User talk:Colin4C

Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. Sutton: Stroud.

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Gothic fiction: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy has commented on my talk page that your article at Whitechapel murders is a POV fork in violation of WP:CFORK, and I'm afraid I see his point. While the article was created a while before the current disputes, it does get to the center of one of the key disputes that got the main ripper article protected. DreamGuy has redirected the article to the main ripper article for now, as it was before April. I would ask you to please not undo the redirect for now, because it does indeed give at least the appearence of one side in the debate trying to have their desired outcome exist elsewhere in the project even if it cannot exist in the main ripper article. Please let the RFC proceed, and hopefully this issue can be dealt with in that as well, without a new revert war erupting on this side-article. - TexasAndroid 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

see crimes at the metropolitan police museum site. The Whitechapel murders are not the same thing as those attributed to Jack the Ripper. The latter are a subset of the former. Kbthompson 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your (blame you, it's easier and you're used to it) section on Literature, etc. is causing problems at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/East End of London, if there's any time you can spend on fixing and expanding the section, I would appreciate it. Kbthompson 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

East End of London, is now a featured article. Thank you for all your contributions. Let's face it, you couldn't have done it without me! Kbthompson (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

With all the seriousness that keeps flying around recently, can I make quite absolutely clear that I meant that satirically .... Kbthompson (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for including the additional refs regarding the views of Victorian vs 20th Century readers on this work--I'm sure there'll always be a diversity of opinion about the novels' influence on contemporary and later readers, and the article now reflects thats well. Malljaja (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin, that comment doesn't help matters. I know that you don't like DG, but you cannot descend to what you feel is his level and take pot-shots at him at every given opportunity. If you want to blame anyone for the admins not taking action on the ArbCom enforcement complaint, blame me. I hadn't prepared one before and made it too long for the overworked folk at ArbCom to focus on. Jay is right; focus on the article. Being polite only helps you, and tends to highlight any incivility and personal attack posture of any other user. Please ease off the snipes; it just puts DG on the defensive, and he tends to become more abrasive when he's feeling put-upon. If he can correct his behavior he will. If he cannot, he will self-destruct eventually. In the meantime, just do your own thing. You bring a lot to the table when it comes to the article; focus on that, and not on how DG is acting. Clearly, nothing we can do will serve to alter his perception of himself, his edits or his world.
Towards that end, I think you should withdraw your remark from the discussion as off-topic. Can you do that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you might need to take a break from DreamGuy, Colin. No one has the ability to destroy you unless you give them the tools and the permission to do so. You have allowed him to get under your skin, and you seem to be having trouble seeing him for the person he is. He has destroyed my faith in him by socking and not manning up about it, and can understand your resentment that he hasn't been shown the wiki-door. People like that invariably their own worst enemy; I am mine, DreamGuy is his and you are yours. By allowing DG to upset you, you are giving him the tools he needs to marginalize you. So stop it, okay?

Actually, when I say withdraw, I usually mean to remove the post - a person is allowed to self-revert, especially in response to a request for civility. I will defend that and support its removal, as would any admin.

So, self-revert and go relax and watch the snow fall or football or cook something - take your min d off of WP for the day and simply relax. Undoubtedly, you will be having a better day than DG can. Gobble, gobble... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I am not suggesting you are bad faith editor. Its just that we all have other editors that make us want to visit savage unpleasantness upon them. DG appears to be yours (and quite a few other people's it would appear). You are a fine editor; you editing in proximity with DG tend to lose your grip. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, i'll keep an eye on the page. If he puts it ack in, make sure to explain in your one and only revert that you are withdrawing argumentative remarks. that protects you. have a good day. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, my intent was to help you withdraw or back off from your remarks so as to help remove any inclination for DG to act defensively. I used strikethrough, since DG reinstated the remarks (for reasons I suspect will amount to him trying eventually to have you removed from Wikipedia). I am sorry that you did not see my action as helpful on your behalf. If you have not unstricken the post, I will do so.

Seeing as we are approaching this issue form differing perspectives, I think that it might be better for me to remove myself as a factor in your issues with DG. You are a good editor, but you aren't really pursuing any of those stronger actions I prescribed to de-escalate your interactions with DG. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and he doesn't approach it like that; it is a battle to be won against the Unbelievers. Your actions are starting to resemble his in that you consistently respond to his goading with goading, his insults with insults, and his petty complaints with petty complaints. You need to find a way back to your happy place, or your interactions with DreamGuy are going to ruin Wikipedia for you.

Of course, that is just my opinion - take it or leave it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the current changes and image added, you might be well advised to do nothing, but watch the shenanigans when u-no-oo is back in the frame ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd let it settle down before making major changes - but unlike you I don't engage in edit wars! Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

... is now a Good Article. I hope that makes you feel a little better about the value of your contributions to wikipedia. ... Illegitimi Non Carborundum Kbthompson (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that! Congrats, Colin. I went in a bit and removed some redlinkage, but it was a fun article to read, with nice images. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent posting in the JTR article discussion, Colin. It wasn't helpful and could easily be perceived as a personal attack on DreamGuy. Why give that jerk ammo to get you banned. I must insist that you stop attacking DreamGuy. The only way to highlight his negative behavior is to make sure it is the only negative behavior in the discussion. I think you are a nice guy, but if you cannot rein in your own behavior, you are likely going to be blocked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Our arcane friend is right (well here anyway, I would hardly give him the satisfaction elsewhere). It doesn't do any good to bang your head against a brick wall. Contributions like that just make you look like the bad guy - and I know you're not. He's lawyered up, seeking to trap you and it's no good shouting ... but don't you think you're a bit of a bastard for running me over, then reversing back to see if you can do it again..

Take a break from JtR, do something cheerful like hang out with your Goth friends, damn, OK, let's do some positive Music hall. Above all, do anything that makes you feel better! You're a winner, not a whiner! Do not get drawn into playing games that someone else chooses. Kbthompson 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, you are doing it again. This is not an acceptable use of the article discussion page. It is precisely the sort of personal attack-ish, disruptive behavior we would see from another user on that page. I think we are at the point where you have to ask yourself if you are going to be able to edit professionally with DreamGuy. If you cannot, i must ask you to withdraw, as your behavior is disruptive, and you know that the editor in question will take utter joy in having you blocked and therefore marginalized. If you want to give him that satisfaction, continue adding edits like that.
If you are willing to work constructively, please try that series of posts again. I would suggest you self delete your additions and re-add non-attack versions of them very, very quickly, before the other editor has a chance to respond. As well, do not mix them within the edits of Stephan's edits (as refactoring another's posts alone can get you blocked). I urge you to decide how you are going to approach this article discussion and decide rather quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Colin on this one. It's a straight statement of the issues. I, for one, was horrified that DG was just allowed to eliminate any mention of the Whitechapel murders. I think it would however help if Colin could manage to backpedal on the strong sense of miffedness and injustice. Just keep it on the content and move forward. Kbthompson (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am over-estimating DG's willingness to respond poorly. I guess we shall see. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Colin, do you think you could get a RS cite for the last cite tag on a current increased interest in vamp films? I was also wondering whether there was one on how there were more films about vamp communities (Underworld, Daywatch, 30 days of night etc.) or not yet...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahaaa, nice one. Nice icing on the cake at the end of a looonnng article :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the sentence you've re-added still makes no sense. The end finishes with "still reigns supreme". Then you ask, what reigns supreme? It's not vampires, because if you re-read the sentence they are mentioned as a side note - "The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme has been ascribed to displays of sexuality, which have become more accessible, acceptible and overt in our internet technology age; combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still reigns supreme".

Have you actually though about what you've written? Here's what it reads: "The popularity of vampires is because of the displays of sexuality which can be easily accessed now. It's also because of the fear of death, something we cannot escape, in which the area of myth, metaphor and magic which are represented by the vampire and undead, still reigns supreme." That makes no freakin' sense - it really starts going haywire around the "in which" where it changes the subject of the sentence from the dread of mortality to the undead and vampire in the domain of myth. I went to the university I shift at and asked a couple of my professors to check it over. 2 went "WTF" and the other said it wasn't well put. Not to get down on you, but can you please re-write the sentence. I mean, talking about the internet and modern technology at the end of an article which is all about past legends and mentions nothing of the modern world (Bar a few movies) is not good practise.

If it take me this long to decipher the sentence to no avail, how's some highschool-level student (Which is the general writing level for most articles and certainly the rest of this article) going to even understand this? Others made adjustments to your sentence and you just reverted back to the previous version. Please, I don't want to be the bad guy so can you re-write it? Otherwise, I'm going to be bold and rewrite it. I can sit easy with a sentence like that, no matter how many citations it has. You have the skills easily, so I'm sure rewriting a sentence like that will be easy riight? I mean, I haven't heard anyone else spin words the way you do. :) Cheers and Merry Xmas! Spawn Man (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only does the sentence still not make sense, but neither does your reply! Obviously your intellect is far beyond my own comprehension. Still, I've worked on this article for around 2+ months and I've gotten a good feeling for the article. Your addition is simply too advanced. It's at about a university level and although I get the meaning, the following bit makes no sense: "...combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still holds sway." The "still holds sway" is referring to the "perennial dread of mortality" because you've confused the subjects. So basically the whole last part is saying that there's a dread of mortality, in which there's the realm of myth lead by the vampire, holds sway. I know you want your awesome high level writing in the article but the fact of the matter is 1) It's too advanced for the rest of the article. 2) It's talking about technology and the internet which is weird for an article primarily based in medieval times and 3) It makes no sense. I doesn't matter how many semicolons or word changes you put or make, the whole sentence structure needs reworking. Please don't let pride get in the way - I'm sure we can meet a compromise, but so far, you've changed two words which equal basically the same as the old ones. Frankly, I don't even know if we need an ending summary. Spawn Man (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. You placed your messages in the wrong place, I've moved them to my main talk page.

No offense or anithing but u seem to really like vampires that's pretty cool i'm in to vampires to there really cool but i'm not goth or anihing i'm not allowed to since i go to a pritvte school. (Twilight578 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Hopefully we can put "the sentence" saga behind us and be peaceful when and if we meet again? :) I hope the experience hasn't put you off wikipedia and I sincerly hope you continue to edit here. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my Talk page. I am going to check out your articles today and reread all of the comments regarding the whole Jack the Ripper versus Whitechapel Murders discussion. I'll let you know my opinion as soon as I have one. - Stephoswalk (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. . Cleanup your page by moving the saved text to sub-pages in your own user space (eg User talk:Colin4C/Whitechapel Murders. You can delete them later when there's some consensus on what's to be done.
2. . Waste some time on TURTLE'S "78 RPM" JUKEBOX

All the best Kbthompson (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

... and if I could have told you about it, I'm sure you would have! Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is of interest, I only just heard about it:

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kbthompson (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor has made a section of links about occasions when people have found reason to call him/her names. Absolutely perfect for you ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which IPs do you believe are DreamGuy's? I haven't been following the specific article, but if you have additional information about other anons that he has been using, I would be interested in seeing it. --Elonka 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, DreamGuy has been blocked for a few days, since it was obvious that he was gaming the system. So, the question now is if anything new happens. If you see those IPs editing, or you see any other IPs which you think are his, please make sure to bring it up, preferably with an exact diff. My understanding is that from now on (after the block is up), he should be editing only on the DreamGuy account, and only as long as he can remain civil. As long as he adheres to those guidelines (sticking to one account, and treating other editors with good faith), I'm fine on him continuing to edit on Wikipedia. If he doesn't, we can ask ArbCom to take another look. --Elonka 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, saw it. It's really a borderline situation. On the one hand, he's still using the anon even though he was told not to. On the other, he's only using it to post at his user talkpage, so he's not really overstepping the bounds of his block, as those who are blocked are still allowed to post on their talkpages. Then again, it's clearly a bad faith and uncivil comment. Then again, he's blocked, and there's a certain expectation that those who are blocked, are going to be cranky.  ;) I'll point it out to someone else to get an uninvolved opinion, but my initial reaction is to ignore it. As long as he's limited to just posting on user talkpages, he's not being disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. If he uses the account to edit articles though, in violation of his block, then yes, that would be a problem. --Elonka 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this article. Jack1956 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article is absolutely brilliant and is much-needed as it fills a gap in Ripperology regarding canonical and non-canonical victims. It is thoroughly researched and fully sourced and is an excellent piece of work. Jack1956 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Colin4C (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of adding a few images to your article. Hope you don't mind. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a separate article for the Whitechapel Murders is an excellent idea, and long overdue. Revmagpie (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Texas Android fiddled with the article, does it look like the Jawsweet version now? It's hard to compare them, as the subpage is gone now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Mysterious Warnings and pasted it into The Mysterious Warning, a German Tale. This is what we call a "cut and paste move," and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An alleged concept (that happens to be undefinable). Whether or not it is an actually concept isn't the issue. The point was that it's not a concrete thing, as opposed to an atom. That was my point. No need to mock anyone. Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just posted on the discussion page for the Onibaba article with a question for you. Can you please respond there? THANX..... Z Wylld (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You really should check out the main page featured article tomorrow.

(Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2008). All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne, while trying to rationalize why your claims should be taken at face value, said that you were published in the field of Ripper studies and therefore know more than anyone else here. I'd be very curious about just who you are and what you had published... I know most everyone in the field quite well, and you don't seem to have a very solid understanding of the case at all from your talk page comments. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay off the JTR page. Only DG knows what he is doing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.102.172 (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bees in Paradise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BradV 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing an image of JTR from illustrators of the period depicting a shadowy, hat-wearing individual sneaking past police, who were busy looking at a wall. Do you know of what image I am speaking? Would you have a link to such? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. Just patrolling the above article to check it was still there (!) and have to say that I like what you've done with it. The new sections certainly make it more concise and chronological. Jack1956 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. Good luck with that! (PS Have you seen that the editors who supported DG in the ArbCom are giving each other Barnstars!!)Jack1956 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

... I'm thinking of putting Britannia Theatre and Canterbury Music Hall through to GA ... I think Evans Music-and-Supper Rooms could usefully be expanded and a major reorg of Music Hall could get it through FA. Kbthompson (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Have been tied up lately with a certain wikipedia court proceedings involving Groucho Marx, the Three Stooges and the Usual Suspect. Thinking of adding details to the burlesque article:

Admin Stooge - "The Usual Suspect is as innocent as the day is long! I hold you in contempt!"

An Anonymous Editor - "I have the same feelings about you too yer 'onor"!

Admin Stooge - "Silence in Court!"

Chorus of Hep-Cats - "Here comes the Judge! Here comes the Judge!"

Admin Stooge - I find for the plaintiff, I mean the defendent! Court seize the jury and lock them up! Colin4C (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, wikipolitics can be difficult. It really is just 'stroking' to get into arguments here. Learn from your nemesis: Me Sir? No Sir. Not me, Sir. Anyway, it woz them wot started it!. Walk away, come back later when it's all calmed down. Doesn't mean you're a walkover, just not prepared to give 'em the satisfaction. Kbthompson (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the matter, not having seen it before. As I've said many times, confine yourself to the article, not the editor and it won't be considered poking the bear with the pointed pole. I do despair about the way new editors are treated by the cause of the complaint - it just makes them go away again. But the other one cannot resist a dig, unfortunately that will always be interpreted as the party of the first part, giving as good as the he gets from the party of the second part - and everybody suffers. Ultimately, I'm interested in theatre, but the WP:DRAMA of it is to be avoided. Kbthompson (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I get very angry about his cowardly attacks on newbies. Makes my flesh crawl. Colin4C (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colin, your 'Flowery Dean' Street and Wormwood Street articles are perfectly valid. If you can have an article on Bucks Row and Henriques Street why not Dorset Street? I was researching at the Royal London Hospital yesterday and swung round to Duvall Street to take a couple of pictures. Jack1956 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to work two minutes walk away from where Mary Kelly was murdered there. Her ghost was reputed to haunt our building (The Providence Row Hostel), which I could well imagine, though I never saw her myself. Colin4C (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Providence Row Hostel...they also filmed part of The Crying Game there. Isn't there supposed to be a ghost at Mitre Square? Jack1956 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In my personal experience Mitre Square has got an uncanny feel about it of an evening, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is haunted. It intrigues me that Kelly was seen after she was dead in Dorset Street. Was this an apparition? Apparitions occuring at the point of death are a very widely reported phenomenon. Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a link on Youtube to a pay-to-view site that claims to have footage of MJK's ghost in Mitre Square. Shouldn't it be Cat Eddowes though? Jack1956 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I retain an open mind on things paranormal, though, on the skeptical side, interesting how little assistance mediums have been in finding out who exactly Jack the Ripper is. If there is any truth in spiritualism the mediums should have been able to get in touch with Jack or his victims on the other side and asked who exactly he was. A lot of us on this side would be grateful for this info...Colin4C (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol...yes, that would be helpful. And perhaps Saturday's lottery numbers at the same time. Jack1956 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be utterly bored to know that I used to live less than one minute's walk from where you used to work, in that case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that the Ghost of Mary Kelly speaking? Colin4C (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This Ray-Ginsay (talk · contribs · email) continues to edit war over the quotes at Count Dracula. I have distributed a {{uw-3rr}} warning to the editor. If (s)he does it again, could you revert? I can take care of the block request, if there is further edit warring from this editor. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being treated unfairly. This Colin4C is edit warring too and my edits are constructive. It is policy that any edit made in a deliberate attempt to improve the encyclopedia, not matter how wrong it may be, is not vandalism. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I was wanting to discuss with you, relatively unobstructed, your revert in JTR, linked here. While most of the revert was solid, I think I should point out a couple of problems that need to be addressed (and just a few of them are created by your revert):

• "Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes." This is a weak sentence, Colin. 'Some believe' is what WP calls weasel words, and we are to avoid them at all costs. If this is a direct quote, we need to note with both attribution and quotation marks. At best, it needs rewriting. At worst, it needs to be purged.
• "sometimes missing the murderer at his crime scenes by mere minutes" Honestly, the other version, noting escape, is a better paraphrasing of the source.
• "Rumours that the murders were connected intensified in September and October, when a series of extremely disturbing letters were received by various media outlets and Scotland Yard," - the rumors need citation, as well as for the growing intensity of them.
• "The original police investigation focused on eleven murders, of which five are generally accepted within the "Ripperology" community as almost certainly having been victims of the same serial killer." We need citation that these five are generally accepted within the Ripperology community.
• (section title) "Goulston Street Graffiti" I think that not that many people (outside of Ripperologists) would even connect Goulston St. with the writings. The other version was a bit sensationalistic, but I think its going to be more accessible to the reader.
• I think the Martin Fido stuff should be included, since we aren't supposed to show a preference for any particular author or theory (just the notable ones).
• "The perhaps most ingenious explanation of the sentence was presented by Robert Donston Stephenson (20 April 1841–9 October 1916), a journalist and writer known to be interested in the occult and black magic." Is there a way to cite why he is known to be interested in the occult?
• "Some believe that the killer's nickname was invented by newspapermen to make for a more interesting story that could sell more papers. This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." This whole paragraph simply reeks of uncited OR. First of all, the weasel words 'some believe', then the supposition that the name was created to sell more papers. Then, the supposition that this is 'standard media practice' before making a lot of synthesized connections between Jack the Ripper and the others listed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on those making mass alterations to at least provide edit summaries and hopefully discuss the changes in the Talk pages, not for us to second guess what a casual editor might possibly be thinking of when they make an edit. Our very ingenious theories about what might be going through an uncommunicative editor's mind are very often wrong. Sometimes editors make thoughtless alterations at random for no discernable reason anybody can figure out. If I make extensive alterations in a page I ALWAYS signal it in advance on the Talk page and ALWAYS provide edit summaries. Colin4C (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. User_talk:Igorberger#Pic User_talk:Marskell#anti-Americanism Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy is bed news! Watch yourself. Igor Berger (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should add yourself to the mediation, because Life.Temp did not name you as a participante. He named me and Marksell, and Equazission. I amy come around latter, but ptobably not, bacause I feel hi intent is to make the debate about me not the article anti-Americanism as he sates his consern in the case application. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States have a look at this article. Get familiarized with the editors who have been editing the article. You can check their edit history with respect to this article. I think you will find the article very interesting. Igor Berger (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism. Thank you. Your continued accusations and insinuations against Life.temp of being a sock of Bsharvy such as this one are without merit. This matter has been finalised here and you are now in danger of being blocked for not assuming good faith and continually harassing another editor. Please stop. --VS ^talk 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, that's coming on a bit strong for a process that's supposed to keep its good humour. Having a quick read of quite a long argument, I'd suggest that Colin4c hasn't viewed the outcome of the other process, and is indeed mistaken in making assumptions about the other editor. I think one of the problems is that the dispute has been brought to this forum because of a history of behaviour disputes. I can see why you'd consider a continuation of that argument disruptive. I'd ask that Colin4c be allowed to continue to contribute, but to concentrate on content, not other editors and for him to put the past behaviours of others to one side. I'd also note that Colin4c has a record of positive contributions to the project and ask that you don't take action against him lightly. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The mediation cabal page says: "WE DO NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS OR MAKE JUDGEMENTS". And here I am being judged and having sanctions threatened against me for what I said there. That isn't fair. If I'd known that what I said there would be taken down in evidence and used against me I wouldn't have participated in the first place. Colin4C (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Continuing on from your comment Kbthompson - I agree exactly with your statement that Colin4C hasn't viewed the outcome of the other process, and is indeed mistaken in making assumptions about the other editor and your suggestions to him are quite frankly, are exactly my points. He can contribute of course on the mediation page or anywhere he chooses but he cannot on any page (without evidence that is proven by the community or its processes) via Personal Attack continue to post edits that explicitly state that another editor is Bsharvy. Indeed despite his rather hyperbolic continuation above and on that page I have absolutely no problem with Colin4C other than those continued Personal Attacks. Indeed Colin4C should be proud of his previous edits to the project and on that basis I hope he will mature his thinking to, as you put it, concentrate on content and not on editors.--VS ^talk 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with me commenting where you have requested assistance in my UserTalk space, Colin. To begin with, the linked page is a mediation and, as I have no connection to the subject being mediated, it would be inappropriate for me to inject myself into that process.

Secondly, I think the others are pretty much correct in that you shouldn't be addressing another user's (suspected) sock-puppetry in an article page. Without absolute conclusive proof of a connection from RfCU or SSP, you absolutely shouldn't. I've been guilty of doing the same thing in the past, and it always ends up the way it does with complaints about our favorite JTR editor - our own misbehavior tends to cloud the issue we are trying to clarify. If the user is a sock, file an RfCU and await the results. Take those results to AN/I or doubly confirm the problem at SSP. Don't talk about something that isn't proven, as it could end up being the doubled-edged problem outlined in WP:SPADE.

You and I both have similar problems when dealing with our lack of tolerance for folk we are sure are thumbing the rules we ourselves find to be nobly-endured inconveniences, or are just rude bastards. I am learning how to modify that behavior, and I would think that you - with theat superb mind of yours - should endeavor to attempt the same thing. If your behavior is exemplary, then the person you think is being a troll is going to appear all the more trollish in comparison. As well, realize that you aren't the sole voice here in WP; there are many other folk here, just as smart as we are, who can catch problems as well. It is contrary to the reason we are supposed to be here to harp on repeatedly about someone who simply Doesn't Get It™. They are going to be dealt with, because they are going to piss off large numbers of people, and be shown the door.

I have bafs of respect for yiou, Colin, but you need to rein in your tongue on this matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay Arcayne. Message received. Thanks for giving your time and consideration to this. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've complained about your behavior here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colin4C. Hope we can work this out. Life.temp (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism Life.temp (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ant-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to redact this comment. Kudos for recognizing that it may not have been the best idea. Let's try to keep the talk page civil, it is probably the best way to find a way forward out of this mess :) henrik•talk 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie and would appreciate it if you would tell me why you're identifying well-intentioned edits of mine as vandalism. I'm here because I've noticed that topics in early American literature and other subjects I teach are poorly represented and I want to improve content. Everything I've done is meant in good faith--and yes, I have tried to read the policies. AngelaVietto (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angela. I didn't say your edits were vandalism. Just that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a literary review page of detective fiction and that therefore there is no need to get overly concerned about whether or not there are 'spoilers' in the article. The denouement of a work of fiction is not the be all and end all of analysis and we shouldn't get to worked up about whether or not for example 'the Butler did it'. In stating the main themes of a work of fiction the denouement might or might not be relevent. E.g. in an articles on Romeo and Juliet do you think we should conceal from the readers that the lovers die in the end? That would be bizarre. And a lot of fiction is based on old legends with which the reader is perfectly familiar. I.e. they know how it will all end. The denouement is the not the whole point of literary analysis. Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please respond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Truce Life.temp (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a wierd feeling the most recent edit of Onibaba, sort of interupts the flow. Oh, and I'm not sure if you approve, but I recently put in a "distribution" and "reception" section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the whole statement suggesting that the old woman was optimistic about the wars ending. I don't remember this or anything else of a remotely optimistic nature in the film...Colin4C (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have the film, but I remember alot and I'm pretty sure she was bitter because 1) She's a peasant who had to kill to live, and 2) She was living in a time of political unrest, and she had no say in what was going to happen. Should we discuss this further? Should the fact that it takes place in the Nanboku cho period be moved to the plot section or oppening paragraph? Just give me a word and we can get rid of it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a copy and watch it again to clear up some of those points. Colin4C (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Do you think Onibaba is nearing start class? Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the clarifications entirely.. See what you're trying to do though. The parishes were divided in 1830 and historically (when the borough existed), Hoxton, Haggerston and Shoreditch were seen as the three 'districts' that comprised the borough. I'm not sure that the wording accurately reflects this - I mean, it's like saying that the district of Westminster is defined by the administrative boundaries when it includes tens of other areas. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes....but...take for instance the district of 'South Shoreditch', south of Old Street. This formulation implies that there is a 'North Shoreditch' - where Hoxton is... Also there is an area west of Hoxton, before you get to Islington, which is not regarded as 'Hoxton'. The suspicion is that by going west you re-enter Shoreditch - Hoxton thus being an island within a Greater Shoreditch...Colin4C (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I would say the area going west is very undefined, I guess by this you're referring to the are around the city road basin and just north of that?I certainly wouldn't call it Shoreditch (I would see it as an extension of islington alsost), but I suppose some might. Then again, everyone who lives round here has their own ideas on how everything fits together. It's a little awkward. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1844 - reports of blight in North America (37)
• 1845

Early August - Peel receives letter from Isle of Wight reporting blight there (39)

August 11 - blight reported in Kent (39)

August 23 - more reports of widespread blight in England and Europe (40)

September 13 - blight first reported in Ireland (40)

Mid Oct - Widespread blight reported in Ireland. Season's crop ruined (43-4)

Oct 15 - Peel decides to repeal Corn Laws (50)

Oct 18 - Peel sets up scientific commission (44)

Oct 31-Nov 1 - Emergency Cabinet meeting - Relief Commission decided upon plus money to be sent to LL to buy food for destitute districts. Cabinet reject Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws. (51)

Oct 26-Nov 12 - Commissioners send back 4 reports (46)

Nov 3 - O'Connel and Irish Deputation demand measures from Lord Lieutenant (48-9)

Nov 6 - Cabinet again rejects Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws. (51)

Nov 9-10 - Peel orders purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian Corn from America (54)

Nov 15 - Commissioners final report - half the potato crop is destroyed. (51)

Nov 20 - Relief Commission has first meeting (57)

Dec 5 - Peel tenders resignation to Queen Victoria - over issue of Repeal (52)

Dec 20 - Peel reinstated as PM (52)

In August reports reached the government of widespread potato blight in England (39-40). On September 13 blight was first reported in Ireland (40). In mid October potato blight was reported as widespread in Ireland (43-4). On Oct 15 Peel decided to repeal the Corn Laws to reduce price of grain for the poor (50). On Oct 18 Peel set up a Scientific Commission to go to Ireland and investigate the potato blight and report on conditions (44). An emergency Cabinet meeting on Oct 31-Nov 1 instituted a Relief Commission plus other measures to alleviate distress but Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws was rejected (51). On Nov 9-10 Peel ordered the purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian Corn from America for distribution in Ireland (54). On Nov 15 the Scientific Commissioners reported that half the potato crop has been destroyed (51). On Nov 20 the Relief Commision first met (57). Unable to convince his Cabinet to repeal the Corn Laws on Dec 5 Peel tendered his resignation to Queen Victoria but was reinstated days later when Lord John Russell was unable to form a government (52).

Hi there. Domer48 has started a new tactic on the "Great Hunger" page. Have a look. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colin. Yes, the degeneracy thesis is interesting indeed. I think it says as much about a coalescing sense of European racial superiority as anything else.

I see the low-level revert war carries on. You think he'd get tired of all these inane talk threads he keeps starting. But listen: the bit about The Host movie is way way too long. I think it should be cut or at least trimmed to one sentence. If it's more than one sentence, I'd add one or two other cultural examples so that we're not randomly focusing on one movie. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Anti-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are hereby notified: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Anti-Americanism:_Marskell_.26_Colin4C. Life.temp (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As an involved party you may wish to comment here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_Bsharvy Durova^Charge! 07:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I've heard Hanging on the Old Barbed Wire the last verse is a pun: "If you want to find the privates, I know where they are, they're hanging on the old barbed wire", where privated can be the lowest rank of soldiers, or genitalia. Pustelnik (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification of request for enforcement here--Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

wrt Sweeney Todd. Saying that someone's existince has not been disproven is not an encylcopaedic comment, it doesn't make sense - you can't disprove someone's existence. Its presence is a wart, please don't simply discard edits - incorporate them and come to a new version. Mugwumpjism (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I have commented at User talk:GustavusPrimus#Vampires and the occult. I was not even aware of your previous deletions of this material when I first deleted it, but we're in agreement that it doesn't belong in that article. 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit of Onibaba has removed the "Analysis" section. I don't disagree on its removal, as it runs the risk of being POV. However, I think in the "Production" section we could mention Kanedo's thoughts on it, as he has confirmed its themes about the atomic bomb. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Colin

I'm sorry, I did not realise your text was referenced when I checked the "Diffs". Your information is clearly well written, and styled nicely. But what I question, is that information really need to be in the lead paragraph of the article? I think it could do with being placed further down, because Wikipedia guidelines state that the lead of an article be a paragraph explaining exactly what the page in question is about. Any thoughts? Regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the lead because 'Scotland Yard' is used as an alternative word for 'Metropolitan Police', making the term intrinsic to the nature of the subject...The equivalence of 'Metropolitan Police' and 'Scotand Yard' is used as an example in the wikipedia article on Metonymy. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As that may be, I'm still not sure its appropriate for the leas. But we will leave it for the time being, regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the account as a sock puppet. If you look at contrib's you'll notice it was socking for Life.temp back in April. Marskell (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Colin4C. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded, again. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colin, We need you to focus on the article...leave things as they are elsewhere. It is better that way for now. Things have a tendency of working themselves out. Clue: have to wait on the time period of procedures to elapse. Now is not the time.....hope you understand. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I don't really pay much attention to that kind of stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting someone is purely a judgment call. That's why there's a big long process and other editors are brought in to assess what has been said and if it's over the line. If you think something has gone over the line then the first step I would suggest is to approach the editor on their talk page (not the article talk page) and be as forgiving and AGF as you possibly can. Also, don't start with how much you feel rather try and stick to pure facts ("You've made this accusation 15 times since 07 July 2008"). This should help the other editor fixate on their behavior rather than try and defend themselves. Of course there's always the guy that doesn't care or has been talked to before and doesn't respond... Like I say, it's a judgment call. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a very rough idea of a possible path forward on stopping the fighting and personal arguing on the JtR page and JtR talk page. If you see possibility to the idea, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Please do not clutter up KB's talk page with discussion of this. If all the major players see potential, I will start up a page and talk page in my user area to flesh out the idea with all involved. If anyone wants to reject any possibility of the idea, please say so also, so that time is not wasted on something that will not work. This is an idea that can only work with the acceptance of all the major players at the JtR talk page, so if anyone rejects it, the idea is pretty much DOA. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial, rough draft of the agreement is up at User:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground. It is availible for editing, and the linked talk page, while not currently in existance, can be created and used for discussions on the agreement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly discuss your objections to page moves, rather than reverting them without discussion. There are few thing more disruptive than page move revert wars. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning on the Talk page: which nobody responded to. Colin4C (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And you managed to delete the talk page with a hamfisted move attempt. File a RfC, wait for feedback, discuss, accept consensus. There's no rush. The world will not end because someone was redirected to a title you don't approve of. And for the record, it's pretty blatently obvious that "Haunted locations" is pretty blatently PoV title, so if I've got time today I'll probably file for an admin to move the page. Jefffire (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting 'allegedly' in the title of a wikipedia article is also POV. Show me one example in the whole world where an encyclopedia entry starts with 'allegedly' or alleged'. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't and no encyclopedia I know of does. Even if ghosts are completely fictional, using 'alleged' in the title is illogical. Unicorns and fairies and Santa Claus are also very dubious so should their entries be changed to 'alleged Unicorns', 'alleged fairies' and 'The alleged Santa Claus'? I mentioned all this in the Talk page and nobody responded, and I gave them a long time to. Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See false dicotomy, discussed on talk page. If people have not responded then it would have been approriate to have announced your plans to move the page first, and left the page move to a more experienced editor or admin. Jefffire (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't let him bother you..no one believes him anymore. Best thing we can do is don't give him what he wants. He couldn't sell ice cubes to eskimos..;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Next weekend is London Open house, the charnel house of Mary Spital is open to visitors, on, I think, the Saturday .... It was recently discovered by (argh) archaeologists ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was there...or rather two streets away behind the Catholic Providence hostel, digging up some sad looking skelingtons, and trying to avoid the ghost of Mary Kelly who was reputed to haunt the place. Just got a job in a second-hand bookshop, by the way...an ideal venue for me to give expression to my literary opinions for the benefit of the proletariot of today...as you can imagine...Colin4C (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008

• Hi Colin, which bookshop are you in? Might be one that I frequent. Jack1956 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that a friendly and constructive atmosphere is essential on wikipedia. Even if you disagree with someone, please remember to conduct yourself with civility and decorum. Try to defuse a situation rather than inflaming it, even if you feel provoked yourself. In this case, I would suggest both you and User:Utan Vax disengage from each other. Have a good day. (Note, I'm not really interested in any replies that amount to "it was the other guy's fault) henrik•talk 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Colin4C, I'm just dropping by to say I like what you've done with the Subheadings. Regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colin:

I concur with your reservations about the dubious advantages of a stripper beginning their routine clothed in a gorilla suit. (Although in the "hands" of a gifted stripper I suppose it might be very striking.)

My only reason for introducing the idea of the gorilla suit was as a reaction to the other arbitrary and unsourced examples that are included in the sentence (school uniforms, etc.)

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that some further information has been added to the History of Royal Navy site. Many Good Wishes.--Middim13 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all that Klemperer condemned the bombing. I lived in NYC when 9/11 happened, and we were aghast at the calls for what we perceived as disproportionate and blind vengeance by invading Iraq. It's no accident that the most vehement protests in the US came from NYC - the tragedy reminded us that life is too precious to let ideologues of any stripe throw away. Likewise, you probably already know that some of the most vehement protests against "area bombing" (I can think of more fitting and less euphemistic phrases) came from Coventry and other cities that had been its victims.
Tangentially, I wonder if any sociologist has ever studied that... I suspect the loudest proponents of vengeance are seldom those who were actually hurt. arimareiji (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also interesting that some of those who justify the invasion and bombing of Iraq also justify the bombing of Dresden. There seems to be a feeling amongst some, that the Western democracies, no matter how much their hands are reddened with the blood of innocents, can do no wrong...the West is the Best...as per Jim Morrison... Aided and abetted by the 'tasteful' way that the bodies of the slain are never shown on TV. That, I guess, might turn people's stomachs and - shock, horror - turn them against war...The German historian Friedrich it seems is now displaying such 'tastelessness' by bringing out a book with pictures of the Dresden dead, much to the horror of bombing apologists everywhere... Colin4C (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you mean the bodies don't just disappear after you kill them? =o

I'm reminded of one of the "Lessons I Learned From Video Games" - Shoot everything. If it blows up or dies, it was bad. arimareiji (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for pre-empting you on editing the Jews of Dresden subsection, but I didn't feel like I could leave an arguable misplaced section unfixed when I'm about to clip PBS' sentence for not belonging in the section he put it. arimareiji (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further apologies for the chiding - I just don't want to give PBS any excuse for incivility, or ammunition to claim that he's being picked on versus being redacted. arimareiji (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I don't wish to be uncivil but I do have an unfortunate tendency to melodramatic histrionics and soliliquys. Basically I should be on the stage (playing Cassandra). Colin4C (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No stealing my act. ^_~ I very well may need the same in return in the future, as this is a relatively calm state for me and I'm currently new to the article... given time, you might have to pry me away from gnawing off a tendentious editor's carpal tendons. arimareiji (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why I wouldn't be a good farmer. I don't have the patience to continue digging up one rock at a time, carrying it out of the field, going back to plowing, hitting another rock, etc. But I do at least have oodles of stubbornness. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my last statement came across as insinuating the opposite, that you really would insert arguments against into arguments for. It wasn't meant that way, just as dry humor along the lines of "I know you wouldn't; I'm saying this rhetorically in response to people who have." arimareiji (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, you realize that I could revert you with exact same edit summary ("see reference provided")? Let's work it out on the talk page. It is obvious that your source and mine contradict one another. I don't have access to the book you cited, but would imagine that a Russian book which is right on the topic would be more accurate than a work by a Brit about the Russian Civil War in general. Let's compare notes before we favor one source over another. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, after some further research, Mawdsley turns out to be incorrect. Please see this and this—both sources agree with the book I used and put the date at April 13. I would appreciate it if you reverted to my version and incorporated non-contradicting bits from Mawdsley into it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are wildly inaccurate. Colin4C (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you consider them to be "wildly inaccurate" based only on the fact they are Soviet, I don't see much sense discussing this with you any further. Note that another editor has already reverted your change. Unless you can come up with some "wildly accurate" sources (and an explanation why they are to be trusted more than three other, quite reliable, sources I've provided), I would recommend you leave the article in that state. Also note that it is customary to provide explanations backing your point of view if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just stating a fact based on many years reading about the Russian Civil War by several authors. It was you who mentioned that because of Mawdsley's nationality (which you have got wrong, by the way) that he cannot possibly be right. Colin4C (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Scot was my other choice. Doesn't really matter, since I never implied that he cannot possibly be right because he is not Russian (wow, you've assumed a great deal about me by simply looking at one comment!); what I said was that, because he is not Russian, there are good chances of him being wrong, especially considering that a host of reputable sources (one of which is specifically on the subject of Kuban's administrative divisions) consistently offer the date different from his. In an article dealing with an administrative division, I would trust a specialized book on administrative divisions over a book mentioning administrative divisions in passing any day, regardless of the author's country of origin. Could a book (or three books for that matter) on administrative divisions possibly be wrong? You betcha, but that's where you come in with explanations, which you did not care to provide. Does the literature about the Russian Civil War you've read over the course of many years mention where the March date comes from? If so, let's check it out. I can certainly try to backtrack the April date (my book sources it), if that's something that would interest you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Gotta go now; will reply to your message on my talk page later. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Few would accuse me of being an uncritical admirer of Domer48's work. Still, I think he has the best of it at the Famine for now. Like he says, better to move on. You can always open an RfC later, but this really is a minor point and not worth spending much time on. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And does a famine start with the crop failure or with the mortality? Mention both and presumably everyone's happy. Let's hope so, because that is what WP:NPOV says to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin, there is now a Chronology of the Great Famine article and Wikipedia:Summary style is very relevant to how the chronology should be presented in the main article. Repeating the chronology wholesale like you did here and here and here is really not helpful to readers. If you want to merge the content back, please discuss this. The Famine is a huge subject and it does clearly need to be split into several articles as was discussed at Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)#Isn't this article getting too long and too complex?. As I mentioned already, if you look at El Greco, you'll see they made a timeline template. Would that help meet your objections? It's easy enough copied. If you want more opinions, you can open a request for comment. If you want to do that and need a hand, let me know. Anyway, whatever you do decide, please don't keep like this. If you do, I'll have no option but to ban you from editing the article for a period of time as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Very best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a copy of the other article. Compare. Colin4C (talk)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vampire literature. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please note that you have reverted 4 times (breaking the rule), but this will be your official warning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Original version:

Probably the most influential recent writer in the genre is Anne Rice whose Vampire Chronicles set the trend for multi-volume vampire epics and was the ultimate inspiration for the new and very popular sub-genre of vampiric paranormal romance.

Changed version:

An influential recent writer in the genre is Anne Rice whose Vampire Chronicles set the trend for multi-volume vampire epics and was the ultimate inspiration for the new and very popular sub-genre of vampiric paranormal romance.

That is not enough change to constitute a "new edit". You were still reverting back information that was completely misstated from that NY Times source. You actually went from vague to concrete in your identification of Rice as influential (I'm sure she is, but you still need a source actually stating that).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bad faith? I would like to have a civilised discussion on vampire literature and Anne Rice in the interests of knowledge about vampire literature. I have no axe to grind vis-a-vis Anne Rice and personally think her stuff is pretty dreadful. Why are you bullying me? Can't we just have a reasonable discussion about the place of Anne Rice in vampire literature without these Perry Mason histrionics? If you want references I can provide them. Colin4C (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. I, in no way, accused you of anything other than what you actually did, and that was revert a page more than 3 times. You claimed that you didn't revert it 4 times, you made a change. So, I explained that your "change" wasn't enough to constitute a "new edit". That has nothing to do with assuming good faith about your edits, because I didn't accuse you of doing anything maliciously. I also was not bullying you. You got the same treatment that I give every other editor on Wikipedia, and that I myself have received before. That was, unbiased inform that you violated a policy. As for this "reasonable discussion", I do believe that I reasonably gave a response to what CyberGhostface was correct in his edit on the article talk page. I don't know why you feel that you are being ganged up on., but I can assure you that it is entirely unfounded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert a page more than three times. After the first two times I modified it in order to compromise with the other editors viewpoint. I am sorry you do not believe me. Can we talk about Anne Rice and vampires? I am much more interested in vampire literature than all this infantile wikilawyering. Colin4C (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You edited this page recently; you labelled your edit “restoring logic to sub-sections”, so this is me belatedly taking umbrage; there was a lot less logic in the subsections before I started, and you haven’t restored anything that I can see.
What you did do is break up the section on the Scottish navy, which has been there for about a year, and that raises another issue.
I’ve put it back, and raised the question on the Talk page there. You might want to give an opinion? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

... is the name of the monument ... everything else is derived from that! (Nice to see you up and about). Kbthompson (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGES - your own presentation size is determined by your personal preferences. Forcing the size screws up presentation on limited devices (say mobile phones) ... or you could get glasses. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot see the Golden Cross Inn at the smaller scale. And why are we beholden to the users of "limited devices"? If I cannot get the wikipedia on my radio, should that affect the formatting? Should radio converting devices be installed in each article maybe?Colin4C (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because consideration of the user interface is important - it's part of good design - and you can change your personal preferences as to how you view these things. I'm not going to be proscriptive on this, merely to make you aware of the issues, if (say) we now put that article in for GA. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Famine (Ireland) article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is very worthwhile when serial offenders against the wikipedia rules, who are regularly blocked, several times each year, for "gross incivility and disruptive editing" give instructions to those who have never, ever, not even once, been blocked...But...anyway, as the Famine is not related to the Troubles and happened in a different century in a different area, your "reasoning" is invalid. But thanks, anyway. Colin4C (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've raised your breech of sanctions here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Colin, you have to adhere to the restrictions outlined at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case:

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

This means that in any articles in this topic area, it is against the rules to perform more that one revert in one day. (see definition of revert in WP:3RR). The only way the community has of enforcing this rule is to block, and so if you do it again this is what is likely to happen. The rule applies to all, Domer included. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Having now been informed again of the AE Sanctions, informed also of your breech of those sanctions are you now willing to self revert and take it to the talk page. The rule applies to all. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On a point of information please point to me where and when on the wikipedia it was established that the Famine is related to the Troubles. If it is not related to the Troubles then the sanctions are invalid. Thanks. Colin4C (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Per AE sanctions: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This means that in any articles in this topic area, it is against the rules to perform more that one revert in one day. This has also been pointed out to you by Deacon of Pndapetzim. Having now been informed again of the AE Sanctions, informed also of your breech of those sanctions are you now willing to self revert and take it to the talk page.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the connection between the Troubles established merely by your assertion that they were related or has there been a previous discussion or vote on this? Asserting that x is related to z does not prove it. If 1000 editors disagreed that there was a connection would they be trumped by one who asserts without proof that they are connected? As you are continually being blocked on the wikipedia, by the admins, at least 10 times a year, and are under disciplinary sanctions, I do not take your assertions as valid. I have been a wikipedia editor for over three years and have never been blocked, not even once and have never been put under disciplinary sanctions, not even once. It is therefore proved that you violate the wikipedia rules much more than I do. Colin4C (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It has now been spelled out for you below by Deacon of Pndapetzim, so again, having been informed of your breech of those sanctions are you now willing to self revert and take it to the talk page.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made this an Rfc. Reg. --Kleinzach 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions come from The Troubles ArbCom case, but are defined more broadly than that. Because the Great Famine plays such a prominent part in these nationalisms and Anglo-Irish historical discourse, they are clearly related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.. The ruling isn't just about the Troubles, but the other matters too. It also says When in doubt, assume it is related. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Deacon of Pndapetzim that should clarify it. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

please dont continue to revert without participating in talk page discussion. untwirl(talk) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I posted a comment on the talk page which I thought I'd bring to your attention. Could you please let me know what you think (on that page)? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you have not located Pownall Terrace, this page gives a strong clue. I would place it at grid reference TQ31297786 on the west side of Kennington Road near the junction with Kennington Park Road. There is a post office there now. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

... welcome back. Kbthompson (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kb. Was encouraged that most of my articles remain unviolated by trolls, and sometimes even improved, and that, in the most notorious wiki-rookeries, others have taken up the cudgels where I left them (that alley off Brick Lane...). Colin4C (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What I told you for years - "trust other editors" - doesn't always work, but when it doesn't - that's the time for the big stick. I've been somewhat ill recently, but your suggestions for future articles would be welcomed at the London Portal! You could add a 'Jack' themed DYK! All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hearing on TV lately that wikipedia editors are leaving the project "in droves" had me wondering whether the reason was that they were not crazy enough to hold forth here in Bedlam (apropos that hoary old work-place sign "You don't have to be mad to work here, but if you are it helps..."). There is certainly still a massive amount of stuff here which needs doing or improving, so that can't be the reason they are leaving... Colin4C (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, it's never the vandals who leave ... oh, I think a lot get caught up in the sort of turmoil you've encountered - and that puts everybody off. But, as you say, there is plenty to do and plenty of corners to work in without putting anyone's nose out. Kbthompson (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break for a few days - in Cornwall - in February! But I haven't been out of London for the best part of a year, so it will make a break. Do try to rub along! Jza84 (talk · contribs) is an active, sensible and uninvolved admin if the article needs a referee. I think most of the basic problems have been resolved by agreement. It's worse than working at Hillsborough Castle! All the best - back early next week! Kbthompson (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Colin4C,
thank you very much for your answer! Have a nice Wednesday. --Catfisheye (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted a vandal, the hard way! I've bestowed WP:Rollback; I'm sure you'll use it wisely ... let me know if there are any problems ... enjoy! Kbthompson (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kb. I always wondered how editors did that...Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi

Hello Colin, the CSI issue is being discussed here. Just a heads up. Xanthoxyl ^< 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Alfred Jingle, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Jingle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lenin's Hanging Order. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin's Hanging Order (2 nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

After the King had been moved to London, the Rump Parliament passed a Bill setting up what was described as a High Court of Justice in order to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The bill nominated 3 judges and 150 commissioners who were empowered to try the King. Among the commissioners was Oliver Cromwell. The Solicitor General John Cooke was appointed prosecutor.

Though the House of Lords refused to pass the bill and the Royal Assent naturally was lacking, the Rump Parliament referred to the ordinance as an "Act" and pressed on with the trial anyway.

• 6 January 1649. The intention to place the King on trial was re-affirmed on 6 January by a vote of 29 to 26 with An Act of the Commons Assembled in Parliament.[2][3] At the same time, the number of commissioners was reduced to 135 – any twenty of whom would form a quorum[3] – when the judges, members of the House of Lords and others who might be sympathetic to the King were removed.

• 8 January The commissioners met to make arrangements for the trial on 8 January when well under half were present - a pattern that was to be repeated at subsequent sessions.
• 10 January On 10 January, John Bradshaw was chosen as President of the Court. During the following ten days, arrangements for the trial were completed; the charges were finalised and the evidence to be presented was collected.
• 20 January. First day of trial at Westminster Hall. Cooks presents indictment. Bradshaw asks how he pleads. Charles replied "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful". Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead. Court adjourned.
• 22 January. Court reassembled. Charles refuses to plead.
• 23 January. Court reassembled. Charles refuses to plead. Private session in Painted Chamber.
• 25 January. Thirty witnesses were summoned, but some were later excused. The evidence was heard in the Painted Chamber rather than Westminster Hall. King Charles was not present to hear the evidence against him and he had no opportunity to question witnesses. The court proceeded as if the king had pleaded guilty (pro confesso), as was the standard legal practice in case of a refusal to plead. The witnesses were heard by the judges for 'the further and clearer satisfaction of their own judgement and consciences.' [5]
• 27 January The King was declared guilty at a public session on Saturday 27 January 1649 and sentenced to death. To show their agreement with the sentence, all of the 67 Commissioners who were present rose to their feet. During the rest of that day and on the following day, signatures were collected for his death warrant. This was eventually signed by 59 of the Commissioners, including 2 who had not been present when the sentence was passed.[6]

• 30 January King Charles was beheaded on a scaffold in front of the Banqueting House of the Palace of Whitehall on 30 January 1649.

Hi Colin4C and Hohum, Since you were discussing it in February, I just wanted to let you know that I've requested the move of Vergeltungswaffe to V-weapons. It should show up at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_requests Real Soon Now(tm). Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You completey removed my edits. However, The previous edit was POV and Content Forking Problem. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was POV and not written in proper English. Please do not remove referenced relevent material. Colin4C (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please do not remove referenced relevent material. You removed referenced relevent material. If you think grammar is not correct, you should correct its grammar, not whole revert. And, i will explain why previous edit was Wrong. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Korean anti-Americanism after the war was fueled by American occupation and support for authoritarian rule, a fact still evident during the country's democratic transition in the 1980s.

The source is newspaper, and its article date is 1987. already 23 years ago. it is not work in nowdays.

• Such anti-Americanism is reflected in Korean popular culture....

This edit is confusing. First, POV editor using 1987 years source, and later described as it relation with moderndays movie. And 'the host' movie is not a real Anti-Americanism movie. Only very first intro part is controvercial.

Fucking USA song written by one pro north korean activist, his song is not reflect to any Korean's view of US.

Apolo Ohno Olympic controversy caused by 'dirty play'. It is not a anti-america. Ohno's play was problem. not all america.

In conclusion, previous edit was POV and Content Forking Problem. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

--660gd4qo (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The link Anti-American sentiment in Korea is not a fork, but a link to an article in which the subject is treated in greater depth. Colin4C (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I linked several TRUSTED source.(You removed it) According to American think tank organization Pew Research Center, South Korea has one of the most favorable views towards the US country and people. (ranked within top 4 among the countries in the world) Korea's view of America is generally high favor. Previous edit picked every single Anti-america news of Korea, and depict it. It is not a neutral point edit. This edit style intentionally depict Korea as High Anti-America Country. My edit point out it was very very minor.660gd4qo (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link Anti-American sentiment in Korea? Please do not delete valuable encyclopediac information for POV reasons. Think of the wikipedia readers who use it as a knowledge resource rather than thinking of your own POV concerns. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not my POV. You also removed referenced material.(especially gallop survey, taiwan, etc) Why? BTW, Your only concern is above Anti-American sentiment in Korea link? OK? Then we reach at moderate. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You should move this discussion to the talk page of the article concerned and make a case for your additions. --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

NO i bleive that articels should reflect what RS say, not what eddds interperate them to say. If an RS does not say X we cannot say that they have said X.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a sockpuppet allegation about other editors of this article. Since you raised the issue of sockpuppetry on the discussion page, any evidence you may provide to this discussion would be helpful. TFD (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Raped on the Railway: a True Story of a Lady who was first ravished and then flagellated on the Scotch Express. Since you had some involvement with the Raped on the Railway: a True Story of a Lady who was first ravished and then flagellated on the Scotch Express redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as you were the editor who added the Farson book as a reference for the above article , is there any chance you could add the page number the information was on? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An article you signifigantly contributed to, Whitechapel murders, is one of the 3000th FAs. Regards, ResMar 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good! Colin4C (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This site appears to be a compendium of press releases. Why do you say it's reliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The reader of the wikipedia can judge the reliability of a source for himself or herself by the simple expedient of looking it up. It is not for us editors to establish some sort of "truth commission" on what readers are supposed to believe in or not. Nobody knows what is true, it is a matter of faith in the sources. Each person judges the reliability of a source differently. There are no absolute truths here on the wikipedia, just statements to the effect that "according to x such-and-such is the case". What the value of x's testimony is up to the reader to decide. The info in the press release does not seem to be advertising or the mirror of some dodgy wikipedia disinformation and it seems to be an odd thing to make up. Saying that, I agree with you that it would be nice to find some more sources on Mugwumps strip club and Miss Belle Jangles just to be on the safe side. Colin4C (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work on tracking down the origin of the spoof! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colin4C,

I just wondered if the Strand, London article can be protected because as you know, there is a long-running seesaw battle over whether it should be "Strand" or "The Strand" in the body of the article. It is getting rather tiresome having to constantly amend the article because one individual is so anti-The if you see what I mean. Any thoughts? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you had made some earlier edits to the exodus but had them reverted. I recently had the same issue. It would seem that two users are enforcing their own view of what "mainstream scholarly opinion" is on the article. The reason your edits, and mine, were reverted is not that they were wrong or that they didn't represent "mainstream opinion", but that these two users are enforcing a POV on the article. I assure you, your edits and mine were closer to "mainstream scholarly opinion" than the reversions were. If you are willing, we can work together on the article to bring some balance.(talk) 15:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The redirect Werewolves in fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 16 § Werewolves in fiction until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 21:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)