User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 6

Inland Empire
I've closed this discussion. Please diffuse the contents to appropriate "from (city/county)" categories, then let me know when you're done and I'll delete it. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mission accomplished....William 16:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. Category deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DANFS
Content from the DANFS is a work of the United States government and therefore inherently in the public domain. Straight-up cut-and-paste from DANFS might not be best practices for the encyclopedia, but it's not a speediable violation of copyrights. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Learn something new everyday....William 19:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick tip
Hi there WILLIAM, AL from Portugal here,

this one (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#User217.129.65.198) is me, with my last anon address. Standard, but it changed last month or so, beats me why, my computer's the same still.

You could have messaged me too regarding this no? Yet again, i stress the following two points: 1 - i have seldom been reverted at this, not even by User:Mattythewhite; 2 - we can change the WP:SUBCAT rule can't we (rules can and must be changed, not just here, in life in general), so that we have the sporting category (SPORTSPEOPLE FROM X) and the human category (PEOPLE FROM Y)? Attentively - --AL (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You can try to change the SUBCAT rule but you must have a talk discussion first in which the consensus changes to your Point of View. In the meantime it is improper to categorize Joe Perez in both People from Foo and Sportspeople from Foo as the consensus says a person does not get categorized in both....William 15:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to note I did not know about your AL account....William 15:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last sentence, yes i totally believe you, thus i messaged you to inform on that (when i said you could have tipped me, i meant in that anon address). --AL (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually posted to the IP talk page....William 21:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556720993 your edit] to John Simon (critic) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd
Greetings!

Seeing that you're a member of WikiProject Florida, on the off chance you're in our neck of the woods, I'm inviting you to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Cats and subcats
Hi there WILLIAM, hope it's all fine,

can you please redirect me to the proper field in WP so that i post my request? I want to make sure both the main category (i.e. PEOPLE FROM BARCELONA) and the sub one (SPORTSPEOPLE FROM BARCELONA) can be kept.

Attentively --AL (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd try WP:Categorization's talk page. Good luck. ...William 21:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done kind sir, many thanks for the "tip". I PROMISE that, whatever the outcome might be, i will abide by it. Thanks again! --AL (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Urban issues
Unsure of why deletion --B D Minimalist (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Urban issues could be redirected to Urban science, but there's not much there either. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing IMDB
I looked at the page you linked to (at least I think it was the correct one, your link was broken) regarding IMDB citations in wikipedia entries. The only thing that I could find on point was:


 * "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines."

What was I supposed to find? Did I go to the wrong page? DouglasCalvert (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Citing IMDb under appropriate uses states 'IMDb content which is acceptable to reference on Wikipedia include:

The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America.'


 * While under inappropriate uses it reads 'The user comments for each title, which are pure user-generated content.' Fan ratings are user comments just not of the written variety....William 14:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is an essay, not WP:MOS it has no authorityDouglasCalvert (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try WP:SYNTH. 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' You're combining 150+ sources to draw a conclusion that none of them explicitly states....William 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My article
Please explain why my article to be deleted? I provided references, and links, and proof. --Oh, Ah, Preston Pig! (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You provided two links, neither of which had anything to do with proving your assertions. No real references, and no proof. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion response
Hello. I am facilitating the development of this article Learning Development with a group. Can you remove the speedy deletion please. This may take 24-48 hours. Thanks Bamkin (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for confusion
Hello William. Please accept my apologies for the confusion. I did not knowingly remove the notification. I was dealing with a merger as we both edited the page simultaneously. Thanks for your courtesy in raising this though. How long does the stub have to reach a reasonable level? Bamkin (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article. It was labeled for deletion as having unclear context, but the context was perfectly clear even in the original form--it's an educational practice or theory. The deletion criterion only applies if it is impossible to tell what the article is about. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

John McCaa category removal
I have undone your removal of the "People from D-FW" category on this page. I have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining why. If you disagree, you can join the discussion. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominating the "golf television broadcast coverage" templates (Ryder Cup, Masters and US Open)
The "golf television broadcasts" templates that I created quite easily indicate the exact TV networks that have broadcast the respective tournaments determined by year. It goes well beyond simply "duplicating the main templates" (that's a very lazy and simplistic conclusion to things). If there are articles devoted to said networks' golf TV coverage in general, then the templates of the exact events that they covered over the years is a good companion piece. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:23 a.m., 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Complaint from Lazy editor
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John McCaa, you may be blocked from editing. ''I appealed to 3rd Opinion, and we recieved a determination that collapsing the category for the sake of collapsing is wrong. You've now gone against a consensus. Seek a consensus at DRN or RFC before you revert again. Next time I will report you for Edit warring'' Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop your lazy editing and create a television anchors from Dallas category. There were 150 plus incorrectly categorized people a week ago. Where was your concern about it?...William 16:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're lazy and pushing your POV. 150 incorrectly categorized people from the Dallas metroplex category. Did you lift one finger to put them in right categories? No. Did you ever work on creating texas categories? Filling them up? How about filling 'Sportspeople from Dallas' or Sportspeople from 'Houston'? Somebody added over 300 people to those categories and created 'Sportspeople from San Antonio' too. On the other hand we have an editor insisting on not working on any of these texas projects and making sure one person is categorized his way. Sounds like a lazy editor who can't be bothered to create 'Journalists or Television anchors from Dallas instead.16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LAZY??? You're obstinant in refusing to follow the dispute resolution process. WP:BRD,WP:3O,WP:CONSENSUS,WP:CCC are not to be laughted at, but whatever.  I've reported you to AIV and asked that you be banned from multi-city metropolitian category changes and Biographies associated to multi-city metropoitian areas. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lazy because you couldn't find this. His home is in Irving....William 16:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this...William 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And this and this...William 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

State Politicians and being notable.
The listing in Members of the California State Legislature used the reference Legislative History - California State Capitol Museum but the ref appears to be now broken. I'm trying to find a substitute for it to fix that page and use on the others. But the rules regarding politicians presumes that someone elected to a state legislature makes them notable, regardless of the references or lack thereof. I contend that they are not necessarily notable, but I've been slammed for questioning their existence. The site can't have it both ways.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't about notability. The problem- the articles are unreferenced and I'm drawing blanks at political graveyard. You can't use wikipedia as a source either. I checked that legislative history website via internet archive. They don't have anything there on these persons either. I am going to have to take this to ANI....William 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562847371 your edit] to Tarpon Springs, Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * *[Norm Augustinus], cult writer

ANI
Some advice - before reporting another user, please discuss the matter with them first. ANI should be a last resort. As numerous admins have commented, there were no personal attacks and there is nothing for us to action, so I have closed the report. Any help, please ask. GiantSnowman 15:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Letting Rambling Man get away with what he did makes administrators ruling on administrators a joke around here. Personal attacks by them are allowed. His proof of what he is saying is absolute garbage. You should be all ashamed of yourselves....William 15:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you were the only editor in Wikipedia who thought there was some kind of personal attack. Criticism is hard to take, sure, but sometimes is necessary for the integrity of the encyclopedia. By the way, there's always Arbcom if you're feeling unsatisfied in any way.   The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The integrity of wikipedia is being destroyed by administrators who abuse and others who turn a blind eye to the abuse....William 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * William, we're letting TRM 'get away' with what he did because he didn't do anything wrong. GiantSnowman 15:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then wikipedia is sunk. You can attack a whole project without proof and get away with it....William 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit hyperbolic. I've added a link to the last aviation project experience I had.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * William, if I may add my tuppence worth: everything you say is reflecting negatively on you and your attitude. Enough people have told you that TRM was not making personal attacks. It was a general, widespread comment - which by default cannot be a personal attack. And the more things you say in this manner, the more that TRM's comment appears to be correct. Drop the stick, and move on - take the criticism onboard, and use it to improve. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is just further proof of what I say. Drop the stick is a common expression around here for telling editors to shut up or face punishment. What for questioning the integrity of people around here? Isn't that what TRM did when he accused the aviation project of WP:OWN?...William 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TRM and Luke, I suggest we all ignore and unwatch this page, let William rant into the ether. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, despite further ownership demonstrated by individuals in the project at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And he continues with his behavior. Administrators can attack members of the community at will and get away with it. Wikipedia has a very serious problem but nobody will do anything about it. What a sad and embarrassing state of affairs....William 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry things didn't work out for you at ANI, but reverting edits, demanding consensus and then not participating in a discussion speaks entirely for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me where it is written in wikipedia that taking part in a talk page discussion is required? I did note you continue with the personal attacks even when somebody tries to work with you. Why don't you turn in your adminitstrator's tools? You're serving yourself not Wikipedia....William 18:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that all you can offer? List my "personal attacks" (note: personal attacks, not criticism of behavioural issues by several editors) with diffs or stop false accusations. Also please be sure to provide diffs where I abused my admin rights, ie blocks, protections etc.... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Solon
Seems to be a notable case, but a horrid article. I removed your prod. Please take it to WP:AfD if you wish to appeal. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some help re moving an image
Hi. In January you were kind enough to help me improve my editing with Connecticut congressional articles. I wanted to ask for your help again with two issues, if you do not mind. First for the article on John Emory Andus I added information and wanted to move the image that was already there ("The mausoleum of John Andrus") so the page layout would look better because after I added info there is a large space at bottom of page. I cannot figure out how to move the image. Can you please explain this to me and let me know if I am allowed to do this.

Second, I really want to improve the article on Allen G. Campbell. I have wondered if he should even have a Wikipedia article and if so how can I improve his article. In 1880 Campbell was certified as the winner for US Representative seat from Utah but never sat in Congress. I have had a difficult time just sorting out the situation, having found limited info. I am hoping you can give me some ideas on where to find additional info and steps to improve the article.

Thank you!--BuzyBody (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The white space at the end of the Andrus article doesn't look good but I don't know what to do. It's not really a gallery section like photo. As for Campbell, I'll do some searching for information on him too. I'll let you know if I'm successful....William 00:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. --BuzyBody (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know another editor was able to show me how to move the image on John Emory Andus's article. Thanks again for being so willing to help me. It is much appreciated. --BuzyBody (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mel Ramos
Hello, It seems you made a mistake with your recategorization. Ramos is an artist and academic, not a sportsperson. I am sure there is a better category.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  14:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that and I went ahead and fixed it....William 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Admins
I noticed your comments about admins on The Rambling Man talk page. I don't want to discuss the interaction between me and TRM or you and TRM but I am concerned about what seems to be the increasing number of editors who are having run-ins with admins. Something needs to be done about it. Being calm and neutral helps but I think that is only part of the solution. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Question re Database Reports
Hi. I am trying to learn more about the inner workings of Wikipedia & stumbled onto this page []. Can you tell me what it is about? It was confusing to me. Thanks!--BuzyBody (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't know much about the page either....William 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it. :)--BuzyBody (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the questions or requests for assistance. So feel free to leave a message here if you think I can be of help....William 13:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much appreciate that. Helps a lot!--BuzyBody (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Patience
A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is  and moderation. -- Molière 71.139.153.14 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletions
WilliamJE, I wanted to let you know why I've modified some of your edits. While you're to be commended for trying to pare down Notable people lists, the usual procedure for dealing with unsourced material is to tag it first. This gives other editors notice of the issue and provides them with some time to find reliable sources. If, after some time has passed after a was placed, and no one has provided a citation, then the material can be deleted. In several instances you were very quick to delete material that didn't yet have a source. Yet I was able to quite readily find a source for the deleted material. Deleting material without notice may mean that valid information is deleted from an article because other editors weren't given notice of the issue and time to rectify it. So maybe you want to think about tagging unsourced material, rather than just deleting it. 71.139.157.80 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Unauthorized quote
Please remove the quote of my (71.139.157.80) comment from your user page. It is highly inappropriate. It implies that I have endorsed you or your behavior in your dispute with The Rambling Man, which I have not. 70.134.226.95 (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take it as soon as you name the person who only died in a town which you claimed was a NP I listed. Either that or retract the statement. I'm going out now. Look forward to your response in two hours....William 17:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please familarize yourself with these words and link. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. You're engaging in personal attacks too and making false statements. If you had the person I edited into the article, you could produce. Instead you're acting like, conducting personal attacks as you evade the question....William 18:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't have the time to deal with this petty nonsense. Not every statement an editor makes requires a source citing chapter and verse. I will not be spending my Saturday trolling through dozens of your edits to find the examples you're demanding.


 * WilliamJE, I have tried to be fair and balanced with respect to your contributions to Wikipedia and your experiences with The Rambling Man, but you're doing yourself no favors with your incessant petulant whining. You're just going to have to ignore your bruised ego and move forward like an adult. 70.134.226.95 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Still evading. I'm talking about Sphilbrick's talk page and your comment there of last night and my response right under it. Not hard to find unless you're being lazy or difficult. Petulant whining, another personal attack. Complaining about personal attacks is whining? I guess you support the bullies in the world. Nobody has to accept being attacked or bullied. You made the case yourself that TRM was bullying me....William 18:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". -- Rhett Butler
 * 70.134.226.95 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Behavior that is unacceptable
"Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context".

By cherrypicking one sentence of a very long comment of mine you are misrepresenting the tenor of my comment. As WP guidelines state, this is unacceptable. 70.134.226.95 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

navigation boxes
Navigation boxes are for use anywhere that the information in them is useful to header. That includes categories. Please stop removing them. Hmains (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All they do is provide links to places already linked to. Anyway I've started a community discussion here. Come on over....William 13:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hey, I think I managed to get the edit summaries removed. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you....William 12:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hi WilliamJE. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Death Spells, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. ''Specifically, the article asserts credible significance and/or importance, which is a lesser threshold than notability and as such, does not meet the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. '' Cindy  ( talk ) 17:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Microsoft Security Essentials. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

By the way, the accusation of WP:OWN is a personal attack. And it is Wikipedia's policy that the main subject of discuss must be linked. Fleet Command (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Familarize yourself with WP:Overlink which states 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. It was already linked to in the article's intro and in the article's main section before the part that I corrected.


 * As to WP:OWN, it is plainly obvious that Codename Lisa has been engaging in it at the MSE page for sometime. Read her edit summary of her reversion, the page's edit history. and check overlink and see how it isn't OWN going on....William 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, you familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, WP:EW and WP:NPA. The last two are policies, unlike WP:OVERLINK which is just guideline but I'll get to it. Know that I, Fleet Command, am the main contributor of Microsoft Security Essentials. If anybody has to be worried about WP:OWN, that's me. But I don't use the word ownership for fighting vandalism, a bunch of anti-Microsoft zealots and edit warriors. (For now consider it not a comment on yourself, though you have broken WP:BRD.) You should have stopped reverting and had to discuss with her. Or me.


 * Second, I have read WP:UNDERLINK, WP:OVERLINK, WP:REPEATLINK and in general, I am of the opinion that
 * The fact the link goes to the primary subject of discussion of that section outweighs any other issue, per WP:UNDERLINK
 * Even if there was an overlinking issue, you could have removed just any other non-important link like "USB"
 * I don't believe overlinking is the genuine problem here at all. Your non-collegial behavior shows that your edit is just a mean to get back on Codename Lisa and assume ownership of the article. You don't have the good of Wikipedia in mind.


 * Consider going to WP:DR instead. Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are three links to Windows Defender, two in the body of the article already. You're engaging in WP:OWN because there was nothing wrong with my edit per WP but you feel the need to go after me here....William 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Patently false. There are only two links in body. However, there is one in the lead (which must be) and one in the navbox (which is again, okay) too. The total is four, yes. We can switch the one in Future section with a main. But Windows Defender is the main subject of discussion. I don't believe it is remotely okay to remove those two body links. Fleet Command (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously can't count. One in the intro, one in the Features section, one at the beginning of the Future section. That's three in the body before I took out a 4th. That's a clear case of WP:Overlink....William 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, guys


 * In the interest of a compromise, I deleted one of the links. Is that okay now? Oh, and by the way "intro" and "lead" are the same thing. And William, overlink is not a policy. WP:CON and WP:DR are policies.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine with me....William 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not okay. He reads WP:Overlink however he likes and turns a blind eye on what he does not like. You should have let him do one more revert. He would have violated WP:3RR and would have been blocked. Fleet Command (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that comment is way out of the line, Fleet Command. Doing that is WP:OWN and Gaming the system. A link is too worthless a thing to have an edit war over it.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Philosophy
Every day, I visit a few User Pages to get to know folks and I just wanted to say that I really like the Wiki Philosophy you lay out there. It has many good points, it looks like it's the kind of work that gets revised when you have something new to add. Just wanted to let you know your words are appreciate. ;- ) Liz  Read! Talk! 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

New articles queue
Please do not work on the first 5-10 minutes in. It is better to start from 30 min back or more. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was the "Welcome to Wikipedia" message left on my page by bot? Or are you being WP:POINTY. If you want to make a point then it would be better to do so here on your own Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have linked to here from the Talk page of the Black Bob (horse) article in case anyone wants to follow. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you do this to experienced editors a lot? I have tried to be polite here. I have politely suggested that you do not work deleting articles in the first 5-10 minutes of the new article queue. If someone is working on a stub what benefit is it to you or them to place a deletion tag so quickly? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)