User talk:Royalguard11/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive &rarr;

Welcome!

Hello, Royalguard11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sigs
Why are you removing signatures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillDrew (talk • contribs)

Why are you removing signatures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillDrew (talk • contribs)
 * If you read WP:SIG, it says :
 * "Edits to articles should not be signed, as signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any Wikipedia article. In other instances when posts should not be signed, specific instructions are provided to contributors."


 * Your name shows up in history anyway. If we wanted to see who's been editing, we check there. -Royalguard11Talk 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Membrane Processe (redirect page)
I used the template on the wrong page by mistake - I should have put it on the RFD page. --apers0n 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the deletion, I thought it was just an explanation of the redirect. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. -Royalguard11Talk 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was my mistake. --apers0n 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the link to the James Warner-Smith user page
Can you explain why you removed the link to my page in the CHAS-FM article. I understand the idea behind third party contributors not "signing" articles. Wiki articles are a collective effort.

In this case though, I am also a legitimate part of this radio station and its staff and have been for almost 30 years. The link to my user page serves to give listeners and those interested in the history and the people on the radio station a contact who may be able to answer their questions.

I'm not claiming ownership of the article which seems to be the main reason behind the prohibition regarding signing edits. However, I am part of the station and, hence, part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Warner-Smith (talk • contribs)


 * It's because there shouldn't be links between the main namespace and user pages. The main namespace has many rules and guideling (linke NPOV) that don't apply to user pages. Because this is an encyclopedia, all internal links should be to encyclopedic content. User pages are usually POV, and in any case don't pass WP:AUTO. Wikipedians shouldn't be part of the article they write. -Royalguard11Talk 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Attribution of a website (Lee Brown Coye edits)
I do not understand why you keep removing the attribution I put next to the link to the Lee Brwon Coye website that I maintain. Am I violating a policy or do you just dislike the fact I put it there?

Bill Drew 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't really matter who maintains the website. If you maintain a site, great job, but Wikipedia isn't an advertising service for websites, nor a place to show off you websites. Most readers will not care who maintains a website (that's not to be an insult to you, just saying that most readers will read an article, maybe look at a few external links, and most will look at "this website is maintained by so and so" and it won't affect their decisions to view which website). It's just not encyclopedic to include who maintains a website (WP:NOT). -Royalguard11Talk 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting the sentence in Bongo. Oh ya, I added Bongo to the list of things to added to. I apprieciate your help.

--Himanyo 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on "WP:AUTO"
Thanks for the information on "WP:AUTO"

--James Warner-Smith 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your very welcome. -Royalguard11Talk 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the correction.

no signed entries on the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bptdude (talk • contribs)
 * Just remember to sign the talk pages. (which I just didn't either) -Royalguard11Talk 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the AMA :-)
I usually try and take the time to greet every new member of the AMA, but as of late people keep sneaking onto the Membership list faster than I am able to keep up with :-) So, first of all, welcome! It's great to have another Wikipedian who is interested in helping out fellow Wikipedians through disputes.

Secondly, if you haven't already, I strongly suggest that you look over Guide to Advocacy to get familiar with how things work within our little Association. Things are formal enough to get the work done, but beyond that we're all up for whatever eccentricities you may be willing to share :-)

Thirdly, if you feel that you're ready to get your feet wet, I have a case that may be appropriate for you. If you're interested, head on over to the WP:AMARQ page and you'll see that I've made a notice under User:Cybertrend's case that it is "pending on" you. When a case is "pending on" an Advocate, that means that I've asked them to consider it, and if after reading over all of the information posted (as well as clicking the "read full description" link) they're able, they need to do two things:


 * 1) Set (pending) in the title to (open)
 * 2) Sign under my comment, with something like " :Accepted. ~ "

This tells me that they're on the case and working with the user who requested it.

Now when the case is finished, head back over to WP:AMARQ and set (open) to (closed). That tells me that you're finished and that I can archive the case.

This particular user happened to skimp a bit on the details of the case, but from the looks of it, it appears to be a simple content dispute. Be thorough in your questioning and he should open up and describe his problems.

If you have any questions or things don't work out as you'd expect, don't hesitate to ask me (consider me a "life line" like on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" only I'm available as many times as you need me) :-)

Peace and good luck! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me)  02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Martha Hill
I have partly rewritten the article on the above subject following your AfD nomination to clearly assert her notability. If you now feel there is enough to indeed classify her as notable, kindly withdraw your nomination so we can move to a speedy close. Thanks, Ohconfucius 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I've answered the question you asked at my RfA. M a  rtinp23  13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

re Division No. 18, Saskatchewan
I didn't, actually. I did the change in tow steps (by mistake, hence the oops), wrote the sentence (before the population figure) first, saved, edited again to remove what was now a duplicate. The last edit may look like a deletion, but the sentence is still in the article, look carefully. Cheers. --Qyd 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
You removed a reference to an abridged free email copy available. It was put there for a good and valid reason. Plese explain your reasons for removing it (without an explanation of your reasoning on the article talk page). It was put there because the issues are complex. Too complex and lengthy for a brief summary in an encyclopaedia article. Some readers will find that sufficient, and some will not; and some will seek further reading. The item listed is available in few libraries as hardback copy only, and at great cost for impoverished students. £85 or US$161, nor is it uploaded to the internet. An email download makes a free copy available to those who wish to study the issues in greater depth. Brian.Burnell 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

my profile nationality
You appear to have made me Irish, when I was originally English. I've no particular problem with the Irish, though I am perplexed why you have done this. Yours, Tphi 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Killingworth merger with Killingworth Village
Hi, You have requested a merger of Killingworth and Killingworth Village.

They are infact 2 different places.

Killingworth Village is on the outskirts of Killingworth but is not the same place. I dont think it would make much difference if they were merged but this would make the co-ordinates, history and pictures incorrect.

I was intending to add more information but unfortunately I do not have time at the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingworth Township 1966 (talk • contribs)

That was what I was wondering really. They looked like they were the same place. If they aren't, then they don't need to be merged. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Re: Your Userboxes
Thanks, that's a weight off my chest there.-- digital_m e (Talk•Contribs)  19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

LOTR userbox
If you're going to move the userbox, would you please correct the link on everyone's page? (this should be easy with AWB.) That's how I have seen it done in the past, and if you're going to move something you should clean up the mess. I don't want to be mean here but I am sick of editing my subpages whenever someone messes with the userboxes. Thanks muchly. --Fang Aili talk 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I hope Cyde isn't pressuring people to userfy the boxes. I hate to think that someone is trying to push "policy" onto people. Perhaps you could ask someone to AWB all the LOTR ubxes; that would save you time. I would do it but I'm going to bed. Cheers. --Fang Aili talk 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LOTR user templates
I need them moved back to template space for reference, since I will be working on a merged template to cover all seven of them. Once merged 6 will be completely depreciated and without users. Please move them back to template space where they belong. Also, I looked at the history and the talk pages, where was the discussion or requested moves for these? I had no time to disagree with these being moved out of template space. GUS is giving me a headache since the templates I am planning on merging are disappearing in back alleys where I can't find them. - LA @ 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. My workspace is for the boxes I intend to merge only. Believe me, it is much better to have 1 box than 7, so moving them back will help me since I intended to user User LOTR as the merged template. With the merge, userfication would not be needed, since it would have created a master template, and all of those belong in template space. Actually, all templates no matter where they are intended to go belong in template space. I hate GUS with a passion. - LA @ 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Ace Class Shadow
Hey. I noticed that you edited Wikpedia's userpage for moi, ACS. Thing is, you not once, but twice, ignored the notes about editting specific categories, resulting in problems. Please try to be more careful in the future. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims
Dear friend, You seem to be doing a lot of WP:ABF these days regarding GUS, so I thought I would bring the discussion to your talk page. If you will carefully review my comments, you will find that although I still think GUS won't work, I have agreed (almost from the beginning) to try to help make it work. This is part of my AGF policy. However, making it work requires a few things - 1) those involved in the discussion should actually know what it says, and follow it. This includes a) not deleting non-divisie and non-controversial userboxes from template space, b) not userfying userboxes in categories where there is not consensus.  These are both clearly laid out in GUS itself.  2) Working towards an iron-clad consensus as to exactly how GUS should be implemented before going to work. Since it is a compromise, the decisions must be entirely above board. This means that any consensus must be recognizeable as a consensus. Don't give either side the opportunity to claim vote-rigging, etc. I advocate for making the issue as public as possible, encouraging as many people as possible to express their opinions, and then (and only then) looking for some common ground. 3) Treating all points of view with respect, and always being open to new ideas or solutions. It doesn't help for people to say things like "it's already decided."  That doesn't really make sense on Wikipedia, as someone can always have a new idea that is better than the status quo, and besides the situation changes. My biases (if there are any) are that I feel that non-divisive and non-controversial userboxes should be allowed in template space.  As a 2nd best solution, there should be some other place designated to keep them.  I also feel that the deletionists are abusing GUS to their advantage by a) deleting as much as they can, b) moving userboxes to weird locations with long names, c) trying to reduce the opportunity for cataloging or categorizing those that do exist, d)looking for new ways to ban them altogether.  I have not seen any abuse of GUS by the free speech Userbox people. However, I expect that this isn't finished yet, and that they probably will either completely ignore GUS or find a way to use it to ensure that they can create whatever divisive or controversial userbox they want to, somewhere on userspace. Feel free to discuss these issues in a civil manner on my talk page. --NThurston 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem that you really understand my position. Let me try to clarify:
 * I have no problem with the status quo being dead.
 * I have no problem (in concept) with a compromise like GUS.
 * When you read Jimbo's remarks in context, it is clear that he is not necessarily against all userboxes as templates, just those that advocate for POV or other issues that lead to factionalism. All of his remarks relate to these "divisive" userboxes, and not to userboxes in general.
 * On top of that, the language in WP:GUS is unclear and incomplete. It is not ready for implementation in its current form.  For example, GUS refers to moving "controversial" userboxes, but does not tell us how to decide what to apply that to and the Straw Poll is NOT leading to consensus on anything.
 * The language in WP:GUS requires consensus for some elements to be implemented. In most cases, this consensus does not exist, hence it will require a lot of work.
 * The "Just go ahead and do it" phrase and attitude is precisely the problem. Everybody's doing their own thing, regardless of what GUS actually says, which is surely going to be a problem if we want the compromise to work.  At a minimum, people who support GUS ought to limit their actions to what GUS says.
 * GUS is a good start in the right direction, but if it's going to be a lasting solution, there is a lot more work needed to refine and clarify it.
 * Having people run off half-cocked isn't helping.
 * Does that make more sense to you? --NThurston 22:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. There are two specific examples of go ahead and do it that are problematic - 1) Cyde had adopted a policy of speedy deleting any userbox created in template space, even if the straw poll did not support that area or category.  (See User Potsdam and User Crane for example.  2) There was a group of editors who were proceeding to systematically userfy all existing templates, again ignoring the GUS requirement of consensus.  I felt that these actions were premature and would be inflammatory and eventually lead to the collapse of GUS.  These have both slowed down considerably as far as I can tell, possibly in part due to my objections.  My current position is that GUS needs some attention if it's going to work, but every time I say something, people react almost violently, denying that GUS needs any fixing at all.  I have decided to take a self-imposed 7-day break from worrying about it.  Maybe it will fix itself while I am gone. --NThurston 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still on my 7-day break. Maybe I'll respond after that. --NThurston 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Request for Advocate re Advocates for Children in Therapy
Yes, sorry, I didn't know how to respond to his comments there. I will delete mine from this page if that is appropriate. DPeterson talk 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken and Smallville
I believe KEN has been misleading you by holding back some of the information. First, I'm not refusing to allow a neutral pov, because there is no legal dispute over what the show is based on. Ken links to articles that do not actually support him, and when he discusses with other users he leaves that out. If you see the main article talk page, you will see that other users have pointed this out to him, but HE refuses to acknowledge it. I have left a message on his Talk page detailing the facts around the dispute. In the case of a lawsuit, Ken believes that you can interpret what they are fighting for any way you wish. I'm sorry, but a lawsuit has strict guidelines and if it isn't stated in the lawsuit then it's not part of the case. The Siegels have never stated what Ken claims that they have in any lawsuit. Also, his analogies with Baby Ruth and Kashmir don't fit with Smallville, because this is about a fictional universe that has an owner, that can be identified. By owning it they do have the right to say what they want about it. I don't appreciate that Ken is labeling me as some disgruntled editor that refuses to acknowledge the truth, especially when he does it behind my back, and doesn't bother to inform anyone else that he is seeking outside opinions. He does this so that he can pick what info he wishes to divulge. Bignole 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edmonton discussion deletion
I wish you had dropped me a comment about deleting half the comments from the Edmotnon move discussion. Now that I've seen your comment on the Edmonton discussion page, I feel like a jerk. I really didn't mean to. Have no idea how it happened. But the history doesn't lie I guess. My bad. --Arch26 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Brain machine interface page
Hi just noticed you reverted to an earlier version of this document. Any explanation? Perhaps a misdirected pop-up?

Cheers

Saganaki- 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

how to publish?
Dear Royalguard, I want to know if I am author of any article how to publish it at Wiki? What copy right tag to be used? Thanks very much. Cosmicspirit 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Cosmic Spirit

Cheetah Girls
Hi, just letting you know I reverted your autobot on Cheetah Girls (band) to return it to a redirect to Cheetah Girls (girl group). While the girls are quite talented, they are not a band. Cheers. MelonSmasher 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" of Vatican Bank Page
Please review this page for yourself and you will see the obvious POV:

"John Paul II ignored the matter, and allowed Sindona free play for a number of years after." Huh??!!! This guy cites "American Atheists" and some conspiracy theorists as his sources. This is the kind of nonsense that ruins the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jos231 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is "sourced". Does that mean that the source has any credibility? Run a google search on "The Moneychangers: How the Vatican Bank Enabled Roberto Calvi to Steal 250 Million Dollars for the Heads of the P2 Masonic Lodge". There are THREE hits. Likewise, check out Wikipedia's own article on John Loftus. He isn't exactly the most credible source.

If Wikipedia allowed citations of any and every conspiracy theory, it would be full of junk. --Jos231 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ori friar?
How can that page NOT qualify for speedy deletion? The article is just something someone wrote when they misheard prior. Please explain, also, I marked it for regular deletion since Sept. 7th and no one else gave any comments and no action was taken so I asked around and was told to just mark it for speedy deletion because of what I stated above.

Faris b 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for the reversion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Clarification
Thanks fFor your helpful clarification on user pagespace. very illuminating and well explained :) Cheers fFor that :) Skotte 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you!
sorry i did a dumb cut 'n' paste that resulted in an erroneous "help me" on his page. so embarassed. tks again, Cindery 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection on Johnny Rebel (Singer).
Dear Royalguard11:

Thanks for your advice about the vandallism on Johnny Rebel (Singer), which I did indeed follow as directed.

The anonymous AOL vandal again deleted the external link in question since I made my initial complaint and since I last reverted the page.

As such, could you semi-protect the page in question? (I tried to do this myself, but now understand that only administrators can do so.)

Sincerely, --Skb8721 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your additional advice about requesting semi-protection for the page in question. Sincerely, --Skb8721 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Whew...thank you!!!!!!!
I got so worried when the text disappeared that I couldn't find my mistakes. You are a life saver! Thank you, KarateLadyKarateLady 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism reverts
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage twice! --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my case
I know you have an Advocate desk, though I'm not sure where you prefer to discuss cases.J.R. Hercules 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of photographers name
I see you removed the photographers name on the photos in Barony Rosendal. Don't you credit photographers on english wikipedia? --Ekko 20:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

?
What was that about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Def jam crow (talk • contribs)

No, I'm serious, why you deleting my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Def jam crow (talk • contribs) OK, I'll sign my post, but please reveal why you're having the article deleted? Def jam crow 03:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, WTF? Tell me why. Def jam crow

Fine, I'll ask someone else to tell me. You don't have to be such a jerk you know. Geez. Def jam crow 03:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it IS true. See for yourself, esse.

It's true. It is true, why can't I post it? Def jam crow 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hey Royalguard11, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your encouraging comments and support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Requested Immediately
Hi Royalguard11. Can you please intervene on my behalf? Please refer to my following public complaint about Sarah Ewart.

I not only would like the article, she spontaneously deleted and locked, restored at once, following the revisions suggested by Sarah, but I would also like to file a formal complaint against Sarah for the reasons identified on her "talk" page.

RoyalGuard11, I also am very disappointed with Guinnog.

I anxiously await your response.

I just also noticed that you supported Sarah in obtaining her position.

Please direct me to an advocate who can objectively assist me if you are unable to.

It seems as if all administrators have some association with her.

Regards, NYer — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYer (talk • contribs)

Eglantina Zingg
I work with Eglantina Zingg and edited her entry a few months to give a better reflection of who she is -- her family history, work with MTV, etc and not just the one silly incident that made her "famous" in the US. A few days ago, EZ asked that I attach the link to her reel at YouTube and put in in place her photograph from Elle. She rather likes that cover. I notice that one of the contributors keeps removing that photo and places others. How do I get someone to respect our work. I saw something about "vandalism" on Wikipedia. To be honest, I am not terribly familiar with any of this, as I joke that I am a luddite. Would appreciate your input and assistance. I am also rather amazed that people find the photos -- the cover of Ocean Drive -- that they do. How do they get the right to use it? If you require anything legal from her, do let me know.

Many thanks,

Philip McMaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip McMaster (talk • contribs)

Dear Royalguard11,

Thank you for your message. Fundamentally, I like what I know of Wikipedia and will be a part of it, if for no reason than, I enjoy reading, and am the type of person who as a child used to read encyclopaedias for fun. As a good luddite, I don't follow technology manuals, but instead find solutions with logic and intuition. Found your "home page," which I found amusing, especially the reference to the usage of commas.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and will incorporate the suggestions into Eglantina's entry. I want to have a think about it and will expand the section about her work as a model, which will justify the insertion of Elle Mexico. If I get it wrong, do let me know.

Also, as I explore Wikipedia, I see some bits that I do want to correct -- for instance an entry about a member of my family. As I become more comfortable, I will be more proactive. In the meantime, I appreciate your kind assistance.

All the best,

Philip McMaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip McMaster (talk • contribs)