User talk:Rrburke/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Rrburke/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jkelly 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TS Eliot Prejudice?

Hi, I noticed your removed a lot of material regarding Eliot and Jews with the note: Prejudice? I presume you meant the people making the comments you removed were prejudiced. However, this is not a reason for removing the comments, though it might be a reason for pointing out why they were making them. The fact that they made them is a reality and should be recorded from a NPOV. I'm not going to put them back, but maybe you should have another look. Tyrenius 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I don't know what happened there. It was actually User:Krestinky02.

Tyrenius 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Drake

Hiya mate it's the grave nearest in the shot and closest to the tree, very noce it is too, there is standard description on the front and the quote from his song on the rear. Cheers Robdav69 21:50, 6 August 2006

AFD[1]

Your opinion please. Thanks RaveenS

Andy Park (musician)

Why this page is for speeky deletion? There is no reason! Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it better like this? He has made a important contribution in the vineyard music, I think he deserve an article... Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for tagging so many not clearly notable bands as candidates for speedy deletion! We can use all the help we need with the deletion of bandcruft (although I disagree with you about Glass casket). Just one small thing: could you use an edit summary like "suggest deletion" or "db-band" when you tag? It makes it easier for people watching the entry to see that something important might happen to their article. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Christmas on the environment

Please see [2]. Wavelength 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email address

Would you mind confirming it on Wikipedia under my preferences? ;-) This is in regards to the message you left me yesterday. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been indefinitely blocked for obvious trolling, and I'll leave it at that due to the sensitive nature of this issue. Your email authentication may have failed if you clicked twice to send a confirmation email; give it a second try and let me know what happens! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Us versus Them

I'm sorry, I don't really see the "assertion of notability" there. We have an upcoming album with no label mentioned, and a planned tour that hasn't happened yet. They've been around since 1999. Myspace downloads don't count under the standards (and are unverifiable), and all bands claim an unspecified large fanbase. Nothing that seems to assert any qualification under WP:MUSIC. Fan-1967 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BCW Article

Hi,

Please could you create a new article for the BCW backyard wrestling federation. Thanks.

Martin Bean British Championship Wrestling (BCW) webmaster

Le Ballet deletion

Dion's Le Ballet is a single from her D'eux album that is the best-selling French album of all time. Dion in this album and song incorporate influences ranging from Continental pop and folk music jazz and '70s soul. I think it's a important song in her discography. It's considered a hit from her french career.

Tronix 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for letting me know. The answer is yes of course you can. In fact, always bear in mind that we're all here on a wiki. This means with a "few" well marked exceptions, you are free to edit anything you like. Nonadmins even quite often close things as wild as AFD debates (of course they cant do the deletion but that's what we're here for :) ). So, no doubt the post has gone now but absolutely, please edit whatever you can if it's going to improve or assist others. Keep up the great work! Glen 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Decision not to block 68.185.199.64

Being an IP, it is quite possibly shared. The returning vandalism was yesterday, and therefore not an immediate problem that needs dealing with now. As the article being vandalised was different it was not obvious that it was the same vandal (though looking more closely at the contribs I know see that it is possible). If it is clearly the same person returning and the IP doesn't appear to be shared, then yes I would block without further warnings, but if there is a reasonable chance this isn't the case a warning is more appropriate before a block. Petros471 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathon, not Johnathan

The name is correctly spelled "Johnathon", with an "o". This is the name given in every one of the recent media reports listed in the article, as well as the name used in the URL for the memorial website created by Johnathon's mother, who would presumably know best.

The "a" spelling is definitely what was used during the trial under the publication ban, but is not the correct spelling of his first name.

See for example this CBC story and note the various spellings [3]:

Johnathon Madden, had previously been known in the public eye only as "Johnathan."

So, I propose the reverse: we incorporate the content from Johnathan Madden into Johnathon Madden. We should maybe also mention the spelling issue somewhere, because I honestly didn't notice the difference when writing the article. --Saforrest 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: turning the stub into a redirect -- sounds good. As for the spelling discrepancy, I don't know. A couple of wild ideas occurred to me, but the most likely is simple error on the part of a court stenographer, or some media person. What's odd is that they did get the eccentric extra 'h' part right (i.e. not "Jonathan"). --Saforrest 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that the media were so remarkably consistent in their spelling choice: any utility the misspelling might have had for hiding his identity would be vastly exceeded by simply calling him "John Doe".

On the other stuff, hmm, I'm from Dundas originally (though I only moved back to the Hamilton area recently). On coincidences, actually I live near James and Aberdeen, and bought my copy of today's Globe from a newsstand at St. Joe's. Certainly nothing to compare to your "small world" story, though! --Saforrest 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal 64.14.194.26 has returned

You said: "You previously blocked this user on Sept 27th for 48 hours. Since he has returned on Sept 29th he has made several nonsense edits and some blankings I am in the course of reverting. Perhaps you would consider re-blocking him for a longer period."

Done. --Yamla 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

No, I figured it out. The images are just like some of the other library of congress images, the image links are non-permenent. I added a link that I can be quite confident will lead you almost directly to the image until they change their system. --Kevin_b_er 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your concern about using "killed" in the main article -- I was actually aiming to flush out the removal tags, not specifically to revert changing the work "murder" back. Reviewing now, since there wasn't really any edit summary or discussion on the talk page about that change, I think it wasn't harmful. I agree your new wording is more appropriate for the context. Cantankrus 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments in the Einsatzgruppe article. I'm not sure if you saw, but our friend Nazrac decided to pay a not so assuming good faith visit to my talk page. Funny that my sole edit to the article is policing -- I must have forgetten that I was inducted into some conspiracy. :) Cantankrus 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, just letting you know. Cantankrus 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Our friend Nazrac is back, this time commenting to me about an edit you made on the Einsatzgruppe article, I believe. I'm not sure if he is simply confused or thinks we are sock puppets, but I haven't edited that article in quite some time, not even on the talk page. It's quite amusing, with the same silly conspiracy sprinkled throughout. I'm not sure if his personal attack is centered on you or me, or if he's just confused as to which one is which. I thought I'd let you know. :) Cantankrus 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tony Judt

TJ wrote "anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me)" where me equals him, thus according to his own words he was accused of being anti-Semite. Also, from NYS article: "Judt have claimed that debate on the U.S.-Israel relationship is squelched by false accusations of anti-Semitism". Btw, I wonder if you could look at Talk:Tadeusz Hołówko where we were recently discussing the claims backed by sources citing sources citing sources being translated in each step :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a nice ref to include in the article, but you are right the wording was not correct. Feel free to readd it with better wording. Regarding TH, it's a case where one A quotes B quoting (or describing) C, where all other sources we have disagree with A.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the update!--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kids on TV

Hey there! I found this article to assert just about enough notability that it toes the line of a non-speedy (since they've work with some notable people, and in a movie, and they have a large number of *shudder* google hits). However, I'm sure you can {{prod}} it, or maybe an AFD. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC) PS sorry I had approved you awhile a go but while sending out approvals the system crashed and I was unsure of who had recieved the proper welcome.[reply]

What version of VP do you have? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go that is the problem you are using VP 1.2.2 and I have approved you for 1.3. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your not going wrong, vp 1.3 is not "Officail" released but we are registering and moving people over from 1.2.2 if you look in my vp welcome that will have a link to the downloads. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Runtime Error - VP 1.3

Thanks a lot! VandalProof has long since stopped being able to work for me, but I'm eagerly awaiting the final release of 1.3 so I can try again! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Semi-protection isn't about admin involvement in a content dispute but rather to deal with repetitive edits by individual who refuse to discuss changes on the talk page. The editor isn't adding any information, merely POV'ing existing information and removing others. Your response on the talk page is exemplary since is shows clearly the edits are strange and contentious. If he does it again without engaging in discussion then submit a request for semi-protection. You can do so here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. BTW your not [4] are you? I know that guy. --Deodar 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

No problemo. Sometimes I follow behind AntiVandalBot [5] to try to clean up after those who are doing damage somewhat under the radar. Feel free to join in...until Tawker figure out how to bot the warnings as well. Thanks for the good work you have been doing.

Oh...while I am here, I use the following as my personal warning system, although I am sure you have your own:

==Editing Concerns==

#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

I like the way it makes it easier to tell that all 4 warnings have been given prior to a first block. Kukini 02:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users

When a user has been indef blocked for vandalism it is often best to just leave the user's page alone. If the user writes junk or what not on it the user is at least not making a new account to vandalize. That said, there is no need to re-add personal attacks if another user has seen fit to remove them. JoshuaZ 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts in Israel article

Hi, RR. There's no serious doubt that the Palestinians were terrorised from their homes (when they weren't beaten from them, or, in a few cases, massacred in them). The evidence for it is ample, everyone seriously interested knows that it's true, the only problem is keeping it on view.

And I don't think there's any real argument for keeping some reference to this out of the article on Israel. Israel is practically defined by the problems it has with its neighbours, one cannot gloss over the events which started it.

Having said which, I'm not sure how to usefully contribute on that talk-page for the moment!

PalestineRemembered 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to add - other than to suggest the problem is even more acute than what you've described. Because if I was attempting to put "Palestinian POV" into this article I'd be saying "It makes no difference why they left their homes, they have an absolute legal and moral right to return to them". All I was actually doing with Morris and Khalidi was attempting to confront unsourced material that looks very much like propaganda.

There is one thing that fair-minded observers could do, which is to clarify whether Shmuel Katz is truly WP:RS. He appears to have been a militant (member of Lehi) and a professional propagandist. I think he's still alive, but he doesn't appear to have any qualifications, quotes from fairly well discredited others (particularily Joan Peters) and doesn't appear to have added anything to our knowledge of what happened. For instance, I see this block quote from him being repeatedly inserted at Palestinian refugee:

"The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."

There is so much else that's severely POV in that last article I don't know where to start! I'd really appreciate your advice on improving this article. Life is too short for edit-wars, yet that seems to be what I'm faced with if any of my (usually careful) work is to be included.

PalestineRemembered 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalSniper

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising

Hi there, I noticed your edit comment at "Lack of outside support" and took the liberty to revert. While generally you're right and the edit summary of the user you reverted suggested it's sort of a folk tale (my daddy told me once...), in this very case the info he added is neither controversial nor obscure. In fact it's easily verifiable. Just let me know should you want me to add some references. //Halibu tt 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article in question is a splinter from the main Warsaw Uprising, which is not sufficiently sourced either, but will be in the future (there are more such tasks pending). //Halibu tt 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet :) But seriously, in the past we (I mean a group of Poland-related editors) have promoted several articles to FA status, some of them in the times when nobody added references to articles on WP. Now the standards have changed (improved) and it is quite a task to back-source, so yo say, all of our FAs. Among those on the top of the list are Virtuti Militari and Polish-Soviet War. I guess Warsaw Uprising goes next, though when I think of it now, we shouldn't have been dividing it in the first place. //Halibu tt 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Protection of Palestinian refugee

Hi... I note that the version of Palestinian refugee you protected includes the long block quote which is the subject of the edit war. Might it have been better to effect this pause at a point when this disputed addition was not included, pending a consensus on whether it merits inclusion? --Rrburke 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Concensus would solve the issue through discussion at the talk page. If there would be no discussion w/in 48 hours i'll unprotect it. -- Szvest 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

Mozzarella

Just leave the user alone. As long as its vandalizing its own talk page it isn't vandalizing Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Refugee

Thanks for your kind words. I'd love to help. I've also sent you an e-mail outlining my ideas about who might be useful in solving the issues, and mentioned a couple of other names I think you should consider. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian music

Please explain on the article's talk page why you added the Expert tag. What are you looking for? Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:159.105.80.92

From what I can tell he is a disruptive Holocaust denier. Any warning will do; you could point him to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and suggest he needs to start following them, as his Talk: page use is disruptive, and Wikipedia is not a debating board. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Arar

Please see my comments. Thank you.

Ernst Zundel - Talk

Sorry for that; it was an unintended revert. I must have missed the overwrite warning. 159 is a great tool, as he has so much nonsense and is so easy to refute. I'll read the using talk pages link -- I do try not to keep trolls going, but 159 is more a hit and run poster then a true troll. Cantankrus 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue revert to Jaca

Hi, I just made a quick edit to Jaca and got a message saying that it had been reverted (apparently by STBot using VP). I believe this edit should not have been reverted, and am therefore contacting you. :-) The edit was legit, and there was no need to revert it. I re-reverted, and things are apparently okay now. Have a good one. -- 201.50.246.69 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult Wikipedia:Disambiguation on proper procedure for resolving ambiguity. --Rrburke 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Reverts/Threats to Block for Content Dispute

Since you do not want me communicating on your user page, please respond on mine or on the Fraulein discussion page. I apologize if I offended you, but I am not going to allow you to accuse me of vandalism because of a content dispute.