User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2008

Welcome

Hello ThaddeusB, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Blehfu

Happy editing! Blehfu (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help


thanks

Thanks for the tip.

I'm not going to bother to fight this in the same way any more. I'm taking this to WP:AIV. — Alan✉ 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Richard Littlejohn

I don't understand. I said arguably terrible quality. And it was arguably terrible, backed up by the fact that it was cancelled and had very low ratings indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertaketwo (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find much worse examples than that on this site...Also, not that I'm conceding to your point, but who cares about being against someone like Littlejohn anyway? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would complain about what I wrote. Therefore, I put to you that you are being overly neurotic about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertaketwo (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of quality though is it? I made a deduction based on the information already given that in no way altered the direction of the article. My contribution was totally inoffensive and I think that if you actually thought about it, you would see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertaketwo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The information served to reiterate the fact that Littlejohn failed in his foray into television. I believe that that is a useful piece of information, and in no way "sloppy and unprofessional". Therefore, I request that you replace my contribution. --Colonelfistertaketwo (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Colonelfistertaketwo (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just ask you why you blocked me? I did as you requested and created the discussion topic. However, you still went ahead and blocked me anyway. It seems to me that you didn't give me much of a chance and were just carrying out some kind of vendetta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertakethree (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I did not block anyone, nor did I recommend the blocking of anyone.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at cloud computing. I have warned the user. samj (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thank you so much Thaddeus, I really appreciate the barnstar. ;) And, I'm just doing my job with reverting nonsense from articles, I gots to do it. Thanks again. :P --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIS

I understand what you mean by this however, I don't work in or for the site. I am a user of the site and noticed that it did not have a wikipedia article. I am new to creating and editing wikipedia and just copied factual information from the site, If you wish to correct what I have written please look at the site and feel free to do so. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce Bigalow

Look, I admit I left a nasty comment on a discussion page and I shouldn't have, but is that REALLY a reason for you to go around reverting my edits? All I did was take out a bit in the Deuce Bigalow:Male Gigalow entry because I didn't think the comments of a political pundit were relevant to an entry on a comedy film, and I explained myself on the discussion page. I'm not a vandal and I do not feel it is fair for you to treat me like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You keep writing me up for the same thing yet I'm doing things differently. I try to post a link to a picture about Zima on flickr, I get flagged. I try to post a picture on my domain, I get flagged for flickr? huh. that doesn't make since. Then again. I post a link about zima to a text page, yet i get flagged again for flickr? that's what your write up said. It doesn't make since dude.--Goodtimes432 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Then what about my last link? It's text and a NON-picture. Why doesn't the last edit qualify? --Goodtimes432 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gonna reply?--Goodtimes432 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident.

Please see Editorial Assistance page. Best wishes, MacBiggles —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacBiggles (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something To Do

Something To Do is a legitiamte band and this is not vandalism. the "legitimate website" you asked for is http://www.somethingtodo.ws ... why don't you click on it and look for yourself. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't continue to erase the bands entry. if you still feel this is "vandalism" show me the guideline it falls under, because I looked and there is nothing that classifies it as such. Yes I am a new user, so bear with me. any questions let me know.
Neurosis187 (talk)

well fine then, let me get all my little links together and play your little "high and mighty game", it's not going to be today, but I will put it together... --Neurosis187 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, what are you doing?!64.107.220.165 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Quick question

I edited the Maracana stadium article that incorrectly stated it was the largest in the world. I was planning to go back and do further editing when I noticed you reverted it without comment. It was never the largest stadium in the world, this is inaccurate. I made an edit that was both (IMO) well written and unobtrusive. Please advise me on why you reverted in and how it can be corrected. 67.8.57.92 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)QZTR[reply]


Bush is a mass murderer by any definition; you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it

Why should this information not be included in his introductory paragraphs? You say the information is incorrect, when a quick look at that facts will clearly demonstrate that the statement is wholly true. George Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. Anywhere from 400,000 to over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a direct result of bombing, gunfire, torture, or any number of attacks, or as an indirect result of the conflict by starvation, malnutrition, suicide, inadequate access to health care, etc. One can safely assume that this great number of people would not have been killed if not for the invasion of their country, and one knows that, as President of the U.S., George W. Bush initiated this invasion and perpetuated the resultant occupation, thus one comes to the conclusion that George W. Bush is a mass murderer.

A further clarification: George W. Bush has spent much of his tenure as president focused on the business of the American Occupation of Iraq; to say that "Foreign Policy" has been a focus of his presidency is both vague and disingenuous. A more accurate and specific phrase would be "mass murder," or at the very least "war," as most of his foreign policy platforms have involved violence or the threat of violence against one country or another. Furthermore, your response was glib and condescending, please refrain from conveying sentiments in the future.Walksonground (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think your perception of reality is skewed. The Invasion of Iraq has been a major policy of the Bush Administration. Hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of the invasion. Therefore, mass murder has been a major policy of the Bush Administration. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton; mass murderers all, what's your point? I do think it a bit offensive that you would accuse me of exploiting the term for political gain. The phrase "mass murder" should be included among his major policies because it represents the truth of the matter, it is neither a joke nor a commentary. If one were to claim that mass murder had been a major policy of Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin in their administrations, it would not be questioned. But in this country, where America can do no wrong (and when she does wrong, she only does so with the best of intentions), it is impossible to label a sitting president as a mass murderer because this truth makes people uncomfortable. Clearly, you are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, only the pursuit and maintenance of the status quo. And if mass murder does not refer to "lives lost in war," than to what does it refer? If 400,000 civilians are killed, it's mass murder, but if 400,000 civilians are killed after a declaration of war it's something else? Give me a break, you should know better.Walksonground (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Roosevelt & Lincoln are also mass murders? Get real - lives lost as the result of war are not murders. Using the term for such trivial/political purposes is offensive to those who have actually suffered due to mass murders. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clever way of phrasing it: "lives lost." These lives were not lost in some passive way. These lives were taken. If you kill one person, it's a murder. If you kill two people, it's a double murder. If you kill thousands, it's foreign policy. You have a pretty fuct worldview my friend. And please tell me, when is it appropriate to use the term? I'm dying to know, because I thought it was used to delineate the action taken by one or many to kill many others. I did not know that the definition excludes those who are killed in a war. You say my purpose is trivial; you must find truth and the dissemination thereof to be a trivial matter.Walksonground (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why every world leader who engaged in war is not a mass murder by your definition? As to the appropriate definition, please see mass murder. In reality you are applying it only to Bush because you hate Bush; which is fine, but does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. My "worldview" has nothing to do with whether the term is appropriate or not - it clearly isn't, and you only believe it is because you are blinded by your hatred. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, you just totally owned yourself. Are you ready? From the mass murder article, Mass murder by a State(s) subheading: "Mass killing of civilians during total war, especially via strategic bombing, such as the Bombing of Chongqing, the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Ooooh. How's that feel? Just let it marinade a minute... George Bush is the head of state... The state mass murdered those people... Oh... Oh, yeah, that's good. And the by the way, every world leader who ordered any action which resulted in the deaths of a great number of people IS a mass murderer. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I don't know why you ask me to explain why they're not, because I never said any such thing. Walksonground (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read what you just wrote. The article is clearly referring to the purposeful killing of civilians, not civilians killed in the process of normal war. Regardless, you said it said it was a POLICY of Bush, was it clearly is not. Secondly, why did you add this comment only to Bush and not the hundreds of other world leaders who have engaged in war? Clearly you are motivated by your hatred of Bush and are unable to be objective because of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass killing of civilians during total war, especially via strategic bombing, such as the Bombing of Chongqing, the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Ooooh. How's that feel? "
Well, to me it feels like you can't read for comprehension very well, and don't understand the difference between those examples you listed and the Iraq War. Just so we're clear, when did the US military ever do anything in the Iraq War and those listed? Oh right, they didn't, and they never engaged in total war of any kind in Iraq. Your obvious partisan bias is not helpful, and trolling this editior with it isn't going to do anything but rally people to his side. One last thing, your personal attakcs on him are childish, and betray your true character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QZTR (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection

Please note that you should list new requests at the top of the section rather than at the bottom, as admins checking the page expect to see them at the top. No need to reply unless you have any queries. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omnichord

Why do you keep undoing my hard work towards telling the good people of this planet earth about who plays an omnichord? If you call me a vandal one more time i shall have to become irate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zupermanz (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero fiction

Thanks for your help with Superhero fiction! I just thought I'd ask your opinion on something I proposed on talk:Superhero fiction about splitting the 'Partial list' off into its own article. I'm not sure it adds to the main article at all, but what do you think? Thanks again. Dougano (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

I may need a tutorial on how to edit. I do not believe my edit was polarized. Palin thus far does not support subsidies for big oil. Now that she is on the McCain ticket she will be pressured to do so. I did not write anything about her selling her soul for political fame and fortune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntstell (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

Hi... I think this was an innocent mistake on your part, but you should look at the diff of the material you restored to the article here. The material was unsourced and negative, and had been removed in a legitimate cleanup attempt (I think).

We got an OTRS complaint about it from the school, so I went looking at the history and noticed this. I can completely see how you might have done that without noticing that some of the content was bad, I've done that before too. But we all do need to remember to keep an eye on it, and check out the details when we revert like that.

Thanks, and good editing! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Hey there -- didn't mean to mess up your work. Got this weird message about an edit conflcit, and I tried to save what you did, but I can see now that you had to go back and fix it. Sorry, βŢŘ: Nøbødy knøws whø Î am ør what Î am døing… 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sarah Palin's false pregnancy

The information that I posted on Sarah Palin's page is well-cited. Mostly I just I contextualized information from images on web sites, which I have sited. In this age of media blackouts the Wikipedia is among the last firewalls between the people and total deception. I humbly ask you to let my posting stand. If there are further facts that present themselves, then other Wikipedians will post and cite them in order to flesh out the truth here.

I will now re-post my factual information regarding the strange circumstances surrounding the parentage of Governor Palin's daughter's son.

I would also like to remind you Sir, that your responsibility is not just to the wikipedia, but also to the people of this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudotype (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog speculation is not equivalent to being "well sourced." --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, most of the reverted material cited local Alaska news articles, not blogs. The one citation to a blog was mentioning the speculation among politically motivated parties (e.g., Daily Kos bloggers) questioning Trig's parentage. This is structurally parallel to the material in the same section mentioning Pro-Life groups' praise of her willingness to bring Trig to term.Catuskoti (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thaddeus. If you go back and look, I think you'll see that the material reverted didn't draw any conclusions. It mentioned conclusions that some have drawn, while noting their probable political motivations. Out of conservative respect for BLP, I'd be happy to not mention these speculations. But the other material ought to have been uncontroversial. And yeah, believe me I understand that pregnancy doesn't happen the same for everyone. With all best wishes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuskoti (talk • contribs) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me an NPOV warning when all of the edits I made were TOWARDS POV. I'm trying to keep that section of the article fact-based. All I did was rearrange things and put the wording in non-definite terms because, let's be honest here, it isn't a definite point, hence the debate. Miserlou (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to proof, please. --AStanhope (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

Hey Thaddeusb - please be careful when reverting. When I said "see discussion" - I actually meant that there was a discussion on the 3am moose line--danielfolsom 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Talk:Sarah Palin#Moose! --danielfolsom 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started it- so I was talking about the 3am line - but I'll clarify - thanks for bringing it up that you were confused - cause surely you weren't the only one!, my apologies--danielfolsom 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal controversy

Thanks for your note regarding improvements to the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article. I'm very impressed at how the article has continued to expand, with everything well-documented and with minimal arguments over content (from my quick glance, anyway). Wikipedia at (or at least close to) its best, I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop whitewashing Palin's support for Buchanan's Presidential campaign

It's relevant to her political life and philosophy. I know you wrote on my user talk board it makes her "look bad" but that's irrelevant POV. For supporters of Buchanan, it doesn't make her "look bad" at all. It's as relevant to her early political philosophy as her membership in the Alaskan Indepedence Party, or the fact that she used to support Senator Stevens before the falling out. Please stop trying to hide the truth. Please tell me on what basis is the political philosophy of a vice-presidential nominee NOT relevant to her wikipedia article. Would you also not mention that Reagan was a Democrat in his early years on the ground that it's "irrelevant."

If you continue to delete this, we will enter an edit war. I will put a "non-neutral" tag over the site and we can have a large wikipedia vote on whether the political philosophy of a political candidate is "relevant" or not. I'm confident I will win. Please don't do this. I've included the extremely unlikely McCain denial (as if McCain knows what's going on in the Buchanan 1996 Presidential campaign) for balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Please read WP:3rr - you don't want to get blocked, be mindful of how often you revert on Palin. rootology (C)(T) 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming here to say the same thing, in so many words. It doesn't matter who's "right" and who's "wrong", you cannot continue to "revert" the other outside of discussion. You will be blocked (and so may others). Keeper ǀ 76 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it 3 times, and won't do it a forth. However, he has re-added the material at least 6 times.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreekParadise is blocked (by Moreschi, although I was actually trying to block the account myself, he/she beat me to it). Thaddeus, don't get caught up in edit warring, rise above it. I'd personally find it tragic if the article ended up "fully protected" for admin only editing. It would completely go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I saw your post on the Palin talkpage, thank you for stopping before getting blocked, much appreciated from me. Keeper ǀ 76 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I would like to apologize for my emotional response to this situation. The edit summaries by GreekParadise that put words in my mouth and accused me of doing things that I did not do really bothered me. I will try not to let trolls get under my skin in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of section: Political positions

I think in terms of size and position within the article it is excellent, I'm sure the wording will be tweaked but removing the bolding alone is a huge improvement, people can find the huge list in the subarticle. Hobartimus (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]
Umm.. Take a look at the fifth paragraph of the Governor of Alaska section. Kelly deleted the last half of the paragraph (the negative bit), but left the first half with the exact same wording in the Political positions section and the Governor of Alaska section.. I just removed the remainder of the paragraph from the political positions section. You can argue that the paragraph should be included in one of the sections, but you really shouldn't be in favor of it being in the article twice. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is duplicative. Take a look at the fifth paragraph of the Governor of Alaska section and the last paragraph of the political positions section. Exactly the same.
Governor of Alaska section:

When asked about her "crowning achievement" during her time as governor, she listed protecting "our state sovereignty by taking on the big oil industry interests."[3] Palin added that she desires that Alaska becomes a contributor to, rather than "takers from federal government."[3].

Political positions section:

When asked about her "crowning achievement" during her time as governor, she listed protecting "our state sovereignty by taking on the big oil industry interests."[3] Palin added that she desires that Alaska becomes a contributor to, rather than "takers from federal government."[3].

It is generally helpful when some tells you to look at something that you actually go and do that before assuming that they do not know what they are talking about... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misread your comment the first time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferraro

I unarchived it first for the same reason! Anyway, "resolved". Kaisershatner (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Please stop with the personal attacks on the Sarah Palin talk page. Thank you. zredsox (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call them that, then no problem, I'll stop. I will point out that every "attack" I made was more-or-less in echo of what you first said about me though. For example, you accused me many times of being biased and made veiled assertions that I made "bad faith" edits. I then responded by challenging you to some an example, and pointed out that you have been far more partisan than me. In any case, none of this crap is productive and I won't respond to your nonsense any further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handy list

Here. Kelly hi! 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library thing

Thaddeus, there's discussion at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#New Section Request: Censorship about the librarian thing. Could you stop by and link to the source which explains the dismissal threat was over admin issues? I can't find that link. Kelly hi! 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: found Sarah Palin original source

Hi ThaddeusB - first of all, great work on the now 3 short paragraph section. Can I ask that we hold off on having the section put on the main page for a little bit? The Frontiersman has just republished the original Dec. 18, 1996 article that is being referenced. It is the actual primary source and should be the first place of reference. I don't think it will change too much but it may help to create material that can remain static. I'll also post it on the talk pages. http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt#blogcomments -Classicfilms (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sorry it happened after your request. You've done great work - none of us could have known it would have just been posted. Anyway, I think we can quickly make the changes. Thanks so much for your great help. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over how to tweak the section, I noticed two reference errors that need to be fixed. Can I ask you to do them before I make other changes? Here they are:

a. The very first reference (after "Support her administration") is missing the URL. I added it - you can just paste it here: [1]

b. After "She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters" - you offer a secondary reference but not the original - can you replace it? Here it is: [2]

  1. ^ "Wasilla's new mayor asks officials to quit". Daily Sitka Sentinel. 1996-10-28.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes090208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the URL to the first source since I made a suggested draft of the second paragraph but we still need the original reference for the NY Times article. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - whatever is easiest. And please feel free to tweak my edit. I am debating whether or not to extend Palin's quote as there is more material towards the end of the article but the paragraph seemed to be getting long. Feel free to add it if you think it helps. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and tweaked the my draft of the paragraph a bit more. I thought that it would be useful for this section to add the source and extend the quotes- there was also a small typo. See what you think -Classicfilms (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've made a few small changes to draft seven. Could you please take a look and reaffirm your support for publishing this if you still agree? Thanks!--Paul (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PUMAs

Hillary Clinton supporters think that you are an Obama supporter.[2] LOL. Kelly hi! 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently I am both a paid McCain staffer and an Obama supporter. I just love how people think they can guess my motives. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, brother - I've been chased off the Palin articles. Good luck with them, and I hope you get some extra help from more neutral folks soon. Kelly hi! 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Gravina Island

I have put back the population of Gravina Island (50). It's fact, not POV. But if you feel, in this long article where detail makes sense, that we need to mention that there were other good reasons for the bridge like the Ketchikan Airport, feel free to add them. Or, if you prefer, let me know and I'll add it myself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Just wanted to point you to this compliment I paid to you. A courtesy on my part, as I used you as a role model for writing both factually and neutrally. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more on library etc. section

Hi Thaddeus,

Could I ask you to take a look at this? Your edits were so helpful, I thought perhaps you might have some useful suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section

-Classicfilms (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Barnstar

What a surprise! Thank you so much for the barnstar! I really believe that the WP offers an extraordinary environment - the chance for numerous individuals from different backgrounds and different perspectives to collaborate, share opinions, sometimes differing ones, and then reach middle ground. I think that many people contributed to this experience and I'm glad to have been able to help out. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was a welcome surprise. I also thank you for the barnstar; I don't have too many of them, but each one is treasured and a memento of a lot of work. Wikipedia is an interesting place. It is by far the best example of Web 2.0 concepts actually working (most of the time). It's an amazing demonstration of collective intelligence really adding to human interaction. I gave a talk today to a group of visiting Chinese, and I used Wikipedia as an example of how technology was bringing everyone in the world together and making it a better place. Thaddeus, your work here, and the work of the the other editors on the Sara Palin article prove that this is true.--Paul (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, thank you. It was a pleasure editing with you and encouraging to think we could all agree to a common text, which I like to think is a more factual and neutral piece than any of us could have produced alone. Hope to run into you again in the future.Like.liberation 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

thanks for barnstar

I'm still so new (palin was my first article) I'm not sure exactly what to make or do with it!  :) Which I knew how to respond appropriately back. I enjoyed working with you and the others on that thread...to bad the other topics weren't handled as well as that one - IMO. Theosis4u (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my talk page (if you're not there already)

GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed please

at WAB/Tasks page. Leigh Rayment (continued). Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rayment

Terrific. Thank you. Everything at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#LeighRayment.c

When in doubt it can go to {{Rayment}}. Earls, Viscounts, Dukes, Marquesses, etc are all peers and therefore go to {{rayment}}. Many baronets are also MPs and should therefore properly be in {{rayment-b}} and {{rayment-hc}}. The ones that are just someone's name - the text of the article usually says something like "was a conservative politician" - would go to the MP page. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely. Because angeltowns/town leads nowhere. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Please can we link to both. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regexes

No problem. I got one like that 'included' one before, but I forgot to report it. I'll do what you suggested on the talk next time I get one of these. :) — neuro(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"dounled"

Hi, in this edit, your comment says dounled text. Do you mean that the text is downloaded from website? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo of doubled. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiStatsBOT

Is this bot indeed yours? If so, could you please link to its bot approval request. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do, it was brought up at WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/WikiStatsBOT --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeadLinkBOT

Just wanted you to know that I think your bot is malfunctioning. It has removed the entire content of several pages. I have had to revert it. Best, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done it to three pages so far today. If it does it to one more, I'm going to block it. J.delanoygabsadds 18:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be difficult, but it didn't blank any pages. It accidentally removed the categories and interwiki links sections from 2 (not 3) 3 pages (I see now there was one last nigth as well). I am still testing the bot a few edits at a time and I immediately undid the changes myself. The cause was a specific situation - the link being the last text of the page - I had not properly anticipated and had not noticed on my local writes. Again, I am checking every diff myself to make sure any other bugs are ironed out and reverting any bad changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook count

Hi ThaddeusB. Thanks so much for the bot. I revised the table at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Is there anyway that you can adjust the bot to fill in the table as it now is presented? The verified hooks generally are those having either or appearing anywhere withing the level 4 section. Also, can you work {{time}} into a row of the template so that we can see a comparison of the present time vs. the last update time. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 18:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on some code to count the # of hooks with check marks and will add {{time}}. It shouldn't take me long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, the expired noms are the ones listed below Template_talk:Did_you_know#Expiring_noms. Is there any way to color code the template so that the background of the expired noms is different from the non expired noms? A light pastal color might good for the background of the expired noms, something that says, "Come guys, these need to be addressed" but not so harsh as to convey urgency. However, the expired noms after the third day should have a more urgent background color than the first three days of the expired noms. DYK has a five day rule for noms. A flexible three day grace period usually is used depending on the nominators cooperation. Once the noms get past the third expired day (past DYK day eight), they reach a more critical stage to where they likely should be deleted from the suggestion page. Perhaps the light blue background color within the circle of the image can be used for the first three expired day (DYK nom days 6-8) and the light orange background color withing the circle of can be used for any expired days past DYK day 8. -- Suntag ☼ 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a preliminary sample table before I saw your color suggestions. You can view it here: [3]. I'm going to work on making the bot output it the way I made it, but if you want the colors changed just let me know as that will take about 5 secs to change once the rest of the code is in place. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]