User talk:Theseeker4/Archive 2

wqa
Thanks for the tip. I will do that next time. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my position. All I am asking for is consensus to be respected.  In what sense is that disruptive?  Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you miss my point. I understand your position, but it is not supported by any evidence that I can see.  It seems there is nowhere near a consensus to support your position.  I am not saying that I support or oppose it, just from what I see on that page.  That being the case, nothing you can do will change the current opinion of Wikipedia editors involved in the debate.  Looking at your talk page, it seems you have been discussing this issue for over a year.  It is time to let it go.  That is my advice to you, you may take it or not as you see fit, but I see no evidence that you will succeed in convincing people of your position, and I see multiple uninvolved people, myself included, telling you that continuing to beat the dead horse will only succeed in getting you accused of disruption and eventually blocked if you don't stop.  I suggest you stop because I don't want to see anyone who can be productive be prevented from editing.  However, my opinion is that for the past several months at least your continuing to argue your point is not productive.  When you continue to argue non-productively, you wander into the realm of disruption in many admins' eyes, and that will only result in a block. The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered reply. The only uninvolved editor that I recall citing dead horse is you. I would accept dead horse as an argument (and a good reason to drop the subject), regardless of who used it, if there had ever been a civil discussion about the subject in question.  But the fact is there hasn't been, from which it follows that there can be no consensus.  It is precisely for this reason (that consensus is not being upheld) that I feel strongly about it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thunderbird2 you cannot use your uncivil behaviour, documented in the RfC/U, to claim there isn't any consensus. Of course there is consensus because what happened was that everyone else decided to move on and debate the topic whereas you refused to answer people's questions . As for dead horse, well WP:DEADHORSE is specifically mentioned in the RfC/U and "neuro" (an uninvolved editor) endorses that section . Also "Shereth" specifically mentions "dead horse" in relation to the content you put on the talk page. . These are but a couple of the uninvolved editors who came along to MOSNUM over the past many months to say there is consensus for the current guideline text and also that your position has nowhere near a consensus. Then we have Quilbert, an editor who wants to use IEC prefixes who personally agrees with your point of view, tells you to "give up on it" and there is "no chance for IEC prefixes to be accepted at this time" .Fnagaton 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Scopolamine=devils breath?
That is a rather suspicious trivial name, do you have a reference? 70.137.173.82 (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would rather prefer if the reference is NOT some investigative sensational journalism report or youtube crap, filmed by some rednecks in their back yard. Seems to lack notability, with a strong hint of superstition. Have found no serious ref for that. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on article's talk page. The   Seeker 4   Talk  13:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback request
Hi Theseeker4.

You are now a rollbacker!

Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me or any other admin to remove it. Also, for some information on how to use the tool, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! J.delanoy gabs adds 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time in the case of abuse.
 * No problem :-) Have fun! J.delanoy gabs adds  16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanadium
Responded at my talk. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, and british or american english is for sure not the most important topic for GAN, but it should be handled in a way that we keep the article in line with the recomendations. Next time I will try not to mix it up, but I do not see the difference most of the time, sorry.--Stone (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I agree that Am vs. Br. Eng is not the most important issue in Wikipedia.  I am sure if I edited an article, even if I knew it was in British English, I would without knowing it include words spelled in American English, simply because that is what I am used to.  It is unfortunate that Rifleman and I had a moment of misunderstanding, but it is good that it was resolved without any hard feelings.  Too many disputes on Wikipedia seem to result in people holding grudges.  Thanks for the support.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Numismatics!


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
The IUPAC uses colour (eg: http://old.iupac.org/goldbook/A00075.pdf). Since we already use "aluminium" (the IUPAC standard) in the Sapphire article, it made sense to be consistent. 129.194.8.73 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that argument is that unlike chemical/elemental names, such as aluminium, IUPAC usage of colour does NOT mean it is a standard in the same way as naming conventions. IUPAC naming should be used for the names of elements and chemicals, as it is used for aluminium, but that does not mean Wikipedia needs to use British spelling for other non-name words like color simply because IUPAC does.  The official IUPAC spelling of the chemical named aluminium is aluminium. IUPAC uses colour, but that does not mean it is the "official" spelling of the word since IUPAC is in place to standardize names of chemicals and elements, not to standardize the spelling of all words used to describe those chemicals.  To put it another way, aluminium is the international name for element 13, in any language.  However, that does not mean that an article on the, for example, German wikipedia needs to change the spelling to "colour" instead of using the German word for color (no, don't know what the word is) just because a document by IUPAC uses colour.  The point is that the usage of a certain spelling by IUPAC does not mean Wikipedia needs to use that spelling; Wikipedia's MOS is the guideline. Aluminium is an exception because it is the "official" spelling for element 13, IUPAC is not in place to determine the official spelling of color so their use of the colour spelling is irrelevant.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (this is also copied to the sapphire talk page)

Is bismuth just another metal with a natural color of gray or white?
The article entitled "Gold" states under the header "Color of gold" that "Gold, caesium and copper are the only elemental metals with a natural color other than gray or white." I also see under the header "Characteristics" in the Wikipedia article entitled "Bismuth" the sentence "Bismuth is a brittle metal with a white, silver-pink hue, often occurring in its native form with an iridescent oxide tarnish showing many refractive colors from yellow to blue."

I do not know whether bismuth is not as pink as I remember or whether bismuth does not qualify as an elemental metal; either of those would make the sentence I am questioning correct.

I am new to Wikipedia, and am hoping to get feedback about whether bismuth really is a fourth member of the group of "elemental metals with a natural color other than gray or white" from someone with more knowledge. If it is, it might be quicker and better for someone other than I to make the edit.

Thank you,

Eggnog25 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, bismuth is not really a pink metal. It has a slight pinkish tinge, but the non-oxidized metal itself is silvery, with a tinge, not a real natural color other than gray or white.  There are other elements colors that have tinges of color other than white or gray; several are bluish for example.  Copper, gold and caesium are the only ones that have a truly dominant color other than white or gray. Maybe the sentence should be reworded so that it is clear that it is talking about actual colors and not just a hint of color being detectable in the metal, but bismuth is essentially silver and so is consistent with the sentence.  If you have any other questions feel free to leave me a message. Good luck editing!  The   Seeker 4   Talk  02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to message on my talkpage
Thank you for your message, but I am not interested in following any actions of other users. I don't have any more time to waste. I have absolutely nothing to worry about - and if other people are unhappy I refuse to play their games, they will have to learn to deal with it. I will not read anything or respond to anything i don't find constructive. Thank you again:)WDIAROM (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is certainly your right; you don't have to respond to anything. However, please note that if you are editing a page, and other users disagree with your edits (for whatever reason) you need to either discuss their concerns, or allow them to edit as they want. Wikipedia has policies that require us to work together on improving articles, and often two users have two different views of what would improve the article. When that occurs, discussion has to follow. Edit warring, when two or more users add and remove each other's contributions, is not allowed and results in an administrator blocking one or both involved parties. The more productive means is to go to the article's talk page and discussing the material to try to reach a consensus on what the best version of the article is. If the two sides cannot agree, they should look for a third opinion or a request for comment to reach community consensus. Please don't take this as criticism of your actions; it takes two or more people to edit war, not just one. Both are equally responsible if an edit war occurs, however. Again, I am not taking sides either way on the actual dispute. I am not saying you are right and I am not saying you are wrong. You attempted to add information you believe will improve Wikipedia. That is what we all are here for. However, many editors in the past have been driven away or banned from Wikipedia because they refused to follow Wikipedia's policies in their attempts to improve articles. I hope this will not happen, but it is the only thing that can happen if you will not discuss your changes and simply keep adding them when they are removed. This is not to say your changes shouldn't be there, but edit warring to include them will only get you blocked; discussing the changes on the talk page and opening a request for comment if necessary is the best way to include the information you believe will benefit Wikipedia. If you have any questions about how to begin any of the processes I have mentioned or have any general questions at all, feel free to ask me. Again, I have no stake in this dispute and my only goal is to allow everyone to contribute with a minimum of drama and conflict as that detracts from, not improves Wikipedia. Please don't refuse to comment on or discuss concerns other editors have with your contributions, as refusing to work together makes others see you as a disruptive editor and can result in you being blocked. The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK- I can see you were mis-informed about what happened,and I will take time to check your link and respond- however,I was hoping to use my time differently-I am not happy to have to do more explaining. Thank you for taking time and try to help.--WDIAROM (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you think this is a waste of time. I may in fact be misinformed about what happened, as I only had Tedder's comments and those on his talk page, the Floor article's talk page and Dmcq's talk page to go by. By all means, feel free not to reply to my comments; you do not have to explain anything to me; I am not an admin and even if I was I would certainly not do anything because you didn't reply to me. I simply am trying to help and suggesting discussion when others disagree with you. Again, if you don't want to reply to my comments and suggestions that is your right. If you believe you can contribute without even reviewing anything I have said above by all means, stop wasting time on this and continue to improve the encyclopedia :-). Just remember if you do have any questions or concerns, myself and many other users are available to help. Good luck. The   Seeker 4   Talk

18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I think this is a waste of time is because Tedder knows he made a mistake, but they are unable to admit it.This is why they desperately seek approval - perhaps they feel they are wronged, however, I thanked them for forcing me to improve the article myslef, rather than waiting for others to do it- as I agreed the standard of my first entry was poor. Sadly, their good intention need to be backed by being thorough - it is not enough to play police, without checking the acts first.

This is what I suggested to them.

1: When they are suspecting spam- they need to verify it. 2: They should ask the person if they need help- before their post any 'help' unsolicited. 3: They should contribute to a page if they feel is not very good, rather than criticise attempts of others, however, if they feel they can offer an advice how to improve the page, it is nice to talk to the poster aboout their suggestions, and hopefully improve the article together. 4: Posting templates that page is not good is patronising users, it makes wikipedia look ridiculous, better strategy is to do research and improve the page.

Their reaction you can see for yourself.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent discussions at WikiProject Mining
Hi, there are some discussions you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining about:
 * Naming conventions for multiple mines with the same name
 * Using "Categorty:Metal mine in Country" in community/company articles
 * Capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles

I know you already weighed in on the naming convention, just making sure you saw the other ones too.

Cheers --kelapstick (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons
Hi,

You was the mediator on the article about Steinway & Sons. As you probably remember the user who asked for a mediator was User:THD3 but on the whole he didn't participate in the discussion/mediation on the article's discussion page, although it was him who asked for a mediator. User:THD3 has now once again placed templates at the top of the Steinway article. I don't like his act. Of course he has to accept the solution just like I (and everybody else) have to accept the solution. I hope you will help. Thanks. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

great work!
Great work on those two Faberge eggs. I created almost all of those articles a while back, a few have fallen into ruin. Your cites were great, as well as the info box. The russian page is brilliant Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) I plan to expand all of the individual egg pages, including the non-imperial eggs eventually with better references than I have been able to find online (the book I have cited as well as another I obtained today). After the egg pages are all beyond a stub I hope to then work on bringing the main article up to at least GA class, maybe FA if possible. The infobox is basically a copy of the Template:Infobox Gold Mine with the fields changed, so that wasn't any great undertaking on my part ;-). Feel free to add infoboxes as needed yourself, expand articles before I get to them or correct my mistakes (I am sure there are some though I try to copyedit while the articles are in my sandbox) or simply point the mistakes out to me if they are not a quick fix/if you are not sure what my meaning is. Thanks again. The   Seeker 4   Talk  11:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the Russian page does look nice, but I can't even recognize what letter is what, let alone translate anything in Russian :-). One thing that would be wonderful for someone who knows any Russian would be to move any of those Faberge egg pictures that are free images to Commons, because Wikimedia Commons is almost devoid of actual pictures of these eggs. I am not sure if you read/write Russian, but I certainly don't, lol. The   Seeker 4   Talk  11:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I mainly used two websites while creating the articles. I sadly have no books on the eggs, and this ain't much help. I just dragged the Russian page through google translate, and made minor changes. Are we agreed on the number of eggs? It drove me mad a while back. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, as far as the number of eggs, I am not sure, I haven't checked the number in the article against anything else. Since I wanted to concentrate on creating articles that didn't exist and getting the others up beyond stubs I didn't look closely at the general Faberge egg article. I am at work all day (8:21AM here) so can't do the research yet, but will check into that later. When I first wrote the Revolving Miniatures article I used that website that is in the external links now, but they are not completely accurate. For example, the egg they describe for 1886 is not the same as the hen with sapphire pendant, so I am not sure what other inaccuracies are present there. It is difficult when current use of the word Faberge to describe eggs often refers to any elaborately decorated egg; hard to find sources about the original Russian masterpieces. The   Seeker 4   Talk  12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC
You mean a content RFC? In my experience, they just get ignored. But I suppose it's another alternative, thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Myspace (added section to avoid confusion
Okay, but even if I edit more and talk less, could I still be able to talk to "friends"?--God&#39;sGirl94 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, chatting-type activity is frowned upon. e-mail and other social networking sites, such as Myspace, Facebook, etc. should be used for most general chat. What amount is "acceptable"? I am not sure, there is no hard and fast rule. The best thing is to talk about Wikipedia articles, images, projects, etc. while on Wikipedia, and keep unrelated chat on other sites. The short answer to "can I still talk to friends" is yes, but the vast majority of your edits should be either improving articles, or talking about how best to improve articles on Wikipedia. The occasional comment or chatting thread is fine, I don't think anyone is going to police your comments and yell at you if you ask a friend what they are doing this weekend, but if an editor happens by your talk page and sees 50 or so lines of text that is simply chatting, having almost nothing to do with Wikipedia, someone will probably say something about it. Again, not giving you a hard time, I know you are pretty new here, and I certianly am not going to watch your page and try to get you blocked if you ignore me, but there are editors here who will, so I thought I would give you a friendly warning that community consensus is against using talk pages for that type of chat. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will work on editing more and chatting less.  Thanks for the heads up!--God&#39;sGirl94 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on Coffee Express tagged for deletion
I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia contributor, but as the founder of the Blind Pig, did do some necessary editing to the Blind Pig article over the weekend. This led me to attempt to create an article for my company, Coffee Express. I have a history that is certainly noteworthy in coffee, both locally and nationally. I attempted to spell that out in the article, but I'm probably not using a proper template or format. Perhaps you wouldn't mind advising me. Thanks. -Tom Isaia, using Coffeetom as my Username.

Question on Coffee Express tagged for deletion
I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia contributor, but as the founder of the Blind Pig, did do some necessary editing to the Blind Pig article over the weekend. This led me to attempt to create an article for my company, Coffee Express. I have a history that is certainly noteworthy in coffee, both locally and nationally. I attempted to spell that out in the article, but I'm probably not using a proper template or format. Perhaps you wouldn't mind advising me. Thanks. I've just looked at other coffee companies on Wikipedia, including Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. I can't believe i was bumped off. anyone out there to advise?

Coffeetom (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Coffeetom

Coffeetom (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Coffeetom


 * The biggest difference is citations. If you write about your company, and you don't have any third party, reliable sources to cite your claims, your article is likely going to be seen as self-promotion and be deleted. The article on Green Mountain Coffee Roasters has third party sources cited in the article. You need those to have a chance of the article remaining. If you can re-write your article and provide sources, as long as other editors don't think the article is spam, or self-promotion, you should be good. However, since you are writing about your own company your article will be face greater scrutiny and be held to a very high standard of neutrality. If you have any other questions, please let me know. The best thing to do would be to create your article in your own namespace, in a sub-page, and ask for comment on the article before posting it to the general article space. In that case, you would be able to develop and build the article without fear of deletion (as long as it isn't blatant spam, which the first version wasn't) and can get some feedback on whether the article will be deleted before you create the article. Also, if you need/want a copy of the deleted article to work off of, ask any administrator to "userfy", or paste the deleted article into your userspace, where you can work on it. I would do that for you but I am not an admin, sorry. Any other questions, let me know. The   Seeker 4   Talk  23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Charly Chiarelli
I have edited this article so it is, in my opinion, completely objective and without bias. Any further feedback or advice would be appreciated. Thanks Jo Sponer (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I re-read the article on this individual and agree that it is much more encyclopedic than the first version that I tagged for cleanup, so I removed the two tags I had placed. However, the only remaining item is in-line citations. You have a number of references for the article, but there are no in-line citations, meaning there is no link in the article to which reference "proves" which claim. Please visit the page WP:CITE and particularly, the section on inline citations for information about how to go about this. Other than that, the article is much better; once the major claims have citations feel free to remove the tag at the top of the article, and feel free to ask me any other questions you may have. The   Seeker 4   Talk  00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll get right on it. Thank you for your input. Jo Sponer (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I've taken care of the referencing issue and had removed the inline citations tag. Once again thanks for the heads-up. Jo Sponer (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.43.140 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Coffee Express Article
Thanks for the tips. I would like the deleted article back, in order to work with it on My Page, as suggested. I'll have to figure out who or what an administrator is. Coffeetom (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Coffeetom


 * You can go to the deleting admin's talk page and ask for a copy, or you can go to WP:AN and ask there for a copy of your deleted article to be restored in your userspace. Make sure you name exactly what article you want restored to save the admins some confusion. As I said, if I could I would restore it for you to work on, but I am just a normal editor and not an admin. Good luck. The   Seeker 4   Talk  12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a message on the Saxx page you wrote me on yesterday. This is my first time creating my own wiki so you're help is so appreciated! --About something (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)About something

hey thx for editing my (VASO)page I've a question that why I cant see my Vaso Page of wikipedia when I google the word Vaso? if you can answer this i'll be very greatful to you thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.97 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On Policy
Thank you for your comments at WP:WQA. Regarding the bold editing of policy, I tend to agree that policy pages should not be a free-for-all because tendentious editors may manipulate them to suit their particular cause. I have suggested to User:Casliber that Arbcom or some editorial board take charge of policy to provide consistency and stability. But, while I see other editors doing as they please to these pages, I may still poke them now and then, as seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I also was not criticizing you so much as stating I personally wouldn't have done that, and that I think the policy should remain a policy. I only commented on that because I wanted to head off any arguments that "I am only criticizing Wolf because I agree with you." I personally think changes like that often spark much more debate than posting a proposal on a talk page, or starting a RFC even, and may be the only way to bring a dispute to the community's attention. ThereforeI certainly wouldn't support a blanket ban on bold changes of that sort, and am not condemning your actions. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments are again most reasonable. I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw's saying, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." :) Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, I've heard that quote before. I try hardest to be reasonable when I give an unsolicited opinion which disagrees with someone on a topic I have no special feelings about or interest in. That certainly doesn't mean I am never bold with my actions. :-D The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
More information - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Zouavman Le Zouave
Here, Zouavman responds to any difference in opinion by claiming that the editors are acting against any rule he can think of. He later refers to me and states that "I'll be the smarter one", as if to imply that I am an idiot that he is "keeping in line" and asks me to "accept the fact" that his opinions are right. Here, Zouavman refers to a difference in opinion, expressed only on the talk page, and not in any article, as a fringe theory, in spite of the fact that its basis comes from interviews with the band. Here, Zouavman implies that I do not understand "the concepts of verifiability, neutrality, and consensus". Here, Zouavman lists inaccurate claims regarding my edits in an attempt to make me out to be acting against NPOV (corrections regarding the sources can be found here). Here, Zouavman claims that I am "violating consensus". In actuality, if you look at the archives for the System of a Down discussions (2005, 2006 and 2007), there was never any consensus on the band's genre. In fact, there has always been strong disagreement about the band's genres, but never any agreement. The band has expressed the belief that they were categorized within a certain genre more because of the bands they toured with at the time they started out than their actual music, and this reflects on the fact that the disputed genre is not used in coverage of the band from 2005 until the present. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Look, I am not taking one side or the other in the actual content dispute; that should be best resolved with a request for comment or a third opinion. I have no personal knowledge of the various music genres discussed so cannot help in that respect at all. As far as diffs of him attacking you, you should provide those to the ANI board. I am not an admin so I couldn't block him even if I was so inclined. I simply read the edits he made to the two pages you linked to in your complaint and asked for diffs of actual attacks, as I didn't see any in the recent history. In my opinion, and that is worth exactly as much as you value it, no more, this is a dispute over a fairly minor issue which both of you seem to have been emotionally attached to for quite a while. My suggestion would be to walk away for a bit, or ask for outside opinions and be willing to abide by those viewpoints even if they are the exact opposite of you own. My suggestion to Zouavman would be the same. As I said, there is nothing I can do myself, so if you want to present actual diffs of him attacking you, the place to do that would be on the ANI thread. Sorry if I wasn't much help. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont care!
I dont care about what YOU say, your only trying to protecting him in order to make a nerve out of me. I know what YOU are tring to do (reported you) Oxana879 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger
It seems like the second deletion debate on this was decided rather against consensus. Which would point more to a redirect/transwiki. I think this should just be deleted without pandering to the feelings of its creator, too much of this has gone on already. New deletion proposal Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). Polargeo (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out this is not canvassing. I have informed all parties to the previous deletion debates including those for and against (including AndrewJL). So just etiquette. Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)