User talk:Rrburke/Archive 4

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rrburke/Archive_4.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives

Archive 1: Dec 6, 2005 - Sept 8, 2007 Archive 2: Sept 18, 2007 - Jan 10, 2009 Archive 3: Jan 10, 2009 - April 14, 2009

I hear you.

I just clobbered two of those and I'll hit the other two as well. Thanks for the heads-up! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were just guesses -- how did you confirm so quickly? And:

• User:911wasnotaconspiarcy

--Rrburke^(talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dhol edit

How is my edit vandalising, im adding in a known fact. You obviously dont know much about dhol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.61.185 (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W Bush

Hi

Why is my article vandalize. Bush really raise his middle finger and said "It's a one finger victory salute" in front of the television and caused some controversy in 1995. Proof can be seen in youtube. '

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.194.103.242 (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is my edit to Walid Jumblatt unconstructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.133.246 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that mentions Jumblatt, including his BBC profile, calls him Lebanon's political weathervane, hence the "unsurprisingly". Also, the addition is very relevant considering his change in position was very significant and, considering it is a domestic issue, it will be hard to find sources in English that verify this, but here's one for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.133.246 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism/trolling/personal attack on my talk. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A couple of those accounts were already blocked, but due to a glitch the block isn't showing. I removed them from ANI per WP:DENY and other such things... --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andy Roda

An article that you have been involved in editing, Andy Roda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Roda. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bread

You appear to have reverted my own reversion of vandalism on Bread. Please be more careful. ♦ Jongleur^100 ♦ ^talk 17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There was no carelessness involved; we were merely reverting simultaneously and it went awry. It happens. In future, don't feel obliged to notify me: please feel free to go ahead and revert. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New issue

"The recent edit you made to Jack Hyles has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you." --Rrburke

Well there is a simple explanation, slander. There is no fact mentioned on any of the criticism articles, all of which are accusations that never even made it to court. Unless someone can show the court record for these issues, or evidence for the imprisonment of that deacon, this is nothing but slander. I would like to see it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.193.110 (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding speedy on Blockland Article

The speedy was removed by a wikipedia administrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blockland) and someone keeps re-adding it. Ephialtes42 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Blockland

Yes, stop complaining to me, because I never removed a comment. Dared45 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland deletion

Nononon.. I said I didn't delete comments, I wasn't talking about the deletion thingy.

Dared45 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User talk:81.159.5.100; Adam Deacon

I didn't edit the Adam Deacon wikipedia page. I have never heard of Mr Deacon, this computer is used only by my family (of which I am the only one who uses wikipedia) and, furthermore I have my own wikipedia account. I am sure that you sent the message to me in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.5.100 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-penguified

Thanks for finding that little dweeb. All his edits were pure BS and the socks were definitely going to be up to no good. All blocked! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

Thanks very much for removing page blanking of my userpage pal :-) Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Crisp

Oh no! You are conspiring with my captors! Why oh why oh why do you want to plot with Queensland Health to keep me incarcerated here? I am NOT crazy! Please believe me and please don’t help them! I can only escape from my restraints for a few moments every week and mostly I am drugged!! Why did you revert my plea for help on my user page????? This is the only place I can come for help and you are helping my captors?????! Why oh why oh why oh why????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.55.196 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for the original statement in parenthesis by Ike Turner which had a typo...I did not edit anything except the typo which read "Ike Turner (king of the women beatters). I changed beatters to beaters, only. Thank you for your attention to this detail. 75.120.136.232 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reverts of Ukrainian culture

Rrburke:

regarding the message that you left on my page.

As Wikipedia editors, we should work towards making the articles as NPOV and useful to Wikipedians as possible. Your systematic reverts of the articles on Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian pro-Western democratic struggle do not help the Wikipedia community to achieve this goal.

We, Wikipedians, should collaborate to make the articles better, and not revert them endlessly to excercise the anti-Western anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic censorship.

Please continue your contributions as a Wikipedia editor, and not anti-Ukrainian and anti-Estonian pro-Russian censor.

Thank you,

--

You wuz right.

Just another little adolescent vandal with a compooter. He's blocked. Thanks for letting me know.  :) Back to my life of editing Wikipedia, o woe is me! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for Kein someting. Tonmad (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.

I'll lock it down against new users which will allow you to get in and revert to the last good version. Thanks for the heads-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All set. I've locked it down for a week, which should give you plenty of time to proofread it and revert any inaccuracies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've never seen the show (blush). Here's a-hopin' it'll get fixed. The edit history is a mishmash and I'm at a loss to determine where the last good edit is. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think the new user block lifts after the account is four days old. Darn, I wish that I was familiar with the subject so that I could fix the page if necessary. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Deacon

Hi. I've researched IP addresses, and I've found an explanation for all of this. My Internet Service Provider changes my IP address periodically, and so the person who had my IP address before me made the edit to the Adam Deacon page. Then when you tried to notify them about it, the message cam through to me instead. The things they put were juvenile, and I'm glad someone picked up on the vandalism, as this sort of thing is a big problem with wikipedia. Thanks.

P.S. Could you please remove the message I sent you with my IP address on from your talk page if possible? I was tired and I forgot the things you can supposedly do with IP addresses. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Removingstuff (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of the information was embellished or lies! Several people have already taken their information off her page and they are VERY high profile people that Catarina "implied" she was sleeping with or God knows what. This is NOT a place to talk about the "billionaires" you have slept with...or lie about TV shows you created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.28.243 (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchnitzelMannGreek's Reply

I don't question your judgement and I don't blame your response either. But I'm just letting you no that I'm no longer a vandal. I don't do that anymore and I'm growing everyday in wikipedia experience. Can you please try being a little 'nicer. I work hard trying to make wikipedia better and making up for my past mistakes. But if you see something fishy-feel free to check my contribs or do whatever check-user thing you do. You'll just see that it's not me. I even put a couple of userboxes on my user page that say-this is a reformed vandal, and that this user has zero tolerence for vandalism.

I'm already friends with alot of other people on wiki like Inferno, Lord of Penguins and others. I want to be okay with you to. Feel free to look at my constructive contribs(to see that i have been working) and my user page-to get to know me better. Have a God-Blessed Day!`SchnitzelMannGreek. 02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchnitzelMannGreek has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Have a great day!SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know your decision as to my user page

Hello Rrburke, In response to your concern that my page was designed to advertise the class textbook, I redesigned the page to reflect our intentions. Another classmate of mine put up a {{hang on}} tag, and then another admin approved the page and removed the {{hang on}} tag. (The current version is clearer about our intentions.)

My classmates and I are constantly making changes to the content and we are anxious about having our work deleted. I would appreciate if you would revisit User:JD_Caselaw and, if you approve the page, state so on the discussion page, so that we can sleep at night. Thanks. JD Caselaw (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks for the resolution, and for the links to other law resources (these definitely will come in handy). JD Caselaw (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, my son.  :)

Thanks for the heads-up anyway. I tried leaving a message a few moments ago, but I had an internet hiccup which wiped me out. Thankfully, I can monitor this site while I'm at work and I saw him pop up on the abuse filter. Again. Oh, how I wish they'd rig that filter to allow the first account to be created (so as not to block an innocent user) but to clobber an attempt at a second account creation. 'Tis but a dream, at least for now. Thanks again, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I deleted my own page

Newbie here. I didn't realize that a Wiki on something that was helpful and FREE was spam. I deleted my own page. Please do not recommend me for bannning. --Norrisoft (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse in Milwaukee

Concerning the sexual abuse scandal in Milwaukee archdiocese, this link [1] provides plenty of information about archbishop Rembert Weakland's role in the scandal, since he was bishop during the critical period of 1977-2002. Such information could also be added to the Weakland article, although it would be a good idea to not make direct links between the abuse scandal and Weakland's controversial retirement after a gay affair. ADM (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that the awkward phrasing of the section called "At least 58 cases" makes the cited source, http://terrenceberres.com/ise-sex.html , sound as though it's the Church's report on the affair:

In a 2003 report on clergy sexual abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee revealed...

In fact, the document cited was written by the head of a victims' group and the group's lawyer.

Moreover, I'm concerned that this document is being offered as a reliable source on the scandal: I can understand it being cited as a source for claims and statements made by a group representing the victims, but as a source on the scandal as such, I'm afraid it runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB and doesn't constitute, as WP:SOURCES puts it, a "third-party published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --Rrburke^(talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup: I see that source has now been removed by another editor. In my opinion, if it is to be cited again, it should only be used as a source of information about the victims' group itself. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Its me

I have not been on my account for a while sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert My True Messages See If I Care.

But It Was True That Richard III WAs Naked And Hung On A Horse TO Appreciate Henry VII'S Victory, maybe u need to learn More Histroy hmm? You're Rival, JackOfBlades2 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

Thanks for your precise observations on the article Opus Dei. I hope I have fixed the problem to your satisfaction. My comments here. Thanks. :) Marax (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Feldhendler Copyright

Hi. You are correct that the USHMM claims to hold copyright. The legal problem is two fold with their assertion:

(1) This photo was taken in Poland, 64 or so years ago and according to Polish law, all photos taken in Poland prior to 1990 are considered public domain. [Copyright Law]

(2) The use of this image falls under fair use for historical images according to U.S.A. law since:

(a) It is a historically significant photo.

(b) It is of much lower resolution than the original.

(c) It is only being used for informational purposes.

(d) It depicts a non-reproducible deceased historic figure with no free equivalent available.

The use of this image to illustrate the article about Mr. Leon Feldhendler satisfies all four requirements regarding fair use.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurt Locker and User:Inurhead

Thanks for trying to help with the article. Inurhead usually has good information about it, but he's definitely got a case of WP:OWN. Look at his edit history - it's all for the movie. I suspect he's involved with the film in some way. Anyway, I've gone ahead and reported it to the 3RR noticeboard. Probably ought to have gone to WQA, given the somewhat wild accusations, but figured to start with the reverts. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall

We have both made some changes to the Marshall article about sources for duty of defence to disclose evidence. Have a look at Talk:Donald Marshall, Jr. and CanLaw discussion where I have tried to get some help on this issue. I am no expert in criminal law, but I think the duty of the defence to disclose evidence is completely different than the duty of the crown to disclose. Crown has a very broad duty. Defence duty is likely that if they want to raise an alibi, not doing it early is risky. The NYTimes piece seems to be saying that both sides have similar duties. They gotta be wrong about that like they seem to be about Seale and Marshall robbing Ebsary. --KenWalker | Talk 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be the first time.[2][3][4]. My mistake: I should have looked more closely at precisely what the article said. I'll have a better look into the matter when I have a moment -- unless you beat me to it! Thanks for catching that and pointing it out. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I moved it the reference in the article hastily and then found it did say what you cited it for so it was me that should have read it more closely. Anyway, perhaps all of this will sort out the correct information on this, a finer point in the article. Interesting links about NYT. Cheers. --KenWalker | Talk 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]