User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive3

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

Dear Sir, I noticed your note on the William H. Kennedy and some editors think that his new publisihing house Mystic Valley Media in non-notable and should be deleted. The book covers are being displayed at an NYC art show and I think that makes the company note worthy. Please advise on this. Dawn Horse Warrior 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, I am new to Wikipedia and need your advice about a vandelism matter that came up on an article you worked on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Kennedy

There was an act of vandelism there today see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_H._Kennedy&diff=64350590&oldid=64248612

If the vandels come back should I just keep changing the edit back or should I ask for third party resolution?

I also saw your notation that the article needs to be more wikified. Can you be more specific? Sorry if I am a pain but I really want to learn! Please leave some advice here.

Thanks 617USA (New and needing improvement)

Hello, TexasAndroid. You seem to be the admin. who blocked Encyclopedist's account. When may he edit again? I find that I could collaborate with him on Latin American history projects - especially the article at Military history of Mexico. I am pretty sure that whatever he did isn't so bad, or that his work with articles overshadows it. I am currently working on Brazilian military history projects, so I am in no rush. Just asking a general question. OMEN 19:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unfortunate. Perhaps if I could contact him, I could get him to apologize. I wish I had some help - it's sad that this happened, considering that he was, I assume a good contributor. OMEN 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have jumped into said discussion. :) joshbuddy, talk 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*

Of course I apologize, to John Reid and to the WIkipedia Community. I said so even on his talk page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will never vandalize again. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I believe this account should have already been blocked as a sockpuppet. MyApology 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me so much

I am deeply sorry for the sins I have commited here. I hope my reëntry here will be sincerely welcomed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like 'all of my pages restored :-) Thank you. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting it under Category:Public domain characters, or perhaps a new category : Category:Mythological characters in fiction (which could also include the numerous comic book characters based on mythology)? --Grammatical error 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you just proposed about creating a new category and subcategorising it under Category:Mythological characters. Also, there are many "mythological" characters in comic books (who will be put in multiple categories if this goes ahead, because of the obvious Category:Marvel Comics characters or whatever that will already be there) that it would be a useful category and quickly filled up. --Grammatical error 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...that was quick work. There is also some stuff on the Asura (disambiguation page that could be cut and pasted into a new Asura (fiction article in the new category, leaving just the important mythological information and a link to the new fiction page.--Grammatical error 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx for pointing me to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi. Btw, you can call me Tobias, but I will not WP:CIV you. I know people in Germany that find it offensive to be called by plain family name. best Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not complete the process of registering your copyright violation concerns regarding the article Helen Betty Osborne. So, I reverted your edit. I have reviewed the link you provided [1] and found that just three paragraphs out of the article were copied from (or near copies of) the link. I have completely rewritten or removed the offending paragraphs. If you find any further parts of the article that you consider to be infringing on copyright, please identify those parts and we can deal with them. I would prefer not to have an entire article that is mostly original content deleted just becase a few small elements of it are in violation when we can easily correct such small problems. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of DC meta-humans would fall under the umbrage of Mutation origin instead of Science origin, then? Ryulong 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I really have no idea. DC is not normally into the whole Mutant thing. There likely are a few, somewhere, but finding them might mean sifting through the pages of a lot of DC characters. :) You could also look through the history of the page and see who originally added that comment, and then see if they are still active on the project. If so, maybe they can give you an idea of what they had in mind. :) - TexasAndroid 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check on that. Ryulong 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the first person who put that in used Fire (comics) as an example, but she got her powers from an external source (Pyroplasm, or some sort of accident), and was then had her minor fire-breathing powers magnified by a "meta-gene bomb". With this, I don't think there are really any DC characters who are considered "Mutation". Ryulong 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better to remove the DC reference then, than to give incorrect examples. If anyone can come up with an appropriate example, it can be re-added easily enough. - TexasAndroid 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who set it to angry, I reset it to calm -- Tawker 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all stems from a debate at Category:Anti-Semitic people. I do not have a problem with an administrator or editor advising me on my talk page about an issue with images; however, when an editor simply changes a user page without any discussion that is vandalism. I advised him to stop and he did not, so I reciprocated. Unfortunately, instead of remaining neutral you have chosen sides. This reflects poorly on your ability to be an impartial administrator, in fact it could be interpreted as Administrator abuse. Cordially Porky Pig 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, thank you for your council. The removal of the policy violation image wasn't done in "retaliation". Please see this talk on MONGO's talk page. Given the above comment here, the vandalism and this sort of commentary I think we can both agree that User:Porky Pig is liable to become known as a disruptive editor. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To User:TexasAndroid Further to your follow up, thank you, I now respect your decision and handling of the matter. Cordially Porky Pig 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, please be advised that User:Porky Pig is likely a sockpuppet of permanently blocked editor User:SirIsaacBrock based upon editing topics/style, editorially summary comments. Please note usage of the word "Cordially" relative to a discussion involving this category here on User:Zoe's talk page. Unless I can convince admins of this, I'll be opening a WP:RFCU case shortly as I build my evidence. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper usage of the term "spammer":

• User:SirIsaacBrock "Remove spammer" : "rv - Spammer" : "rv - spammer"
• User:Porky Pig "rv - spammer"

Improper utilization of WP:AIV:

• User:SirIsaacBrock [2]
• User:Porky Pig [3]

Utilization of identical vernacular relatvie to discussions about Category:Anti-Semitic people:

• User:SirIsaacBrock "Cordially" at the end.
• User:Porky Pig "Cordially" at the end.

Edits to Dog_fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• User:Porky Pig [4]
• User:SirIsaacBrock [5]

Edits to Old English Bulldog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• User:Porky Pig [6]
• User:SirIsaacBrock [7]

Edits to English White Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• User:Porky Pig [8]
• User:SirIsaacBrock [9]

Edits to Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• User:Porky Pig [10]
• User:SirIsaacBrock [11]

As you may be aware WP:RFCU says that, "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.". Would you kindly indefinitetly block SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s sockpuppet Porky Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is now on WP:ANI. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Porky Pig account was not used in accord with Wikipedia's sock policy and should be blocked accordingly. (→Netscott) 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that I've updated the above WP:ANI report to include an additional sockpuppet: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not the editor User:Nescott is accusing me of. He has done the opposite of what you advised him to do and he has spammed my User page again with a sockpuppet +tag, would you please take the steps necessary to stop this editor from attacking me again. Thank you Porky Pig 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following at the intervention page [12], any chance you could ask them to back off. I just reopened my account yesterday. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Netscott (talk · contribs) and Hipocrite (talk · contribs) seem to be stalking me around the wiki, simply check their User Contributions to confirm. Any chance you can advise them to stop, I do not want confrontation with these editors. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors first contibutions on return was to continue a month old revert war to include grusome an not-notable anecdotes and to remove maintence tags from pages that I monitor. It is not stalking to have a watchlist of pages that I proded in the long-long ago. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you deleted information in spite after I requested my account to be blocked. Now that I have returned I am fixing your spiteful mess. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's now three of us that have expressed the view that moving these threads wasn't appropriate. Do you think it'd be right to bring them back? (→Netscott) 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Netscott, instead of focusing on off-article work, why not do something positive like actually write some articles and build up the encyclopedia :) SirIsaacBrock 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if by removing a long-time problematic and disruptive editor one can improve the collaborative spirit for the Wikipedia project then that certainly is doing something positive. This diff to User:Drini wherein you posted, "Thank you for spamming my discussion page with the following information [13]" is further illustration that the project would be better without your "contributing". (→Netscott) 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an admin request, but a request from one user to two others. Please stop using my Talk page to talk to each other. I really do not want the constant New Message banner popping up for comments that are not even directed at me. If you two need to converse, please use your own talk page, stop hyjacking mine. - TexasAndroid 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your continued behaviour reflects you are the problem editor :) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still wondering about my original question. (→Netscott) 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, I've put a question into User:Drini about this. I'll be surprised if she disagrees with replacing the threads. Sorry for using your talk page earlier to talk with SirIsaacBrock. (→Netscott) 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert all of the changes you made as a result of incorrectly adding "Fictional Americans" to the Stargate characters category. Not all of those characters are Americans, especially the alien races. CovenantD 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off on any more changes for now. How would you suggest we get this sorted out? Personally, I think there's major problems with the name of the cat as it is. CovenantD 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have pointed this out - I know it's a lot of work both ways. I'll tackle the Stargate articles. Let me know what other articles and cats I can help with. CovenantD 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that rollback button looks very useful - almost enough to make me wish I had it :-) I'll keep an eye out for you to start the discussion and chime in with my ideas. CovenantD 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked User talk:Howardgoldman for a shorter time and assuming good faith. However, if you see vandalism from this guy again, feel free to reblock him indef. Sasquatch t|c 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are on making edits can you help User:Beneaththelandslide has been blocked due common IP address can unblock please. Gnangarra 11:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for helping. Gnangarra 00:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some understanding of this list. So I come to you. How is the cached list generated, and who might I see about updating the search bot to disclude redirects. As many people have noted, it needs to be done. Any idea where I go for that? Can you respond on my Talk/Discussion page? Thanx. --Jade 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by Category:The Saint being orphaned. It's linked to a number of articles. What Wikipolicy requires a so-called "parent category." This is the very first I've ever heard of this and I've created a number of categories ie. [:Category:Modesty Blaise books]]. The "characters in written fiction" category was incorrect because Simon Templar is already listed under that category. 23skidoo 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the heads up. Thank you! --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am planning on doing.--Mais oui! 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird edit conflict! I didn't get a warning, but apparently I did revert you by accident. Good thing you caught up on it. -- Jordi·✆ 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did the same thing with the Texas Wrestling Academy article.JB196 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've spoken with User:JB196 about content disputes re: {{cite}}, I figured I'd drop you a heads-up that I'm concerned JB is using them as an alternate means of edit warring rather than legitimate discussion. Based on this AN thread and JB's status as the primary author of Vic Grimes (virtually every statement to which JB has added {{cite}} was in his version of 11 May), I don't see these as being a prelude to good faith action. I've left him a note cautioning against blanking large sections of the article, and hope that having you in the loop may help forestall wikilawyering. — Lomn | Talk 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but the second sentence of this statement is entirely, 110% invalid and holds no basis whatsoever. Application of official Wikipedia citation policy takes precedent over analysis of user motives (questionable or not) in applying Wikipedia citation policy. If something needs to be cited, it needs to be cited; it doesn't matter who put it there. If you consider my previous additions to the article credible enough to remain in the article, then you also consider me credible enough to add citation tags as needed.JB196 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that part of the article. This is just another means of stamping your feet when you don't get what you want. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. As you surmise that was unintentional -- I overlooked checking to see if revisions had been deleted before (oops). Please go right ahead and fix this. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that Kelly was not acting unilaterally. Danny 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask why you're removing these categories from some articles? Have you looked at the categories? Most if not all of the storms forming in their respective basins are put into that category by default - I don't see any parent categories that some articles are in, except for the typhoon seasons as well. Unless you're willing to decategorise every single one of the 400 or so articles in these categories, I think you should restore them and perhaps discuss it - the fact that there are over 400 articles in them means that it's an established process within the wikiproject that we put storm articles into these categories. – Chacor 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could hold off for a while. I'll bring this up to the wikiproject. Cheers. – Chacor 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only response I've gotten so far:

Principle 7 of Wikipedia:Categorization: Bend the rules above when it makes sense, but only if no other solution can be found. Having all the articles in the subcategories makes our organization much easier and more intuitive, so I really don't see the point in changing everything. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

– Chacor 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, you have not directly protested my removal of the meteorology year categories from the same articles. This was being done under the same parent/grandparent logic. Is this change more acceptable to you?

Yes, it is. Many articles don't even use the XXXX meteorology categories; that one I don't think is such a concern as those categories don't directly affect the WPTC categorisation imo. I'll leave a word at the talk page. – Chacor 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while. I think that whatever consensus there is is for the old categories. – Chacor 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, could you please restore the categories? – Chacor 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go restore them myself, then? Jeez. – Chacor 11:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe that was a bit snappy. Still, if you don't want to do it, I will probably do so myself - I don't think there was a consensus for removing them in the first place. – Chacor 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.

As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.

Thank you!

—Markles 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you finished your planned work on these articles? If so, I will proceed to delete them as per the discussion. (aeropagitica) 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, I echo this. Have you finished your planned work? I'd like to close this AfD, but I'm not sure if it is finished yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you speedied these 3 cats. I don't know if the author re-tagged them of if you saw the discussion at cfd? Obviously, if it was the former, you may not be aware that they were initially listed at cfd. Could you please close the discussions on these?. In case you want a link, they are here. Thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was you who blocked me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boromadloon

Anyway, I was wondering if you would consider unblocking me. I am sorry, and I have just spent a good half hour looking round pages, and editing Billingham;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billingham

Would you please unblock me, even just for a little while?

And wow, you work at google? wow....

I'd like to thank you for your semi-protection of the Columbus Day article and the subsequent cleanup following all of the moves. Sorry to post that to the wrong notice board, but I appreciate you taking the time to fix things. --Dual Freq 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about posting the thank-you for your simply fixing the categories on the Freddy Fender article until I saw how much of your talk page gets sucked up by people arguing about sockpuppets and edits they didn't think you should have made. Clearly you could use a little positive reinforcement. So I'd just like to toss in a gracias for helping out on an article that's going to see more visits than usual in the coming weeks. :) Lawikitejana 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to revert the goofy edits by 66.25.158.112 to the Strayhorn article. Silliness like that makes Wikipedia look like MySpace. At what point can a user like that be blocked -- say for about three weeks, maybe? --Robertb-dc 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, I thought you would want to know that User:207.144.70.66 (who you blocked on the 3rd of November, [the second block on this number!]) is back again with a new bevy of vandalism. Marasmusine 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, any reason why you keep reverting this article? I do not see any cases of apparent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.201 (talk • contribs)

No vandalism, other than the fact that she's been dead for many years, and you keep reverting the page to a version that makes it look as if she's still alive. That's pretty much vandalism in my book. - TexasAndroid 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead? That's a terrible thing to say. And why do you sau that I was reverting the article? It looks to me that that was an AOL IP address. How can you be sure that it was I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.201 (talk • contribs)

As to the first part, I'm not going to even bother with that silliness. As to the second, while I cannot be 100% certain, I would say it's a very, very, very remote possibility that there would be two different people, both with shifting AOL IPs, showing an interest in this situation. - TexasAndroid 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if a user presents an alternative view point, you consider it "silliness"? That's really good wikipedian spirit. I think you owe the previous user an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.201 (talk • contribs)

It's silly to say that it's terrible to say someone is dead. Oh, and the one just above is yet another AOL IP, and thus is most likely the same person as the previous comments. - TexasAndroid 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the poster was under the impression that she was not dead? Who knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.201 (talk • contribs)

The fact that you keep saying "the poster" and "previous user", when it is totally obvious that you are the same person, makes it very hard to put much faith in anything else you say. As I said above, the chances that two (or more), unconnected, AOL posters would get wrapped up into this thing at the same time is almost nonexistant. - TexasAndroid 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the previous poster; in fact, I rather stumbled on the page by accident and noticed that it was blocked. I am certainly not a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.201 (talk • contribs)

Ok, why aren't you answering me?????????? Some administrator... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.137 (talk • contribs)

Because I had said all I needed to say, and you had asked nothing new for me to answer. I had no need to get in the last word, so I let your last comment stand as the end of things. I will say that the current repeated blanking of this talk page does little to get me to beleive your protests that you are not a vandal. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, did I miss something? When did I EVER blank your page????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.137 (talk • contribs)

Here[14], here[15], here[16], here[17], and, seconds after the above protest, here[18]. - TexasAndroid 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary constituencies, like towns and cities and U.S. congressional districts, are generally notable. They sometimes require separate articles when their boundaries are different than the community after which they are named. Because of this, I removed the {{prod}} from Old Leighlin (Parliament of Ireland constituency). --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at the articles, you will see that they do contain separate information. Yes, I realize there is some overlap in information in the beginning of the articles, but ideally the Coquille Tribe article should be about the current activities of the tribe, while the Coquille (tribe) article will be about their historic seasonal rounds, various branches, etc. As you can see, the big T Tribe article has a section about "Economy", while the little t tribe article has sections on "Language", "Lifestyle" and "Groups". I realize they are stubs, but please don't accuse me of making a straight copy. If it were one you would certainly be justified in making a redirect. If I don't get around to improving the articles this week, then feel free to redirect. (Or preferably do a merge, otherwise some of the information will be lost.) I have lots of things I want to work on and not so much time, you know how it goes. I also found the tone of your message a bit uncivil, though that may not have been your intention. Thanks and Happy Editing! Katr67 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and suggestions. You see, *I* was frustrated to see the article redirected by someone who I assumed might not understand the importance of having two separate articles. So yeah, it was a bit silly of me to ask for expansion in the edit summary, but it was also sort of a general note to you, me, whoever. For background, there is a general problem with the tribal articles being categorized haphazardly (and thanks very much for your efforts in cleaning up the categories), with the Oregon tribes, for example, being relegated to "history" categories, etc., which is incorrect at best and offensive at worst, as most tribes have not faded into history. Often the articles about the *people* get mixed up with the articles about the tribal entities. This is especially problematic when it comes to a people like the Klamath, who currently share a tribal government with two other peoples as the Klamath Tribes (another fork I created). So yeah the article forks are kind of a sloppy half-finished project on my part and I need to expand on them in order to justify their existence, rather than just talking about it. As far as renaming (tribe? people?), that's a mess right now too. See this discussion I started. You're totally right about the "other uses" tags and such. I'll see what I can do. And now, I'm really supposed to be working. :) Keep up the good work! Katr67 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that vanadalism on my talk page. Regards, Mr Stephen 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...can I ask why the U-Pack Moving article must be merged with the ABF Freight System, Inc. article? I realize ABF is the parent company, but both are branded separately. ABF is soley B2B and U-Pack is B2C. Someone trying to find information about a residential moving service (U-Pack) would likely not be interested in information on a freight carrier. Isn't the internal link in the U-Pack article sufficient?? Sincerely, Ashlee31 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on Kelly's RFC. I'm not going to try defending her conduct, merely explain why WP:OFFICE is invariably messy. We have a lot of media attention on us. We're, what, the twelfth most visited site in the United States? We also have a lot of legal attention on us. I can't give away any of the details, of course, but at any given moment there are several people seriously threatening to sue the Wikimedia Foundation. These are not random idle threats of a pissed-off editor ... we're talking authors, photographers, celebrities, etc., who feel their copyrights are being violated, or feel that they are being libeled in their Wikipedia article. A lot of on-wiki actions are taken in regard to all of these various incidents, and you would probably not recognize a single one unless you had been involved in cleaning up after it, because it's almost always done on the down-low rather than under the auspices of WP:OFFICE. Why? Limiting exposure limits media exposure. The last thing we need is a situation blowing up. Legal issues simply cannot be taken care of transparently; every organization in existence handles the majority of complaints in private rather than out in the open, and Wikimedia Foundation is no different. There's simply more friction as a result, because we are almost all non-employess and almost always out-of-the-loop, but it's unavoidable. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit summary on {{NCAATeamFootballSeason}}, you mention that it was creating a lot of red link categories. What's so bad about red link categories? I'm not challenging you, I'm ignorant if there's a policy or just a no-no or something. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... TuckerRoo62 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)TuckerRoo62[reply]

You forgot to put the mprotected2 template within the <noinclude> tags! Disastrous, please fix. --WikidSmaht (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see I was making messes. I've rolled back the protection templates, and will reinsert them more carefully. Sorry to anyone for any messes I caused. - TexasAndroid 14:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem; I've made the same mistake myself. (At least you didn't do it on something that was really high-use! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]