User talk:PainMan

blah blah blah blah bla-bla-blah-bla-blah-blah blah blah.


Signing

To sign your comments on Talk pages just type ~~~~ at the end of your comment and Wikipedia will automatically insert your Username and a timestamp. AlistairMcMillan 14:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting your insert your username on the article pages. Each page has a history, that is where people can identify who contributed what. Just look for the "Page History" link. AlistairMcMillan 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Page history. AlistairMcMillan 14:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Since you are new here I don't want to discourage you, but please be aware of the Three-revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

The IP address appears because you weren't logged in at the time you made those edits. It used to be possible to get IP address edits reassigned to your username, however that service doesn't seem to be available at the moment. Changing attribution for an edit AlistairMcMillan 16:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE help me. I very much appreciate any and all help. There's a lot to digest here. Time is valuable and I thank you for expending a little of yours on helping me. PainMan 16:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will help anywhere I can. However please do not duplicate information that is covered more appropriately elsewhere. I'm actually going out right now, but I'll check in once I get and answer any questions you have. AlistairMcMillan 16:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Sorry if the discussion on Windows 95 is a little strong for your first time edits. Don't let that turn you off. Usually other users see new edits from new users and post a welcome message, but I don't see one here for you. That usually has some helpful information on contributing and such. I'll find one and copy it here for you.

Everyone here is still learning, believe me! If I can help you out, feel free to ask. You might try out some smaller edits to see how they go as you get a hang of it. And not everything happens in real time here. Sometimes even controversial edits on obscure topics go for days (or even never) before being noticed! SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a starter to the community: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. You've done well with rule 1. See the caveat to rule 2. :) SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm reading the "Wikiquette" page as we exchange these messages. I've violated one of my own, well Voltaire's rules: "Define your terms." I'm out of my depth (on technical issues) and, as a historian, should know (d*mned dyslexia!) better than to repeat what's apparently gossip I can't (or am unwilling to) source.

So I'm feeling rather chagrined at the moment.

PainMan 16:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Having just read Wikiquette, bad article ideas, simplified ruleset, I think I'm more confused than I was. Obviously, I'm going to have to digest this material. Some of its seems paradoxical, e.g. there seems to much more ink (so to speaK) spent on what wikipedia is not rather than what it is. As this is an intial impression, I hope it changes.

But at the moment I kind of feel like I've been assinged to learn how to pilot the space shuttle by being dropped into the cockpit as its starting the landing cycle. My hair's on fire and my face is rather flushed.

Certainly not the first time I've jumped in with both feet without checking the depth. :o)

Well, we learn by doing, not pouting. Unfortunately, pouting is much easier. I now understand the paradigm better. I'm still not sure why a short history of GUI evolution is undesirable in article on the most important GUI ever created, but, to quote a certain Tarantino character, I'm trying real hard.

PainMan 17:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's about topic. The topic of Windows 95 is neither Microsoft, anti-trust, the history of the GUI, etc. Since there is an article specific to the GUI, that's the most appropriate place to put it's history.
I read your stuff on Will Durant. I'd never heard of him before. It doesn't look bad to me - not that I'd know.
And, I wouldn't necessarily decline to edit articles where you aren't an expert - be bold! Maybe think twice about huge blocks of text, or propose them on the talk page of the article to see how other people take to it for large changes. SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logging In

Hi,

just looking at your entries regarding problems logging in, although I am not sure that you will check this page if you cannot log in. I'm a mac person, so can't really help you, but it might be worth posting to the Village pump. By the nature of wikipedia there is no real single webmaster.

Good luck -- postglock 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

  • No problem, any time! Just bought a Mac Mini recently myself, which is well worth the price! (BTW, to sign your posts on talk pages, type ~~~~. this just makes a link back to your own page.--postglock 07:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions!

Pls feel free to email me to discuss all and sundry. Intellectuals can die of thirst in this country so I welcome all informed correspondence, whether you agree with me or not. As my grandfather used to say, you never learn anything if you only talk to people with whom you agree.

Talk:Rigoberta Menchu

Article talk pages are not the place for unrelated political discussion. Wikipedia is not a message board. It doesn't matter whether or not it is "the truth", it is irrelevant and not the purpose of those pages. Also note that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Gamaliel 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bogus, laughable, non-sensical and contemptuous of the truth. PainMan 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response

While I'd have to say you're far from 'elouqent', I'll grant that perhaps I misjudged hastily (It's a sad fact that if you work on the sorts of articles I do, you see a *lot* of nutcases, both left-wing and right-wing, and the paranoia of "Oh geez, not another one..." starts to set in.

I'd disagree with the claim that Nazis are today still being hunted, compared to the free pass given to leftists criminals - the truth is, until Wiesenthal got the bulk of his media attention, through the 40s, 50s and 60s, we gave a lot of Nazis a free pass, I don't think the "turn a blind eye syndrome" is strictly limited to leftists or right-wings.

(btw, I've heard of the umbrella event, but know no details surrounding it)

I agree with your taste in books though, which is odd since we seem to come away with very different worldviews because of it - but Shirer's Third Reich is one of those exhaustive masterpieces that inspire me to go "Okay, so who history deems "Nazis" were real people, they had wives, they had careers", and what fascinates me isn't studying people's crimes, but their background. Ziad Jarrah's behaviour on September 11th isn't very interesting to my mind, what is interesting is that he had no reason/excuse to be so fuelled by hate, he was from a very wealthy family, he was married (a point of contention, but for the sake of argument, at least common-law), he kept in close contact with his family...and he was in the United States far longer than any of the others...what damn reason did he have to be aboard those planes. To finish the quote on the image on my userpage "...what lies or threats led him on this long march from home?"

My reference to Africans wasn't actually in relation to slavery (which coincidentally, I agree with you, is misrepresented as a strictly American venture), but more simply the Imperialistic attitude that has always sort of seen them as varelse to be exploited for Euro-American benefit, and the billions who have died in the past century because of malnourishment and crippling poverty that extends today. (And yes, I actually paid attention to the "current day slavery" when it was in the news a few years ago)

To current presidents, I made the Bush jab lightheartedly as I pointed out, because honestly, that's a can of worms that I prefer not to delve into - in honesty, both sides are probably greatly inflating their stories, and no matter how much I may believe a certain side, I'll certainly never convince anybody to abandon their own view, so why bother studying it to discover the truth? It's better to spend that time delving into things like Hugh Thompson, Jr. that not only do people not know their story, but half the world doesn't even know such a guy existed. (Another reason you'll notice I wrote about him, Colburne and Andreotta...but not Calley...the name Calley is indelibly marked on the public consciousness as tied to My Lai...but why isn't Thompson? Wasn't he just as central a figure in the event? Why can 80% of the population name Calley, but probably less than 1% can name Thompson?

As per Clinton, trust me, while I consider myself more leftist than right, I have no respect for Clinton and can't believe what the American public let him get away with. If Bush today replicated the Waco siege, there would be an international uproar at his suspension of civil rights, his overreaction, his dependence on the military and his fear of religious freedom. Instead Clinton got away brushing it off as "one of those really neat things that happen sometimes"

I'm vaguely curious btw, if the German movie you mention, is Der Untergang? Anyhow, enjoy ROTS, for me, it's off to studying for my law exam on Monday. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German and its been over nearly fifteen years since I saw the German movie, so I don't know. I'd like to have it on DVD--I have the entire 6 hour version of Das Boot for example and I always watch it in German with the subtitles. Were you aware that the submarine branch of the Kreigsmarine suffered a 75% KIA rate--the highest of any branch of any military of any country in WWII. Nearly all the crews were basically boys average age of 19. Something like Vietnam. Though they were violating the laws of war, I can't help but have a large measure of empathy for them, dying in the icy, dark waters of the Atlantic for a cowardly swine of dictator. PainMan 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving for the holidays in about 20 minutes, and still have some packing to do, so suffice to say I'm male, I agree that Right/Left is too rigidly thought-of in society, and I'll write you after Christmas Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good time. Looking forward to continuing the conversation. The final smack down between the Jedi and Palpatine's about to go down. Gots to watch. Have a safe trip. PainMan 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

liberal-pedia

I agree wikipedia is a liberal circlejerk now. Its just the demographic that is drawn to it currently. I believe this will change as more conservatives get online. It may take years.--Capsela 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain man. Sorry, bad pun. I've had my own run-ins with this Gamaliel person when I dared to write an article about his patron saint, Mumia. She/He is the pedantic type that will watch the PainMan page in eternity, and footnote to my comment here. The liberal persuasion orientation of Wikipedia is self-evident, but what to do about it? The liberal advocates are the most diligent of the editors here. Trying to correct their POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same Marxist-Liberal POV that show up here and edit in that direction. In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied. Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim. In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun. How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World. Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word. Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot give the lib-POVers a taste of their own medicine. I suggest we form a Cabal for the purpose of supporting each other in these French-cheese-eaters vs. rational world wars. Cheers brothers. Morton devonshire 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to get hold of Wiki's latest 990s to see if Soros is a funder, but I haven't been able to get hold of the most recent. The pro-Marxist persuasion seems almost too much to be explained by the natural inclination of radicals to be attracted to this sort of venture. Sandy 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes at Rush (band)

I've reverted them for the time being, nothing against you. I've explained why at Talk:Rush (band), and I hope you can hop into the discussion! I hope the two of us can reach a compromise on your changes there. Cheers! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes were reverted mostly because they read like flowery unencyclopedic fandom - Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a place for original research or your personal perceptions. Leave POV and subjectivity for amateur music review websites and the like. No offense intended at all. I invite you to participate in the discussion on the talk page so that perhaps an agreement/compromise can be reached, but unless you can tone down the POV and citationless jargon, I highly doubt any of your changes can be accepted Cheers. Wisdom89 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your latest changes. Please see Talk:Rush (band) for my reasoning. regards --KaptKos 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To help us reach consensus, a sandbox version (and revert-free zone!) of the Rush article has been created at Rush (band)/Sandbox. Once we get to a version everyone agrees with, we can merge that back with the main article. Please remember not to revert any other person's edits, and stay away from the main Rush article for the time being, and we'll all be peachy. Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy for whom? I'm not feeling very peachy. If we can't edit, can't add our opinion, can't make changes, then what's the bloody point? I'm just supposed to wait while you and your friends email the article back and forth and then post a version you like--and then, I suppose, the page will be locked down--SOL PM!

Sorry but I have major, major problems with this approach. I really don't think I can adhere to it.

At least not without further discussion and explanation. PainMan 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's power in numbers. 

Lonecanine


Hi Painman. I just wanted to assure you that my actions have been in good faith and I do not wish to fall out with anybody or get into a revert war or any of that nonsense. I honestly don't like the changes you have made and would prefer if you took a more incremental approach or used the sandbox, I had expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the sb and I saw your changes before your exchange with Borg, so I had assumed you were ignoring the suggestion. I accept you thought the sb was dead. Also I was a bit tetchy after being on hold for half an hour by a call centre so I probably jumped the gun and should have waited a few minutes to give you a chance of putting something on the Talk page, which you did moments after I reverted, so I apologise for my haste. I would still have reverted but it probable wouldn't have been as frustrating for you. --KaptKos 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Painman. I couldn't help but notice your use of the term "opinion" above. Wikipedia's purpose is not to act as the pulpit for one single person's opinion, hence why we have WP:NPOV. The Rush article has conformed to FA requirments and in its current condition reflects the very best that wikipedia should be. There are about 980 or so other articles that do the same. Major rewrites that include large chunks of text and the removal of sourced information that reflect YOUR opinion is not acceptable. That's POV pushing. Have I misunderstood you? Wisdom89 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Very Much

Actually, I'm one of the most solidly Democratic persons you will ever meet. I grew up Maryland, where Reds are an endangered species and where George W. Bush is about as welcome as a hernia. You probably assumed I was a Republican, which I think attests to the neutrality of my editing (I mean, I'm really Democratic). Simply put, an article about the First Family shouldn't inlude much about politics. It should include some, however, as the President himself is a member of the First Family. I put Watergate in there because it had a major effect on Nixon's wife and daughters: it ended their time in the White House.

All the same, I'm glad that I'm not alone. If you could leave your opinion on the talk pages, that would be great. Also, if you'd like to join in on the RfC currently going on to discuss User: Hipocrite's conduct, I would appreciate it. I just want to be able to edit like anyone else. Those pictures were beautiful, and they took them all down. It's terrible. Thanks again and I hope to see your input on the various sites.

History21 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]


Reds and Such

I'm very aware that the term used to have a different connoatation--one of the reasons that I'm so fond of the phrase, "Better dead than red" (in the modern sense, of course).

It's funny, but for years the Democrats were identified as red themselves. Back then, we had what we called the Solid South, a band of Democratic stronghold states that spanned the entire Southeast. I've actually been doing some reading on that lately, and what I've found has deeply disturbed me. In the second half of the 1800's, even the Democratic epicentres of Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama would occasionally vote Republican.

The political parties have swithced geographic regions, and today the idea that Massachusetts or Maryland would vote Republican, or that Georgia or Texas would vote Democratic, is unthinkable. We have very rarely had such rigid sectionalism in our history, and to be quite frank it scares the hell out of me.

Regarding Israel: it has a right to defend itself, but so does Palestine or Lebanon, and the wholesale bombing of civilians is unacceptable. The best thing we can do is force both sides to stop. I'm confident that our Secretary of State, a highly able woman, is doing all that she can.

You can add your opinion to the matter regarding my edits here: [1]

Please read the debate thoroughly. I know that you, at least, will be professional and won't sink to the level of my opponents.


Regarding Some Very Dark Possibilities

Let me say this: I don't think that we're there yet, but some judicious stirring of the political emotions in this country would do it. The 2006 and 2008 elections will play a huge role. We have seldom been more polarized (by region, which excludes the Vietnam War), but Democrats hold a commanding advantage in the upcoming Congressional elections. If they win, the impeachment of our President is a virtual certainty.

I understand how you feel about fighting the war on terrorism, but George W. Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution and has been saved from removal thus far solely because his party loyalists control the legislature. No investigations have been allowed to proceed, and even cursory probing by the Democrats will unearth devastating evidence against him. The process is bound to be an emotionally agonizing one and will no doubt increase animosities between the two sides.

Following this, whichever region loses the 2008 presidential election is going to be very upset. I think that an upheaval in the Blue States is more likely than one in the Red ones; the Republicans have won the last two presidential contests, and, in the case of the first one, they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had been able to take possession of the White House despite the fact that the Democrats were able to beat them in the actual voting.

In the diehard Northeast, in states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, and New York, there is still the feeling that the country was stolen from them. The passion behind the 2004 drive made that loss as bad, if not worse. If the Democrats lose another close and questionable presidential election in 2008, you may see some serious developments begin.

Let's hope it doesn't go that far. If we are lucky, George W. Bush will be impeached and convicted, Dick Cheney will assume the presidency as a legitimate Commander-in-Chief, and the country (especially the Blue States) will be able to rest peacefully with the knowledge that the Republic is still ruled by law.

In many quarters, that sentiment has long gone, and that confidence doesn't exist.

As I have said, let us hope.

History21 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Rush etc

Thanks for the note Painman. I was just thinking a few days ago its been pretty quite around here ;) Keep fighting the good fight. Regards --KaptKos 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Miller

Thanks for all your efforts on the Dennis Miller page. It's nice to have someone who knows what he's doing and who does it well (especially with some of the yahoos who have tried to do editing on there). Beatdown 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

I dunno, it's pretty confusing: Copyright images used for fair use with no free alternative available seem to be okay, even if the copyright hasn't lapsed (for example the VC execution I've used on the Steve Irwin talk page) but when I put up a friggin' free-use-for-educational-purposes picture of a barb, I get a huge warning saying THIS WILL BE DELETED. Man, whatever. Wikipedia sucks sometimes. Professor Ninja 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I never noticed the left-wing cabal myself. Most of the time I notice right-wingers trying to inject their POV into an article and getting caught very fast. I'm sure we lefties do it too, but I'm rather ruthless for the truth. I try to fact check everything. I find one of three things invariably happens: 1) Smooth talking liberal injects velvety POV phrase that needs to be re-written because its bordering on half-truth. 2) Abrasive conservative injects caustic POV writing that needs to be re-written because even if it's true its stated with as much "N"POV subtelty as a club across the head. 3) The reasonable liberals and conservatives get together, quell the flaming on the talk page, and decide the only way to make an article NPOV is to inject equal amounts of pre-approved POV statements to create a "balance" (this one's my favourite because this is the one I find people doing the most. Tu quoque is the greatest logical fallacy ever!)
And as for the image cliques, I know exactly what you're talking about. I tend to dive into the hotbutton topics (such as Terri Schiavo) and try to keep them relatively sane. In that one there was a massive amount of contention as to what image to use, with two image cliques forming -- the ones who supported the persistent vegetative state camp and the ones who supported the recovarable illness camp, each vying to upload a particular picture, one being Terri pre-collapse, vibrant and very alive, and the other being Terri post-collapse, basically slack, gaunt, and staring at the ceiling. Me and a couple others suggested that a before and after picture would probably be best in any event since the article concerned her life both before and after her cardiac arrest, one of us even made the picture, but we were shot down (including by admins supporting either "camp"). (That article was also a wonderful example of the velvet-talking liberals and the brash conservatives, though we did get the occasional silver-tongued con and bilious lib in there too... because hell, why not mix it up a little? I don't think I have a migraine on the left side of my head yet.) Nothing here is easy. Professor Ninja 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision to Dennis Miller

Hi. I just noticed that a few days ago you totally gutted the Dennis Miller article without any discussion on the talk page. I reverted it back to its state just prior to your edit. I believe changes in articles of that magnitude are deserving of a consensus, hopefully established through a discussion on the talk page which I would more than happily participate in. Lawyer2b 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the text of our discussion so far to Talk:Dennis Miller and posted a reply to the message you left on my talk page there. I hope you will participate in a dialog there as I believe this discussion should involve the community. Lawyer2b 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by your last message. I did revert an edit of yours, but only the ones that you made on September 4th; the only reason I reverted them is they removed huge amounts of material from the article with any discussion. Regarding your question on my "sudden concern with quasi-democracy", I've always tried to follow wikipolicies and believe they should be followed by all. If I see them violated, I will usually say something. I haven't gone back over all the recent edits to the Dennis Miller article, but your major change (without discussion) stuck out. If other major changes (to any article) are being done without some sort of discussion and consensus, please point them out. I would object to them as well. Lawyer2b 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up right now

See GabrielF/911TMCruft for a complete list of conspiracy theory articles up for deletion right now. Morton devonshire 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Kate Harwood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Harwood.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On Bobby Kennedy

You forgot to mention that he was a horse-toothed jackass who was directly resposible for the death of Marylin Monroe. He would have made a lame President randazzo56


There's no creditable evidence that Bobby killed Marilyn. It is a fact that he was having an affair with her (as his Jack had and god knows how many other men), but the Kennedy boys are notorious for their libertinism. Since their followers never seem to have cared about this, I hardly see how the affair becoming public knowledge before the '68 election would have matter; thus it wouldn't have been motive for murdering her.

Just as when Monroe sank "Happy Birthday" to Jackie boy--so smashed out of her mind on Seconal--if you didn't get a clue they were more than just "friends" you had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

PainMan 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

their followers may not have cared or noticed but thier political opponents amd other detractors would have. If this information would have been comfirmed prior to the '68 elections Nixon would have used it to his advantage. Kennedys motive seems clear in that Marylin planned a press conference that would have ruined Kennedy politicaly, he allready had enough enemys. randazzo56

Ironic Bobby Sands comments

Because the person who wrote this did not sign it I am removing it. All anonymous comments on my talk pages will be immediately removed!


One should have the stones to sign one's comments. My comments were made on the Talk/Discussion Page and not within the article where a neutral point of view should be applied (and isn't).

Agri Decumates

I noticed that you started the article Agri Decumates. Without checking whether there was an article of the same name, I started an article Agri decumates a couple of days ago. Obviously they have to be merged. But which one will it be? Decumates with or without capital d. What's your opinion? -- Ekki01 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PainMan, the spelling whith or without capital 'd' is somewhat arbitrary. I have checked Michael Grant and you are indeed correct. However, In some of the works I've got (mostly German and Dutch) it is spelled with a small 'd', the reason why I used it. I reckon we should merge the two, combining your information with the more recent article I wrote together with Jvhertum [2]. I am a newbie myself (2 months) and don't have any experience on how to merge two articles either. I checked the Help pages and come across some advice. I have no problem in using your version (with the capital'd') as the final version. On the subject of "proprietary", I completely understand what you mean. After "finishing" my first article, I felt the same and got really irked when people started fiddling with it. But that passes and one gets used to it. Cheers -- Ekki01 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the article I created together with user Jvhertum here: [3]. I suggest to put a merge tag on Agri decumates to propose a move to Agri Decumates (your article or "baby" :-) ). This because a) yours is the older article (so you would always be recorded as the originator), and b) since it is a title, i.e. name, it should be written with capital letters.

BTW, even though I grew up in what used to be the Agri Decumates, I wouldn't call myself that familiar with Roman history. I did a degree in Medieval history and medieval English language and literature and also some postgrad work on Anglo-Saxon history but left academia some time ago coz I didn't like it at all. However, curiosity and the will to learn has never left me.

Anyway, let me know what you think about the merging and I shall put a tag on Agri decumates. I will put the points we have been discussing there and then see what reactions we get. -- Ekki01 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a merger-tag on Agri decumates. I also rewrote the whole article, using your bits and mine. You can find it here: [4] Let me know what you think. If you agree, then after the official time for discussion lapsed we can merge the two articles. Ekki01 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in the bits you asked for. Regarding the Michael Garnt bit, I don't have that dictionary, could you please add the exact reference? Otherwise, I know that someone will put a tag on it, claiming that the article is not properly referenced. I also merged the two pages. Have a look and feel free to comment. Ekki01 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add that I merged the articles. Ekki01 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bobby Kennedy

If votes could be stolen as they were in the Kennedy election, they can be minipulated today as well. This might exlplain how that war criminal made it to the White House. Richard Nixon, where are you now that we need you? Nixon was the best President in my lifetime. The problem was that he was targeted by the mass media for his push for law and order where the media was pushing for anarchy, both directly and indirectly, especially on college campuses. Consider this: Nixon was brought down in disgrace for attempting to cover for himself and his stooges and cought in several lies, yet he ended a war. (albiet five years later than he could have, under the same conditions). Bush is placed in office through rigged elections (throught the work of Fox News), orchestrates a useless war for the financial benefit of certain major corporations and that of his family, and is then re elected. Do you really think your vote means a damned thing? And why is the prime minister of Isreal (the Country with three Capitals, Tel-Aviv, New York and Washington D.C.) running around making statements about "who really controls the United States"? 64.12.117.5-Randazzo56.

Try not to laugh, but I based my opinion on the film "Farenhiet 911". Actually, Ive never heard anyone refute his (Moorers') claims head to head. Perhaps I didnt look very well.I found the film shocking and it all but destroyed my faith in the American Political system. I would appreciate your opinion, not to argue or attempt to discredit your point of view. One thing I found disturbing was Moores film "Bowling for Columbine". Moorers' dislike for the National Rifle Association culminates with his interveiwing Charlton Heston. Interestingly enough, one wonders weather or not Moorer would have chosen to interview Heston had this all taken place twenty years earlier, when Heston would have slam-danced Moorer out of his house for being as disrespecfull. As for the Isreal issue, I have a score of Jewish business associates as well as Jewish freinds and nieghbors who share the same point of view. Where do you think I got it? randazzo56 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello!

Just had an important question--I am new to this Wiki page and want to ask for your help to post something really important. can you email me? mailg4@gmail.com Thanks!

Bobby Sands

Good work on tackling the bias of the Bobby Sands article. I think many people steer clear of such articles because their editors tend to be dominated by Irish Republicans. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so will try and find out a way of getting the article reviewed for neutrality, but I'd be willing to wade into the war zone if you are there too! Logica 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Alright so I have a pet peeve about people who don't listen to music (or when it comes to a book read it) and then say that it is bad. So I was wondering if you have listened to the Jonas Brothers? I would also like to ask how many teenagers did you see at that rush concert? If it was less than a 25:75 teen to adult ration then one could say that I (I'm 15 by the way) or people in my age group are not there focus. Oh and I personally like Bach and Mozart (I know that for my age group that is weired), but I still give a new bands a chance. I have just one more question. Do you delete things off talk pages other than yours??? By the way I like Lord of the Rings too. And I know a bit about the oldest industrial building still standing in the State of Oregon (try saying that five times fast). Smileyface 12 91 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering because of the message on your talk page not because I heard it from someone (I agree, but I also forget to sign in sometimes). Your wife may have described their sound, but I would think that if you spent all day with your daughter that you would have heard Hold On, Year 3000, and Kids of the Future. Did you see Meet the Robinsons (good movie you should rent it if you didn't)? They did Kids of the Future for it (yes a spoof off of Kids in America). I have attempted to read The Chronicles of Narnia, but it was so long that I just couldn't do it. I have to get it out (I moved and have yet to on pack that box) so I can try again. I didn't expect you to count who was at the concert, but instead to think that if you were at a concert for any band that old (and really should they be touring in they're 60's) would a lot of people my age be there (most generally no) because they don't have a sound that is made for my age group (although that 10 year old who new some of the songs was cool). You have to remember that almost everything is made for an age group (mostly because you can't please everyone). With the exception of puppy's and dogs (Cotons rule). So my next question is why don't you like music since 1991? Is it the fact that it is made for an age group? Last question why Brazil?Smileyface 12 91 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a girl I would think that was obvious because my user name is Smileyface_12_91 ^_~ and I don't think I write like a boy, but oh well not like I can change my writing stile. I too had some problems starting Harry Potter (the first time I read it I skipped almost every chapter in the book then went on two the second one and did the same then gave up). Until four (I think) summers ago I really wanted to read it and gave it another shot. My family and went to Michigan and I had already read the first book so I took the second and the third books with me. I was there for a while and was stuck reading them over and over (something I still love to do). I would suggest reading them all again because sometimes you pick up on new things you didn't notice before (same goes with movies). You said you liked an anime (Star Blazers), and that doesn't really surprise me (my mother who is only slightly older than you loves a couple of anime), but mostly because most anime can be watched by many different age groups. There are currently some really good ones out there like (I warn you they say a lot of s**t and d**m in the following anime) Inu Yasha (you can see it on carton network's adult swim), fullmetal Alchemist (this one is on adult swim also) , and Fruits Basket (bad ending but a good anime and one your daughter would probably enjoy). These ones can be watched by you and your daughter (no cussing that I know of) D.N.Angel, Kodocha (the kodocha page sucks and there should be a second season), and Naruto (every day they show past naruto episodes on cartoon network and on Saturdays they show new episodes). Alright I was wrong they are in they're mid 50's, but still have you noticed all the older band still touring (lets face it although they have sold out concerts all the time and any band in there right mind would trade with them any dayKiss is getting up there in age to be putting on all that make up). Yeah I'm sure they have a loyal following but still when are they going to have they're "last tour" so they can have the comeback tour when they get bored and then have they're "last tour" again because someone almost broke a hip and then yet another comeback tour, but this time the drummer is different (not saying I have anything against the drummer) and then they would have the first drummer comeback and tour until they can't get up the stage anymore. Don't take that seriously it's just a joke. You know I think in some cases it's not that the band has been tested to make sure that they have fans in a particular age group, but that they write song them self and who's going to like a song written by a kid better than other kids. Take (you guessed it) the Jonas brothers most of the songs they sing are written by them so yes teenagers (preteens mostly) would be more likely to like them.Smileyface 12 91 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply to Your Reply number 3

I wasn't to mad that you got it wrong, but I don't know it was weird. Speaking of interesting screen names were do you get yours from? So about my high school I'm in a web academy so I'm not the best person to ask about how they are. I do know a little though. The clique's are bad but I know people your age (my mom not included) who are worse then kids my age. I heard that the LotR was suppose to be one book, and as an aspiring writer (I suck at it, but people tell me I write well and I like it so I'm an aspiring writer) I feel his pain that would suck. About anime you have to get into it because it is awesome!!! I have a dvd case that has (just about) every movie I would watch again, but it's full so I need a new one. U2 doesn't count. But Bono is only 47 so he still has like 10 years before he is as old as anyone from Rush. As far as media goes have you noticed what they say about all celebrity's no one has anything good said about them (with the exception of a baby announcement and they event turn that into something bad). It's like in spiderman when the Daily Bugle gets his pictures they don't make him look like the hero he is but instead the villain (not saying they make celebrity's look like villains). Actually the two tween Disney bands (Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana or Miley Cyrus Billy Ray Cyrus daughter) both write their own music, but you are right there are unusually high levels of music made for age groups these days. When my sister was ice skating (I did it to for about a year or 2) I was surrounded by classical music that is probably why I like it. The Beatles and The Beach Boys were good and I think a lot of people would sell there whole career to have half there career. They still have a good number fans and they stopped touring how long ago (no seriously how long ago).Smileyface 12 91 07:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might interest you

I know you like older bands so I thought it might interest you that it cost 7 Million Dollars to hire The Rolling Stones sing for you (wow) But wait there is more. You can hire the Eagles for the low low price of 7.8 Million Dollars (ok I so that is REALLY expensive). Just thought you might be interested.Smileyface 12 91 08:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the info above at AOL. You didn't sign ether of your post on my page!!! Just thought I would point it out. I was a little angry that you couldn't tell I was a girl, but I don't think anyone can really tell who you are by how you write. So yes I was mad but it was strange for some one to not know that, but at the time I had just gotten a boyfriend so I was giddey and I think I had event just got done IMing him. It's sad that you have been in pain most of your life. I have an idea for a book that I'm currently writing for homework (it totally rocks I can get two things done at once). I understand the thing you "stole" from Andey Rooney and I agree. I love writing (although I could do with out the writers block) I think I'll probably be really sad when I finish this book because I have become attached to the characters. I wachted the "judge" shows when I was reading Harry Potter and when we go camping we normaly wacht at least one a day. I also listen to Dr. Laura when I'm in the car with my grandfather. I have to say that on almost all of those shows they have to tell both sides to shut up at least once (most of the time a lot more). Yes my grandparents probably did but look at how much more they were expected to do. I don't think that social lites would be able to get away with what they can now. One thing you have to remeber is that colleges cost a lot more than they use to (scharships here I come), and there are some really dumb scholar ships that after you get to the point were you can get the scholar ship you could go to college with out the scholar ship like this (I suggest checking out who has won). Alright I see your point about U2, but they don't seem old. I'm not saying Rush is, but if you go into most high schools and ask ever kid in that High School most kids will not be listening to Rush and some will be listening to U2. Not saying that this says anything because my generation really doesn't now anything about music (rap not my favaorit type of music). It is sad you didn't like the Jonas Brothers, but I didn't expect you to. Am happy that now you can make a much more educated dision as to wether or not you like them. Do you remeber which video you saw? That is really cool you saw the Beach Boys. Smileyface 12 91 09:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again

No it wasn't anything you said. I have been gone for two weeks and when I got back I had a lot of work to do. Thank you for the complement about my writing. Actually event tho it took a month to reply to a message on my wiki talk it would take at least two maybe three to get a reply on my email. I currently have 876 (I think) emails because I didn't check it for this last month. So there for I fear my email and it will take at least one more week (by which time I will have about 1,150 emails) and fear it yet again. So eventually I will either get up the energy or check my email or my mother will delete all of them. So the point is you have a much better chance on my talk page then my email at least for now. It is terrible how much that does happen so parents have to work to stop it. I have a yahoo group and became friends with one of the members (I'm sure he wasn't a bad person because he showed knowledge of several anime that most wouldn't know unless they watched it a lot). My mother also became his friend so it would make it much harder for him to lie. I have heard American Pie it is a good but sad song. My grandfather doesn't listen to music or watch most animated thing (there are very few exceptions). As for your meds I may not take anything like that (I have asthma so all I use is an inhaler if I have to) I still know what you mean sometimes it would be nice if they made medicine with no side effects (when I use my inhaler I do feel weaker after word but I think that has more to do with the asthma attack then the inhaler and it really doesn't bother me as much any more). I'm currently writing a 500+ page story right now and lucky for me my writers block only last about an hour or two. My really problem is that I'm never happy with anything I write and just a week ago I got red of 10 pages (I know it doesn't seem like much but I have to write 3 paragraphs a week for school and if I can get a head that is always nice). I have no idea how to classify what my story is. I hope to graduate this year and that way I can go to school sooner and have it cost less. The economy also has another rule if one group of employs at one gas station asks for a raise then everything everywhere (i.e. gas prices, milk, eggs, coffee, taxies, ect.) will go up. It is so stupid. Your right that the girl from that scholar ship wouldn't have been able to do it with out her parent’s help, but she isn't event the worst of that scholar ship. A girl who got it a few years ago started a recycling company and made over one million dollars and won the scholar ship. In my search for a scholar ship I came across one like the one you talked about. George Fox University has one that is so easy it is called the Holman Scholarship and all you have to do is be interested in taking Natural Sciences, Religion, Philosophy and preference will be given to Holmans descendants. But if you are apart of a minority then you can get like a billion scholarships. It is amazing, but so unfair (or at least it feels that way). My Great-grandmother lived to be 99 we all thought that she would make it to 100. She had survived lunge cancer twice! Once when she was younger (I can't remember how old but some were between 40 and 70) and the second time when she was 90 (I think)! So I don't see 50 as old for a normal job but as a rock singer... I t really doesn't surprise me that it is mostly white teenage boys because I have been around it. What is really bad is the white teenage boys who try to rap. They just don't have a flair for it. Smileyface 12 91 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

Regarding your comments about the enforceability of the GFDL: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but my understanding of the situation is that the license itself does not need to be "enforced" by anything beyond the normal provisions of copyright law. This is because the licence does not make any restrictions which would need to be enforced; rather, it grants a specific set of rights to use the licensed material (which include the ability to sublicence under the same terms), subject to a specific set of conditions. If you don't uphold those conditions, you cease to enjoy the rights to that material granted under the GFDL. At this point, you are then using a copyrighted work without a license to do so, and the normal provisions of copyright law then apply. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki handle

Dnvrfantj- dnvr = Denver; fan = I'm a fan of... ; tj=initials. So it means that I am a fan of Denver, more specifically their sports teams (Denver Broncos, Colorado Rockies, etc) so that's what that means.

politics

I think I was being polite in responding to you when you came to my talk page and posted a long political disquisition where no such discussion was going on, pretty much out of the blue (I think our only previous contact had been regarding whether or not Tim Russert had diabetes) and again with my further response to your much longer one. But I said I'd rather not continue the discussion on my talk page or in email, so I'd ask you to respect that. Your comments are insulting - calling me closed-minded - and I think wholly wrong. But you're entitled to see things as you do, of course - I'd just rather not have the conversation. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of nonsense. Typical liberal nonsense. Devoid of sense, coherent argument and based on the usual, pathological hatred of all people and ideas conservative.
And...
...it's just that simple.
Since it's my page, I can do what I will with it.
PainMan (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, cowardly, baseless, obscene personal attack and my response

You certainly are an opinionated bastard, your right, it is your page, why not light it on fire and shove it up your ass...no one gives a shit about your point of view...

If you're going to talk shit, at least have the balls to sign your name, you goddamned coward. It's punks like you that make me want to puke. You'd never have the balls to say something like that to my face, so you do it anonymously on a Talk Page?

What a joke! A pathetic, ridiculous joke.

As the French say, Vas te faire fautre.

I say it again: IF YOU DON'T SIGN YOUR COMMENT IT GOES AWAY. PERIOD.

PainMan (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless, spurious charges wholly and completely refuted

The post below is a completely baseless and unfair persecution. I reject every allegation as, at best, a personal attack and, at worst, a libelous personal attack.

I do not know this "Blaxthos" individual. I have never heard of him or her. Nor do I recall ever having any contact in anyway with this person.

The reasons for this person's persecution to me are completely mysterious and I intend to seek redress from proper person(s).

PainMan (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply offensive graphic removed

I find this graphic deeply offensive and I am removing it. The rest of the post is the same as originally written. PainMan (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and gross incivility

The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption.

I haven't disrupted anything or anyone on this site. This assertion is false, baseless, and malicious.
Individual editors DO NOT have the power to block each other. That would create absolute chaos. If someone is banned, all they have to do is get a new IP address from their ISP (just takes a phone call!), sign back up and then ban the banner. IP Anonymizing software would eliminate the need to even change one's IP address or even create a new account. So don't brag about power you do not have.' PainMan (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Using profanity and namecalling is neither constructive nor welcome. With regards to this comment, please note that your posts clearly violated WP:FORUM and were properly removed... I don't see any reason for you to get hostile over the notice given or demand that good faith editors to "go away". Additionally, a quick look at your conversations with other editors shows that you're overly hostile, abusive, and territorial. I remind you that this is a community project in which we all work together within the provided to produce a quality product -- by flaming and insulting other editors you detract from the entire project. Please read WP:CIVIL. I will include reference of this notice at WP:WQA. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, guy... let's try to work out the problems one at a time.
  1. You were warned regarding repeated violations of our core policy of no personal attacks and a generally incivil attitude. Diffs are provided above, more are available.
  2. Undoubtedly someone left inappropriate and inflammatory statements on your talk page. This is unfortunate and unacceptable, and repeated violation should be reported. However, responding by attacking other editors is just as bad as the guy who started the whole mess. I've found the best course of action is to not feed the trolls.
  3. There is no "First Amendment right" on Wikipedia. We are a project governed by community consensus, and while we allow for constructive contributions from all viewpoints, there is no inherent right to further an agenda or attack other editors. Continuing that sort of behavior is disruptive and editing privileges may be temporarily or indefinitely removed.
  4. Your legal threat is an immediate breach of policy that requires your editing privileges be revoked until the case is adjudicated. I am pretty sure you're not really serious about trying to take legal action against Wikipedia or its editors. While you're perfectly within your right to start a legal action, in my experience people who make threats like that are trying to bully someone whilst being ignorant of the law as well as Wikipedia policy.
  5. Regarding your fan club, please refresh yourself with this post. We're not a forum to post stuff like that. Likewise, this diatribe is unhelpful to our purpose here and is unwelcome.
  6. Wikipedia does not have "supervisors" or "superiors", nor do I hold any position, title, office, rank, or tenure associated with the project. You don't need to know who I am any more than I need to know who you are.  ;-)
  7. Barnstars confer no official status or privileges. They're a gesture of kindness from one Wikipedian to another, but to portray it as some sort of official recognition or justification for behavior is an egregious overstatement. That being said, I'm sure that continued constructive contribution will earn you plenty more.  ;-)
I've been around for a while, and you're not the first warrior I've come across. That being said, I think it's best that you calm down and stop being so combative. We're all here to build something together; try working with the community instead of against it. Hope this helps! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Pettiet

Hi. Thanks for adding references to the Christopher Pettiet however, IMDb cannot be used as a reference (more specifically, the biographies & trivia sections which are user submitted and not fact checked). I'm not too sure about the open letter and the memorial site being used as references either, but since there's hardly anything out there about the guy, I think those are the best anyone is ever going to get. I searched and searched and there's not even a obituary for him which is strange. Pinkadelica 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...I forgot to say, would you like to remove the IMDb references or shall I? Thanks! Pinkadelica 07:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the filmographies from IMDb couldn't be used as a reference. That's exactly what I used to create the filmography section for the Pettiet article and just about every other actor's article I've ever worked on. There's really no need to cite the filmography if it is listed in the article (which it is) and the IMDb link is in the external links (which I returned). Using it as a citation is a bit of an overkill which is why I removed it. As for using IMDb as a reference, I stated that the biography & trivia sections cannot be used which is Wikipedia's policy, not my personal policy. You can read about that here. If you don't agree with that assessment, you are always free to contact an administrator or ask about it or any other reference at the reliable sources noticeboard. As for the open letter and memorial site being used, again I didn't say they couldn't be used. I was a bit apprehensive at first until I checked it out, but they seem to be fine as far as references go. As I stated above, there is precious little about Pettiet out there which is why I left those references in. As for your supposed combativeness, I know nothing of that and I always assume good faith when it comes to fellow editors. I only expect others to do the very same. Pinkadelica 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I didn't think you were attempting to start a war (or beef, if you will) and I didn't think take offense to you questioning anything. Happy editing! Pinkadelica 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm sorry if I came off as defensive. I've been subjected to some, ah, rather "uncooperative" behavior recently in these electronic precincts. War seems a little grandiose. So does vendetta. So I chose to use beef since it fits more suitably what is usually described, in wiki-land, as a "war".
As for I searched and searched and there's not even a obituary for him which is strange the "Kathleen" who wrote the In Memoriam seem to have reached the same result. You'd think a prominent actor (even a once prominent actor) would deserve an obit. The manager comments on this as well. Either the young man annoyed a lot of people or The Machine was simply done with him. And, like garbage, they had no more use for him. A bitter commentary on contemporary Hollywood's mentality which is, of course, a reflection of the culture that supports it. The only thing rarer in Hollywood than gratitude is loyalty.
In any event, I hope to have the pleasure of working with you again.
PainMan (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix your signature please

Hi, you may not realize it but at the end of your present signature you have open code. You need to change the last <small> to </small>. Banjeboi 11:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Blitzkrieg

Re. this article (Blitzkrieg); I am not prepared to get into an edit war, but I believe that the opening section which you added or heavily amended, needs copyediting roughly as I did some days ago, and which you have reverted.

I disapprove of the term "mishmash".

You assume that where I shortened a citation from the full cite book template to, e.g. "Keegan (1987) p.54", that I have "omitted" the title of the work. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened footnotes. In an article so heavily footnoted as "Blitzkrieg", the use of full cite templates in the body of the text (especially where there are several references to the same work) makes for an unnecessarily long article, which is difficult to edit. The use of "ibid" (from the Latin, ibidem, "the same"), which a printer, librarian or clergyman would understand, but not perhaps the casual reader of the article, should also be replaced by the shortened footnote format.

Further, the header at present is too US-centric in its abbreviations and punctuation. There are several over-complicated sentences, which do not immediately convey their meaning. The discussion on Soviet and French tank strengths and quality really belongs in the body of the article, rather than the header.

I do not pretend to own this, or any other article. I nevertheless feel that this article is over-long, and there are too many personal essays within it, which repeat or duplicate information. I do not object to my own text being removed, but then, nobody's work is sacrosanct. HLGallon (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Nevertheless, I maintain (with authority from the Wikipedia manuals of style), that your current method of referencing and citation is incorrect. Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations states

Do not use ibid., op. cit. or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the terms. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate.

This is only a recommendation, but one well worth following; indeed, as the article stands at present, footnote 10 gives "Shirer, Ibid. 626", but since Shirer has yet to be cited, the reader must go to the bother of looking up which of Shirer's works is being referred to. In this case, there is only one but Ibid would also fail where there are two works by one author being cited (as in the case of Keegan), and a reference to Keegan's other work inserted between a reference to the first and all the Ibids would make them misleading and irrelevant. I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. As for the article itself, I will leave it for a few days, as you may wish to amend it yourself in line with the Wikipedia style guides. HLGallon (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binford

Don't You think the reference cited is adequate to retain the material that You removed as POV. (It is a fact that LB is controversial, and the article cited presumably supports this statement.) Kdammers (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Noticeboard thread

Hi PainMan, I just wanted to let you know that I have made a post on the Admin Noticeboard here raising a question about providing information on the overdose levels at which medication / pharmaceuticals are lethal. You are mentioned because the example that concerned me was on the talk page relating to dextropropoxyphene, and you were one of the two users that provided such information. I've raised the question on WP:AN as there seems likely to be a general issue on whether such information is permitted or not. I couldn't agree more with your point that paracetamol overdose is dangerously easy and that a call-for-help overdose can easily result in liver failure. However, I think that that information can be broadcast without specifying the lethal overdose level. EdChem (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PainMan. You have new messages at EdChem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EdChem (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Bullets 8 (with captions).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bullets 8 (with captions).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of reply to your question

Hello, PainMan. You have new messages at EdChem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{refimprove}} on Evolution of mammals

I have deleted the {{refimprove}} that you added to Evolution of Mammals. See my edit summary here. If you have a general concern about the article, please explain in some detail on its talk page. Also, of course, you can respond to this comment. Peter M. Brown (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Millenarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Discrimination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Native Americans
Mahican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Michael Mann

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Hay River, Northwest Territories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations or Native Americans

Native Americans is a disambiguation page that leads, among other things, to Indigenous peoples of the Americas or Native Americans in the United States. The first is about all aboriginal people in both South and North America and the second is obvious from the title. For Canadian articles the best link is First Nations. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PainMan. You have new messages at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#LDS/Mormon consistency.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th Parallel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PainMan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to StG 44 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ignoring the hidden note, ignoring previous reversions of the same translation change by other users (with explanation!) and even ignoring the explanation on the article's talk page provided after your statement/question Denniss (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PainMan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Poverty Law Center

I see that you have added some text about the Southern Poverty Law Center to the article on Otoya Yamaguchi. This information was uncited, and not obviously relevant to the article.

Why does the article needs to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center? Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PainMan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nestorianism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions and 1RR notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the Operation Flavius article, and similar articles, are subject to a 1-revert-rule restriction, meaning no more than one revert in a 24 hour period. FDW777 (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach, please stop your incorrect changes. Failure to do so will result in me asking for arbitration enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have made NO such "incorrect changes". None of any kind. I will not revert them. I have in no way disputed any fact or made any change to any fact. Don't threaten me with tattling to the teacher. Grow up and deal with this like an adult. I properly linked each term to its relevant article. You haven NO grounds for complaint. You are simply incorrect on the facts.

It is NOT common to use Gaelic words to describe the Prime Minister or Ireland, its Parliament or that body's members. American media - obviously the world's largest and whose style manual sets the standard for the rest of the English speaking universe - almost never use these terms.

PainMan (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PainMan, Wikipedia does not follow American media's style manuals, we have our own. And if you keep posting patronizing, belligerent replies, you will more quickly be met with a block for incivility in addition to your disruption. Elizium23 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement notification

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PainMan. FDW777 (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for failure to justify your contentious edits in the topic area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. qedk (t 桜 c) 20:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic ban appears to still be in effect. I suggest you do not make any further edits relating to the Trobles. Kathleen's bike (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike How are any of these edits objectionable? none are even remotely "contentious." they clearly improve the articles in question. PainMan (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to appeal the topic ban, the instructions are in the message above. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't a course of action I would recommend. Kathleen's bike (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I even need to explain why any edit is objectionable, since you aren't permitted to make them in the first place, but here you changed "blast bomb" to "blast from a bomb" with the claim of "Fixed grammar". To anyone with a reasonable degree of knowledge about the subject, "blast bomb" is correct as it refers to a type of bomb, see for example this article, this press release, this article, this article or many more that can be found. Kathleen's bike (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That response rude, abrupt and not even a bit professional. What did I state that should provoke a wise ass response? You clearly have a personal animus against me though there is absolutely no reason for this.
I have never heard anyone in any context refer to any bomb as a "blast bomb." The term itself is ridiculous. If bombs don't "blast" well, then they aren't bombs. It's hardly my fault that British English sometimes refuses to conform to common sense or the basic meanings of words; e.g. "spanner" for wrench or "boot" for trunk. If it was a mistake, that's all it was. There was nothing contentious about it.
PainMan (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you are, so I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion. I thought I was doing for a favour by reminding you that you appear to be topic banned instead of filing an enforcement request. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to drop the stick and move away from the dead horse?

Although you are apparently not permitted to discuss this issue due to your topic ban, I doubt I'd be particularly interested in your reply anyway. You have said here No one outside of Ireland, and maybe the BBC, uses them and here No one outside of Ireland uses these Gaelic terms. I took the top 10 USA newspapers from List of newspapers in the United States#Top 10 newspapers by circulation, the results are:

For transparency you get the occasional use of Taoiseach in a quotation, but the majority of the time it isn't a quote at all. I would do a similar test for the rest of the Anglosphere but it's a foregone conclusion what the results would be so I'm not going to waste my time. Similarly I suggest you stop wasting your time on a hoped-for campaign based on a flawed assumption about the English language use of Taoiseach. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This is utter crap. I've never vandalized a page or defaced a page in anyway. So a topic ban is, to put it politely, horse pucky.

But I understand what you're saying: "Screw you PainMan. You haven't been a wikipedia editor for a decade and a half. You haven't authored three articles. You've made thousands of edits. But YOU DON'T MATTER. You aren't the part of some squad of Page Commandos sitting on these pages like basement dwellers!

"So, PainMan we don't give a damn what you've done to improve wikipedia."

Wow, FDW777, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING ME FEEL SO MUCH A PART OF THE COMMUNITY! What do you do in your spare time, kick puppies?

And, nice administrator. Basically, "Screw wikipedia's procedures, I have no intention of following said procedures or taking your case in any way seriously. So, again, PainMan, go screw you."

Thanks bro! You're a lovely human being. PainMan (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to make any comment on your current situation, other than to repeat what I said above. Your claims regarding the use of Taoiseach in the English language are not supported by evidence, and I believe your time could be more productively used elsewhere. FDW777 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:FDW777. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SN54129 19:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement notification #2

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PainMan. FDW777 (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that the above discussion of your conduct is still open and that you are advised to contribute to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Expulsion of Chileans from Bolivia and Peru in 1879, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oruro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Participating at AE

Hi PainMan. I don't think we've ever interacted before but I posted a comment at the AE thread Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PainMan (I was involved in another thread and saw yours). I also saw your discussion with SN at his talk page, and there was a brief discussion on my talk page, and I wanted to echo what SN said about posting your thoughts at the AE page. I think there are misunderstandings in this situation that could be cleared up through some good old-fashioned calm discussion, so I encourage you to participate there and address whatever concerns you and others have. Cheers, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! And thank you for this message. I have replied at length to this statement and to some of the issues listed on the PainMan's In Trouble Page.

I cop to the mistakes I made which I listed in my screed.

I'm still disappointed at how clique-ish wikipedia can be. But I also haven't taken the time to cultivate relationships.

I don't know if I'm going to get a response to what I wrote but I would like one from you.

Thanks,

PainMan (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, thanks for posting at Arbitration Enforcement (AE), it's obvious a lot of time went into what you wrote and I think it's already had a positive impact.
Wikipedia can definitely be cliquish and the WP:ACDS areas (for example, The Troubles) can be extremely difficult to navigate for the uninitiated. Here, The Troubles began (no, that joke never gets old) when you didn't receive notifications about the last report and as a result didn't post anything there. Everyone assumes you got the notification (many editors who use desktop don't know about mobile's reliability issues), and that your continuing to edit without responding at WP:AE meant that you were "ignoring" it. That's compounded by the sensitivity surrounding changing "taoiseach" to "prime minister" (which I also didn't know about before this). So it reads like an editor making "political" edits, edit warring over them, and then ignoring the AE report. That's a recipe for a TBAN, almost automatically, because the admin will assume it's a disruptive "POV-pushing" editor thumbing their nose at other editors. Angry messages demanding the TBAN be lifted probably reinforced that perception.
After reading the response you posted, everything makes more sense. I've posted another comment there that the TBAN be lifted and replaced with a warning instead. I'm not sure how things will end up there. You've said you want the TBAN to be lifted. If this current AE report is closed and the TBAN is still in place, FYI, there is an appeal procedure you can use, described at WP:ACDS#sanctions.appeals. But I'm hoping that can get straightened out in the current report so there's no need for more bureaucracy.
I'm surprised you edit using the mobile app – it totally sucks. Have you tried editing on mobile using a web browser instead? I usually edit on a desktop but when I use mobile, I prefer using my regular web browser over the Wikipedia app.
Here's to cultivating relationships! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PainMan. I hope this turns out alright for you, as I do appreciate the work you do. At the risk of triggering your grammar OCD, I have to tell you that I always use the singular they and its derived forms when I am unsure about an editor's gender. Many of us who wish to be correctly gendered use our preferences to set "he" or "she". I can check that for an editor by previewing their username in the {{heshe}} template: {{heshe|RexxS}} → he, but {{heshe|PainMan}} → he or she. You can avoid folks like me using singular they by setting your preference via the preferences link at the top right of any page. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ngo Dinh Diem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Liberation Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Don't know why this is here. I made sure to link it to the proper page.

PainMan (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you didn't check it. This was the edit you made and you linked National Liberation Front. If you follow the link, you'll see a disambiguation page, which lists two dozen different organisations called "National Liberation Front". I guess you meant to link to National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLFSV or FNL or Viet Cong). You probably also ought to read MOS:OVERLINK and have a think about whether we really need links to France or Japan. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


RexxS Thanks for fixing it. I did notice it was a diambiguation issue so I went to that page and I thought I'd chose the correct one. Looks like I didn't. Well, that's a hazard when people are so unimaginative in naming their commie front organization. ;)

PainMan (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to use the talkpages

Judging by your talkpage history and the number of people reverting your edits, I'm not the first to tell you this. But you need to learn how to use the article talk pages. Also, see WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. Heiro 18:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Mahler); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Painted turtle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teays River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ross County and Tills.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cnidocyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Evolution of sexual reproduction
added a link pointing to Prebiotic
Syntrophy
added a link pointing to Lactate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc
added links pointing to Herod and Bayram
Meltwater pulse 1B
added a link pointing to Weddell
Postglacial vegetation
added a link pointing to Polypoid
USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1987)
added a link pointing to Censor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, please read WP:LINK - you are doing a lot of overlinking, either repeating links or linking to things like "Europe" which don't need it. And check where your links go, to avoid linking to disam pages or inappropriate articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solid nitrogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Van der Waals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelagius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Regarding your revert, pease read wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Information icon Hello. In a recent edit to the page Black Paintings, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Objets d'art

Hi. Can you please explain how it is that you know that the art objects mentioned in the biography of Louis IX of France are the objects normally known in English as objets d'art? The terms are not synonymous in English and one should not be replaced with another just because the subject is French. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not a term one often finds used of medieval art, although most of the types most exported from Paris at the time - ivory carvings, metalwork, maybe tapestries - more or less fit the definition. Best left as it was. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to my revert is absurd. And whether a modern term was used in the Middle Ages is irrelevant. Unless your argument is that we cannot use any term not in use during the period in question? Guess we'll have to go back to early Middle English.

Reverting. We can go to arbitration, fellas. Your call.

PainMan (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one will take this seriously at "arbitration". My point was pretty clear that the term is not used now talking about medieval art in English. You seem to be emerging as a rather quarrelsome editor; I suggest you tone it down. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golden snub-nosed monkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadleaf.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Diego Velázquez
added a link pointing to Loreto
Placozoa
added a link pointing to Substrate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Count Franz Philipp von Lamberg
added a link pointing to Pest
Thomas W. Keene
added a link pointing to Cassius
Tiszaeszlár affair
added a link pointing to Sexton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Kyrgyzstan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chagatai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jay Treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Étienne de Flacourt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malagasy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Odd-toed ungulate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Browser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunsetted!

Hi Painman, I'm also American born and bred, all sixty-two years of me. In common discourse, yep, it's 'sunset', no doubt about it, no right-minded individual says otherwise. But in that one special case of laws that have time limits, it is the go-to term. Merry Christmas cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (premier président)

Dear PainMan. Thanks for your interventions on the article Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (premier président). There is certainly much room for improvement. I grew up speaking German and my English, just as my French, are 2nd-language. I wrote that Louis XV was Great-great-son of Louis XIV. You corrected great-great-son -> great-great-grandson. Did you not mean "great-grandson" as Louis XV was son of Louis the petit-dauphin, grandson of Louis the grand-dauphin and great-grandson of Louis XIV?

Your other correction was to italicise Académie française. I think it should stay in Roman. MOS:BADITALICS says: "Names of organizations and institutions should be in roman, rather than italics". Also other articles about académiciens (e.g. Pierre-Joseph Alary) seem not to italicise the name.

Please, if you decide to come back to your edits, add the missing accent in the heading: Académie rather than Academie. This was another of my mistakes. Please go and correct more of my mistakes or improve the article in other ways. It may well be that not only your English but also your French is better than mine. I came to the articles about members of the Mesmes family because I live in Ireland and wanted to learn about Irish history where I came across Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (diplomat), called the comte d'Avaux, who went to Ireland with James II in 1689. Have a look at the other Mesmes articles I touched, they are probably full of mistakes. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Louis XV was Louis XIV's great grandson. My mistake there! generally in English foreign names or phrases like Academie Française are italicized.

thanks for your feedback! PainMan (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Death. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Robynthehode (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deer flies

I have found that Avon Skin So Soft seems to keep them off of me. 96.18.251.88 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dingo–dog hybrid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nestor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates revert

You’re 100% right, that’s what I get for editing first thing in the morning. Thanks for the correction! Warrenmck (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck no biggie! i actually thought for minute, "is he right?" then I realized we never see commas in dates. maybe other languages do so, but we don't. have a good day. PainMan (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Lute Family Instruments

Hi,

I noticed you might be going over this article. Please let me know if you see anything that needs special attention. I ran out of steam, but addressing issues will get me working there again.

Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke sure! I'll get back to you. PainMan (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Your rude comment here is astounding. You don't know me, nor how much appreciated factual material I've written, with quite a few books listed at LIBRIS and some at LOC and BL. Gustav IV Adolf was arrested by officers and deposed by the Riksdag. Your wording was, and still is, wrong. I'm giving you this opportunity to apologize, rather than our starting at once to check on how often you tend to be that incredibly rude to other users. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing I know you don't know what the word depose means. Apologize for what? for correcting someone who doesn't know what basic words mean? I think not. Neither you nor your pretended superiority are needed or wanted. PainMan (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "make a fool" of myself which you very rudely accused me of. You can discuss content on the article's talk. This is about your behavior. It just got even worse. I see that you "hate Wikipedia" That shows. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will go away now or I'll file a harrassment complaint against you. I have no desire to have any further contact with you. Good day, sir. PainMan (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please file that! I'm still waiting for your apology. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Glen Shiel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Keith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]