User talk:Vfp15/Archive001

Hello Vfp15, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Alex S 05:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Category:Psychiatrists

Hey there,

> your note on fictional psychiatrists being removed from Category:Psychiatrists

Sounds reasonable to me, thanks for doing the editing. - Vaughan 08:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Napoleon

I've reinstated my piece about delusions of grandeur and Bill & Ted's at Napoleon I of France. You gave no reason for removing the text, but you imply that it is POV. It isn't, since it is perfectly true to say that a great number of comedy sketches have revolved around a character who is supposedly mad and this is illustrated by the fact that they think they are Napoleon.

The Bill & Ted bit is harmless and perfectly true.

Perhaps you can explain why these facts are not relevant to a section of the article about his portrayal in popular culture (a heading, by the way, I did not insert into the article, but which directly led to me recalling those tidbits). --bodnotbod 17:21, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am currently reading through Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution because 1) You reverted my first edits without discussion. 2) You reneged on your claim that you would ask for the opinion of others regarding the Popular Culture section. The first thing we should agree is not to change the content any further whilst we get a third party involved. So, for now, the new article stands and I will not revert the changes, though you have shown you would be incapable of such a courtesy. Please also revisit Talk:Napoleon_I_of_France#Napoleon_In_Popular_Culture which should explain why I am currently very angry. --bodnotbod 01:51, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

"As far as courtesy is concerned (your comment on my talk page) well, please note that you also reverted my edit without discussion,"

Your terminology is lax. A revert has a very specific meaning relating to the use of the history page. However, I'll let that slide. You object to my putting the content you deleted back without discussion. Firstly that is justified, since didn't explain why it is POV. Secondly I explained my reason for reinstating it in my edit summary.

and more importantly you amplified it:

No. What I did was to back up my statement with references and examples in order to mollify you. The fact that this served to annoy you demonstrates that it is you that has a POV. You are unwilling to accept any content that might appear to tarnish the Napoleonic name or that you feel trivialises him.

Your anger should more readily be directed at those who make the films, write the fiction that depict Napoleon in ways that you find unacceptable or trivialising. Not me who merely documents it.

I repeat again: it was not I who added the Popular culture heading - I merely saw it there and documented things that fit perfectly well under that heading. It became amplified (as you erroneously put it) because you clearly wouldn't accept my broad comment, and this is why I then cited a number of examples.

As for the Bill & Ted, I have no idea why it should irk you so much. Artistically it is a minor film, however it was a very popular film and hence good reason to include it under that heading.

"I showed you the courtesy of keeping all your text in the separate article, and that I qualified the link using your words "as a by-word for mental ill health" even though I strongly feel it is inappropriate."

Yes, I am very appreciative of that. Thank you. Anyway, as I state on the article talk page I intend to try and draft a solution which I hope we can agree on and if not we'll put it to the community via Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. In the meantime I shall not edit the Napoleon article nor the Popular culture article. I ask that you leave the popular culture article alone in the meantime, I have no reason to object to you editing the main article save to ask that you not remove the link to Nap in Popular culture. Regards, --bodnotbod 14:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Did you notice that I changed Copps' to Copps's in several places today, or it an amazing coincidence that you ask me about this today?

The recommendation to add only an apostrophe to singular nouns that end with s seems to be dying out: I know of no major style guide that still uses it. I see this as a good thing for two reasons: (1) it makes the rule simpler and easier to follow. (2) It makes spelling match pronunciation better. Everybody says boss's "bossiz", so it's good that the spelling shows the second syllable. It is true that some people pronounce the possessive of names like Flanders the same as non-possessive form, but for the plural, there is no option: it has to be Flanderses. If you can add a syllable for the plural, why not add one for the possessive? Flanders's sounds OK to me.--Indefatigable 01:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I happened to notice this discussion of apostrophes. If you guys don't mind a comment from a non-Canadian interloper, you might be interested to know that I raised the point a while back. You can read several users' opinions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 6#Making possessives. JamesMLane 11:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question re Axis of Evil discussions

Reply

I replied to you here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other questions How were you able to determine the "google hits"? Simply by counting the returns on a google search? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 09:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "read this" is part of my tag - I always post it and have been for several days - I am trying to drum up support to make Neutrality change his name. Your name is fine. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 09:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to does not say what you suggest it does, please re-read it: "Those Medieval European leaders who did have a form of faith (and you cannot posibly say thay all uniformly did), if they were Christians, were for the most part Roman Catholics of a much different ilk than others of today."

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 15:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of Medieval / Axis of Evil

Fair warning: If you do not stop the incessant POV reverts towards anti-Christian bigotry, I am going to file an Rfc and if needed an Arb case against you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read these:

The usage you claim is non-existant or at the very least, not definative. I oppose it in the strongest terms.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 07:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, be my guest Rex. I'm not going to waste my time reading the links. That would be like arguing like a flat earther and having to read his literature. The comment you keep reverting is a briefly described item in a list. Your description is inaccurate, mine is accurate. It seems reality offends you. Vincent 07:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What facts can you offer to support your contention of accuracy? I'd like to see them. And I do mean facts, not rationales or arguments as you have offered so far. As for "waste of time" - are you accusing me of bad faith? If not, they you owe this Wiki the requisite time needed to dialog this to a workable conclusion. Either that, or stop reverting me. The choice is yours. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 07:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There were no conservatives in the middle ages, no? As for religious bigotry, I'm a tolerant guy, but you are bugging me man! What do you know if my religious views? What do you know of how I relate to God and Creation?

If anyone is guilty is of religious bigotry, or prejudice, it's you for presuming to understand (and invalidate?) my religious views. President's Bush views on religion are clear and unambiguous, and they do influence his government policy. He would enthusiastically agree with that, yes? That's the AoM joke, that's accurate. AoM does NOT refer to GWB's conservatism.

Kindly not accuse me of religious bigotry again.

Vincent 07:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I refer only to your edit, which is clearly intended to offend against GWB on the basis of his faith. This, combined with your unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that your take that term is actually the "right" one, makes me think you are quick to accept a nebulous quip as a chance to assualt a man's reputation (GWB's) because of his faith. That sure sounds like bigotry to me. Perhaps it's not. But if not, why are you so hell-bent to get you version in there? I have accomodated and melded with the group on every other point at issue there. Where is your sense of proportion - why not simply back off and leave it be? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 07:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CPR

Thanks for the comments on Onderdonk. I have been researching the construction of the CPR in British Columbia in the 1880s, and especially Onderdonk's construction from the west, for a number of years and so most of the article is based on my notes (see my website). The best resource I have found is a website by the Kamloops Art Gallery which is unfortunately offline. I emailed them a few weeks ago and they plan on putting the Onderdonk material back online, at which time I will add a link to it from the Onderdonk article.

Regard Rogers, I did not know there was a second photo. If it can be found, it would be good to somehow incorporate it into the Craigellachie article. "A.B." stands for "Albert Bowman". I'm pretty sure I read this many years ago in the 'Canadian Encyclopedia'. I have never heard of him referred to by anything other than "A.B." though. Just to be confusing, Rogers was usually accompanied in his explorations by his nephew, an "A.L. Rogers" - I think that the "A" also stands for "Albert" but I do not know about the "L". Al guy 12:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Berton's book, I don't own a copy of the 'Last Spike' book and therefore haven't read it since I started my research project but perhaps I will go find a copy at the library. Do you know the title/author of the Van Horne biography? Al guy 16:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Darwin vote / Infobox

Per this edit, I'd ask you to remove any names from the tally that have not specifically signed up for that vote. It can be seen as a bit deceptive. Thanks -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

It's certainly no problem. I've found it's best to contact the people directly, so they can add their signature. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

You can probably bring it up at Template talk:Infobox Biography. -- Netoholic @ 04:30, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Hang in there... experiences in VfD...

Thanks for your listing of Engrish on VfD, and your extreme good grace in the discussion that followed.

Unfortunately VfD can be a bit of a lynch mob, as we have seen here. Perhaps a suitable apology will some day be forthcoming but I doubt it. Do you mind if I quote this discussion as a good example of how good Wikipedians can behave badly, as soon as the dust settles?

The listing was perfectly valid IMO. But that is almost irrelevant to the main points I'd like to make.

Feel free to reply by email if you like, andrewa @ alder . ws (without the blanks of course). Andrewa 20:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To avoid people voting before you get the chance to write up your case, next time, you may want to create the VFD sub-page before listing it on the VFD page. (Follow the red link on the vfd header when you add it to a page.) Pyrop 23:56, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this suggestion. It seems to just be what the instructions already say, and what was done. It doesn't stop someone else following the red link before you do. If you follow the red link from preview, then there's an increased risk of edit conflict, and this doesn't seem to be the suggestion anyway. Am I missing something here?

But no matter how well we write the code and procedures, they won't replace goodwill or commonsense. Andrewa 20:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Add {{subst:vfd}} to the page to be listed on VfD.
Click on the red link in the vfd header on the page you just edited, and put your reasoning there.
THEN go and edit Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to list the page there.

Pyrop 03:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Engrish

Sorry you took offense. I expect to see a clear rationale for deletion at the top of a VfD discussion, and I believe it's proper process to have one. There's nothing I know of that says you can't insert material in its logical place in a VfD discussion, and certainly the person who lists something for deletion could do so. I did read the paragraphs of chitchat at the top, and I did read your vote, and I frankly wasn't sure I saw a statement of a rationale for deletion. I specifically suggested that you put such a rationale at the top and remove my remark, and was slightly surprised that you didn't take me up on it.

It was perfectly proper for you to list the article for deletion. One lists things for deletion in order to bring it to the community's attention and see what the consensus is. The consensus in this case was to keep. I voted to keep, not because I think dialect jokes and the like are funny; I think the term is in fact mildly offensive. However, it is in widespread use and the article seemed reasonably correct. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No worries, Vincent. I certainly think it was legitimate of you to list the article, and feel strongly that you shouldn't have been pilloried for it. Never mind, you're obviously a good contributor, so I expect you won't let it get to you. Lacrimosus 11:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your zone system edits

I appreciate your thoughts on the zone system. After a day's rest and a reread, I think I'll entirely remove the notion of Adams acknowledging that other systems would work. I left it in deference to another contributor, but upon reflection don't feel it adds much. (I don't recall his system being hugely controversial, and it feels more like a nonissue to me.) Have a look at my rewrite--I think the section is cleaner without it.

Too, I fleshed out the history. --NathanHawking 01:44, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Zone system follow up

Hi Vincent:

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I addressed your concerns in considerable detail on my page, beneath your remarks. Please have a look and feel free to respond on my page. In particular, see what you think of my reasoning on the "dynamic range" issue and my suggestion for addressing it. --NathanHawking 07:14, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Kantei

Ahh, okay. I just guess you didn't know there was an article on Kantei, and that info should go there; and I would have moved it, but I couldn't find anything on it, and didn't want to do it without more info or a website reference. No problem. :) It was just like, if the article on the President of the United States had contained info about the small plane crashing into the White House a few years back; no, that belongs in White House. :) And cool, you live in Japan, I wanna. =p --Golbez 16:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dorothy Malone

For some reason, you chose to make a minor change to my previous entry, and in doing so you made the sentence gramatically incorrect. Your use of the plural "roles" would be accurate only if it was followed by more than one example. Since I was describing just one, "a small but meatly role" is proper usage. Thanks . . . TOM 13:48, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Farmers' market

On the Farmers' market page, you recently re-inserted two pictures, saying "Restored pics deleted by prev edit ...". I just wanted to point out that I didn't delete any pictures; they were simply moved to the Wiki-Commons. If you click the link to the commons at the lower-right of the page, all three pictures are present.

I think the two pictures should be removed from the Wikipedia article because the article looks crowded as it is right now. The pictures go down much further than the text. I believe one picture fully illustrates the concept enough for a short article, and the other two pictures would be best on the Commons. (They're certainly valuable pictures and should not be gotten rid of, but they should go in the most appropriate place.) Take a look at Notre Dame and Potala for other examples of articles with more pictures than article. Many of those pictures were moved to the commons just to simplify the look of the article.

Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I actually couldn't tell that your first post to me was sarcastic! Too subtle, I suppose. About the article itself: no problem.

So you're living in Japan? Why? How hospitable do you find the Japanese in general? I've never been to Asia at all, but I'd love to go. Do you know Japanese? Vpf15-san O-genki des, ka?

I respect you for your nuanced and un-pidgeon-holed political stances, although I disagree with you on several of them. You said: "Could this possibly mean that since he delivered a victory to the Republicans, he has earned the right to lead his party where he wants it to go, and could this possibly mean the return of compassionate in his initial compassionate conservative image of 2000? Time will tell." I doubt it, but I hope so. Here's to hoping! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Charles Darwin

Please do not violate the 3 revert rule. Go with the concensus on talk:Charles Darwin. I don't think it's appropriate - yet - to give you a 24hr ban for doing so, but it's a future possibility. Dunc|☺ 11:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your edits at;

11:12, 17 Dec 2004 dif
10:56, 17 Dec 2004 dif
01:47, 17 Dec 2004 dif

violated the 3RR. In other instances you have reverted twice in 24hrs, but in total you have reverted this about a dozen times over the past week against consensus on the talk page. Please do not do it again (unless you achieve consensus on the talk page), or it will be considered vandalism. You and I both don't want to go there. see about staying cool when the editing gets hot. Dunc|☺ 15:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the point of RfC was to let others take a look at it and make up their own minds. Which I think is appropriate. I don't think I characterized the situation unfairly, but you're entitled to your opinion about that. I didn't notice the Lincoln comment the first time I went through the article, I would have found it inappropriate then as well. But that's just my opinion. I do find it a bit irritating, as I have said, that you continually defy any sort of consensus in your more-or-less one-man war to keep a coincidence in a prominent spot, which is why I left a RfC in the first place. It is a silly thing to waste people's time on (I have stopped spending any of mind on it, aside from leaving the RfC, which seemed well overdue by that point). You need not take it as a personal attack, my only gripe is with your stubbornness on this particular issue. --Fastfission 18:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Left on User_talk:Duncharris

Mgm|^(talk), the mediator, has unblocked me. You (i.e. Duncharris) abused your admin privileges yesterday, but I'll forgive you that in the interest of harmony. I (i.e. Vfp15) don't think the issue has reached arbitration, but I am preparing for that just in case you cut off my access again. I am keeping to three reverts a day. (Remember of course that my day starts at GMT+9.) I am keeping mostly civil. I am sorry for implying you and the others were among the "ignoramuses" of the world. Vincent 08:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darwin & Lincoln

Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were both born February 12th, 1809

Why is this important to you? Adraeus 00:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The summary on the talk page explains why (according to me) it should be left there (factual, a good time marker, good style, precedents abound, and 4000 google hits). Now, as to why I care, it's simple: Someone decided to take delete a true fact because of their POV that the mention ought to go, then others came in and virtually claimed ownership of the article. That's not wiki. Vincent 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Instead of promoting a statement that results in inferential conclusions—that is the nature of coincidences after all— why not write a statement that works as a factual "good time marker" without the inferential comparison of Darwin with Lincoln? I'm reasonably certain you are capable of so. Adraeus 00:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At this point I'm pretty sure anything I add will get deleted if it mentions Lincoln :) Also, believe it or not, I don't think it's that relevant, which is why I like it included as an aside or in a trivia list. But, if anyone wants to write it up as an explicit time marker, power to them. Like I said, I'm open to compromise. Vincent 06:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy in Mediation

I've put myself into the mediation process as your advocate as we've agreed. Any question about the process or any information you've got, only send it to my talk page. --Neigel von Teighen 18:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tag

Thanks for uploading Image:LeninSquarePetropavlovsk.jpg and Image:D0807I14-HarbourTour.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Evil Monkey → Talk 00:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Hi! Agree with you about the CB article. Go for it. Caveat: this is ongoing news, so it's difficult to write a well-developed article. Perhaps limiting yourself to a chronology of events related to Hollinger. This would be factual and NPOV.

The article could be organized like this, for instance. (short intro) 1. Early life 2. Press career 3. Published works 4. Marriage to Barbara Amiel and social life 5. Hollinger chronology

You might want to examine different aspects of the man; he's fascinating. Got expelled from UCC (or LCC?) for selling essays to classmates. Black (an anglo!) wrote one of the best political bios of any French Canadian politician, "Duplessis". He (a right wing capitalist!) wrote perhaps the best single volume bio of FDR, in unabashed praise of the New Deal. He's also active on the social scenes attending lots of parties with the Rich and Famous. Infamously attended a costume party dressed as Cardinal Richelieu. People tend to avoid sitting next to him at dinner because he bores listeners with endless statistics on, say, the exact number of ships wrecked ashore when the Spanish Armada foundered in the 16th century. And then he names and descibes each ship. I'd consider doing it myself, but no time for the research.

Thanks for the encouragement. I was aware of the UCC incident, and the Duplessis and FDR biographies (indeed, the Hollinger's purchase of artifacts when Black was writing the FDR biography was part of the controversy!) Definitely a colourful man. Revived 04:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I do not think edit wars are fun; my edit summary was rather a bit of satire. Misplaced, I acknowledge, and I'd like to offer my sincere apologies if it offended you. If you wish the arbitration request against me to stand, for an official statement from the arbitration committe, that is fine with me since I admit having erred.

As for participating in reverting, I did so because my stance was supported by the overwhelming majority. When there is consensus in favor of one version, that version should be used until people have been convinced otherwise (regardless of who turns out to be right in the end). For the record, I have never participated in reverting over an issue where I am in a minority to support a particular version.

I hope we can cooperate without problems on other articles. Fredrik | talk 05:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Fredrik | talk 05:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vincent, it looks as if your Request for arbitration will be rejected by the ArbCom. Can I ask why you only cited three users in your request? To date, (working backwards) the fact has been reverted by User:Noisy, User:Jonathunder, User:Fredrik, User:Robert Pendray, User:Solipsist, User:Aaarrrggh, User:Duncharris, User:William M. Connolley, User:Mgekelly, User:GK, User:PxT. That's eleven Wikipedians who don't think that it is appropriate to have it in the article. The vote about inclusion is currently running at 20:5 (80%) against.

Why do you swim against the tide of the community? I'm sure that most people think you're a reasonable editor, but going against such an overwhelming vote just seems wrong. Another pointer that most people think you are reasonable is that they are prepared to just sit there and revert you, rather than escalating things: in the end, you're the one that has tried to escalate this.

The fact - and everyone admits it's a fact - is ONLY a coincidence. You have made no attempt to forge any other links between Darwin and Lincoln, which might have helped your case. If the two had met and established a friendship; were working in similar fields; or even just attended the same University, then there might be some justification for recording the link. As it is, a coincidence is non-encyclopaedic, and will be removed. Noisy | Talk 09:50, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Factual and verifiable is a test for inclusion of articles, not for inclusion of trivia. By your criteria, an article on Charles Darwin would include his hat size. An encyclopedia article is not a list of every possible fact on a subject: it is an ordered presentation of the important facts about a subject presented in such a way as to facilitate understanding. Clearly the inclusion of unimportant coincidences degrades the quality of articles; clearly the majority of people who have encountered this particular bit of trivia agree that its inclusion detracts from the article. My suggestion is that you listen more carefully to what they are saying, rather than insisting on getting your way. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copy on commons

Hi, I copied on commons a pic from you (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VladivostokStation.jpg) just wanted to let you know it. Thanks Tipiac 22:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

You have made your point on this article. There is no sense in doing 3 reverts a day, when your changes last in total for about an hour. Editing is not a test of stamina, talk about your compromise suggestion. --Mrfixter 13:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia has a three revert rule. You have been blocked by an administrator for the violation of this rule. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one who blocked you, but this is according to the block log:

19:50, 19 Jan 2005 Rhobite blocked "User:Vfp15" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 revert rule on Charles Darwin)
19:25, 19 Jan 2005 Mirv blocked "User:Vfp15" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Charles Darwin)

Also, the Charles Darwin article had been requested for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

If you feel your block was unjust, please ask the two administrators who blocked you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Arbitration is being sought against you. See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:34, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case closed

The arbitration case concerning you has now closed. The Arbitration Committee has decided that you are to be banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time. On your return, you are banned from editing the articles Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln and their talk pages. You are also prohibited from reverting any article for three months. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute for the full decision -- sannse (talk)

On a separate note, I want to say that the decision to limit the article ban to these two specific articles does not mean that it is acceptable to insert this or similar facts elsewhere against such opposition from other editors - we just chose to keep this simple and rely on your understanding of how the committee viewed your editing practices -- sannse (talk) 14:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Userpage deleted

Vfp15 requested the deletion of his userpage via private e-mail. Since I saw no pressing need to keep it around, I complied with his request. If anyone wishes to confirm this, they should be able to contact him through e-mail. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 07:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"List of notable U.S. presidential relatives"

Vfp,

Ron Reagan is an atheist and very much liberal. I have to admit I was pretty upset to see that you didn't so much as read the Wikipedia page on him before assuming that I had no evidence to back up that bit of information. Neither of these things are particularly scandalous, that's true, but they are notable since his father was one of the most conservative presidents in recent memory. Also according to his page on this site, he was a ballet dancer, and his father was apparently ashamed of that. I think if you examine the facts you'll see that my edit was valid and not politically motivated. I don't mind you questioning my edits, but I feel, since I used information from Ron's own Wikipedia page, that had little or no thought before undoing my change, which I don't so much appreciate.

Regards, --BDD 04:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)