Misplaced Pages

User talk:Colonel Warden

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 29 December 2008 (consolidate teletubbies msgs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:41, 29 December 2008 by Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (consolidate teletubbies msgs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Abstract nonsense

Thanks for your comment. I think I did more than most people participating in this discussion to improve the actual article. Some sources were mentioned at the deletion page discussion, please try to include them at abstract nonsense when you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Aslan's How

Just so you are aware, I have warned the user "Pcap" regarding his/her response to you re: the books you cited on the AFD for Aslan's How. which I felt was a WP:FAITH violation. 23skidoo (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Asshole

i see ya tried ta get tha page of ASSHOLE delered there! no luck ! ha ha ya fuckin chancer! ya jumped the fence there baby! 86.43.213.54 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • You are well informed as I had quite forgotten and that article's talk page did not properly link to the discussion. I have corrected this and will also add to the article itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda

May I ask about the rationale behind this edit? JSR (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The removal was mostly unsourced stuff and replacing of sourced material with some of the best citations available. I worked hard on the draft; Read it when you find time and compare it with this version. Please let me know what you think on your talk page afterward. Good day JSR (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at the ledes when comparing both versions and your version seemed too sparse for such a major topic. In any case, you need to prepare the ground for such a major update by discussion on the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Nicely said, Will try and improve later. Also will try and reach consensus. Thanks. JSR (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Beating up

The article has been reduced to a disambig page, please renew your comments BMW(drive) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat names

Hello! I was able to source an article under discussion if you could perhaps reconsider there? Best, --A Nobody 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Darius Guppy

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Roll the dice.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? H.G. 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Davidruben Rfc

May I ask for a favor to certify at that you tried to resolve dispute with DavidRuben? Please sign at Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Of course please feel free to comment or support. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Depression

At depression you have stated that you oppose its nomination. I do not know if you have taken part in any other FA candidacy; but since the problems you say can be fixed I thought that you migth not know that you can 'comment and wait some time to see if the problems are fixed; and only then give your oppose or support vote It would also be of much use if you specifically said which sections or sentences had the problems you see.With this I do not want in any case to change your vote but only working on good faith presumption to give you an option that I am not sure if you knew. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no previous experience of this process but made some comments in some other portion of the process earlier. One of those - concerning the map - does not seem to have been addressed. I don't have much time for this but, generally, my impression is that the article still has significant work to be done and so is not ready for the FA stamp. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, best regards
  • Reading up on the process at WP:FAC#Supporting and opposing, I gather that substantive objections are usually accompanied by Oppose or Object and that they are stricken out as and when they are satisfied. I'll flesh out my list of specifics when time permits but note that the following editor has now touched on several points which I had in mind and I find his views to be generally in accordance with mine. I'm still not quite sure why he chooses to summarise his points as Comment rather than Object but suppose that the difference is mainly a nicety. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Who do you mean with the following editor? Regarding oppose/comment: comment is far more common right now, and specially when actions are not too difficult to follow; since it transmits the sense that you have not decided your vote yet and that it depends on actions taken. That list would be most welcomed; so as to ease improvement. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I also have to add that Casliber has made some efforts to reduce jargon, and if you give specific point where it appears I am sure he will try to improve it even more.--Garrondo (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditchkins

I was listening to this year's Dwight H. Terry Lectureship from Yale University (Terry Eagleton's]) and I kept hearing this name what I thought, to me, was a new one. It turns out its a hybrid of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A google search turns up eight (good?) hits: Ditchkins. What would be your view on an article on Ditchkins? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sources indicate that only Eagleton uses this and so it might be worth a mention in our article about him. I doubt that there's enough material for a separate article - just a redirect would do. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. thanks.--Firefly322 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, Yale professor (Dennis Turner did so) also uses the term. Does that make it notable enough perhaps? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm tolerant of any good faith article but the chances of such an article surviving AFD seem small currently. I suggest keeping your eyes open for more references and coming back when you see a good source to base the article upon. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragonette reporting for duty

I want to join the ranks of people who care about content creation and would rather take 30 seconds to do a google search and 5 minutes to add a ref and text, than drop a turd-like textbox (on articles/content that the fookers don't even know/care about.) I might give the dragon club a bad name as I tend to act up a bit, especially with Tanqueray in my belly. TCO (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your user page. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dublin streets

Hi - you wrote: FYI, I have proposed deletion of this redirect...

Heh. Good luck. last time this redirect was proposed for deletion it was kept - even though I (as writer of the essay) said I had no objection to its deletion!. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you check Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clyde Road? DGG (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of your multi-pronged assault on my commonsense policy. --Balloholic (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exchange of women

Thank you for pointing out the improvements in the article. I would like you to know, though, that I never thought it was a weak article: I thought it was a bad article, worthy of deletion. I do understand the WP policy, and I see an editor's job in AfD discussions, if the article in question has problems, as having to weigh whether something is a weak article that needs improvement or a bad article (for a variety of reasons, of course) that needs to be deleted. You see, I don't think that a good title/topic is enough, and some contributors, and I sense this in this particular article, churn out less-than-average articles leaving it to other editors to clean it up. You have rewritten significant chunks of the article, and I applaud you for doing so--you have probably saved it. I do think the topic is worthwhile, but I also think it should have stayed in the sandbox a bit longer. If all contributors paid as much attention as you do, our AfD discussions would be a lot shorter. Thanks again, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary A. Kowalski

This is an attack on a good faith editor and his actions. Please consider retracting the statement. Per previous warnings about your behavior, you should tread carefully. OrangeMarlin 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At least three of us read it differently. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Guacamole

I have undone one of your recent edits to guacamole per WP:crystal:

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen."

Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no OR since the material was well-sourced but I agree that we should avoid speculative content and will rewrite to address this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please seek consensus at talk:pea and talk:guacamole before continuing to re-insert material into Guacamole. Your unilateral editing and ignoring talk pages is not constructive at all. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Interposting) I've reviewed the Hell edit history. 2 reverts per WP:3RR is not an edit war. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
When using the undo function it is both courteous and desirable to leave enhanced edit summaries as to why you are undoing a particluar edit, unless it is simple vandalism. I'd urge you to do this in the future rather than blindly revert, as the above warning is indicative of what may occur without such information. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(Interposting) There was no edit war. Going along with this so called "warning", which is actually either a mistake or a dishonest comment, does no favor for the wikipedia project. I would advise Pedro to disengage from such moral hazards in the future. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, edit summaries are not for discussion. They are to summarise the edit. When reverting in a content dispute simply using undo with no explanation at all other than the default can be counter productive. The point that Firefly appears to be missing is that I agree the above warning was incorrect, however if you had used a more detailed description in your reverts then it is more likely that it would not have been put here in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, there may be many points that I am missing here. All the same, per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Apologizing you should be offering Colonel Warden an apology instead you continue to engaged in a dialogue that Colonel Warden has identified as WP:HARASSment. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find, Firefly, that Colonel Warden made the harrasment reference to Toddst1. I'm so pleased you acknowledge there are points you are missing. You are correct in this. I have done nothing but point out why the template may have been added, and that I believe it was added in error. Pedro :  Chat  12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the original warning is very suspicious indeed and not justified, that it's best to use explanatory edit summaries at all times, that editors are free to decide it's too much hassle, and that it's not very polite to get into a fight over a misunderstanding on another editor's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well said, and apologies to Colonel Warden for carrying this out on his talk. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Adler's comment was possibly acceptable until "not very polite to get into a fight over a misunderstanding on another editor's talk page," where upon the commentary becomes errant nonsense sort of value judgement that all too common. Pedro's comment engages in another moral hazard. Sigh. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

Your thoughts on current (modified) article would be appreciated. Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I took a look but I don't know enough of these languages or phonetics to be able to make much of it. The AFD won't close for 5 days or so so I'll take another look before then and withdraw if it seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

You seem to have walked into the middle of our little edit dispute over at inflation, so I thought I should give you a heads up about what's going on.

Inflation is watched over by several Econ wikiproject members. Many of us have PhDs in economics and are in academia. We're trying to improve the econ articles so that they are at least undergrad text book quality, but you'ld be surprised how many people we have to fight over basic facts about economics.

Pennyseven showed up about a week ago, and has editing the Inflation page intensively and exclusively. He's been making some strange additions that all work back to a particular POV - that accounting values need to be corrected for inflation otherwise BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This POV has been pushed before, I could point you to some conversations on my talk page, and some earlier disputes on the Inflation page, but here's something from another econ wikiproject member on the inflation talk page that sums up our reservations.

I'll be upfront on this: I believe Pennyseven is yet another sockpuppet of Nicolaas Smith, who is indefinitely blocked and has a long record of attacks and disruptive editing. (AKA Kjkkjjk or whatever, X-1111, Pacluc, etc ad nauseum). The obsession is to push this point, and his (applied for patent) RealValueAccounting and text (i.e. conflict of interest).

Radeksz ‎has been working with the wikiproject for some time. He's extremely knowledgeable and is a good editor that does good work. He usually engages on the talk page before making changes. Its just that we're getting tired constantly fighting POV pushers, and so we get a bit brusque when another one shows up.

lk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Adjusting nominal values to allow for inflation is standard practise in many fields and it seems appropriate that this article should say something about this. No doubt the devil is in the details and I shall study them more closely. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:PennySeven showed up about 10 days ago, and has been impolite to quite a few editors. We gave him leeway cause we didn't want to bite the newbie. But a pattern has emerged. Pennyseven is a WP:SPA that edits only the Inflation article, and consistently pushes only one point, that inflation degrades accounting values and must be corrected. This point has been pushed by a banned user before. The trouble with his edits is not that it's not true, it's that he doesn't source it to reliable sources that directly support his claim, and also that he wishes to put undue weight on it. There was discussion earlier among several editors, and all agreed that it Pennyseven's version placed undue weight. He reverts to it anyway. Check out the page history and talk history for yourself. You're on the wrong side here. lk (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To my satisfaction I found many sources on the net.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. It was decisive.PennySeven (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Standard accounting does not have a CPI adjust. Of course CPI does occur and it is a significant aspect in the cost of money. But an article on standard accounting, should be on standard accounting. TCO (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of bowtie wearers

Collapsed for courtesy

This is amounts to a legal threat. I've blocked you pending retraction. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
  • My comment in the email was meant to be a friendly warning to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry who perhaps did not appreciate the risk of advertising his employer so publically. I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment. The general purpose of my email was to encourage User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to withdraw his AFD nomination in his own interest since it seemed that he was getting too carried away in a lost cause. As he is a servant in my country's armed services, I wish him well and wished to spare him further embarassment. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't. Saying "Be careful, because there are other people who might go a bit overboard and choose to report you" is not a threat, just a friendly warning of what is likely to happen, right or wrong. A threat would be "Keep doing this and I will report you!".

See the difference? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Underhanded spans this gap: "To spare you the embarassment of being reported to MoD, which has the wherewithall to chavel your life, please stop arguing with me. Thanks and all the best, with my everlasting fealty to Her Majesty's armed forces, of which you are a part, I need not remind. Now shut up and sit down, sir." Give me a break. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Kurt, you do not have the nuances to distinguish that the good Col was attempting to chill Cml,ItC through his military background - you don't even seem to appreciate the irony of someone whose signature proclaims themselves a Colonel (and if they are or were in the military, they had better have had that rank if they do not wish to be found that they are impersonating an officer) chastising another editor for publicising that they are a naval officer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe the nickname is a reference to Churchill. However, attempting to alter the behaviour of another user by implied threats (or rather explicit in this case) is clearly blockable and for good reason. Verbal chat 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, my nom de plume is a homage to Winston Churchill, who used this alias himself.
  • I should perhaps add that, so far as I recall, there is no history of any trouble between User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and myself and that the matter of the bowtie article seems a fairly light-hearted matter which would not be the cause of a vendetta. With this context, I had supposed that my email would be accepted as well-intentioned per WP:AGF. Furthermore, extraordinary and underhand measures seem quite implausible in this case since the long discussion which we already had at the AFD indicated that the article would be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
CW is right, there is no history between us. However, we haven't, from what I recall, had a long discussion, and the article doesn't look like it's going either way at the moment. If anything, merge is looking on the cards. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Fancy me not knowing an alias of some old Tory... Nevertheless, Cml,ItC has never either made a secret of his professional following or used it as some sort of spurious authority. He has, though, been an effective administrator. I see no benefit that may have accrued in commenting to Cml,ItC in such a manner when co-incidentally opposing his opinion at an AfD - it is at the very best extremely poor timing, and resulted in Cml,ItC requesting further opinion. It may be to the best if the sentiments expressed in that email were withdrawn thus allowing all parties to participate in the ongoing AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Col, you could spare us a lot of wikidrama if you came out and said something to the effect of "It was not my intent to threaten CMLITC, and if it was interpreted that way, I fully retract it. I have no intent to report CMLITC to anyone." which is what I suspect you mean. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see above where I say "I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment." which was intended to have a similar meaning to your version. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. I strongly recommend to keep this person blocked, indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please say more about why. Frankly, I've observed issues with this editor, but would rather see behavior changed to be more in the spirit of cooperation and civility rather than stopped completely. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
See ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, so rather than "come to think of of, it was probably a poor-planned statement, even if meant in jest (which it really wasn't)", it's "oh crap, I'm in trouble, I'd better pretend to retract it"?? -t BMW c- 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we AGF and accept CW's retraction and put this incident behind us. It has no doubt been a learning experience for him. There is no need for piling on or more wikidrama -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have retracted my comments advocating unblocking per Fut's reasoning on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we consolidate this discussion to ANI for all except CW? Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think generally that for Legal Threat blocks to be lifted, the person making the threat has to retract it (at least), admit that this was wrong and not something to be repeated. I'm not sur ewe have all these things yet. As to FutPerf and Todds comments, those should be discussed on AN/I (as they have done). Verbal chat 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how any reasonable person could interpret this as a "threat" of any sort. There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself.

When I was young, my friends used to enjoy TPing the houses of people they didn't like. I would sometimes remind them that if they went too far and got caught then someone might report them to the police. I certainly wouldn't have done it myself, and so it certainly wasn't a threat. I see Colonel Warden's comments in the same light.

Certainly, if we're interested in keeping things from blowing up that would seem to be the reasonable way to look at this. Whether or not Colonel Warden's remarks were ill-advised, I don't know--frankly, people are way too quick to look for excuses to burn someone at the stake on this site, regardless of whether or not there are more likely--and certainly less drama-prone--explanations for what happened. Still, I'm sure CW has learned that, though he has acted in good faith and was most certainly not making any sort of a threat, people are going to look to interpret his words and actions as though they are anything but, and will keep that in mind in the future. So there's no need for a block here.

It just seems to me like someone jumping to convenient conclusions because she's way too eager to flex her muscle. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See the AN/I thread for the reasons why this is a legal threat. "There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself." - it's clearly a threat here. I don't think your analogy works though, as you weren't trying to coerce your friends into supporting your actions that they disagreed with. Your possible breach of WP:NPA/WP:AGF against Gwen should also be reconsidered. Verbal chat 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've read through it already. I didn't find any actual argument that it was a legal threat but merely a series of broken-record assertions. If I've missed something, please highlight it for me. As for AGF, check your e-mail. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, reporting me to the MoD for this could lead to me appearing in a summary trial under Naval Law under the aforementioned "conduct unbecoming a member of the forces". The crux of the issue is, I think whether CW knew this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the issue at all. I think everybody knows that--if not the specifics, at least the general gist that this is, in the military, a legal matter. The issue, as I see it, is simply whether he was actually threatening to report you himself, or merely trying to do you a favor by giving you a friendly reminder of what others might do if they were so inclined. Everything I've seen indicates it's the latter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's just semantics, though. If you opened your front door to a stranger who said "Nice house ... be a shame if someone burnt it down one day, wouldn't it?", I think you'd assume that was a threat, even though he didn't say he'd be holding the matches. The real question is whether CW actually meant it to read as a threat. Black Kite 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To pick up on that analogy from Black Kite, imagine it was your neighbour on your door step, who the day before had moaned about the height of your Leyland Cypress. That's the situation here. If I mentioned to someone I'd had no interaction with that personal details on their user page could cause a problem that would be one thing. When I'm in disagreement with them over something it's clearly got another dimension. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you possibly re-phrase that comment? I can't quite understand it. Fell free to strike this when you do :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, if you want to hand out advice to editors by email that they could run into "trouble" if they were reported in Real Life for their on-wiki activities it's probably best you are not in dispute with them at the time. Common sense is far more important than AGF in these types of situations. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because he's been involved in a dispute doesn't automatically mean that his warning was in bad faith. The fact is, we can't know. I'm inclined to believe he was acting honestly and beneficiently. He's acknowledged that it may not have been the best move but that his intentions were pure, which is the best anyone can hope for short of actually being able to read his mind. I'm sure he's figured out that, though his intentions were noble, it wasn't the best move under these conditions, so I doubt he's going to do it again. There is absolutely no reason for him to continue to be blocked. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Which is why, Kurt, I have recommend an unblock at ANI. His intentions are unfathomable as you rightly point out, so we go with AGF. His action in sending that email was ill thought out at best, perhaps foolish at worse, but I see no value in CW being permanently blocked at this time - indeed a permanent block seems to be more harm than good for WP. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus at ANI that you've retracted your threat, so I've unblocked you. Please be aware, if you ever let a threat or warning like this slip through to another editor again, by any means, mistakenly or not, you'll likely be banned from editing for a long time. As an aside, if you're in a dispute with someone, never, ever make a post or send them an email which hints they may have worries in real life owing to their edits on Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you will read the ANI thread and the above discussion in detail. I do admire your work and efforts here, but you must understand that in this particular risk/reward situation if the reward from your quality edits is outwayed by the risk of damaging the morale, work and effort of others you will be blocked permanently. I'm pleased to have supported your unblock but make no mistake in thinking that I condone your e-mail, however much it may have been in good faith.Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you were the victim of people shooting first and asking questions later, Colonel. Gwen is out of line here, and over reacted big time. Instead of apologizing she threatens you even more. blah. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lying Bastard

Thanks for the BS. It is encouraging to receive positive feedback once in a while. As you may have noticed, that particular AFD remained open after its logpage was 2 days past-due from being closed-out. It was one of those discussions that people like to avoid closing, because there were well-known wikipedians in good standing on both sides of the issue. I am very pleased that at least one such wikipedian on the opposite side of the closing decision, understands and appreciates the difficulty that such decisions sometimes are. Thanks, again. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mary Rose School

Thanks for making me smile. . Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks from me for the Barnstar! - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

This edit was less than constructive. I can't imagine what you were trying to do here, but it clearly is not within the spirit of citing sources. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your attempts at ownership of that article continues to be a problem. Please seek consensus on the talk page before you remove any further templates as you did in this edit. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I misunderstood you - and obviously didn't read the banners carefully. My apologies and thanks for explaining it, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

With regard to our dicussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#In a Nutshell:Yet more confusing wording, could you provide details of some articles that illustrate your concerns? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pholde

Hi, you recently took part in discussion for the deletion of Pholde. I have closed the AfD as Keep. Your suggestion of merger seemed most reasonable and there had been no recent discussion. Would you like to do the merger? :-) Fr33kman 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I welcome you to comment in this ANI thread Masem started on me, seeing as you have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ahead of you - just had to get past an edit conflict. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pure thought

Do think the following stub has the potential to be a decent, non-WP:dicdef article? Pure thought. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • My pure thoughts or an impure kind? :) I'm not familiar with the topic but it seems to be reasonable from the dicdef aspect. The main issue would seem to be whether it is not already well-covered by our article upon Kant and his philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria

What was this about? You knew full well there was a discussion at the noticeboard, as you commented there. It might have been productive to have linked to the discussion from the talkpage, something I probably should have done myself. But removing the tag was just silly when there was active discussion going on. Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ. The merge proposal was not properly formed and so I removed the tag. Another editor started it again more properly in response to my notification. Reverting additions with discussion so that they may be reconsidered, accords with our normal editing process such as WP:BRD and so should not be the occasion for complaint nor accusation of silliness. The action was similar in spirit to your speedy close of the related AFD, which was a sensible action. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Science

I've seen what I believe is philosophy POV pushing in the Religion and Science article and perhaps in some of the other articles in the Category:Religion and science category. Now of course, I could be POV pushing too, but I am usually quite careful to always put down references so that these can be used in discussions if and when a need arises. For example, I wrote this , which is simply a summary of a point from John Habgood's Science and Religion (1964), but it was replaced by this , which gives no reference source (it is not at all a summary of Habgood's work). So what I'm thinking is that this is a trend in the wikipedia culture being a kind of barbarism, sort of what famed literary critic Terry Eagleton has recently pointed out about society at large. According Eagleton, analytical philosophy is embarrassed by the very nature of theological questions

"and one of those places, surprisingly in many ways, is theology, I mean it is in some sectors of theology, that nowadays one can find the most informed and animated discussions of Delores ] and bandeau orFoucault and feminism, Marx, Hedgier, and so on. Not entirely surprising perhaps, because theology is one of the most startling ambitious theoretical arenas left to us in an increasingly specialist and fragmented world. One whose subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source. I mean you try raising that kind of question in analytical philosophy or political science, even in some theology departments, some theological departments might find themselves quite embarrassed by that. So we find ourselves in a very curious and incongruous situation. In a world in which theology is indubitably a massive part of the problem and has become so in new and unpredictable ways. As Ditchkins so rightly points out." Culture and Barbarism (timestamp ~ 50 minutes, April 10th, 2008)

Do you see these concerns of mine as reasonably valid and objective? If so, what sort of place on wikipedia should I raise these issues? (policy/guideline talk pages, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no clear opinion upon the content of this article which is too wooly for my taste. Dispute resolution might be attempted by reference to the 3rd Opinion or Reliable Sources noticeboards, I suppose. Sorry not to be more helpful but if more ideas occur to me, I'll let you know. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Too wooly an article...I've been trying to clean it up. Darn. At any rate, that's alright, I've never pursued a reliable source board b4. Good idea. Thanks. If any other ideas do pop up, I would love to hear them. Thank you again. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouting match

Thanks for rewriting my article. Did you see the motivation section in an old revision? Was that suitable for the article? Was some of the information in that section suitable, or was it just information that didn't belong in place? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No doubt some teenagers or mentally-ill folk have shouting matches but you really need a source to back up comments of this sort. My approach was to search through the sources and write sections based upon the interesting items I found there. If you look at the links on the talk page, you could start with those and then add other keywords to perhaps find sources on these other points. But while the article is at AFD it's best not to have such a section without a source as this invites criticism that the article is original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • User: Yobmod posted: Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article). -- Comment copied to this page by IRP ☎ at 20:15 (UTC) on 6 October 2008

Storm train

One of the other articles I created, Storm train, has also been nominated for deletion. Can you help with this one, just as you did for Shouting match? -- IRP ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Although User:Bongomatic tagged the storm train article for deletion, at least nobody voted "Delete" for the article in the AfD as of 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC). His/her deletion requests are vague, and I agree, I think it would make sense that he/she is just trying to attack the articles, by finding every possible excuse to have an article he/she sees, deleted. It is a very great thing that user is not an administrator. If Bongomatic was, a large fraction of Misplaced Pages's database would have been wiped out and devastated, and he/she would lose admin privileges in a heartbeat, and would probably be banned. -- IRP ☎ 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note 2: Although his/her goal might have been to expunge the article from Misplaced Pages, it actually brought some helpful editors to the article, and it improved dramatically. You were the most helpful editor! But please see Shouting match↓↓, because there is an update there. -- IRP ☎ 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Teletubbies articles

<Please continue to add on to these character, single, and tv show articles. I think if we can get the main article big enough we can spilt the characters off, or if neccery, merge them into the article Teletubbies characters. The one for the show itself needs massive work as well, and if you look at the version here, it could give you some insperation. Also, the last Charlotte's Web song from Charlotte's Web (1973 film), along with the others (they were deleted) could be merged too as this article needs massive work. 65.0.191.174 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and interest. I have improved the articles on Tinky Winky and their hit single. I'll perhaps do more on the Teletubbies but have little interest in Charlotte's Web. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks

Thanks for the message. I have fessed up. BasilSorbie (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

I concurred with your reservations about this article, and I don't see concensus for deleting it, so all I did was highlight "would, may, and might" in statements that should probably be deleted for being unreliable. I don't hav much interest in this article. You might be more interested in making that article more reliable. BrewJay (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia

Greetings!  :) Please consider joining the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia#What's an Encyclopedia?. While I expect you and I do not see eye to eye at this point in time, and we may have to "agree to disagree" at some point, I'd certainly like to have a go at achieving mutual understanding before giving up. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)