User talk:Sgrayban/Archive1

Hi Scott,

I can't honestly remember the page. It wouldn't have been deleted just because it was about a program, so the likelihood is that it was one of the following


 * 1) context not clear, or content not notable enough for an encyclopedia article
 * 2) not much content other than a link to an external website
 * 3) advertising

As I say, I don't recall the page, so I'm not sure of the reason- apologies if I've made a bad call, and welcome to the Wikipedia, jimfbleak 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism
terrorist is not a NPOV term. we shouldn't call 911 terrorist attacks or call al qaeda a terrorist organization. Nr9 10:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is your proof that it wasn't? We have proof that it is. You cannot change the facts simply because you do not believe in them. Terrorist is a NPOV term. The page September 11, 2001 attacks is a account of what happened and the facts behind it. If you keep vandalizing that page you will be blocked from here. --Scott Grayban 10:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

American Council of Private Colleges and Universities Redirect
I see my redirect was deleted from the page's history. This really should be redirected to Hamilton University because according to CBS News' 60 Minutes' report "Degrees for Sale" this is a front group for Hamilton. CBS reported "Hamilton’s Web site claims the school is accredited," but "But it turns out the accreditation board, like the referral service, was set up by Hamilton, for Hamilton." Arbusto 09:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Read American Council of Private Colleges and Universities again. I made some important changes to reflect what you said. If you want to expand on the article please do but making a redirect was not appropriate. --Scott Grayban 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the 60 minutes article. This is not a "group" nor is it "accredit" schools. It is set up by one man for one fake school, Hamilton (now Richardson University). This should be merged. Arbusto 09:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merging would distort the facts you and CBS claim. If you want to expand and reference al that on the article please do. --Scott Grayban 10:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What facts do you have that it is independent? Arbusto 10:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have non other then the one link I posted about it. Apparently you and CBS have the facts. If you have no idea how to expand and write on the article I'll do the reasearch on it and include all the facts I coome up with. Merging and redirects are out of the question on this. Hamilton University and this article are one in the same yes but both are totatly different subjects. One could argue that any 4-profit college could be redirected to Hamilton University as well then. --Scott Grayban 10:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How can "any for-profit college" be redirected there? What sources/reason do you have to claim that? Arbusto 10:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The matter at hand is closed. You can not make a redirect for one page when the 2 articles are different. If you don't want to expand on it that's fine. I'll do it because it looks like a fun article to write on because I am sure I can find lots of information from this on other "fake" educational college's. --Scott Grayban 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When were there "two different" articles when I made the redirect? Arbusto 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off the page was deleted by another admin here. It was created with only a redirect. I revived it because I thought the article had potential about fraudulant college's. So technically the page is new and created by me and since you you seem to enjoy arguing instead of writing journalism to expand on this article I will. End of discussion. --Scott Grayban 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hells Angels Edit
Two notes: yes, I read the article before making the edit (which is why I noticed that the term 'Eastern Canada' was referencing Alberta, three municipalities in the west of Ontario &mdash; one almost in Manitoba, and Quebec).

Secondly, just what is eastern Canada is somewhat of a nebulous term. Wikipedia itself defines Quebec and Ontario as Eastern only when the country is divided solely into two regions (and the Ontario article describes its location as central); in that case, the article should have read 'Eastern and & Western Canada', at which point it becomes superfluous to even use regional descriptions.

That said, I'm fine with the current text of 'Eastern and Central' as the description. 156.34.221.174 21:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough :) --Scott Grayban 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

World War II edit
I wasn't "experimenting," Scott; I've edited enough Wikis to know how it's done. I was correcting a grammar error; the word "the" was capitalized in the middle of a sentence for no apparent reason. Manticore 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In all history accounts that reference WW2 as The Second World War has always been that way. The is not in the middle, it is the beginning for that term. So it is correct. --Scott Grayban 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Druze
Scott, my edit to Plato is supported. First, it is listed plainly at Druze. Second, Plato is among the prophets cited by the Druze. I make no claim they are correct in thinking Plato is their spiritual predecessor, but as a significant world religion (with important political roles in Lebanon, Syria and Israel), I figured it was worth noting on the Plato page as well.

Also, I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, so you didn't have to give me the "Sandbox" song and dance. I wasn't randomly screwing with Wikipedia.

em zilch 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough but you can use the summary when editing so that we can tell why the edit was made. --Scott Grayban 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

September 11
In the September 11 article, I changed a comment about possible attacks in other cities from "Melbourne" to "Melbourne (Australia)" as people may be confused with Melbourne FL, quite close to where George Bush was at the time.

Sorry if you consider this vandalism. Perhaps you should move away from the computer occasionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.197.44 (talk • contribs)


 * This is a good reason to use the summaries correctly then. I had totally forgotten about the 2 names. You should have used that. So I'm really not at fault here. You didn't properly use the summaries to clarify that change.

And you really do not follow directions either about talk pages. You should learn to read more and edit less since your trying to insult me. --Scott Grayban 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So you admit to forgetting about Melbourne existing in both Florida and Australia, thereby validating my edit as justified, but cos you're so quick to judge you still lay fault with me? If you want a thing like wiki to become an open encyclopaedia for everyone and not just geeks, then ditch the attitude and processes cos who can be fucked learning them? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.242.13 (talk • contribs) <- He doesn't like rules does he?


 * Since You refuse to sign and/or get a real username I don't feel like talking to you anymore. When you deceide to stop being rude to me and cussing on my talk page you can reply until then all your comments on this page will go ignored and reported as abuse. --Scott Grayban 07:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism
Dear Scott: would you be more precise in your description of the ways I have been "Vandalizing" Wilkipedia. Thank you for your time and attention El Jigue 4-10-06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs)


 * It either didn't fit the context of the article or it was a whitewash of the facts that I reverted the edits. --Scott Grayban 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Sgrayban, I reverted that section regarding politics and government back to a previous one that had been standing without any trouble for a long time. The section was filled with inaccuracy and misleading statements, so I decided to revert it back to its previous nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your comments on my talk page please. Second the social/communist issue has been a long standing issue in the talk page for Cuba and since they are still in a disagreement about that you need to take it up within the talk as required. --Scott Grayban 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page? Not sure if I understand.

Now you gave me "a last warning". Are you saying I am not allowed to edit anything, without approval?

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs)

Talk page as in Talk:Cuba and you can edit still but you can not assert your point-of-view in the article. --Scott Grayban 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the shortcut
I've removed the WP shortcut because it's an inappropriate use of the WP links. If you take a gander at WP:WP, you'll see that they're all policy or community project pages, not individual talk pages. Let me know if you have any questions about that. Truly, JDoorj a m    Talk 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I asked about that and I was told it was ok by admin User:Shanel in our CVU irc channel. --Scott Grayban 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well apparently after asking about this again they mis-understood my question. Although I think shortcuts should be allowed. Hince why its called shortcuts. --Scott Grayban 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scott
I appreciate you and your volunteering time to the Wikipedia project. BruceHallman 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I really appreciate that. --Scott Grayban 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian
what exactly did i remove? are you talking about the straight guy lesbian fetish, cuz umm HI THERE i wrote it myslef and then realized it didnt really fit in the intro and added to it and moved it to culture, bro. maybe its my fault for not summarizing if thats not it let me know, if it is let me know, i dont wanna cause any trouble and any vandalism on the lesbian page was unintentional pleae get back to me on thios as soon as possible thanks Qrc2006 09:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Making references to how it turns on a guy is not correct. POV is not to be used in any article on WikiPedia. Factual material only. If you wish to assert your POV please do so on the articles talk page. --Scott Grayban 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jameswatt
Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem - part of why I'm a RC Patroller. --Scott Grayban 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted to AN/I. I respect Mel but that's just silly. As I said on AN/I, several users have fallen for Jameswatt and have told him to add the links. It's basically a scam...and a way to try to get around our policies. We shouldn't be encouraging it with "well, it's not in the articles. it doesn't hurt!". Sure it does. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it hurts. Talk pages are just as accessable as the article is. That's why I and another RC Patroller reverted the spam just to have it all undone by Mel and that is just wrong. Mel's views on spam do not reflect the goal of WikiPedia. --Scott Grayban 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Screenshotkaramba.jpeg
Hi Sgrayban, I noticed you tagged Image:Screenshotkaramba.jpeg with a speediable tag. This is not the case becuase the image has not been tagged "unknown source" for seven days. This mean that the image will be speediable on the 18 April 2006. I have removed the tag. If you still don't understand, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts at Cuba
I have editing here for nearly three years and I have learned that robust tactics are needed to defeat communists, cultists, cranks and vandals at many articles. It is frequently necessary to engage in multiple reverts to achieve this, and many articles have been rescued from evil-doers because editors are willing to risk blocking under this stupid 3R rule in the interests of Wikipedia. At Cuba I will continue to revert as often as is necessary until the communists are defeated. If you supported rather than obstructed me the job would get done quicker. Adam 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Revert as you see fit. But I'll be warning when the same violations are repeated. Trying to defeat your POV thinking that communists must be defeat at all cost will only have you removed from editing here if you keep up with the WP:3RR violations. I tried to mediate and no one wanted that so WP policy enforcement must be used. --Scott Grayban 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

POV dispute
Well... writing in the POV tone is against policy. You must write factual information in a neutral way. Sometimes they are known as "POV-pushers". Ifthey continue to write in the POV tone, they could be blocked for a short period of time. If they keep reverting to their POV edits and removing the POV tags, then they could also violate the three revert rule. Is there currently a page you are discussing about this that is happening right now? You may wish to contact the user/IP and discuss the edits that (s)he is making. Contact me back if you need. Hope this helps.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The cabal has been tried twice and no go. The editor in question refuses to be NPOV and reverts edits constantly including deleting talkpage comments that do not fit his way of thinking. If you look at Talk:Cuba and the history for that article you will see that Adam Carr wont play nice. He has even stated on my talkpage that he defeat anyone that crosses his way of thinking. Personally I think its time for a block on him. --Scott Grayban 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, see here where Adam Carr overtly advocates for an 'edit war'. BruceHallman 15:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This section also proves that he will delete even outside opinions that negate his thinking. --Scott Grayban 15:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This also proves that he is unwilling to focus on a NPOV and the cabal just gave up and stopped mediating. Later on in the talk page he is still in a revert war about communist and socialist which has been going on for weeeks now. This is getting to the point where zero actual contributions to this article has come. Its only a POV <-> NPOV war now. Something must be done. Its gone way past the WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. --Scott Grayban 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have added a comment onto his talk page regarding his personal attacks, . I can quite cleary see that he is not being civil; however he will "have to make" another PA against you for me to block him; I only added onto his talk page. If you feel he has violated the three revert rule recently and needs blocked, could you please give me the diffs. Thanks; if there is anything else, I am online just now.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks but its also Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_make_a_point in the talk pages deleting comments that dont fit his agenda also. I wish I could follow this history but it lacks in summaries badly and there are alot of blank edits. *sigh* This just wont get solved I'm afraid. :( --Scott Grayban 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And his comments yesterday on the talkpage about my sources and opinion he replied "Some opinions count for more than others. I'll take The Economist over you any day. Adam 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)" discredting all my sources and that only his opinion again rules. --Scott Grayban 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block on Cuba
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)