This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Crocker. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. This was discussed prior on the talk and doesn't need to be reverted again. ZacBowlingtalk 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You idiot, I've edited that article once since October 19. What's today, October 30? So, 1 revert in 10 days and you accuse me of 3RR and an edit war??? Take your 3RR and stick it up your ass. -- ALLSTARECHO 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Trolling at the AN/I
I rem,oved your comment here if you have a problem with an admin and want to bring it to the attention of other admins then you need to start a new section and describe the problem there. Having sly diggs without evidence counts as a personal attack. Please dson't do that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can comment on anything just like anyone else can. My opinion counts too. It always amazes me anytime someone else has an opinion that admins don't like, it's immediately labeled trolling, disruption and anything else they can glean out of WP policy and guideline. But thanks for your concern. -- ALLSTARECHO 13:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:President Steamboat.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:President Steamboat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SEWilco 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: Message
Dear Allstartecho,
Thank you for your concern on the content I've posted. I'm affiliated with the management group that owns the publication.
Ally, formerly Queer, will be launching on November 10th; you can find information about the publication on the management
groups website that has been provided: http://www.appmedia.org
If you have a personal email address, I'll be more than willing to submit a media guide and press releases.
All the best,
Jeff Meredith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemstrong (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that conflict of interest is generally looked upon disfavorably on Wikipedia. Your creation and editing of an article about a subject for which you have close ties could result in deletion of the article or content. Further, remember that articles must contain verifiable sources and references. See WP:MOS and WP:REF. -- ALLSTARECHO 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with your signature. The rendering is done with hard hex codes, which do not render well for users with low vision who use special css. I would urge you to drop the "funky" formatting and simplify your signature so that utility is not degraded for visually impaired users. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:AFD
I know a few people do add comments when nominating articles, but I'm just saying it isn't necessary, as if you nominate the article for deletion, it is implied that you support its deletion.
Another thing, when giving warnings to users, its best to go in order with the warnings (as you started with #3 for removing AfD notices). - Rjd0060 05:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the COI tag. Conflict of interest is only a real problem when articles are written against a Neutral Point of View and this article, in my opinion, doesn't have a neutrality problem. - Rjd0060 05:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Casey Parks
As a graduate of Millsaps College I feel I have EVERY right to edit the notable alumni page. Casey Parks is not a notable alum of Millsaps College, she went there and won a contest. She was not liked and does not deserve to be considered a notable alum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.131.7 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Because she MAY have not been liked, she shouldn't be included in the notable alum? Ridiculous! See WP:NPOV. She is notable as a national journalist and having won a major national journalism contest. End of story. -- ALLSTARECHO 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
she was NOT editor of the JFP. Get your facts straight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.249.169 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Mississippi
You freely removed ALL my edits, but you didn't worry about the masses of unattributed material in the article by other editors. Certainly the wealth of planters was due to their "property assets" in slaves as well as the fertile soil and cotton market (the latter details which have no reference, of course). That was a condition across the Southern states. I will revise the section on levees, but sources are for information that needs to be verified, not something as obvious as that slave labor built the levees. --Parkwells 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Benjiboi & I have been discussing the referencing style at this page, and we need a third party to investigate something for us. I wondered if you'd mind helping? What we need you to do is to click on one of the links Benjiboi has recently added, and describe the resulting page to us. What Benjiboi gets and what I get are two different pages, and we want to find out whether it's just me, or whether this is a more widespread problem. Thanks in advance. SP-KP 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what Benjiboi is getting, but quite different from what I get. Very puzzling indeed! SP-KP 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
vigilance
Thanks for the note. I've semi-protected BB's talk page for a while. That should mostly resolve the problem. Hit my talk page if you need anything. ··coelacan 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ole Miss
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Ole Miss Rebels, you will be blocked from editing. Do not remove content from articles on Wikipedia. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The tone of this article seemed a bit passionately braggadocious. The original claim of "one of the winningest football teams in the NCAA" made it sound as though it was on the level of the Alabamas, Michigans and USCs of college football. The fact that this statement is now accompanied by"ranked 31st overall" is a bit more honest. Threatening me with a ban on Wikipedia edits is a bit much, don't ya think!? I'm just sayin'! Lrgjr72
Mississippi and citation format
Hi -
Thanks for your words of encouragement on Mississippi and guidance on the citation format. I have had notes at the side of my computer to remind me, but need to improve those. Cite format for books seem easier for me to remember than for the web, but am making progress with help from experienced editors like you.--Parkwells 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
More on Mississippi history
Hi -
Your challenges led me to find some really interesting books on the late 19th c. Mississippi frontier, bottomland settlements, and Chinese immigrants. I had forgotten having read about some of these elements before, but more research has been done. Will be adding more.--Parkwells 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
question
Just a question, not trying to pry, but are you a homosexual? Oisirhey (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Gee, whatever gave you that idea? -- ALLSTARECHO 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Research!
I know what a sticky subject verification can be and thought you might find this video of interest. It's been playing for a very long time now and has no signs of letting up. Benjiboi 04:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
haha I saw that a couple of weeks ago I think. User:Shadowhead deserves a round of drinks for self-making that, no? -- ALLSTARECHO 13:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
effort
Please, shaming is uncivil and unhelpful. An AFD nominator is entitled to their opinion, and should not have to endure these value judgments. Wikipedia is a hostile enough environment already, without assume bad faith being promoted to de facto policy. I encourage you to strike out your comment. WP:EFFORT is deprecated, anyway. ··coelacan 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
While I very rarely disagree with Coelacan, on this occasion I do. Your comment was a natural human reaction to his obstreperousness. He is being ridiculous, as you so helpfully pointed out, and it is shameful. There is a world of difference between being blunt and being uncivil. I flat out told the guy to go away when he posted on my talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Searching for a copy editor
Hi! I'm currently networking to find someone who will copy edit the Lance Bass article, which is currently a Good Article and is in the process of being made presentable for a possible Featured Article nomination. Would you mind maybe looking over it and sharing some suggestions for improvement? I noticed that you were part of the Mississippi WikiProject and the LGBT WikiProject, both of which this article belongs to... however, if you'd rather not, well, that's fine too. :) Thanks! --MgCupcake 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll do what I can but it'll be mostly about his Mississippi relation as that's what I am familiar with. -- ALLSTARECHO 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI. I've done a run-through and the article is looking good. Benjiboi 01:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Allstarecho, I appreciate you putting effort into the Mississippi article and addint the proper cats to the Cook Family article. I just had not gotten around to it and I appreciate the help. I am not going to revert the edit you did when you took David L Cook out of the main page. However, I think it is inportant to realize that David is an extremely well noted Mississipian and would have every right to be listed on that front page with the likes of Oprah. He is a 4 time music Hall of Fame inductee. I jjust wanted to state that, but I will not revert the removal. Again, thanks for the help Junebug52 02:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I removed him from Mississippi because the list there isn't intended to be a full listing of all famous people born in, or living/have lived in Mississippi. That list used to be so long that it became an article about famous people rather than about the State of Mississippi. People have worked hard to clean up the article. Incidentally, Cook was born here but moved away at the age of 2 and hasn't lived here since he was 2 years old, according to his article here on Wikipedia. If he belongs on any state or city article, it would be Florida or Fort Lauderdale, Florida, much more so than on Mississippi. As he only spent the first 2 years of his life in Mississippi, his rightful Wikipedia place in relation to Mississippi is at List of people from Mississippi. Honestly, to liken his celebrity to that of Oprah seems absurd. I could most likely do a poll asking people have they heard of Cook and most would say they have not. Oprah? Who hasn't heard of Oprah? ;) -- ALLSTARECHO 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That was not my point. I too have worked hard on cleaning up these pages including the one for Pascagoula, Lucedale and Ft. Lauderdale so I am very aware of the importance of keeping things in perspective. To clear up a misunderstanding about Mr. Cook's importance to Mississippi; he still owns a family home place in Lucedale and various members of The Cook Family Singers still live in Three Rivers, Lucedale and Pascagoula. So, he did in fact move away as a resident at large when he was 2,but has kept his connections with the community and family heritage. To say that he is as famous as Oprah would be absurd as there are a few that are in that catagory. My point was that his importance as a Mississippian is just as important as hers. I think you should agree with that statement as they both bring their own flavor and fan base to the table. Junebug52 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not getting into a debate about his notability. I'm sure he is notable, as evidenced by his article. His importance to Mississippi however is questionable, at least to the extent that he deserves placement next to the likes of household names like Oprah, Archie Manning, Brett Favre, Jerry Rice, Eudora Welty, John Grisham, etc. Cook isn't a national or world-wide household name. In other words, in disagreement with you, his importance as a Mississippian isn't just as important as Oprah's. She is the richest woman in America, a household name, on TV and been in movies and actually comes back home and contributes to her home. Cook hasn't lived here since he was 2 years old. So what importance difference am I missing/did I miss - err, besides the fact that he owns a house in Mississippi. -- ALLSTARECHO 03:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to continue to argue this point. I am an entertainment historian and I can assure you that we are talking about someone who holds a very dear place in the heart of Christian music as well as being just as famous to that genre as the other people you mentioned in your response are to their genres. If this were not true, I doubt he would have been inducted into 4 very prestigious Halls of Fame at such a very young age. David does continue to go back to his hometown and in fact recently went back and did a concert for the city and waived ticket fees and asked people to bring food and clothing which was donated to the local homeless shelters within the community. He was given a proclamation and key to the city. So, in conclusion, I never meant to get into this debate over such a mute point. I said I would not revert your edit and I stated the reasons why I would not. We can just say that we "Agree to disagree" Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Junebug52 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't important at all. On the contrary, he's definitely worthy of inclusion at List of people from Mississippi but his celebrity status isn't worthy of disrupting the clean-up of the list of notables at Mississippi that was performed. It even specifically states in the coding, twice, to add further names to List of people from Mississippi. I'm assuming you just missed that and that's fine, no harm done. I did notice however that you only added the Cook Family article to List of people from Mississippi but not the David L Cook article. I'd encourage you to add them both. Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
I know wiki's generally are not acceptable as sources. However, thats why I added the tag for sources, also see WP:SELFPUB. I don't see a reason not to include that information, until a more sufficient source is located. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:EdOrgeron.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ALLSTARecho 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
They lead to non-existant articles. I'd rather have no link, than a link taking me to something that doesn't exist. -- ALLSTARecho 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually you may want to rethink that. It may seem counter-intuitive but Wikipedia has a long tradition of putting links for articles that (at least to that editor) should exist. I can't fully express the rationale but part of the sorting of those red-links is used to determine "most sought after" (or similar phrasing) articles that should be created. Also some consideration should be given to articles recently deleted (but may soon be re-added or reinstated) as well as items that may be misspelled or the article moved and redirects not working. In any case I think it's more a judgment call but I tend to leave them if another editor thought they were valid unless I'm pretty confident that no article will be covering that subject for "a while". Another possibility is editors using the lack of an article to point out the non-notability of a subject as far as wikipedia is concerned. Benjiboi 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. In removing red links, I do stop for a moment and ask myself if an article related to said link would be created soon, if ever. In all honesty, I don't remove 98% of the red links I come across. In this instance, the reason Dystopos came here and asked, I don't see anyone creating an article about, as it reads on Hazlehurst, Mississippi: Max D. Cooper, noted immunologist, was born in Hazlehurst. I could be wrong. There just might be someone out there ready to write an article about Cooper. eh? -- ALLSTARecho 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I build a wikilink but will they come? Benjiboi 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, if an article merits coverage, then red links help gauge the need for it. Being "taken to something that doesn't exist" is how Wikipedia grows. If anyone is interested, I wrote an article on Cooper for BhamWiki. It's under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, so anyone is free to adapt it for Wikipedia with proper attribution. I'd do it myself but lately I feel like participating in Wikipedia is all but counter-productive. This discussion supports that feeling. --Dystopos (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you started the discussion. Your arguing for red links could be construed as counter productive to people who are working to clean up Wikipedia. -- ALLSTARecho 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The argument that red links are "dirty" makes no sense to me. Where would Wikipedia be without them? --Dystopos (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Where would Encyclopedia Britanica be with them? -- ALLSTARecho 16:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Britannica communicates with its contributors privately instead of through the public interface. The guideline "Wikipedia:Red link" remains the consensus for Wikipedia. --Dystopos (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK then, we can just agree to disagree. -- ALLSTARecho 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Man, what is wrong with you? Take a look around, check Mack Brown, Mike Sherman, Steve Kragthorpe, Art Briles, and a lot more — all those guys have been hired in November or December of some year, but their first year/season with their new school was always the next year. So what is your problem with that? ––Bender235 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My problem with that is that it is currently 2007 and Nutt is the official head coach at Ole Miss. Therefore his tenure at Ole Miss starts in 2007, NOT 2008. -- ALLSTARecho 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It was December of 1997 when Texas hired Brown, but the article says "1998 Texas". It was December 2006 when Louisville hired Kragthorpe, but the article says "2007 Louisville". It was November 2007 when Texas A&M hired Sherman and Baylor hired Briles, but both articles set the start of their coaching stint at 2008. With Houston Nutt it is no different. Hired this year, but effectively won't coach until next season. So I'm changing it again, buddy. ––Bender235 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what the other articles say. The man is the coach NOW and NOW IS 2007. -- ALLSTARecho 02:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for edit warring
You've been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Houston Nutt. In the future, please seek consensus for your edits, pursuing dispute resolution if necessary. If you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Considering we are trying to reach a consensus (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Interim coaches in templates and Talk:Houston Nutt#NPOV) your block has effectively removed me from exactly what you are asking me to do: reach a consensus via talk. Further, 3RR and edit warring does not come into play when restoring the content which should not be removed until said consensus is reached.
Decline reason:
Editor decided to wait the block out (see below) — Kwsn(Ni!) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll do my time. I've always been under the understanding that when a consensus discussion is going on, the content should be left alone. As others have not left the content alone and persistantly removed the content while we're discussing the very content, that defeats the purpose of a consensus discussion. What's the point in having a consensus discussion about whether or not content should be changed, if someone is just going to come along and change it anyway. Thanks for your time though. I appreciate the quick attention to the {{unblock}}. -- ALLSTARecho 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Did you get a chance to relax during your "break" from WP stress ;-)? At least that's one way to look at it. Hoping you keep up a great sense of humor, as it makes all the difference. And thanks for a nice mention on the Chicken AfD. Poor Benjiboi, he seems to be taking lots of undeserved lumps recently. Regards, — Becksguy 09:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
lol Thanks! That's exactly how I looked at it. Of course, the other guy to get banned in our "edit war" also got unbanned by the same admin before 24 hours and went right back to reverting everything that got us banned in the first place, after telling the admin he wouldn't edit or revert anything in the article. I guess inaccuracies are more important than someone trying to keep an article sane and encyclopedic. But WP just isn't THAT important to me to lie my way into an unban to only repeat the same behavior. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD Trans-Bashing
Regarding Trans-bashing, you clearly closed the AfD against the consensus on the page, which is against the policy you used to justify your action. If you insist on maintaining the specious close, then I'll take it to AN/I. Additionally, its ridiculous that you reverted my edit to your closure because supposedly I lack 'authority' because I am not an administrator. How many 'keep and expand' !votes did you see on that page? AvruchTalk 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. AfDs are based on merits of opinions and discussion. While indeed, most "votes" were to redirect, the concerns regarding the article were pointed out and addressed making the article KEEP AND CLEANUP as I closed it. Again, if you don't agree, take it to deletion review as is the process but no one is to edit a closed AfD except Admins, per policy. -- ALLSTARecho 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In my capacity as admin, I have reopened the AfD. The policy states clearly that in controversial or ambiguous cases, administrators should close the AfD. —Kurykh 23:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing controversial about this case, but as an admin, it's your call. Thanks for notifying me. -- ALLSTARecho 01:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Choose your battles
Lordy, Allstar, that Larry Craig dispute is even pettier than the Icelandic rockstar dispute that got me blocked today. Describe is implied in allege. I'd let this one go, if I were you, and concentrate on making sure the actual content doesn't get removed. just my advice, still stinging from my unjustified block. Jeffpw 18:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your insistence on reverting to a previous version of the bear community page is facile. I have more ip addresses than you can poke a stick at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.196.3 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2007 UTC
I also object to your heading. It is offensive to the disabled. Please remove it or I will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.196.3 (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2007 UTC
Whitelisting
Is done - cheers --Herbytalk thyme 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! -- ALLSTARecho 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Man, you're on top of it!
[2] Thanks for the heads up; it's editors like you who help keep us absent-minded admins in check. ;) Jmlk17 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the shit & giggles
I didn't know whether to be pissed off or laugh, until you made that last remark. Now I'm just gonna laugh. 14 hour shift today, braindead, and after the drama with my insane adoptee (and that malignant block, yesterday) I needed some smiles on my page. Thanks. Jeffpw 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No thanks
Please don't ever edit my comments again in the manner in which you did here. There are a number of reasons why I don't bold the oppose, and it is common courtesy that others don't change it. I'd suggest you honour this courtesy to others, aswell. Thanks, Daniel 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I did it for clarity and ease of counting the RFA votes. -- ALLSTARecho 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And now that I look at the comment you left with your revert, "Don't ever do that again with one of my comments, thanks", I'd just like to say you don't have to be a dick about it either! -- ALLSTARecho 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, making assumptions about what someone intended on doing with their post could be seen as somewhat of a dick-move in and of itself... however, arguing over that will just exacerbate the situation. Suffice it to say, editing something that someone else said is generally a bad idea. EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
your reverts
Discontinue your reverts here, per WP:NFCC, which states that non-free images may not be used outside of mainspace. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Further, your continued misuse of TWINKLE may result in the loss of your privilege to use it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Twinkle has nothing to do with this as I could just as easily revert without Twinkle. However, my apologies for the reverts since the image was a photograph that someone took and uploaded to WP. The rationale says specifically, "I release this photograph under the GFDL". Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
For my new shiny and fruity barnstar! Yay! What a neat project LGBT Studies is. --Moni3 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sig code
I happened across a talk page you signed, and noticed that your signature could be condensed a bit.
Feel free to ignore the new code if you don't feel like changing; I was just bored and thought I'd try to be helpful. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the Alabama communities: there is generally no possible way to source the population for an unincorporated area definitively if the Census doesn't make it a CDP. Of course, with communities such as Madden, it's different because of the newspaper source, but most communities have no sources at all dealing with this, and it's likely that most communities like this have the population put up by a local resident. Moreover, when I'm placing county templates such as the one for Leake County, I'm just going through communities rapidly, and I don't have time to go researching: if someone like you wishes to spend more time to research it, that's good, but there's no reason for an unsourced and likely unsourceable statement to remain posted. Nyttend 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
Mississippi ;) and maybe we could find a bot to handle the task of building a list of unsourced population articles? -- ALLSTARecho 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ole' Miss
You might want to take a look at my comments on the talk page. I encourage you and the other editor to work together on the wording. Honestly, I think the section should stay and be reworded if necessary. Whatever you guys decide, I hope you'll stop the reverting. It gets disruptive and really is not helpful. Davidpdx (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Mississippi - levee building
Thanks for keeping the sourced material on levee building. You challenged me to learn more and I did. I have more sourced info to add - more African Americans and others worked on the levees AFTER the war, when they were wage laborers. Interestingly, there were hundreds/thousands of transient workers in the Mississippi Delta in the late 19th c.- both those who worked on levees and those who were there as sawyers. Transient workers were at the highest risk of lynching. (John C. Willis, Forgotten Time: The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta after the Civil War, 2000)--Parkwells (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You're doing very well on Mississippi and I appreciate your efforts and hard work. -- ALLSTARecho 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Bobby Petrino
The news conference is currently occuring. Kesac (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ESPN reports it to take place at 11:30. Again, until a media source reports that he is officially hired, it doesn't belong in the article as it's inaccurate information and that's now allowed per WikiPedia policy. -- ALLSTARecho 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
11:30 EST, 10:30 CST. Kesac (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ref: [3]Kesac (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! :) -- ALLSTARecho 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
my talk page
Please stop putting lies on my talk page. I didn't "deliberately introduce incorrect information." Everything I said was referenced, but you conveniently deleted that. There are several sites reporting definitively that Petrino is the new head coach and the press conference is to introduce him. I do not appreciate the unwarranted attacks. Enigmaman (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, I don't think that Enigmaman was deliberately introducing incorrect information, rather, I think it was an edit war. {{uw-3rr}} probably would have been a better warning. Kesac (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. However, check his talk page history. I did a 3RR warning and he removed it. After continuing to add the information, I then gave the deliberate factual error warning which was the case considering he didn't stop after the 3RR warning. -- ALLSTARecho 03:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I see. Kesac (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was all factual and your accusations were, and still are, baseless. I never deliberately introduced incorrect information because all the information I added was correct. Your continued attacks are not appreciated. Enigmaman (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Butting in here. Allstar, I looked through all the diffs, and I don't see any vandalism either. Also, just as a point of etiquette, it is far better to drop a note on an established editor's talk page, rather than templating them. Those sort of generic warning templates are mostly given to anons and new users who repeatedly make the same error. Established users tend to et upset when templated. Jeffpw (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff. As I said above, he was given warnings for 3RR and deliberate factual error, not vandalism. This was on December 11 when he continued to revert and add content that was being discussed on the talk page of the article in question. Today, he changed the wording of the factual error warning to something completely different than what I had originally posted. -- ALLSTARecho 10:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
LGBT Quote
I think you put in the John Stewart quote...if so, can you make the link go to the specific person who it came from? I would think it came from The Daily Show, in which case it would be Jon Stewart with no "H" Ctjf83talk 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I fixed it. -- ALLSTARecho 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
You got a Christmas card! → → →
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
