User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives5

Hi CLU, about the UN article....

I'm certain that there are lots of folks who would like to trash the UN article, but I'm not one of them. I was halfway through editing the article when you reverted. I've since completed my edit, and opened a new topic on the article's talk page at: Talk about the UN article Intro. Thanks for the heads-up note on my talk page. Scott P. (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered Here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, use an RFC. That is impartial. Not an appeal to one of your friends over here to back you up. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked an editor to look at our edits. YOU are inserting YOUR POV. Cite a source that the UN is not doing it's job. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Slade

The reply I recieved from the wikipedian who questioned notability stated the limited amount of sources were the problem. I have added more references to the articles in question. Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you may not remove the request. It must be reviewed. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not simply undo the last change as references have been made Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again.... you may not simply remove the request for deletion. It must be reviewed. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, what I am saying is that new references were made in the last edit and therefore if the last change is undone to bring the notice back then the references are also lost. I am bringing the undoing to bring references back and then adding the notice. Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to budge in. Ajsmith141 is encouraged, but does not have to do anything to remove a PROD. Please read WP:CONTESTED. --Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

She can fix the article of course... but one may not simply remove the Wikipedia:PROD as was done here here, etc. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes she can, read the link Muhandes gave you. Yoenit (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CanadianLinuxUser, I'm afraid the policy is very clear, and it does not agree with you. Let me quote: To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also: ...

Thus, while not encouraged to do so, Ajsmith141 can simply remove the tag. Also, the same policy: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. So please don't restore the tags. --Muhandes (talk)

You were probably thinking of speedy deletions, which may not be removed by the article creator. Prods are different as Muhandes explained above. Yoenit (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Grrrrr... I completely mis-interpreted the policy. You are correct. **Bangs head on table in ignorance** CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the other place, all those different deletion methods (WP:speedy, WP:PROD, WP:AfD) are confusing until you remember what is what. It happens. Best regards and happy editing to all. --Muhandes (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Starchild_skull

Just to make sure things here are on the up and up [1] cause it looks weird.

It looks like you rejected pending edits by an IP and then reverted yourself to reinsert the IP edit, and the "pending changes" held up enacting your self revert. I accepted your self revert but am wondering if that was appropriate and the IP edits should be accepted into an article that is generally a magnet for trouble. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And upon looking more closely at the actual content, I have reverted to the version prior to the IP edit - the edit appeared to place WP:OR based on WP:FRINGEY science right up in the lead where it should not be. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean.... In the beginning I was going to reject... then it looked fine... and I agree.... VERY WP:Fringe. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI regarding IP edit warring on Cooper City High School

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:98.249.235.126_reported_by_User:Reyk_.28Result:_.29 Reyk _YO! 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2000pop, 2010pop? etc.

In reference to the state stats template (see Florida) ... The "2000Pop", "2000Density", etc. lines are referencing the format and not the source of the data ... although, the etymology could be referencing the 2000 census. Unfortunately we can't change the label to fit the source. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oooops got it. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD tags may certainly be removed

If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. is from WP:PROD.

Thus, removal of the PROD tag is precisely how the WP:PROD system works, and removal of such a tag is proper and should not be reverted. And, in fact, since reverting the tag is making it "re-proposed", the replacement of the PROD tag is what is improper. I think that is clear - if you wish to propose an article for deletion at that point, you need to use AfD. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok... thanks... but that was taken care of 4 days ago... I had a mixup in my brain of (WP:speedy, WP:PROD, WP:AfD) , which I keep handy now to be certain I do not mix them up. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Grin - absolutely no problem at all -- it was just something which showed up on a page on my watchlist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi, I see you are one of the active reviewers, and it's very nice to meet you in articles under pending changes. But there is just one small thing: In case of obvious vandalism, do not reject, but try reverting and then leave a warning message for the vandals in their talk pages. I hope we could cooperate much more, and it's very nice to see you around. Just leave me a message. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what type of vandal we are dealing with... one who "collects" warnings or one who is intimidated by warnings... for the collector I simply try and ignore him. I should maybe try to send more warnings... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are very kind. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

timing issue?

I'm trying to figure out if that's why you removed my warning. It's okay, this isn't a critique of your actions and the removal is fine. I intentionally elevated from a level 1 to a level 3 warning after seeing this is a persistent vandal but my timing was off. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Urrk... we were attacking the same vandal at the same time... and like you said timing issues... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite alright. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Hi.

You reverted me because you thought I might vandalise the article Justin Bieber.

What I was doing was adding a piece of an interview with Justin Bieber's mother.

I certainly didn't mean to vandalise.

The article's text before I added information was this:

"God, I gave him to you. You could send me a Christian man, a Christian label! "

Thi was without mentioning why Justin's mother would be reluctant and why she would say that Bieber's manager, Scooter Braun is not Christian. The fact is that he is not Christian but Jewish. In fact, this information was included in the reference in NY times (see it here)

It was not vandalism. Please don't revert me this time. Many, many thanks.

Spatulli (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I now see what you mean... I'll let someone else figure out if it's notable enough to be mentioned. By instinct says no.. but I'll see what others think. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

CAn you please give me a motivation for this? (Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

"Because of his origin he..." Is that not a personal opinion? Not a statement of fact? He was named.... that is fact.... "Because of his origin he..." opinion...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope this reference that I've added to the article is sufficient (Iaaasi (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Excellent... thanks for the information. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed block

Hi, I think its time that the IP-user who have done disruptive edits on the Home invasion in Connecticut to be blocked for a longer time then before. The user doesnt seem to have a clue about how the Wikipedia works and I have a hard time believing the IP-user will be productive in the future either. You haver my blessing to report the user for a heavier blocking.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reported. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. He just did a nonsense edit on my talk page too.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an IP-adress who has been posting a very immature comment on my talk page which I deleted and warned. But now I am starting to believe its the same person that you got blocked yesterday. Only this time he is using another IP, you can check the comment out it definitly fits the IP MO with childish commentary. Perhaps a report for sockpuppeting.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to inform you that the IP-user is back but under a Username Lehavre doing the same vandalism as before. I propose a block if the user continues.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also added two sources which provides the facts that he was found on the porch and not the family room which the user has claimed all along.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates

Hi there. When adding a warning template to a user's talk page, please remember to use substitution on the template rather than simply transcluding it. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I won't demean you by templating a regular, but see {{uw-subst}} for the reasons. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahir-ul-Qadri page

I noted that you have accepted all the vandalism and full quotations which are NOT true nor have any backing. The references are incorrect. It is also an attack on the person. This text was added as part of a smear campaign against Tahir-ul-Qadri. Reviewers like yourself have accepted the additions and have included the smear campaign on this page.

Can you review the section "Views on an Islamic State" based on Wiki policy

As was mentioned when you reported me for vandalism, content dispute is not vandalism. Take your discussion to the Tahir-ul-Qadri talk page please. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realise that it was you. I figured it out later that the person who valdalised this page by adding non-sense using an IP address 81.106.81.37. But this is now part of the page with completely wrong references which are not his views. How can you help remove that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.251.71 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

seems notable

Hi, yes perhaps although for a man that spends his life speaking and depating there is nothing to really explain why it was notable - I would be more inclined to support it if the external was active and I was unable to find it through wayback searches and at the externals search engine ? Also criticism and controversy is a bit of an opinionated header to have some of that content under, I like to get headers as NPOV as possible. Perhaps you can find this article to properly access it as it is just a front page redirect at present. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On 7 March 2010 Naik participated in a live discussion with Soha Ali Khan and others on a TV show We The People on NDTV.http://www.risingkashmir.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=21580

Rising Kashmir, Daily Newspaper, Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir - The problem of being Naik] by Dr Javaid Iqbal Bhat</ref>

• - Just as a note - pending protection is really helping at that article, it was a real mess with supporters and opponents adding all and sundry to it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

cquote

Hi. Please note that the {{cquote}} template already includes a set of graphic double quotes. There's no need to add them to the text as you did at Quenya. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks...

for the reverting the sophomoric edit to my user page.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was in the neighborhood... :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And another thanks for reporting this new account to the "Username for Admn Attn" page. I headed there after seeing your revert on J's page and was pleased to see that you had already posted the required info. Obviously not someone who plans to contribute positively to WikiP and your prompt action should help in showing them the door. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All part of the service **tips hat** CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

/* note - BLPN - */

Hi, just a note to let you know an IP has suggested a COI at runner article - the thread is here at the BLP noticeboard , regards Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing my user page

I see no reason to remove the mention of my website from my user page. From WP:UPNO, the only items that are relevant are

• Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
• Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.
• Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia.

I don't see a passing mention (to establish who I am) as advertising; furthermore, it wasn't even a link. Is mentioning that I'm a student at Princeton an advertisement for Princeton? I don't think so. The information was not "extensive", "inappropriate", or "excessive", so these do not apply either. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussions here: [2] Smogon is not notable. Please consult WP:UP#NOT CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no choice but to assume you are not acting in good faith. Please don't edit my user page again. If you really think it is a problem, use the dispute resolution process or contact an administrator. Thanks. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested, I have created a WP:COI CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)