my talk page for a reply? I'm confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilancePrime (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya know, I actually took you seriously for a moment. I even looked at your page to see if there was a question for me that I missed. You are entitled to say "Gotcha!" Pairadox (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilancePrime (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the banner but a step down in the orange tone would be preferred. I've debated throwing it on mine with my original color scheme. KellyAna (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Pair, I like it. Bold. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm sure I'll get over it in a day or two, but right now it's a silent protest against all those who don't bother to read before they type. Well, okay, it's a LOUD protest, but without any sound. :) Pairadox (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The color is why I like it and want it and question it. So very existential.  Do you ever feel like beating your head when you have a banner flying that says, I talked to you on your page, KEEP IT THERE, and they just don't get it?  Maybe it's just me.  I do like the banner, may need to incorporate it KellyAna (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Help yourself dear. I usually pull the drop-my-head-and-roll-my-eyes reaction. THIS ONE has me ready to beat my head against a wall. Oh wait, I already am. Pairadox (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pair, this has been great. I added it to my userpage under the Need some humor? section. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :-) Look! I signed!!!

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page and vice versa. Thank you.
 * I saw that. That's why I put a copy down here with the dialogue. Pairadox (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On a serious note (once again)

 * On a serious note again (you know, that whole "building an encyclopedia" stuff?), I'd like to get your thoughts on blog sources as primary sources (e.g. "X posted to YChat" with ref link to the actual post) at Jack McClellan. If you get a chance sometime. I heading off for the ... morning. And don't forget to check out the prep ACS article at some point (again). Input needed. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Need an outside opinion

 * Pairadox, I need an outside opinion.
 * Do you think that Squeak's crusade against the ACS article (and the POV-pushing for which he is famous), combined with his former personal attacks on me, and now joining with others such as Herostratus for this MfD against a legitimate workspace page (note the narrative and it's vileness)... would all that qualify for harrassment (yet)?
 * I am about to the point where Squeak, Jack, Pol, and Herostrat want NPOV people... ready to give up and quit because they have been utterly steamrolled into submission.
 * I could use some fresh perspective, support if warranted, advice if needed, and insight if possible.
 * I'm tired. Am I totally off in seeing this or am I right on?
 * Thanks in advance for the help. And I hope I put enough butter on the popcorn. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that a few editors, in their efforts to root out pedophiles, have lost whatever objectivity they may have once had. Anybody who doesn't absolutely agree with them is immediately suspect. The link that Herostrat included in the MfD is truly frightening, full of unsubstantiated allegations that it is. If their goal is to scare away anybody who doesn't share their agenda, I'd say they are well on their way to success. After seeing the depths of their conspiracy, on and off WP, I certainly won't be going anywhere near any of those topics again. Pairadox (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even noticed that part. HolokittyNX and I both ought to retain attorneys for it. I wonder what their "proof"/justification is for their allegations, or are they just fringe. Any bets on whether "Xavier Von Erck" is SqueakBox, Pol64, Jack-A-Roe, or a different abusive fringe Wikipedian? (Rhetorical question, I'm not looking for an actual answer as it's irrelevant.) Frightening is the harrassment that one can endure in the name of NPOV by those self-appointed holier-than-thou WikiVigilantes, apparently. Thanks for the insight! VigilancePrime (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely think they've crossed the line into harrassment at this point. They should all be banned from editing those articles and the cabal shut down. Herostratus should be banned permanently from Wikipedia for introducing that site as "evidence" in the MfD. Their goal is admirable; their anything-goes tactics are dangerous, perhaps even on a physical level. Pairadox (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on all points. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Extricated. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AmeliaElizabeth
You might want to look at Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Already saw it, thanks, and it doesn't surprise me. Pairadox (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn and a Movie (and an Article)

 * So, Pairadox, now that the show's pretty much over, I thought I'd just stop on by and say "hi" and see if one of these days you might come on over to one of my articles such as Capybara, Moolack Beach, Medic, or Oozlefinch. Just for fun. You know, I can always use good editors (I mean, we or Wikipedia). Sometimes these lesser-known articles are difficult to research, write, enhance, improve, and find editors who have talents to do so. I look forward to working with you in the future, VigilancePrime (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) :-) above reference to WP:Ownership was meant as a humorous and not serious statement


 * Oozlefinch?!? LOL  That one should be a Main Page Featured article just for the name. Pairadox (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page


 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

Afd
Please do not restoe trolling comments tot he afd as by doing so you take personal responsibility for those shoddy attacks,. the page is to discuss the deltion or not of the article, it is not a page fro people's opinions on other topics. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I take personal responsibility for is rebuffing your attempt to remove comments to which you object. Considering half that page is "trolling comments," your selective removal just shows further proof of your bias. You have had many, many editors comment on your inability to maintain a NPOV; maybe you should take some of that to heart. Pairadox (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an accusation. I don't remove Squeak's votes or comments (includin his personal attacks), and I expect him to leave my votes and factual comments. I have warning templated him and wanted to let you know. Probably should watch out for this, though. I expect more personal attacks and harrassment are soon coming my way. This may end up requiring Admin intervention eventually. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So that admin can be smeared as User:Orderinchaos was? (And probably others over the months.) Don't hold your breath. Pairadox (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to assume good faith. I had that shattered tonight. Hey Pair, do you know any good admins? I'd love to meet one. I've heard that they do actually exist. :-P VigilancePrime (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)  pass the popsorn! 
 * I think the one's that hang out around the comics articles haven't been tainted yet... Pairadox (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great... one thing I have no interest in whatsoever... that figures... VigilancePrime (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC) :-P

Comments in AfDs
Please don't add in comments such as this one. I understand that you're frustrated, but it's not beneficial to the discussion and disparages other editors. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it any different from the comment to which I was responding? Given the long pattern of disparagement, insinuation and outright intimidation that Squeak, Herostratus, and Pol64 have used to push out dissenting views, do you have any useful suggestions on how to deal with their behaviour? Pairadox (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Ignore it. I'm not trying to justify anybody's behavior here; based upon the short amount of time which I've followed this AfD, people on both sides of the issue have said and done some inappropriate things. But I can't step in to stop every instance of it, nor am I capable of catching everything that slips through. So the best response to someone taking shots at you is to ignore it and focus on the real issue (in this case, the AfD).


 * I'll do my best to keep an eye on things, but the time I can commit to it is limited. Thanks for your cool-headed response, by the way. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - I have no interest in inflaming this any more than it already is. But as I've already posted both in the AfD and on the article's talk page, I find such tactics to be intimidating to the point of supressing dissenting viewpoints. They have literally scared me away from that article, and I'm not usually one to shy away from controversial topics. Pairadox (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree - few things about Wikipedia irritate me more than when someone targets an editor because they don't have anything more to say about the issue at hand. I can sympathize. ... or is it empathize? Ugh, semantics. Either way, thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This from the same editor who blocked me? Pairadox, does that strike you as odd since you and I are two of the ones suffering the most attacks from people (Squeak et al) who "don't have anything more to say about the issue at hand"? I actually laughed when I read it. A painful laugh. Like when I also read "fair enough" to a recommendation to these same people to not respond to trolling and the like. All of a sudden pretending to be a civil Wikipedian; is that how one can blatantly and directly attack other editors, participate in seriously derogatory name-calling, and not get even a warning for it? Are you seeing the same thing I am? (I'm back to asking you for a second opinion, Pairadox. Thanks!) VigilancePrime (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a discrepancy when comments like this, this, this and this are allowed to remain, but I'm trying to assume good faith. Maybe TB feels that an editor must be explicitly named, rather than just innuendo against all those with differing POV or linking to an attack site. I do wish my initial question, "How is it any different?" had been answered - that might provide more insight into the thought processes. Pairadox (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had three hours last night to "forget" how to assume good faith. This is what Assuming Good Faith got me. I don't complain, I have never taken an article to AfD/MfD, and I have never gone whining to ArbCom or ANI. The most I've ever done is Admin Noticeboard Against Vandalism. I have a long history of vandalism-fighting. There used to be a time when massive comment blanking was vandalism. Now, just like in the US Criminal Justice System sometimes, the vandals and attackers have more protections than those being assaulted. It's crazy. Wikipedia one day may fall because of it. I can only hope that some sort of reform and user parity sweeps through before then, because otherwise I fear the WikiResults. Note: Squeak has also directly attacked people and those go unrebuked too. He's like an evil Elliot Ness: Untouchable! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC) And when I say "evil Elliot Ness", I'm referring to being untouchable but he's not a cop and attacks others, I'm not claiming that Squeak is the devil or anything... please don't try to read into it more than I actually wrote.