User talk:William Avery/Archive 4

Thanks mate!
Thanks for reverting the valdalism of my article Criticism of the term Latino. As I see there were many mixed opinions about it, so I just merged it into a new one: Hispanic/Latino naming dispute.--Scandza (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiya William
I always enjoy talking with self-proclaimed grammar Nazis; they're the best kind. I have to admit ignorance on a wide range of British-English orthography issues, but Primate is an American-English article. AP Stylebook gives no guidance when you're joining a phrase to a word instead of joining two words (and prefers a hyphen to a dash). TCMOS and WP:DASH say to use spaces. Feel free to check it out, and you might want to self-revert, or argue the case at WT:MOS if you'd like a change in the style guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi
Hello there. I have addressed your concerns about the article's writing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Hokey Cokey
Regarding this edit;. The IP editor isn't helping by not summarising, but the content of the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the cited newspaper story (there is no such ban and it has not been 'deemed' anything by anyone of any importance). If anything, the cite would be put to better use in the section about possible origins from the Catholic Mass, rather than focussing on a short-lived trivial fuss and nonsense from football fans. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

goody two shoes reporting me twice typical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dido97 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pallid sturgeon
Thank you for reviewing the article I started.--MONGO 16:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Subjective editing
I understand why you deleted my contributions to the pages on Colin Murray and Bob Mills (comedian), (though I'd like to point out it was a light-hearted joke and was not written in any form of malice) but why didn't you also delete acompanying sentences that predated my own and were equally farcical and opinionated?
 * I didn't read that article, just your additions. William Avery (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On another note, my contribution about Colin Murray and Will Smith is true, but I'm not sure how to cite, especially from DVD extras. Could you possibly help me there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Burma (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIT and search for 'video' on that page. William Avery (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have no way of know that my edit is in fact false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredbeardfreak (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC) If you can not disprove it than it should be allowed. Some people do hold this as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredbeardfreak (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) If you can not disprove it than it should be allowed. Some people do hold this as truth. Are you sure? I would hate for that to be unvarifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredbeardfreak (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning me
I'm assuming the warning I received for John F. Snodgrass was for someone else, as I was reverting a vandalism. Thegeebe2 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A Small Somthing
-note from casual user: they also reverted my deletion of racist subjects on the mongoloid race page. I don't understand this, as almost the entire thing was racist, trying to "prove" mongoloids are smarter, more evolved, better looking, etc... than other races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.44.136 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Me
I am not sure how to reply to you, but I hope this is the way. In regards to your message, no information I would write would ever, ever be INTENTIONALLY incorrect. Moreover, I do not know to what you are referring. Please try not to be rude and unpleasant, because some of us are nice people. Thank you! -- 03:56, 1 March 2009
 * Did you read the part saying "If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users." William Avery (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Knob Noster High School
Please Delete the Knob Noster High School wikipage, per request of School Administration as it is a violation of Copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knobbie10 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages
Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B Harris 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. William Avery (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

--Hello Mr. Avery, you're on the ball. I'm cleaning up a page that I created and was redirected to another article. I appreciate your concern and keep up the good work. Best wishes, --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Forward planning failure
You and I both reverted as vandalism, this new users removal of speedy tags on RentLaw.com. Another admin has "taken me to task" (see my talk page) for reverting this, saying that ANY user (other than the original page author) can decline a speedy. While I do not dispute that fact, it is VERY curious that a NEW? user (like "F p f" here) would be removing speedy tags from articles as their FIRST edits? This seems very sockish to me, and to the Admin who took me to task, but neglected to pursue any block against him, or even request a quick check-user. Perhaps you could take a look into the situation? Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What to do
Hi can i ask you what should i do when i receive such as these messages on my talk page 1, 2 ?? is this vandalism?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You Maen. K. A. (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alberto Joao Jardim
I was next to him, he was talking about this black stripper with a huge ass. what the fuck do you know...

Commend
I just wanted to take a second to say that I appreciate the way you undid an edit to the Ramones page. You provided a link to the Avoid peacock terms which is so much more productive than just undoing it without an explanation. It wasn't my edit that you undid, but it is an article on my watchlist, so when I saw your link I clicked and learned a guideline that I was not familiar with. J04n(talk page) 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My tongue was firmly in my cheek. My assumption of good faith was somewhat stretched by the original edit. William Avery (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but the fact that you made a comment at all let alone a link to a guideline was my point. Odds are that the offender will not even see your comment, but you taking the time to do it led to me clicking on and reading the guideline. J04n(talk page) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another one I sometimes use. William Avery (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mocking Bird
Thanks for your interest in 100 Best Tunes - it's good to fix another red link. That turned out to be quite an interesting matter as I hadn't realised that it had been such a huge hit. Your link to the original sheet music is especially good - an evocative glimpse of another era. Must listen to it again this evening ... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen to the Mocking Bird - To Kill a Mockingbird. It must have become a single word somewhere in the intervening century. Ho hum... William Avery (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit Crunch
Hi, I'm new to WP but noticed there's been an act of vandalism on a page you were monitoring. "finance crunch" has been added to the first sentence to replace "credit squeeze" on the credit crunch page. As an established user, could you please clean this up by reverting the edit? Thanks! - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Denunciationg wikipedia italy
Several wikipedia administrators do not permit to add contributions regarding racism xenophobia and hate, even if including links and notes, to pages dedicated to the "Lega Nord" political party, and other pages related to people belonging to the same party well known for their racist behaveour.

Pages are blocked almost always and in case you do some change you'll be blocked without any explanation or claiming fake reasons. Even the discussion page is blocked and if somone tries to add some contributions o tries to open a discussion on the same he will be blocked for ever.

Please do something, this is a shame, it's incredible and unacceptable that a party that has always proudly claimed its own racism is described like it was a kind of scout club, and of course it's completely againist the wikipedia aims. Please check!

It seems that in wikipedia Italy there are several lobbies. It's no more free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.39.41 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but I don't understand much Italian, and the Italian wikipedia is separate from the English Wikipedia. William Avery (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. thank you =D Destroyer000 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert on my page. Best Otis  Jimmy  One  20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Depp is died! 100%! He has brother twin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.149.41 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the term Latino
I have moved the discussion to Latino per concensous. Please put this article up for deletion as it has now been merged. CartelCacique (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Criticism of the term Latino. Result was clear concensous to either delete or merge. Just because an admin closed it and decided to say "no concensous" does not mean it to be true. I don't know why you do not wish to list it for deletion, but if you don't I will. CartelCacique (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed
Re: Simbola, as long as it get's deleted we'll both be happy... I was trying to AGF and wait for some references... but this doesn't seem to be a cooperative editor. Thanks.  7   talk   07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - Jellyfish blooms
I just noticed that on June 8 you pulled off a bunch of citations from the Press in the Jellyfish article: Jellyfish blooms, which I put in there as references to make my point. I started the whole idea that jellyfish could be taking over the oceans about 10 years ago with a couple of careful scientific papers, the second of which carefully examined what little we know, and determined that we don't know enough to see changes in most jellyfish populations. I am now unable to control the Press, which has run with the story and it seems every news organization wants to write jellyfish bloom stories, and they can always find someone to say, "sure jellyfish are taking over the world", and they ignore those of us with decades of study, who say "we don't know that (even if it just might be true)".

The reason it is "important to realize" in an encyclopedic article, is that I am assuming that people might arrive at this Wiki Jellyfish article after reading one of these sensationalist newspaper or magazine articles about jellyfish blooms, and want to know more. I am trying to give them a straighter scoop.

I am receiving inquiries from about a reporter a week who want to write stories this summer that just aren't based on what's really going on.

I don't know how to revert (does it only revert those things you changed in a single edit), but I sure wish that you would put back what you took out 07:51, 8 June 2009. What is weaseling about "in fact", when it's a fact, about "full of stories" when I then cite a substantial number, "the news media" when I cite several stories that you want to edit out?

Give me a clue -- or did you write one of the stories that I am trying to tell the reader might not be true.Leuckartiara (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at the Blooms section. I wrote as the first paragraph a month or two (or more) ago, the whole thing that you edited out. Now there is a first paragraph with absolutely no references and you seem to have no objections to that. But I do. Blooms are a natural feature of many jellyfish life cycles. A bloom does not require ocean currents to form it, as if the polyp part of the life cycle is nearby and they are budding jellyfish, you have a bloom. The last sentence "Jellyfish are most likely to stay in blooms that are quite large and can reach up to 100,000 in just 1 bloom." requires a reference that they are most likely to stay in blooms (huh? - never heard this before and I've been in the field for decades), what's the source of the number 100,000? I really don't get what you editors buy into and what you want refs for.Leuckartiara (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The diffs for my last three edits to Jellyfish are as follows:
 * 5 June
 * 27 May
 * 25 May


 * All reversions of vandalism. Please provide a diff for the edit on June 8 to which you refer. William Avery (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - comment should have gone to Glen Dillon, post above yours, but I pushed Talk in left column comparing revisions. Novice in Wiki, expert in jellyfish. Ignore me. Thanks. Leuckartiara (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Sorry, just reverting edits being made by an anonymous IP (talk) on a selected article. Looked like a personal rivalry or narrow gains to me. If you look at the version of the article I saved, you can see that I didn't remove any data, but provided both sides of stories and made it impartial in nature.

Article Pinarayi Vijayan

This anonymous user also started using abusive language on my talk page. I deleted it, but you can see it from history, I guess.

It was never my intention to vandalize. Please note that this page and this user is the only one where I had to ask again and again to maintain impartial nature. But I am sad to see that the intentional edits by the anonymous user is not prevented and I am being crucified. Can you help? (talk) 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Sorry, just reverting edits being made by an anonymous IP (talk) on a selected article. Looked like a personal rivalry or narrow gains to me. If you look at the version of the article I saved, you can see that I didn't remove any data, but provided both sides of stories and made it impartial in nature.

Article Pinarayi Vijayan

This anonymous user also started using abusive language on my talk page. I deleted it, but you can see it from history, I guess.

It was never my intention to vandalize. Please note that this page and this user is the only one where I had to ask again and again to maintain impartial nature. But I am sad to see that the intentional edits by the anonymous user is not prevented and I am being crucified. Can you help? Can we have a third reviewer? (talk) 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on article talk. William Avery (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Black (hieroglyphic 'km')
I'm not sure what you are doing, but the recent IP's edits are fine. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * yep. As I realised after reverting. It's the not using an edit summary that's a PITA. William Avery (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the edit summary: my apologies. I did support every change I made with reference and bibliography, so I hope this suffices. (78.145.223.47 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC))Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, Oxford University, (Egyptology Doctoral Programme) Ph.D student, UK.
 * I've just given a 3RR warning, William, could you help? I notice that she reverted an edit of mine with an edit summary calling it vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, some confusion about the edits, it was another edit. Katherine has reverted her now. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She's ignored my warning, and I can't revert nor will Katherine right now. I'll report her. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I called what you did vadalism because it is, you removed references that were properly linked to the page to ones that were not linked (that is destroying wikification)Gloriamerrier (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF, WP:MASTODON. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I have maintained a copy of my revised pages if they are any use after this argument is settled. As for linking, that is something I don't know how to do. I am merely providing the most accurate information known in Egyptology to date about the hieroglyph /km/ and its relation to the term /km.t/ as a reference to Egypt.


 * The present information is woefully incorrect, and I can show exactly where its should be corrected, such as the mistranslation of the term /baq.t/, which is not a reference to Egypt.


 * The term should be translated as /iAt/, which should read as glyphs N30: X1*Z2, which is the Greek form of "Egypt", signifying it as "the (divine) place of the mound (of creation)". This is assured by the Ptolemaic Lexicon (Wilson 1997: 36, indicating is as a euphemism for the land after the indundation subsided) and the Wörterbuch (Erman and Grapow 1926, I: 26, 13, indicating it as a collateral term for exposed fertile black land of Egypt).


 * So, whoever is translating this as /baq.t/ has it wrong, or had better have a good citation (beyond Budge, who is considered out of date) to show where they are getting /baq.t/ from /iAt/. Please note that /iAt/ does not possess an O49 glyph as a political entity as shown in the article, which means it refers to the land as soil, as representing the holy mound of creation. As such, it is not a reference to the nation of Egypt, but only to the soil in religious terms.


 * Beyond that, I have no axe to grind with anyone here. I was most certainly not 'vandalizing' the article, as I have been accused, but providing more up to date and accurate information. (Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

My issue was about removing the links. If there is something you want to improve then fix it.


 * As for our friend dougie. If you have reported me for "3rr: how is going around telling the other editor who along with you removed most of the information from the page is helping anything. I did not know wiki was just a game of tattle tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=295818592&oldid=295814185 Gloriamerrier (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which links in particular? You don't have to add links to words like 'color' by the way. And the other editor added things like 'crocodile skin' which you removed. You can reply on your talk page if you want to reply as I see you are blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for lies mate, try glancing at the article before you comment or remove links. Nothing about 'crocodile skin' was removed. I do not see links next to any color. The editor you purposely had blocked linked the references including the link to the comment about crocodile skin. you're saying she removed. Your claims have no merit just because you are an administrator does not mean you can do what ever you please. It is funny how the person you notified to come and change the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=295818592&oldid=295814185 has removed everything from it.129.10.104.191 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) was changed to read. You should never accuse another editor of lying, but particularly not when it is so easy to prove you wrong. It was left in the text, but removed from the image Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:DUCK test strongly suggests the IP(a University address) and Gloriamerrier and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wdford&diff=prev&oldid=295656708] are the same editor. After Gloriamerrier was blocked, the IP made a failed attempt to have another editor blocked for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think it worth doing anything formal at this stage - we might hope that somebody will realise they are in a minority of one. William Avery (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although of course if this recurrs if one of them is blocked again... Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bring Down the Banhammer
71.233.104.127 vandalized again after your last warning. I reverted. Bring down the ban hammer! Ismouton (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)