User talk:Vary/Archive02

Archive - Through July 31, 2006

A lolrus haiku
The bucket is lost

and so too its lolrus

we are defeated

Aharon 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/arts/amritashergil/amritashergill.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamta dhody (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry for being so naughty I won't do it again. Love Bill Clinton xxxxx

Sorry for editing the article on Georgia, I just thought it was well known that Africa probably doesnt give a hoot about the recent conflict. Love Bill Clinton's wife Hillary "bitch" Clinton

Trigonometry
I notice that your recent edit to Trigonometry removed a lot of information from the History section, and also removed the rather nice Table of Trigonometry image. I was wondering why you removed so much information ? In my experience, large scale mods like this are usually discussed on the article's talk page first. Also, marking such a large scale change as "minor" with the comment rm linkspam is rather misleading, don't you agree ? Gandalf61 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the longer I look at this, the more I think that the edit you made was maybe not the edit you intended to make - did you somehow overwrite the page with an old version by mistake ? Gandalf61 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did no such editing to that article. Screw off >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.243.50 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Elephants
My comments on elephants are, indeed, factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalsocietyoffact (talk • contribs)


 * The above comments were from a Colbert vandal. --Yamla 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
Ok, I'll do it. The attacks are actually sometimes funny, but as it keeps going and going, it's becoming more annoying. I'm getting to the point where I'm afraid I might say somehting I shouldn't if it keeps up. . . &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my posting at WP:AN/I started out as a two paragraph description with diffs, but has grown since because of the subsequent edits by the anons and my desire to get someone to notice my posting (I know, it's probably just discouraging admins from reading it the longer it gets, but it wasn't being dealt with in its short form, either). This is the third time I've been completely ignored in a request at AN/I, so I can't say that I'm entirely surprised.  Do you have any ideas?  I suppose we could start a user conduct Rfc might, though I wish we didn't have to do that considering that the personal attacks, incivility, and ignoring of consensus here are such obvious violations of policy. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoorah for cooldowns! I imagine we'll hear it now on talk (hmm, as if we weren't already). &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did Scribner e-mail you? &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just sent you one. &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Vary, FYI, Gail Carson, the Mayor's assistant, is going to take a look at the talk page. I mentioned the letterhead idea, or a mention on he city website...we'll see.--Scribner 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't care about this sort of thing, but now s/he's threatening to contact the Bar Association about me. That's not cool at all, especially given how active Saks has been in the past regarding calling people in government. I'm taking my leave completely from the discussion at Memphis, I've asked for a permanent block on Reneec at PAIN. Sorry, I can't let this jeopardize my career. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I posted a quick, frightened request at WP:PAIN. It's just such a crazy thing to see that I'm all flustered.  If you think it should go to AN/I, feel free to move it there. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be wise for now. Thank you.  I'm sure i'll be more comfortable re-adding it later. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Vary. Forgive my paranoia, but even crazy allegations relating to a person's character can be enough to trigger an in-depth hearing when you're wanting to become a member of the bar. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this: Official songs of memphis. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction Vary, on Official Songs of memphis page. Typing is not my strength.Boodro 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding jersyko's comments and the implied threats by Reneec, I checked out the comments and did not see any personal threats. I did see that Rennec stated that he/she should check jersyko's verififcation of being a lawyer with the Bar.  How is this any different than verifying  that Mr. Saks has written songs that  are Official aongs of memphis?  It is pathetic that the discussion regarding verification of offical songs of memphis reached such a low level.  It is sad that Mr. jerzyko has become paranoid (as stated above) by perceived allegations and threats by reneec but I did not see any threat.  For jerzyko not to contribute to this article and for reneec to be blocked

due to perceived allegations against jezyko is even sadder. Where is the arbitration?--Boodro 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments regarding jersyko and reneec on my talk page were most appreciated. It appears that a User page is also a part of Wikipedia and can be edited.  For this reason, it is my opinion that any statements made on these pages are open for discussion and verification as well.--Boodro 03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vary, your points are well taken regarding personal attacks regarding User pages.--Boodro 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Nice strategy: blame the victim and gang up on him. I'll have you know that being cornered isn't fun. Cut it out. Hasbro 03:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It has only appeared that those opponents of mine have their minds clouded by either stereotype or a possible agenda. I will not cater to the demands of ignorant editors and do as they ask, if they choose to ignore the issues before them and are readily accessible. It is a waste of my time to teach other editors what American curriculums should be having for elementary-level students and fails to. It is sad that these issues are not tackled by the educational systems and that one might have to resort to "original research" in order to find things that the common schmuck has no idea about because his life is filled with television and pop culture. I am an academic and will not suffer those who refuse to see for themselves the issues before them and opt a crabwalk strategy to handle content disputes. I do not edit Wikipedia with encyclopedias on my lap. These things have become common knowledge to me as an accumulation of knowledge by surfing around and thumbing through books. That is the usual form of assimilating facts and transmitting them elsewhere. If you don't want to understand where I am coming from in this issue, then chances are nothing will sate your feigned interest as displayed to me. Your collective ganging up on me is to reinforce communal ignorance in favour of deeming me the oddball outsider. Perhaps I will stay the elephant in the room, just because I refuse to do it your way. Hell, I know you can't object to better language in the text and that's all I would essentially push for. How come you let specific language be barred, when readers would get the general point? You've argued against common known facts about the Calverts, Ireland and Maryland with no citations to support said arguments. All I did was retransmit to you what is found on cited websites already on the Wiki. You lot are sticks in the mud either because of boredom or territorial testosterone. Either way, I tire from psychoanalysing your motives behind even denying common facts about the subject, In any case, the issue is that you lack Transcendentalist training. My only error was perhaps not seeing how my interpretation of the data would affect those with no similar fundamental transcendentalist understanding behind the matter of the Irish Catholic qualities discussed. Hasbro 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My concession: The Calverts' Avalon in Newfoundland was an Arthurian name and thus, I recognise the British nature of Maryland. How unfortunate that it took this long of you guys not having suffificient arguments against my position, that I ended up disproving your strawman of my position. Incidentally, I never stated that there was no dominantly British element to the colonial enterprise. I merely stated the Irish nature--whichever existed--thereof. There are too many who simply do not know the background story. Fairfax, Virginia was founded by a lord of Scottish origins, just as Alexander Spotswood and Alexander Hamilton as well as James Monroe were Scottish. Where is it commonly taken into account, as opposed to going on and on about the Anglo-Saxon qualities of the British Empire? I never stated that Lords Baltimore were integrated into the Irish population, nor is it true that they were considered loyal English by a lot of Protestants. They lived in limbo because of the choices they made and their circumstances were not completely inordinary. Things like this had happened before. What is the objection to characterising the Calverts as Anglo-Irish lords? Read the Anglo-Irish article and see for yourself, except the article fails to mention Catholic lords of English origin. That is because the Calverts were the only ones to have ever existed in the history of Ireland. The special case should be mentioned, simply because it is not widely known. What may be minor details do not mean invalid details. Hasbro 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the POV dispute. Hasbro 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I already called it as mootness when discussing on the talk page. I think you think you know more than me and this condescending approach will not work. I disagree and nothing you say or do will change that. Hasbro 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My fundamental disagreement is that there is a POV dispute on the subject matter and how it ought to be "officially" interpreted or displayed for readers in the editing. I have already witnessed that using different adjectives and rewriting the article to be more palatable has worked, which has convinced me that it is a POV problem and not essentially about citation. There is nothing you can write to me that will change my mind, because I have the personal experience of it being otherwise. Your argument is a naive red herring. Hasbro 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

POV disputes are also official Wikipedia policy. It appears that you are more concerned with my conduct than how the content should be presented through editing. Perhaps you should step back and forget about it. You still don't understand. I hardly think you are well versed enough in British and/or American history to judge. After all, you avoid discussion of the specific matters in the data and only talk about policy. That tells me you are not paying attention to the article and what it's about. Hasbro 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed, are we? Now you're stalking my edits where nobody else has made any fuss. It looks like this is personal and you're making ad hominem pursuit of the issue. All that was added had been referenced from other articles that have no content disputes, cited and everything. What is the difference between linking to those articles to present more background on the article, than just taking some data from the other articles and putting it there?

You are pedantically splitting hairs; you can't see the forest for the trees. Have you gone to high school? They teach concepts such as association. Try to learn it! Hasbro 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikistalking isn't comfortable. You've failed to understand the inherent content issue and what actually set the other editors off. They were upset with the way I presented the editing, the perception that was put in the article. I made NPOV violations, which have nothing to do with citations. John Kenney explained to me that the Irish and Catholic natures of the issue were unrelated, so I thought about the concept of "false friends". The association I made was wrong, just as your perception that a citation is related to a POV dispute. Please, just back off with your accusations. You're the one after me, so if there is anything related to personal attacks...it's you. Get a hold of yourself. You're acting hysterical. I alread told one of the others I had attacked that I was sorry and we haven't spoken since. You are the only one engaging in personal attacks. Cease and desist from your mischaracterisation of my actions and a barrage of legalistic attacks. You're overbearing and harrassing. Hasbro 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have you note that with the first complaint I made on this talk page, you casually dismissed and continued. Here's a clue: it's the first sentence written at the top of this "Personal Attacks" section. If you give me any more abuse, I will file a complaint. Hasbro 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's none of your damned business anyways! Hasbro 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles
''Below a message I sent to various users who contributed to the debate. If you could lend me a hand with this job as soon as some votes turn around, I'd very much appreciate it.'' Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote to a shorten, merge and redirect into a list? - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm trolling
Thanks, that was my next edit, but you got there first. LOL. Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 'salright, 'preciate it. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

kross
Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bear
Your reverted to a version saying bears a Pink :D--Konstable 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, never mind then.--Konstable 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello
You sir are a fartknocker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.99.245 (talk • contribs) 19:09, September 8, 2006

No angry mastodons
May I ask you to revisit the redirects for deletions page and reconsider your opinion? I am the essay's creator and principal contributor and I support the deletion: a consensus of editors at Wikipedia talk:No angry mastodons prefers WP:MASTODONS and WP:MASTODON, both of which convey more of the spirit of the page. Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Durova 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus revert
Good catch on reverting the vandalism, but please don't mark reverts as minor. Thx. Mdotley 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I didn't know that. Mdotley 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Christian College
19:06, 8 September 2006 User:Vary (talk • contribs) deleted Lincoln Christian College (Hoax - a school for pirates and ninjas)
 * I have nothing to do with the article, but I think there is at least one real Lincoln Christian College. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Saint Patrick
You commented on the article a while back that there was no reason why it shouldn't be a GA. I agree. I'll be working on a rewrite at User:Angusmclellan/Saint Patrick, which should be well under way over this weekend. If you have any comments, please let me know ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MAYBE
Maybe you could inform others to not spread libel as a corollary of WP:POINT, because people like you who let them get away with it is even more infuriating than them doing it under criticism and insults. But, go on and tell people (the concerned ones) how they ought to be doing things. Don't be righteous, just revel in double standards. Hasbro 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Report
User:206.235.249.52 has committed yet another act of vandalism after you and several other users warned him. His most recent act of vandalism involved the article on Floride Calhoun, which I have since reverted. --TommyBoy 03:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the userpage revert
Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Michellejbuckley
I'm not sure if she's trying to make a user page or not, but I she keep removing the db-bio template on Michellejbuckley. Could you warn her User:Michellejbuckley on her talk page. (I would, but I don't want to overstep my bounds...) O.o -WarthogDemon 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hope I handled that fine.  I wasn't sure whether or not to "userfy" the page, so I opted to just keep the tag on rather than risk creating meaningless userpages.


 * It's perfectly acceptable to move a vanity bio to a userpage, per WP:USERFY. I do it regularly, when the subject's name is the same as the editor's username or when the article refers to the subject as "I". I find that vanity articles that are userfied aren't re-created as freqently as articles that are simply speedily deleted. While the editor probably didn't intend to make a userpage instead of a vanity article, saying 'you must have done this by mistake' gives the new editor a slightly nicer welcome than "I've deleted your bio, now don't do it again!"


 * Where did you get the idea that this was innapropriate? -- Vary | Talk 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reality.


 * It's perfectly acceptable to move a vanity bio to a userpage. That would, well, wrong. Start with WP:NOT (the section about how Wikipedia is not a free webhost, then go to here, followed by here, and on to here and here, and a peek at this. For a bonus, go back and look at your move log and check the actual contributions of the pages you userfied. Notice a similar pattern?


 * Like I said, reality.


 * While the editor probably didn't intend to make a userpage instead of a vanity article, saying 'you must have done this by mistake' gives the new editor a slightly nicer welcome than "I've deleted your bio, now don't do it again!" Reality check: doesn't work. The vast majority of never do anything more, except very occasionally to try to readd themselves to mainspace.


 * If you want to mistake Wikipedia for MySpace, it doesn't mean the rest of us are required to. Nipping this preemptively is, as far as I'm concerned, far better than cleaning up months later. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Manukau Harbour
Hi. As far as I can see, the copyvio is ONE general sentence. I have rewritten that one, and put the rest back in. MadMaxDog 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Box
Just a heads-up, the correct location of my Wdefcon is. Cheers! +Hexagon1 (t) 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

François Boyer
I understand adding, but I'm not understanding anything else about your edit. Any hints? --Geniac 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Burkem
I'd welcome your thoughts on User_talk:Burkem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re Jefferson article
Thanks for backing me up on the Thomas Jefferson article, and so quickly as well, both today and yesterday, against the editor pushing the Jefferson-as-christian PoV. Hu 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

and yet you are so wrong.63.152.9.217 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Morris R. Jeppson
Thanks for your support in terms of the article on Morris R. Jeppson. I don't know if your aware, but that is my grandfather. There has never been much information out there about him, so I wrote the article on Wikipedia to let people know a bit more then just the fact he participated in the mission. In a way, now I'm regretting writing the article since someone is taking pot shots at him. Anyway, if you'd keep an eye on it I would really apperciate it. Davidpdx 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply. Just to let you know, I'm going to revert the article back to the version before this person started tinkering with it. I think using the word "conversion" also makes it look like he stoled them. Davidpdx 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a response to Oregonic's last message on the talk page. I'm not sure how much I should revert the article given the fact I'm the origonal author. He's making an issue of the fact that this is my grandfather. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything you think I should do. Thanks! Davidpdx 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry for being so naughty I won't do it again. Love Bill Clinton xxxxx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr rotten (talk • contribs).

Revert to my edit to "George Washington"
Excuse me, but I saw the video for all it was: a historical documentary. I was merely restating the stuff and you know I don't appreciate you thinking of it as "vandalism". Parrotman 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: cocks lolol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrotman (talk • contribs) 03:41, December 2, 2006 the edit in question.

Hey
It wasn't a pointless article, it was misjudged. Inform yourself better before you make such assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonaiii (talk • contribs) 20:28, December 2, 2006

Amending things
Further to your last message, I'm happy to give it a go. One thing I can't figure out is how to credit sources. I follow what I've read about how to do it but all that ever comes up is just that [1] symbol and no credited source. Could you direct me somewhere where it will all become crystal clear please? RJNeb2 11:28 5 December 2006 (GMT)

The Shiny Diamonds
Hi Vary, I don't know why you would want to delete my band's wiki page. Did we do something rude to you? Do you think that we are not notable? I don't really understand. Please elaborate on your ridiculous decision. your friend, -Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timthemute (talk • contribs) 00:45, December 6, 2006

Danke
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism of my userpage. Quite the momentous occasion; I'd never been called a cunt before. :-) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/Spam
I'm Sorry about that. Didn't mean to spam you. --EveryoneDeservesMusic 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Antichrist article
Greetings, I notice that you reverted my addition to the Antichrist article. Please read and comment at "Talk:Antichrist" Repentance 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people who contribute to articles have an opinion on the matter. I was asking for you to comment on the merits of the proposed addition to the article, rather than on me. Did you have a chance to read the WELS statement? Do you agree with me that the WELS statement is an example of a Contemporary Identification? Can we find a way to include this in the article in a way that does not upset you? I conclude that neither you or I believe that the Pope is the antichrist, but WELS clearly does. What disclaimer would you like added? Repentance 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Micheal Crook deleted
Curious, why did the article get deleted, I put some effort into the article, I know the guys an ass, and he doesn't deserve the attention, but his pretty notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.242.0 (talk • contribs).

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow
A huge thank you for your super kind comment on my Rfa. I wasn't going to spam talk pages with thanks, but I couldn't resist thanking you specially. I've been overwhelmed by the level of support so far, but it means even more when someone I've regularly interacted with supports. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your block of TheDOC1958
TheDOC1958, who you blocked, has made an   request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 12:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And Piratesofsml admits that DOC isn't him. I would say there's much more good to be done by unblocking than blocking, for sure. -Patstuarttalk 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response; I've responded on my talk page. -Patstuarttalk 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wenn ein Mensch kurze Zeit lebt

 * Wenn ein Mensch kurze Zeit lebt
 * Sagt die Welt, dass er zu früh geht.
 * Wenn ein Mensch lange Zeit lebt
 * Sagt die Welt, es ist Zeit.
 * Meine Freundin ist schön
 * Als ich aufstand, ist sie gegangen.
 * Weckt sie nicht, bis sie sich regt
 * Ich habe mich in ihren Schatten gelegt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.163.214.120 (talk • contribs).

(Rough-as-hell Babelfish translation: If humans live short time If humans live short time say the world that he goes too early. If humans live long time say the world, it are time. My friend is as I rose beautifully, her went. It does not wake, to it moves I in its shade put.) -- Vary | Talk 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) If a man lives a short time, the world says that he goes too early. If a man lives a long time, the world says 'it is time'. My girl friend is beautiful. When I got up, she had gone. she doesn't wake, until she rains?. I lay in her shadows. ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weird...thought I'd let you know those are the opening lines to a song by the German band Die Puhdys. You can see the full lyrics here.  John Reaves 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)
I could have used that about an hour ago when you were under attack by Pirates. . . · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill_Clinton
Thank you for correcting my error.I was headed back to correct it myself. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*cough*
You have been blocked from editing for a period of John Kerry for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. -- Vary | Talk 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Nyucknyucknyuck...) HalfShadow 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. All you'd need to do is come up with a definition for the amount of time a 'John Kerry' would be. You may be on the brink of creating a new time period!

Or not. HalfShadow 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Princess Charming
I guess sock puppets has some thing to do with the article at hand.But nun..the..less I do see you are trying to AGF. Also,Vary,If you feel that the tags on the page could be removed then by all means go for it.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dental Amalgam Controversy
I really am doing my patient best to not break the 3RR on this page as I had thought that a form of consensus had been reached. A new unregistered user has decided to put their tuppence hapenny in and ruin the fragile balance. In an effort to avoid breaking 3RR I have requested citation but I still want to revert to the original. Please help as I am losing patience rapidly. This person, as are most on wikipedia, is convinced that they are right without in depth analysis of a particular subject (I include myself in that grouping).Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help with this, and I believe that Jersyko has protected the article. I fully understand you not wanting to get involved, it is extremely tedious and frustrating to deal with two diametrically opposed views.  If anything, it has taught me to be a little bit more pragmatic.  Anyway, thanks again. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do?
What does one do when they have a strong difference of opinion on what the criteria are for information being included on a page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justice_League_members

Another user and I seem to think differently on what constitutes membership, especially when one reads the second paragraph of the article, which is largely his own personal interpretation. I feel I am in the right, and their are creative forces from the pubishing company that agree with how I view this. I feel that one should have accurate information on a page or not bother having that page at all.

How can this be resolved correctly with my updates being reverted back? I can provide you links reinforcing my view on this issue. --Brianmccollum 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Planetary Chaos
I believe you're correct on this, actually. I was looking through Piratesofsml's old sock drawer, and the same characteristic typing error (the lack of a space after punctuation) appears. He's also taken a characteristic interest in the Founding Fathers' religious classification Planetary Chaos, Piratesofsml. I think that checkuser needs filed, do you have any suggestions on how to file it so that it'll be most effective? Figured you've dealt with Piratesofsml before, he seems to have taken quite a dislike to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I filed it at WP:RFCU. I'm not very familiar with it myself, so hopefully people will be forgiving if I screwed something up. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The RFCU was declined, but basically on the grounds that it was already too well established who it was! (See User talk:jpgordon). Given that, can these be blocked? I'm really not sure of what the procedure is from there, and I can't do anything, that whole not-an-admin thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a Recent changes patrol when I ran across what Seraphimblade 2 described as "characteristic interest in the Founding Fathers' religious classification" Look at my contribs, and Talk page and time frames for verification.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking a User
Vary,

Is there anything you can do to block a user for repetative vandalism? The user "Marxus" has been thoroughly vandalizing the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_Veterans_of_the_First_World_War

He has gone even as far as to create seperate brand new Wikipedia pages for citations and people that he has created with no factual basis or external reference. These pages, of course, have been targeted for speedy deletion by other users, but his vandalisim to the above page is out of hand and it needs to be addressed by an adminstrator. Apparently he has a history of doing just such a thing with other Wikipedia pages and it needs to end. Any help you can provide would be great. Thanks. --Brianmccollum 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block
Hi Vary! Could you explain why you blocked Isit love100? Sure, he/she was clearly a vandal, and it was righteous to stop him/her. But why immediatly an indefinite ban? Why not for a month or so? He/she only got two warnings. Cheers, Face 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

dont threaten me
you say my edits are unconstructive and threaten to ban me if i continue. i think they are constructive. if you so convinced they unconstructive, tell me why. dont just say they unconstructive and leave it at that. WHAT makes them unconstructive?

read WP:AGF. you no assume good faith. you just think that because anon editor made edit, it must be bad. you may be admin but you no make policy and you overstep authority and harass me with it. stop or i will contact another admin and have you unadmin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs) 17:02, March 19, 2007


 * thank you for the feedback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Editing malfunction at Digg
Dear Vary, Regarding your edit to Digg at 15:20 UT on March 21, 2007, I regret to report that some words were lost or mis-pasted. Your edit reads in part:
 * Some readers tend to Digg stories from users they trust, resulting in some cont those people of influence, as revealed by a July 2006,

Please have another look? Thank you, -- JEBrown87544 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Borf sources
I'm just not sure you're going to find very many non-blog sources on the guy (or the brigade). Graffiti isn't something that is usually covered by the mainstream media very much, I'd guess, but I don't think that makes it non-notable. --AW 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Julia Allison
Hi, Vary. I noticed that you rved some information on this topic. I was wondering if you can semi-protect this article, because the wheel-warring about disruptive facts is kind of getting out of hand b/n the 2 IP users. And, this is a BLP that we are dealing with here. That makes the situation much more important. Thanks.  Real 96  11:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Circus metal (again)
Hello. I am messaging you about the recreation (I believe for the fifth time) of the article Circus metal. I have seen you have participated in a previous AfD procedure for the article, and I would think you would be interested to give your opinion in the most recent one. Thanks in advance.

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Catbus.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Catbus.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your comment
I am simply echoing what is included on the list, which are sourced entries... I didn't add any of them personnaly, but it seems logical that the article and the category contain the same information... feel free to remove the category, but please also remove the article entry if you do... S facets 04:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for the category is based on the article - so if the category is removed from an article it should also be rmved from the list. S facets 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you know sometimes I feel so dumb ;) I just spend hours removing the cat from subject articles not listed in the list, so it made sense to add the cat to articles which are - obviously I missed the fact that the category was solely about religious leaders while the article was about both political and religious leaders. My bad...  S facets  04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:


 * Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious Business disambiguation?
Serious Business and Serious business are protected titles. You have deleted Serious Business the most times, and you have deleted Serious business twice. What do you think of the draft disambiguation page User:Damian Yerrick/Serious Business before I take it to WP:DRV? --Damian Yerrick 14:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vary, I told Damian that I think that it won't be necessary to go through DRV, because this is not a re-post (see User talk:Jitse Niesen). We only deleted and salted Serious Business and Serious business when they redirected to Internet. I'm happy to unprotect them so that Damian can post the disambiguation page, but I thought I should check with you first. Please let me know what you think. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning an edit
Vary, I never did that edit against first strike like you said I did. When I very rarely do contribute to Wikipedia, I do so factually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.120.198 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Bellah
hey, I see in your edit summary here that Bellah admits he got the term from Rousseau. Because, at this time, the article isn't saying that Bellah made that claim, no place exists to put a citation needed tag. I honestly don't know whether Bellah said that or not. But I'm pretty sure somebody will revert your edit, so, finding some citation for the Bellah / Rousseau would help the Seperation AND Bellah articles out a lot. Disregard all that, I looked at the article on Civil Religion and see where it is stated that Rousseau coined the term.--Vidkun (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (edited 16:34, November 28, 2007)
 * I didn't add uncited information to the article, I removed it. If you check the talk page, you'll see comments from a fan of Bellah's work who wanted very much for the article to state that Bellah coined the term 'Civil Religion.' Bellah states in the paper cited in that section that he got the term from Rousseau (again, see the talk page), which means that it's in no way true that he coined it; he didn't even come up with it independently without realizing it had been used before. So I'm not sure what the problem is there. -- Vary | Talk 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I used the strikeout tags on my comment.--Vidkun (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which, for the record, I didn't see until I'd saved me first comment. Hence the followup. -- Vary | Talk 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Buddhism
Hi. I have to disagree with your ideas on Criticism of Buddhism. My actions were motivated by the request/comments at Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts: "all major religions have their own criticism page except Buddhism". I don't know who posted this, but obviously if other religions have dedicated criticism pages, then Buddhism should too.

You wrote: I'd prefer to make Criticism of Buddhism a redlink for now, so people understand that we need an article on this. ( WP:REDLINK ). Thanks much for your attention to this issue. Have a good one, and happy holidays if you're observing any this time of year. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Articles with no content aren't articles" -- I agree
 * "the blank page doesn't help anyone." -- I have to agree, but the redirect to Criticism of religion doesn't help much, and the non-parallelism with other religions potentially prejudices Buddhism over other religions or vice-versa.
 * "a whole criticism article isn't needed yet." -- "Not needed" on grounds that "sub-articles are normally created when a section in the main article gets too big", but needed for parallelism with other religions, as well as on grounds of general notability.
 * "I suggest that you do some research and start one yourself" -- I may do that. It would probably be a pretty lousy stub, and I'd hoped that other WikiProject Buddhism members might do a better job of it.
 * "it would be more appropriate to use whatever references you find to start a criticism section in the main article first." -- IMHO we do need the separate dedicated Criticism of Buddhism article, for the reasons I've mentioned.


 * You wrote:


 * "blanking a page does not make it a redlink." -- Right.
 * "If you want the page to be a red link, you need to file a deletion request at WP:RFD." -- Thanks. I will do that.


 * -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up regarding the three revert rule, which I was already familiar with. Since you feel so strongly about this topic (calling the iPod "iPod") you should contribute to the discussion on the articles talk page. Thanks, NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield
What the introduction to the movie says: "the area formerly known as 'Central Park'" http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/23/cloverfields-visual.html What the person didn't realize, and what you didn't realize, is that Cloverfield refers to the fact that bombed out locations are covered with clover fields afterwards, and the gone Central Park/Manhatten is all Cloverfields. Hence, the incident and the location have been renamed the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The document you are using, is not verifiable. It lacks an author, and the information you are claiming are not from direct quotes from anyone. This fails Wikipedia's verifiability standards. As an admin, you should know this ("Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers", this lacks an author). Since Rotten Tomatos is not limited to academic only, it has the same problems as IMDB and cannot be deemed verifiable with such pages. And the notes all quote the use of the term "creature". If he had a real name, they would have used that and not called him creature. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"They were released by the studio to the media prior to the film's opening" Might I remind you that such declaration is OR? Without an author of the source, it does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. I'm sorry, but thats how it is. We do not know who created it, nor do we know what is legitimate or not. If it is as profuse as you claim, then you can find other websites, verifiable ones, that credit an author and have legitimate copyrighted information on the page. Otherwise, it cannot be used. Furthermore, if it was production notes by the studio, then Rotten Tomatoes et al cannot legally host them on their webpages, seeing as how they would not own them. These are all important concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You are 3RR warring. Note, this can happen with only 2 reverts. You have reverted while breaking the NPOV which demands that both sides of a situation be addressed when properly sourced. You cannot remove properly sourced information because you think it doesn't agree with your point of view. If you persist, you will probably get banned for your inappropriate actions. These are sourced citations. You cannot remove them from Wikipedia. 75.104.140.74 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User page
Liking very much the way you introduce yourself. May I use some of your text on my user page on a wikia ? And if yes, should I then refer to your user page ? Lars 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided you follow the GFDL, I would assume so. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A start has been made. http://uwn.wikia.com/wiki/User:Aesopos. Lars 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard
This is to give you notice that I have filed an entry on the Administrator's Noticeboard about our current dispute. [] I welcome you to post your side. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

David Saks redux
Hi Vary, I hope you are doing well. Remember our old friend David Saks? He (or one of his meat/sock puppets) is back as User:Memphians in Support of David Saks. See this RFPP. The administrator who answered the Saks character is now having an e-mail conversation with me, encouraging me to engage in dispute resolution or other discussion with Saks. The administrator, for reasons unknown to me, seems to think that further discussion is necessary and that this might not be a Saks sock. Given (1) the demonstrable consensus against including anything about Saks despite his protestations and (2) the legal threat he made against me from our prior discussion, further "dispute resolution" is completely out of the question, in my view. The administrator, User:Archtransit, doesn't seem to understand the situation or believe that Saks did or is doing anything improper, because I just received a lengthy e-mail encouraging me to engage in further discussion or dispute resolution. Anyway, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain how ridiculous the suggestion of dispute resolution or further discussion is at this point. Thanks. · jersyko   talk  18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of my intentions. The RFPP was denied by me! The question of notability of David Saks' songs should be the primary question. Resolution of that question with the users may resolve the problem and reduce conflict. Trying to shut them up just creates anger. Let's try to work together. We can include only notable content and do it in the most polite way possible. Archtransit (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, that question has already been answered. Talk:Memphis, Tennessee/Archive 2. ·  jersyko   talk  22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the legwork. Hope things are well with you. · jersyko   talk  01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Affinion Group Article
Hello Vary, I am new to the Wiki World so I hope you forgive some of the missteps taken thus far. I now have an account established and I am trying to learn the protocols for the site. I stumbled across the Affinion Group article during a search and found the content overly negative in tone and attempted a rewrite to make it more balanced and factual. The previous post looked to be a personal attack on the company and constituted a personal advertisement to influence Wiki readers. Everything I have read regarding publishing standards for the site emphasize fair, balanced and neutral tone to the articles. I am a manager with Affinion and feel the article did not reflect the current conditions. After my attempts were undone (several times) a seasoned editor, Thingg, volunteered to help me out and rewrote the article and published on Feb28. I think it is important for you to know that Trilegiant was a part of the old Cendant conglomerate and experienced some questionable business practices under that leadership. Since 2005 Affinion Group has been under new ownership, Apollo Management (private equity) and under this new leadership we are striving to clear up any lingering litigation which might touch us from the past and have dramatically changed our business model to be more focused on Identity Theft Protection and Insurance products. The rewrite by Thingg displayed a much more neutral tone while still acknowledging past issues. Affinion Group is striving to repair damage done by previous leadership and distance ourselves from the Trilegiant/Cendant/Progenty/CUC issues. In my opinion the Trilegiant page should be populated with an article to encompass the complaints and history associated with that company and allow the Affinion Group to stand on its own merits. I hope you agree with my assessment. I welcome your thoughts and ideas.

Shearwater63 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Affinion Group
I stepped away to avoid 3rr. You might want to take a look again. Best, -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Affinion Group
Affinion Group Wikipedia article Vary,

I appeal again to your judgment regarding the edits to the Wikipedia article for Affinion Group. I appealed to Vary stating that the previous posts to this page were obvious negative attacks designed to hurt or take revenge on this company. The principle of the Wikipedia site is to offer neutral point of view and usable information for Wikipedia readers. There is nothing in the following information pulled from the NPOV page of the site that states that Wikipedia can be used as a complaints board or a vehicle to cause damage to individuals or companies. As I explained before the company is no longer a part of the Cendant conglomerate that was the force behind the negative experiences some people had with products and services offered. The history section of the article shows clearly that there is a historical relationship with Cendant and that should be sufficient. Affinion is under new ownership (Apollo Management) and has dramatically changed it's business model and no longer participates in any of the practices that the complaints site. Affinion should be allowed to stand on it's own merits. Thanks for your consideration.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

For article specific questions or discussions on NPOV please go to the Neutral POV notice board.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

Shearwater63 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raising Malawi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Raising Malawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Raising Malawi. Thank you. NewAtThis (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vfk Article...again
Why was the VFK article deleted? I would like to know, so that I can rewrite it without making any "mistakes".

VFK was not a candidate for speedy deletion. I read through the whole criteria for speedy deletion of an article, and every criteria did not match.

The argument that was most widely used during the deletion was that "VFK isn't significant enough to be written about". However, the criteria say that an article can be deleted if:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

The article clearly indicated why it was important: the game was created as a result of the closing of a widely popular Disney game. I also noticed that only the beginning part of that rule was paid any attention to. Everyone totally ignored the part that says "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." So, please tell me why it was deleted. I would greatly appreciate it. --Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented about you on WT:RFA
Please read what I wrote about you at WT:RFA. It's not that I have much to add, but I thought it was inappropriate to say that and not then tell you about it. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mall Police
Please do head on over to my talk username mall police to chat of such topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mall Police (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FA/Image
Is it compulsory that a featured article must contain image?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do understand images are generally good. But in special circumstances if there is no free image available, then is it possible for the article becoming FA without images.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Medallion
Sorry, I mistakenly undid your revert because I hadn't realised you'd managed to get all of 81.103.165.161's vandalism with your revert. I've reverted my own edit back to your fix, I hope there's no hard feelings. D: --Muna (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

White
The user from the Hellas On Line S.A. ISP / 79.166.X.X subnet is back at the White page again. Not sure the best way to report this through the normal process? Should we ask for the page to be semi-protected? Though, it seems to be just one user with a different IP each time. I went to try to report this but got confused a little by the process, but saw you temp. blocked one of the IPs. PaleAqua (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What's the normal way for me to report something like this in the future? PaleAqua (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:79.166.32.190
I must say, I'm a bit in the dark about why my user page (along with yours and Josh3580's) was vandalised by this person - to the best of my knowledge, vandalism to user pages is usually not random, and the target has usually had previous contact with the vandal, yet I don't seem to have come into contact with them. The IP doesn't appear to be an open proxy, any insights? --Muna (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Read please
I am not a vandal. Cannons are listed. They aren't Romneys. The edit summary explains all. 72.161.124.10 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:81.155.80.168
I think my block and your notice of the block hit at the same time on this user - which surprised me when I went ot warn them that they were blocked! Since I blocked for 48 hours, I just adjusted your notice to match - glad to see I wasn't the only one keeping an eye open. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - didn't want you to wonder where your block went, is all. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosemary Ellen Guiley
I don't know if you noticed, but reverted your edits again on Rosemary Ellen Guiley. She left a comment on my talk page where she claims she's Guiley's manager and gives a brief explanation why she reverted your edits. I couldn't be bothered dealing with it at the time (this stuff does my head in), but I figured I should give you a heads-up. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vary,

My name is Jana S. VanDyke and I am Rosemary Ellen Guiley’s manager and the creator of her listing on wikipedia. In last few months I have noticed some contributions to Ms. Guiley’s page that were incorrect statements and/or personal opinions. In regards to your recent revisions and Rosemary Ellen Guiley’s wiki page, please allow me to address a couple incorrect things that are posted on there.

For starters every time the page gets reverted back it becomes outdated. Even right now, I have to go back in and add titles that have been removed yet once again and that is a lot of work that I really should not have to do over and over again. Also, the statement on Ms. Guiley’s wiki page about being a well known psychic and clairvoyant is incorrect. Apparently at some point a newspaper reporter wrote that in a column and had Ms. Guiley confused with another person that had been at this conference. Ms. Guiley is a well known author and paranormal investigator and not a psychic and clairvoyant. So that statement there is completely wrong. Then there is the entry that Ms. Guiley has claimed to have cleared ghost from the Waverly. That also is an incorrect statement. She did assist in a spiritual releasement there but not a GHOST clearing. Either way that statement alone is really irrelevant and not necessary and has a negative opinionated personal tone. And then finally someone added that she got her PhD from the International Institute for Integral Human Sciences, an unaccredited university in Montreal, in recognition for her work in the field. Just by adding the word “unaccredited” is proof alone that someone has a personal issue with her PhD and is not worth anything, but yes it is. If that person would do their homework, they would find that the degree itself is accredited. And they did not add her other degree or schools. They just added “an unaccredited University”.

If the phrasing of her bio is what’s bothering you then we have no problem rephrasing it. For example you noted or your last change your reasoning and I quote you, “the issue is with glowing terms like 'foremost authority', and with your reversion of format corrections. This isn't a press release, it's an encyclopedia aritcle; it needs to be neutral.” I have no problem complying with your request to remove “glowing” terms.

Anyway, I would really like to get this matter handled in an amicable way so I do not feel like I have to police this page like I have to do now. I will leave the page “as is” until I get a response from you.

Please feel free to write me directly, if you wish, at janasvandyke@earthlink.net. I would really like to get this handled as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Jana S. VanDyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaofmm (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vary, we have complied to your request and made adjustments.

Thank you.

Jana S. VanDyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaofmm (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Pepys
Someone seems to be overly interested in the effects of a kidney ailment on Pepy's mental disposition. Foolishly, I had thought a mysterious pestilential disease pervading London, and much of the City burning to the ground might have attracted Pepy's attention. The Diary suggests as much.....I'm trying hard to believe anything I read in WP. Should I? Should I try to believe?Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Pic
Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: []. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What More????
What more do you want me to do to stop this page from being deleted? Did you see the sources that I added? Please give me a clear explanation of what needs to be done. I offered the proper sources.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

pogram
Is pogram even a word? Program is a word. So is pogrom. Doesn't the article make perfect sense with "program"? Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Randomness

 * Americans do not get a say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.197.201 (talk • contribs) 17:08, December 7, 2008

User:144.82.197.201
Hi Vary, I have just reverted more vandalism by User talk:144.82.197.201, who I note was already on a final warning. Perhaps best to block for a while as they don't seem intent on improving the project at this very moment. Regards, Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning to wrong IP
Thanks for explaining to the IP editor about the mistake and striking his warning - I've just noticed your comments on my talk page and apologised myself. We had spotted the same vandalism at the same time and I didn't notice that his edit had edit-conflicted with mine, thus resulting in the wrong talk-page being brought up for warning and the resulting justified indignation. d'oh. Hope I haven't caused too much offence, thanks again - Knepflerle (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)