May 2010
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I note the first activity on this account since the matter of who is operating it was raised, last year.
I lack the computer expertise to know how and why the history page has been blanked up until this activity today. Could whoever is operating this account please explain? Tony (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a pretty retarded response you sent to my talk page! I don't have something stupid like what you called a "Crusade Against Common..." (but wrong) "... Usage." Take your insulting responses to someone who gives a crap what you say.
Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).
Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do). Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).
MaxxFordham (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Haha, cw, look who's talking about civility! Looks like you need to learn a lesson yourself, as we see others saying about YOU! I've seen those on your page. You know you need it. Next, no, you're wrong about what you think was my "misunderstanding" about the word "insult." That "seb" guy INSULTED me by saying something stupidly sarcastic like, "Haha, it gets better every time." You know that's an insult when it's retardedly laughing at something I said. So no, it was NOT a "correction." YOU please make a note of THAT. Finally, I have a RIGHT to remove section headers from MY talk page. YOU are NOT the "boss" of what someone does here, especially with their OWN talk page!
MaxxFordham (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi CalendarWatcher. During your first days of editing on WP it is clear you were familiar with concepts such as: notability, over-linking, and using monobook.js. You also displayed extraordinary speed and facility in both editing articles, and in taking other editors to task concerning their edits (reverts, warnings, etc.). Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia? Thanks for your help in this matter. HWV258. 09:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#CalendarWatcher
I must ask you to observe WP:CIVILITY to all editors. Tony (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, CalendarWatcher. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, it has been nominated for deletion (3rd attempt). See link on article page. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored Adam Smoluk since it's prod was objected to. I recommend taking the article to Afd if you still believe it to be non-notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for this. I am confused, this is a list of social networks and Goodwizz should be among the list? I have provided references and articles which demonstrate that this is a known social network. Why should not Goodwizz be on a list of hundreds of social networks? :E.cassimatis (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You did not finish Step III of the nomination for this, so that it was never transcluded in the daily log and has not been seen by those who scan those logs. I guess those who have commented came to it via the film deletion sorting list. I have put it into today's log, marked as a relist but with a note of what happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note to Calendar Watcher, April 2nd, 2011, from Malachy McGreevy
Calendar Watcher: Greetings. I am Malachy McGreevy. I am writing to ask you why you deleted Malachy McGreevy from the list of 1966 births, along with the link to copyrighted material shared freely on creative commons. I am the inventor of the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System. I happen to feel that the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System is a significan leap of consiousness for humanity. From before the existance of hominids, wildfire has existed on earth. It pre-exists humanity. Therefore, we as a species evolved subject to wildfire. As a matter of fact, every species in existance on the face of the terrestrial earth has evolved subject to wildfire. This is the first claim made that wildfire can and will be bounded and demarcated. This isn't science fiction. For the first time in the history of the existence of mankind on earth, humanity will no longer be subject to wildfire; quite the opposite. Mankind can now determine where wildfire will be allowed and will not be allowed to occur. This is big stuff. This is an evolution of science. This is the reason that I feel inclusion of Malachy McGreevy in the wikipedia 1966 list of births is legitimate and worthy. There are many pop stars and athletes on there, I feel this is at least as important and noteworthy as their birth dates too. Very truly yours, Malachymcgreevy (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachymcgreevy (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, since you seem reluctant to explain your persistent removal of the Celtic F.C. European Cup win in 1967 beyond "IT'S REDICULOUSLY TRIVIAL!!1!" or something to that effect, I'll offer you the opportunity to explain here why you think it to be trivial. The European Cup win in 1967 is a significant event for hundreds of thousands of people across the world, perhaps even millions. It is defiantly significant in Europe as they are the first Northern European team to win the competition which is the most prestigious prize in club football, a sport which is very important to European culture. It has even been argued that the European Cup win in 1967 represents a cultural event for the hundreds of thousands of Irish Catholic immigrants in Scotland; a group who are traditionally victims of institutional discrimination. Just because it's not a notable event to you does not mean it's notable to no-one. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that the text in [1] is dated July 2010, which postdates the addition of the same words to Hiroaki Yura, there's a chance we have a reverse copyvio, so I declined the CSD, pending discussion with you.
If you specifically looked into this, and see why I am wrong, please let me know.
Otherwise, I suggest posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you do not want to, let me know and I will.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
User Fasttimes68 seems a bit too obsessed with removing content about Stephanie Adams both in the article about her as well as any topic on Wikipedia that mentiones her. He is also being considered for a topic ban. Take a look at his talk page and contributions, and you will see that the Stephanie Adams page will continue to be a heated topic until something is done about the petty desire to remove the school she went to and other nonsense. Bowwowbow (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I was on anti-vandalism patrol and came upon the Nelly (disambiguation) page using STiki. Why did you blank out the whole page? Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| your valiant efforts keep the free encyclopedia great! ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring my comment. Seb az86556 has reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.[2] Do you mind commenting there about this, since it partially involves you? 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's hardly a notable award in the field of world history, is it? Most people have never even heard of it. We can't list everything - Nobel prizes maybe, but what next? The MTV award for best international newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
A comparison can be drawn with the official websites of some other awards. Here are the ranks, from Alexa:
nobelprize.org 29,000
oscars.org 88,000
grammy.com 100,000
pulitzer.org 194,000
googlelunarxprize.org 303,000
themanbookerprize.com 358,000
heritagehealthprize.com 408,000
japanprize.jp 418,000
zayedfutureenergyprize.com 613,000
pritzkerprize.com 764,000
loebner.net 1,161,000
mercuryprize.com 1,134,000
worldfoodprize.org 1,440,000
polarmusicprize.org 1,553,000
goldmanprize.org 1,600,000
rightlivelihood.org 1,656,000
orangeprize.co.uk 1,971,000
templetonprize.org 4,096,445
(I use Alexa just because that polls more people - the pageviews from wikipedia are much the same, in the last 90 days, Templeton has 11,833 views, vs 142,872 for the Grammys, 234,516 for Nobel and 426,327 for the Oscars. Indeed, it's absolutely staggering that on some days the Category:Templeton_Prize_laureates does not get a single view!)
As can be seen, public interest in the Templeton prize is not even close to any of the other awards. So again, if we're not going to include any of the others, the Templeton has no place in such a major page as 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
But again, it's just not notable. The above shows that people are simply not visiting the website, either because they don't care about the award (because it's unimportant), or because they don't know about it (because it's not notable and receives no coverage). That's why the Templeton website is so important, because this event does not get any TV or print reports. Please feel free to supply some quantitative information that disproves this.
Want another example? Look up Jennifer Jones, Yann Martel, Albert Einstein, John Updike or Gloria Estefan. All five articles mention in the lead paragraph the fact that the person has won an award (a different award in each case). It's a major achievement of their career - sometimes even being nominated can be a defining moment. Look up Billy Graham or Michał Heller or Nikkyō Niwano or Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan or Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, to pick some random examples, and the Templeton award is either not mentioned, or occurs right towards the bottom of the article in a minor subsection about their career. You see the point I'm making? It's just not in the least bit important who won the Templeton award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice on the other talk page you basically make no comment at all apart from banging on about "whingeing". You need to argue your case - either put up or shut up. One of the key arguments to consider here is that there are just so many awards each year, that wikipedia cannot list them all, and needs to focus on the important ones. Unfortunately this is not one of them.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1910, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomás Blanco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, how about some discussion over the 1907 article rather than just reverting each other. Keith D (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SMS Talk 04:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. Where do I make the case? Here's the case:
Orville Wright - listed as born on August 19, 1871; died on January 30, 1948. No individual page
Wilbur Wright - listed as born on April 16, 1867; died on May 30, 1912. No individual page
Joel Coen - listed as born on November 29, 1954. No individual page
Ethan Coen - listed as born on September 21, 1957. No individual page
Lana Wachowski - listed as born on June 21, 1965. No individual page
Andy Wachowski - listed as born on December 29, 1967. No individual page
I'm sure I can find more, if you'd like. As for whether or not the Andrews Sisters are notable enough... seriously? -- JCaesar (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Which Virginia Madsen entry should be in? We can't exactly say that Virginia Madsen was born on September 11 1961 AND September 11 1963. --Golbez (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fergus Henderson (computer scientist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fergus Henderson (computer scientist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)