User talk:FormerIP: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

I think you deserve this...

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award FormerIP this barnstar for working with others to improve the Pete Townshend article and reach a consensus on its content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving me the (considerable) bother of defending my edits! Rothorpe (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. --FormerIP (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've missed your contributions to MoMK but just noticed you'd commented on the new draft. I hope you'll continue to take an interest in the article. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hello, FormerIP. I have notified you since your username appears in the context of the complaint. SuperMarioMan 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has no partisan interest in the Jesus article, he was making a good faith offer as a disinterested party. Your response here violated WP:AGF and your insinuation, to someone acting transparently, amounts to a personal attack. Frankly, I think this should be reported at WP:WQA. I would rather you apologize to him/her and be more welcoming. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to an opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title says it all! Cheers! Bluewave (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

This edit was a bit too much, so I've removed it per WP:BLP. Please don't forget that BLP still applies on talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Perhaps I was getting a bit carried away. --FormerIP (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, in the event, but please bear it in mind in the future. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI FormerIP: Please see my response and the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves: Where I state: Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may not be showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to do this sort of thing without warning. I almost wet myself --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fair comment really, but you're probably right. I removed it, but he's re-inserted it. With some bolding.--FormerIP (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Snowded's point was that it was humorous. However, you were correct to remove it - it was a comment that shouldn't have been made. I'd chalk it up to experience and move on, with no real harm done - but be careful in future! TFOWR 12:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I think it was fair comment, but you are right that I was right to remove it (which is why I did). Snowded is also right that it was humorous. I've posted on your talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for me to say what Snowded intended, but my guess is that their comment was meant to be an appreciation of the humour. For what it's worth I don't see the remark as objectionable, but perhaps it's better to avoid such remarks, as others will see them that way. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you cleared up the issue of of whether or not your BO was causing poeple to stop AGF. I think the standerd of hygine on the page is deplorable, now where did I put Kavlin Klines essance of pole cat?Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry, I'll celebrate with a wash if we get to mediation.--FormerIP (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

(Don't worry too much about the above - it's just a pro-forma thing. Thank you for your useful and positive contributions on the talk page mentioned above!). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I knew there were sanctions but I foolishly hadn't read them yet, so you may have saved me from some future episode or other. --FormerIP (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Content in this article about the Holdomor, for example, should be about the Holdomor as it is viewed by proponents of the 'caused by the ideology of Communism' thesis"

I think this underscores one of the most fundamental problems with the article. In its inception, the article was to just be a list describing the killings which qualified as "Genocides" (by the Geneva convention, I think). Then a certain POV was inserted into the article, and it was broadened to include a nebulous "mass killings" concept. Then the POV was stiffened and the article started to be written to strongly suggest communism as the principal cause. Your comment seems to suggest that the transformation should be completed, and that the article should finally settle on just becoming an article to describe the "Communism linkage" theories, and strip out the attempt at listing incidents not connected to this linkage. Just giving you a bit of the history (based on my very limited understanding of it), so that you can see why your suggested seems to be new to the alternatives for the article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was just agreeing with TFD. I've been more-or-less ignoring the article for a while, but if I've inadvertently hit on something potential useful then I'm very glad.--FormerIP (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Did I get you right that you referred to the subject of an ANI thread as 'unstable'? Can't help but laugh at the sort of drama which erupts because WP is filled with too many morons, ignoramuses, and bipolar individuals, making collaboration so very tricky... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a banner in which an editor has a serious concern against consenus is disruptive on wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so in the future, as your actions do not show good faith. Thank you.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo, the banner is against consesus and also, IMO, a BLP violation because of the way you worded it. It is legimitmate to keep a banner up until a consenus disucssion has reached a conclusion. It is clear that this had already happened in this case before you added the banner. I would be careful, because I think a majority of admins, if polled, would think that your behaviour is disruptive at this point. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Al Gore

here you say that it should not be mentioned [[1]]. So I ask why do you now object to its removal?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said we should not say things that are not contained in the source. The source mentions it, though. --FormerIP (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the mis-understanding so we should not mincldue things the source does not say such as susgest that the EDL carried out the attack (which by iniclusion the page is doing, but which the source does not support)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source does suggest the EDL carried it out, but lets keep this discussion in one place. --FormerIP (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not how I read it, besides we can only say what sources explcitily support, but what we think they hint at.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One place. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing Bleach so quickly.. All the comments you have posted have been fixed and/or responded to. Also thanks for doing some copyediting throughout the page. CrowzRSA 17:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. [2] --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove either all references to fraud on the talkpage or none. Please avoid editing other users' comments unless there is some kind of pressing emergency, which there is clearly not in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only BLP violation I see is yours, nor do others' comments justify your behavior.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - BLP --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reintroduce [3] BLP-violating content without discussion and agreement from others that the material is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John2510, Tvoz, Peregrine Fisher all also use the word "fraud" or "fraudster". The person in question has been convicted of fraud, which is reported in numerous RS. There is no BLP issue here, please do not remove my comments from the talk page, please use WP:DR if you are not happy. --FormerIP (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for the latter term? None that I'm aware. Hence BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to get more colourful than "go away"? --FormerIP (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to make sure you knew exactly what the problem was, in case you want to dispute it. While I'm doing nothing improper myself, I'll do my best to respect your wishes that I not comment here further. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [4] --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. --FormerIP (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a new discussion ever gets started, make sure to give me a shout out about it. ^_^ Silverseren^C 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started a review of The Holy Bible (album) at Talk:The Holy Bible (album)/GA1. I think there's quite a lot of work to be done, so I have made an initial review to see what you can sort out first. I think the structure needs to change a bit, so I'll need to go over it again if that happens. Let me know if you have and comments/queries.--BelovedFreak 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replied to one comment of yours. I'm off to bed now, but I will have a good look at your replies tomorrow and comment in more detail where you have asked. I'm quite happy for you to question my comments/suggestions, and I'm hopeful that we can work on this together to get the article listed.--BelovedFreak 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I'm going to try to finish up the review tonight to either list the article, or let you know any final little tweaks that need to be done. --BelovedFreak 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have a look, but please don't finish the review just yet. There are some things I'm aware of that haven't been fixed yet (particularly sourcing), and I'm also intending to do somthing or other with regards to comments you made about the order of information and reviews (particularly in the lead, where I think this would be likely to fail the article). --FormerIP (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, don't panic! I want to take a proper look because I haven't really done so since I made my first comments. If there are still problems to iron out, that's ok.--BelovedFreak 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, I've finished the review and placed it on hold for a week or so while you address final remaining concerns. I've also answered your questions form yesterday on the review page.--BelovedFreak 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP is teaching me far more than my class ..

paper outline -

• Start of Slavery in America
• I must take in to account "social economic Issues" of the time period that led to Slavery -
• Who owned slaves - Example - Rich , Poor , What race ?
• We have to find sources and write about treatment of slaves
• The Teacher wants us to go outside of the Box and try and rise new issues not touched by main stream Thinkers - But at the same time it has to be a RS -
• One last thing we must list is the British and what role they played in the Civil War and slaves -

At least 2500 words -

• I am having a hard time because a lot of the wiki pages do not list sources although they should
• I am learning English still. I have only been in the states 4 years , I need a lot of work -
• Witch brought me to my problem I found that "Black Slave master book" Written By some one time Author
• Thank you for taking you time with me - I am a little hard headed -
• And yes I see that some of these Author do use the truth to hide behind -
• The truth is harder to find than the lies -
• also the Talk page I started out on. Do I have to leave a message letting others know what we found out ? I think what we found out is important for other Wiki Admin to know there are a lot of Wiki pages that uses Grooms as a source -

thank you once again for taking your time - --Kimmy (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you ----I got an ---------A - - -- -- although my teacher put a note on my paper and Asked should " Chomsky " be in the same boat -his books all appear in Nazi and KKK book list and on their websites ,Noam Chomsky Website also end up on 911 truhters websites - - --Kimmy (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I didn't notify you of that discussion earlier, was actually going to but hadn't got around to it! I'm actually thinking that it's not going to be a real issue for this article one way or another. I think the article is in a passable state even without the information in question, so even if it was temporarily removed before you find page numbers I'd be happy to pass it. To be honest though, I think the info is verifiable as it is, it'd just take a bit longer for someone to find it. I'm just hoping that maybe a couple more people will weigh in to give their opinions, as it'd be good to get some consensus on this for future reference.--BelovedFreak 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, following that discussion, I'm happy to list the article now. Obviously, the page numbers are desirable and I hope you can get hold of them, but it's ok without them. I guess it's similar to citing newspaper sources, that very often don't have a page number. Anyway, sorry this review has dragged on for so long, and thanks for all the hard work you've put into it. A final thought I had was it'd be nice if there were a couple of samples of the songs in there, especially as some of them are discussed at some length. Just a thought! Good luck with further developing the article.--BelovedFreak 10:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, While I fully measure the frustration that led to this, I'd appreciate if you would consider shortening the part about PhanuelB - I think at least part of the criticism, while legitimate, should be confined to a dialog with that user on their talk page; it may prove to be a bit of a distraction on the article's talk page. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have toned it down a bit. --FormerIP (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently taking time off wiki so I can concentrate on my senior year, so my responses to your comments on Bleach may be delayed... CrowzRSA 23:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK no probs Crowz. Come back when you're ready. Question though: some other people seem to be interested in the Bleach article. If they want to finish things off, will you be okay with that? --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be fine. If they don't I'll probably check back next Saturday as long as I don't get Saturday school again. CrowzRSA 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit removing mention of the Monster of Florence case. The reference provided clearly states that his conviction was for actions investigating this case. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to distance yourself from hattism? I hope you realise that there is no place for anti-hattist bigotry on Wikipedia. Stop the anti-hattist abuse now, or the consequences may be serious! Paul B (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go down the edit-warring road. I have made a Talk page comment there about not citing the Geoffrey Faber book in broad-brush terms, without page references. What you are placing in the article is an interpretation of the book, not content from the book. This is a substantive point in the discussion, and has now been raised twice on Talk:John Henry Newman. You need an adequate approach, not shuffling the material that was cut out as unjustified. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat confusing, editing on that page - let me make clear I'm happy to assume good faith on your part. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what edit you're referring to, but I've made two to that article. One was to restore the section when it was blanked, and one to remove the reference to Newman being "probably" a sublimated homosexual (preferring that any such claim be at least attributed). As I've indicated on the talkpage, I think using the word "sublimated" is unlikely to be appropriate, and none of my edits have been aimed at ensuring this goes in the article. On the other hand, I haven't read the book, so I don't feel informed enough to remove it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm here again to let you know everyhing has been fixed/responded to... CrowzRSA 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but... you haven't replied to the Bleach GA review since Aug 12. Can you please see if the article still needs work? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but part of the reason for that is that the nom hasn't posted there since a few days before that. I'll leave him a message tomorrow. --FormerIP (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see if Bleach can pass now? The other user that put some comments there said the result's still up to you. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, the headcount is here. If you want to find a neutral admin to weigh consensus in light of the whole discussion (I doubt it has changed), then please do so. But the head count is definitely in favor.--Chaser (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends who's doing the counting. Which means, by normal standards, there is not a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to update, dispute my count, or get a neutral third party to do either of those things.--Chaser (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't done by counting, it's done by getting a clear agreement, which there clearly isn't. We should go back to the status quo until there is. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is not a consensus, but of course both of us are biased. Get an admin to assess the discussion if you want to remove the note. It's as simple as dropping a neutrally worded note to WP:ANI and asking them to assess whether there is consensus to include the note.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the 'status quo' generally interpreted as what the situation was prior to it being changed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but it's normally designated as the being the situation before the material in question was added. There's a guideline for that, which I'll dig out if you think it's needed. --FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned to discuss reasons for not including the hatnote, given the arguments for its inclusion. What is actually wrong with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to international criticism of Israel, please could you read the sources provided and then decide whether it is disproportionate? Every single source, from both sides of the spectrum, say that it is, as do the numbers from the UN.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I agree this is a sensitive topic - I have tried to take it slowly and be very open on the talk page - I set out the key sources very clearly and gave editors a few days to comment. Separately I have done a lot of research and have not found any sources that suggest any opposition to the positions in the paragraphs. From all the work I have done, it seems absurd to have an article on Israel without covering this topic.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you wanted to polish it up (not that it even NEEDS to be--I don't mean to imply that--because it is very well thought out, IMO) and post it up yourself, that would be great!

If you agree this would be helpful, what should it be titled? <smiles!>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<responding to your ping pack on my pg..>Absolutely - take enough time to get it just right :~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wombat24 gave some input Wikipedia_talk:Merging#Criminal.E2.80.93Crime-for-which-noted here.

Something I would recommend is that the essay mention that in cases where the crime is not that serious, in a legal--or at least a moral--sense, but is very notable nonetheless, often the principles of the PSEUDO/pseudobiography guideline (I think it's a guideline) come into play so that a biography doesn't become a venue in which an otherwise unnotable unknown person become associated with something negative, that isn't really all that--quote, b-a-d. For example, John Yettaw, which redirects to "Suu Kyi trespasser incidents." Or, let's see: Shirley Sherrod? which redirects to "Resignation of Shirley Sherrod"? (Well, maybe not a very good example, because the reverse racism Sherrod was suspected of was never framed as a crime, per se, I don't think. Still, the principle of wp:pseudo would seem to apply there, 'cause if it was plopped into a regual blp for Sherrod, it would overwhelm it with its length and detail. Nonetheless, Sherrod would obviously merit her own blp if somebody wanted to split one off, though. Hmm---- )

Another factor that should be mentioned at least in passing in your essay is that until a criminal is convicted or unequivocally admits to a crime, a principle of wp:pseudo is almost automatically assumed to be in operation, I think; that is, unless there are compelling circumstances pulling back in the opposite direction.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also try to answer the question, When might it perhaps be considered best to use in titles

• "homicide of ----"?

  (eg, the following, which I didn't comb through to see if any are only redirects: Homicide of Annie Le,

Homicide of Derrion Albert,Homicide of Michael Jackson, Homicide of Brian Deneke ... )--

• "murder of ----"?

  (Murder of Stephen Lawrence, Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Victoria Climbié, Murder of Sarah Payne, Murder of Emmett Till, Murder of James Byrd, Jr., Murder of Kitty Genovese, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Adam Walsh ... ),

        ("murders of ----")?

  (Anyang child murders, Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings, Murders of Paul Anlauf and Franz Lenck, Murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores, Murders of Adam Lloyd and Vanessa Arscott)

• "killing of ----"?

  (Killing of British tourists in Yemen, Killing of David Wilkie, Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Killing of David Coughlin, Killing of a Flashboy, Killing of Jackson, Killing of Lawrence King ... ),

• "death of ----"?

  (Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Death of Michael Jackson, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Death of David Kelly, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of John Lennon, Death of Jesus, Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan ... )

• "assassination of ----"?

  (Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria,

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Assassination of Julius Caesar, Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Assassination of William McKinley, Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman)

• "shooting/lynching/stabbling/poisoning, etc., of ----"?

  (Shooting of the Romanov family, Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah, Shooting of Hosie Miller, Shooting of the Century, Shooting of John Lennon, Shooting of John F. Kennedy, Shooting of Latasha Harlins ... ... ... )

• etc.

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to cmt on my talk): Yep, WP should be conservative in choosing words or assigning labels with specific legal definitions (--eg someone beginning an article such as Assassination of George Tiller should be guided to be careful when deciding whether to call the homicide a murder or whether to cover the crime in a blp of its alleged perpetrator, Scott Roeder, and so forth).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Rsp to cmt on my Talk): I just read it--really, really excellent!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed part of an edit made AFTER the rS discussion was started. In fact, the "political" section was not present until Gr8opinionator added it less than 10 minutes ago. So much for me "tampering" with it, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. It's really helpful. Please do keep an eye on this - there are some very determined editors trying to sanitise this entry and strip out very well documented material.David r from meth productions (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your agreement that this material belongs in the entry. I'd really appreciate any intervention on the discussion page suggesting a way to include it that would best match the wikipedia guidance.David r from meth productions (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Germán Serrano Pinto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Mastiksoul. I disagree with the speedy deletion of Mastiksoulbecause page had previously been through afd, which concluded that there was notability. You should therefore not retag Mastiksoul for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Moshe Mordechai Eichenstein, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Saad Albazei, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Nancy ^talk 15:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...For reverting that oh-so-clever bit of vandalism from my talk page; I really appreciate this! I look forward to editing with you again! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what we are in dispute about. Marcus Qwertyus 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only changes that require consensus are changes that actually change the meaning of the policy not making simple grammar changes. Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy criterion is "no indication of importance or significance" If there is any plausible indication as with Mavrov Gennady Ivanivich, then its a question for prod or AfD, not speedy. As for his actual notability, it would depend on his publications or administrative position, according to WP:PROF, so his publication record would have to be found & examined. I'm not sure about how that will go, but it is not a speedy.

And, when you place a speedy tag on an article, you must say so explicitly in the edit summary-- an edit summary of tag is not sufficient. This also goes for proposed deletion or AfD--you must say so in the edit summary. (for that matter, when you tag for anything, it helps to say in the edit summary what the tag was--it facilitates work on the article).

I notice others have commented similarly above. In order to use the right procedure, and get articles deleted that ought to be deleted, and kept that ought to be kept, it might help to read carefully WP:CSD, andWP:Deletion policy DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormerIP. I've just read your message and I'd like to help you, but I don't understand how. Do you need the translation of a sentence from Italian into English ? Moreover I am not very keen on legale subjects ...--Alessandroga80 (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at [[User talk:McMarcoP (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)|User talk:McMarcoP (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

why the your sudden interest in adding a negative touch to Fred Hofheinz's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why should i get blocked for editing inaccurate, misleading information? wikipedia was founded to promote free circulation of info, accurate info. Many sources available to support what I am saying...For example.... http://www.houstonpress.com/content/printVersion/223971/ Very strange that you should feel so strongly about this when all you have to do is google to see that the guilty plea was for failing to inform... Maybe you are the one who should be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

at wp:CRIME / wp:CRIMINAL (I had to redo those shortcuts so that they no longer redirected to the Criminal Wikiproject, making new shortcuts at wp:CRIMEPROJ / wp:CRIMINALPROJ to take their place)--and I'll wait to see if anybody complains!