User talk:Tentontunic/archive 1

Header
AndyTheGrump's edit here may not have been the best he's made, but there's no need to be so rude when you revert him, either. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Kelly
I have reverted your undiscussed move of Matthew Kelly. For such a long established title you should gain consensus for such a controversial move on the article talk page first. I can't find a move discussion but if there was one then please accept my apologies in advance, direct me to it and I will move the article per consensus. nancy 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Somalia
I filed a report on the IP, it's up to no good today. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was just about to. Tentontunic (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thutmose III
Please don't change 'her' to 'his', or rather please don't revert anyone changing 'his' to 'her', as 'her' referred to Hatshepsut. Thanks. Dougweller 16:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Terribly sorry, I ought to have paid a little more attention. Tentontunic 16:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I've responded here. Also, please self-revert; you've violated 1RR. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism
Your attention is drawn to this report. TFD (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Left-wing terrorism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
 * Additionally, please watch your edit summaries, your use of templates, and your tone in general - this is a collaborative project, not a battleground. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does it normally take this long to have a block reviewed? Tentontunic (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a block goes unresponded to for a while, it means that lots of admins have probably looked at it, but none felt certain enough to either overturn the block or reject the unblock request. For example, I looked at the diffs in the AN link above, and they seem to me to clearly show edit-warring, so I don't feel I can justify overturning the block.  On the other hand, I don't really understand the point you're edit-warring over, so I don't feel like I can adequately review your case that you were justified in removing the material.  So I leave the request open and let someone else look at it... chances are that other admins have done the same, and just not left a note saying that they did it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was removing uncited content. Two other editors reverted in back in, and in doing so removed two merger discussion tags, and some CN tags. Two of the reverts where due to these editors removing the merger proposal notices. They were not even warned for inserting unsourced content into an article. Tentontunic (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, 'removing uncited content' isn't one of the exceptions to the edit-warring rules, so I don't have grounds for overturning someone else's block here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well some of that content is a BLP violation I believe, Pierre Carette is not yet dead. Uncited contentious content about a person ought to be removed right? And why have the other two not even been told not to revert unsourced content into an article? This is bizarre truth be told. Tentontunic (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
Tentontunic, you have reverted all changes to the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article. I had put a lot of effort to find sources and make well documented changes. The previous version, the one you have reverted to, has many inaccuracies, and I tried to correct them. So could you please come to the [Arnaiz-Villena talk page] and give your input on this? GoingToPluto (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the last stable version, this was due to a report made on the BLP noticeboard. Tentontunic (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I am rather new to this. Could you please tell me what constitutes a "stable version"?  Is it the last version that generally did not create any disagreements?  It does not matter that my changes were based on hard facts and reliable sources (ie scientific research and publications)?  Could you also give me a link to the report made on the BLP noticeboard?
 * The dispute was finally settled. There was a discussion on the talk page of Arnaiz-Villena were  several editors commented on the matter.  Plus WP admin Kwamikagami stepped in to clear the matter.  Thanks  GoingToPluto (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As the dispute is settled then that is of course a good thing. By last stable version I mean the last version before all editors involved in an ongoing edit war started arguing. Good to hear it is all OK now. Tentontunic (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am happy that the majority of the editors accepted the sources I presented as valid.
 * I searched but I could not find it. Could you give me the link to the report made on the BLP noticeboard?  GoingToPluto (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Sorry about neglecting that. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it now. Thanks. GoingToPluto (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Thank you for correcting me. I have responded to what's on p. 185 here as well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

speedy A10
This does not apply when the article is an expansion of an item on a list. see WP:CSD. (with reference to 13th Regiment Maryland Volunteer Infantry. If you''re going to give advice to new users, great, but give them the correct advice -- in this case, that they needed some references.   DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I have filed a report about exceeding 1RR at Mass killings under Communist regimes with the Arbitration Committee and you may respond here. TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism
Oh thanks, I didn't know about that.

Governor Scott Walker
I sourced all of my statements inserted about Scott Walker. What do you mean that they were not sourced?MykjosephMykjoseph (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean they are badly sourced. WP:BLP sourcing is very stringent, I recommend you read it. Tentontunic (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Longfellows poetical works for deletion
The article Longfellows poetical works is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Longfellows poetical works until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFD (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Sockpuppet investigations/Tentontunic. Nanobear (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)