The point you're missing is that "former" modifies only "figure skater", not "Tonya Harding", or "American". The Economist's style guide[1] includes a very similar example: "Ex- (and former): be careful. A Communist ex-member has lost his seat; an ex-Communist member has lost his party." An American ex-skater is an American who no longer skates; but an ex-American skater is a skater who is no longer American. Dr.frog 02:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David! I see that Jennifer won the GLAAD media award. But she's not known for her LGBT activism at all, and the GLAAD award is the only mention in the article. The category is for people like Urvashi Vaid who are known specifically for their activism. Thanks for your input! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, David won't accept the fact that Jethro Tull do qualify as an LGBT musical group despite Dee Palmer's leaving of the band as an official member. She has still worked with them for years. Go figure.

As a fashion major at Parsons New School - I am unclear as to why you undid my post. The current article is calling "lady greensleeves" promiscuous and it is clearly evident that she was not a common whore. mainly because she is referred to as "Lady". Be she a prostitute that would have not been the case in the 16th/17th century as class was king and the suggestion of nobility would not be throw around carelessly. "Sleeves" as it were, do not mean "green gown" as stated in the article in the original article. The reader currently believes that the song is referring to a whore-ish courtesan when in fact and yes, it is fact, that by referring to her sleeves does not refer to her gown the two were NOT inter changable as they are now described in the article. Fashion was largely dominated by the upper classes ONLY. (Stilettoarmy (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Stilettoarmy. The reason I undid your post on the “Greensleeves” page was (as I stated) because it didn’t include any references – i.e. it was unsourced.

Your post tried to do two things. Firstly, it tried to refute some of the content that was already on the page – and yet the particular content you chose to question was already verified by references to existing academic works. Secondly, your post tried to put forward an alternative explanation for the song, but failed to support that explanation with external references. Unfortunately the whole post came across very much as personal opinion. If that is the case, then the best place to have posted it would have been in the discussion section of the article.

There are two points that obviously concern you - the first of which is the gown/sleeves issue. Nobody is confusing a gown with sleeves – they’re obviously different things. The reference to a “gown” in the article is not used in connection with fashion – it’s used in regard to the claim that “green” was a colour that, at that time, had strong sexual connotations. When they discuss the song “Greensleeves” in their book "Women's Roles in the Renaissance, Meg Lota Brown & Kari Boyd McBride make this point citing, as an example, the use of the phase “a green gown”. In fact there are even stronger associations that have not been included in the article. James T. Henke says in his book “Courtesans and Cuckolds: a Glossary of Renaissance Dramatic Bawdy” that “green was a colour long associated with prostitution”. Finally (and at last moving into the area of fashion!) you may be interested to know that in a few countries around that time – France was one – prostitutes were required by law to wear bands / ties on their sleeves so that they could be identified. However, while it’s clearly within a similar area of reference nobody has yet made a direct link between this and “Greensleeves”.

The second point that concerns you is the use of the word “lady”. This is easier to explain. While “lady” definitely means someone of nobility / superior social position, it’s not the only meaning. Equally common is the use of the word as a formal term to describe a woman (any woman). Just as valid is the use of the word to describe a woman with whom a man is romantically or sexually involved. Invariably the use is done by the man himself - i.e. "my lady". Given that the first lines of the song are “Alas, my love” it's clear that it's this final meaning that is being used. If she existed "Lady Greensleeves" may have been noble - we'll never know - but the song is actually about love and it's various complications, not nobility.

Thanks for the post - I hope this is helpful to you! David T Tokyo (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that calculating the number of olimpic medal of respective nation per million of inhabitants is not an official way of counting. But I can not understand why you think, that there is no place for such calculation anywhere in wikipedia? Krefts (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krefts, thanks for your post. I deleted it for two reasons - firstly it gave the impression that was an official way of counting Olympic medals. This was because of the way you had written the post - "The alternative approach to measure the succes of respective nation is to count per capita". By using the word "The" (rather than "An") at the start it gave undue emphasis and status to this way of measuring. Second, as I pointed out, this is just one of many ways of measuring the medal count.

I have no objections to this table being in Wikipedia - it is of interest to some - but on reflection I think it should just be a link at the bottom of the main table without any supporting text i.e. Medals won per Population. Hopefully some other people will then add other unofficial tables which could be of interest - Total medals won, points by medal, GDP, Athletes at Games etc. I think someone even created a medal table based on Human Rights (I bet that wouldn't stay up for long...) David T Tokyo (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad, that you have no objecton to this table bein in Wikipedia, and I can agree wiht your suggestions how to put it. On the other hand, thare are many other people on wikipedia, who will always delete such table (see discussion in my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krefts). Their argument is, that this is an original research, which I do not agree. Such table was published in many yournals and on many web pages. I doubt, that (original research) is even their real reason for deletion. I belive, they just dont whant to see a table without their country on the top. Krefts (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was dubious and checked many. Here's how it appears in RACING IN THE STREETS: THE BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN READER (2004): http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0142003549/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=rock+and+roll+future&go.x=14&go.y=9&go=Go%21#

The link you give brings up notes that could have been written by an intern or someone with a summer job. This is such a famous quote that THE BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN READER and the Springsteen database [2] would be completely discredited if they got it wrong. Pepso2 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly put the HOF in their place - personally I would have thought they might have trusted the content of their website to someone other than a summer temp but obviously you know better. I'm still troubled by the (relatively) bad English in what is such a famous quote so I'll dig around more. In the meantime I'll reverse my previous edits based on your full-blooded faith in THE BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN READER. David T Tokyo (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, not sure what we can do about this without wider community involvement. I have not seen the book so I don't know how reliable it is, but we certainly have a number of IPs (probably the same person or group of people) intent on keeping the book as a reference. As we seem to be at an impasse perhaps it's time to make a request for comment or commence other dispute resolution procedures. – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Experts have said can't prove Henry VIII didn't write it and since Henry VIII is the only name they have as the composers name and its been known by most people for 500 years that Henry VIII wrote it which is longdetivity. The story goes that Henry wrote it to woo Anne Boleyn so henceforth its a Legend.

It would be a Myth if they had no idea who wrote it, but they have the idea that Henry VIII wrote it although they may not be able to prove it. The long affiliation with Henry VIII I say would count it as a Legend and not a myth The C of E (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to look at the article for proof that Greensleaves is 500 years old and also enclosed in that article is no composer name except for Henry VIII

I'm not asking for Henry VII to be officially recognised as the composer, I'm just asking for it to be classed as a legend The C of E (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the edit history of Greensleaves shows that you both have made three reverts to the article. Either stop or you you may be blocked for violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per this request I looked to see which word would be a better fit. After reading through both legend and mythology, I think, that of the two, "myth" appears to be the better fit. However, I don't have any reference works, nor does there appear to be anything that would be classified as reliable on Google, about Greensleaves to indicate or source either one. There is a reference at the end of that section and it may be able to clear it up. Having said that, I really don't think that either word fits properly. I think that the word "belief" would be more correct in the sentence.Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As both of you agreed, I made the change. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn't trying to embarrass or humiliate anyone. Gates had a sense of humor to use that photo in the ad. I appreacite humor like that. And for the record, I'm a libertarian, and I think Bill Gates is a hero of entrepreneurship, capitalism, wealth creation, job creation, and private charity. I think it's ridiculous that the government has accused him of anti-trust, when people are perfecty free to use alternatives like Apple, Linux, Unix, etc. It's also ridicluous that the government thinks it's wrong that he gives his web browser away for free, when all the other companies that give their web browsers away for free, such as Firefox, don't get criticized for it. I don't have anything against Bill Gates at all. I think he's a great guy, and I wish there were thousands more entrepreneurs who were like him. I put the mugshot there as a joke, and nothing more. There was no ill will intended. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a vigilante... Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them seem OK but a little odd. This for instance is odd. It's true that long-running is an opinion but it's not very controversial. Probably should be cited. Others like this should follow whatever the agreement was about stating that in the lead. I saw something on it somewhere but I forget. Again, should probably be cited and the awards listed. If I was to assume bad faith I would think that it may be someone who didn't like what the consensus was with listing awards in the opening and logged out to make the edits. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an email to the french consultate in L.A. and so far I did not receive any answer. Even not a receipt acknowledgment. --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you removed an unsourced comment from the Cilla Black page. Originally, there was a source for this note, taken from the BBC News. However, YOU deleted that source! You replaced it with a quote from some fan Internet site. BBC vs Fan Internet. Mmmmmmm. I know which one I think is more reliable. It's a bit rich to be deleting reliable sources and replacing them with unreliable ones. I'll probably be banned now for daring to cross you. C'est la vie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.36.78 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Did you even bother to read the link and comment that I removed?

Firstly, this was the "unsourced comment" on the page I removed. "Establishing a record that is unlikely to be broken, Cilla's version of the song remained the top selling single of all time by a British female artist for 45 years until January 2009, when it was overtaken by Alexandra Burke's chart topper "Hallelujah"."

This was the link that was attached to that quote. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7820786.stm

Allow me to point out the obvious: that link has got nothing whatsoever to do with Cilla Black. At no point in the article does it even mention Cilla Black's name, let alone the fact that she might have been the previous record holder!! It's fine in an article about Alexandra Burke but it serves no purpose whatsoever in an article about Cilla Black. That being the case, I therefore removed both the link and the comment.

Secondly, contrary to what you're saying here, I didn't replace the source (BBC vs fan site). I did include a link in my explanation as further supporting evidence that there was at least one other single that had outsold Cilla Black - but I limited it to just that; it's not included on the page. I used the first one I found - if you care to look you'll find many, many more. David T Tokyo (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes it must be exhausting for you having to patronise and belittle other wiki editors. The agony for you must be extreme. And if you want to post to my talk page and remove MY deletes from MY page, I would expect the same courtesy in return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.36.78 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Glad to help. TravisAF (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound like quibbling over details (and I suppose it is) but I have some reservations about a recent reversion you have made on Cricket. Specifically you changed "When the team that is batting has used all its available overs" back to "When the team that are batting have used all its available overs". First of all, assuming the latter is the correct use, it should probably be "their available overs" rather than "its available overs". Secondly the Wikipedia page on Collective nouns states that "In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals." I would argue that the batting team here is referred to more as a collective whole than as the sum of its parts. Certainly you're the native speaker of British English here and I'm not trying to impose my view. I'm simply pointing out what I perceive as being inconsistencies. Elostirion (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post Elostirion. I made the change based on information from the Cambridge Dictionaries, which, fortunately, gave an example actually using the word "team" ("The team are playing in the test matches next week."), and outlined the differences between American English and British English on this issue. You're absolutely correct on the issue of "their" and "its", it should have been "their".

However, it's all somewhat academic as I see that another user has since changed the structure of the sentence and in so doing, reverted back to the singular, rather than the plural. So, it would appear that your original approach has been adopted. Given your post here, I won't revert again; I sense this is a grammatically grey area and those kinds of edits invariably lead to trouble here on Wiki.

Once again, thanks for contacting me and pointing out what you perceived as (and what were) inconsistencies.David T Tokyo (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is an IP editor reverting as well; although I AGF, neither do I rule out this being Xerocrist logging out to evade scrutiny and/or the 3RR rule, and have left a not to this effect on the IP's talk page. Meanwhile you are nowhere near 3RR yourself, and can safely revert for now until this is sorted out. It's the 4th revert in 24 hours that makes 3RR kick in, although that doesn't rule out sanctions for edit-warring- on that, you are OK for now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I take issue you with you on your recent 'undo'. I refer you to Wikis own definition: Paparazzi and if you look at the shots taken of them they are most certainly "unaware"... I think that this warrants the inclusion of the word paparazzi, don't you? Captainclegg (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the note, I've actually been meaning to contact you myself regarding some of your recent edits on the Heather Mills page. As I explained (briefly) I undid your edit simply because there was no reference in either of the two listed references (158, 195) to the paparazzi. I appreciate what you're saying above, but that's an assumption; the photo might have been taken by a member of the public and mailed in. Additionally, I should point out that neither of the two listed references talk about a photographer or have a picture of Heather Mills and Mark Sinden together.

This edit is characteristic of those you have been making recently and I am concerned at the extent to which you have been including very specialised detail within this article. If you haven't already done so, I would advise you to read WP:DIRECTORY #6. My own view is that the article should present a summary of the facts, not as many of the facts as possible.David T Tokyo (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand where you are coming from, but I am merely following on the line of the originator of the article (User:Andreasegde) who I have been in extensive correspondence with. My personal view is that I would far rather have too much (accurate) information than too little, which would make it seem that some form of editorial decision had been made prior to inclusion, which always smacks of personal slant. I am a believer in letting the reader make their mind up, having been able to read all the available and accurately sourced material. It is after all not a printed encyclopaedia, but a living, organic, work-in-progress. But I will happily stop titivating with the article, if you want. Incidentally, the pap photos that are referred to can be seen at http://www.celebmad.com/GossipGirl/photos/index.cfm/Heather-Mills-and-Marc/thumbs/ Captainclegg (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. Although I personally would prefer more summary, less detail - it is just a personal viewpoint. My best advice is if others start to say the same thing then maybe a different approach is required. In the meantime, you're the one editing it. Thanks again. David T Tokyo (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that you are keeping a beady-eye out though! Cheers. Captainclegg (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it is difficult for you to see how "2.1 Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... 2.3 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 2.4 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files 2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site 2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory 2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" etc. is equivilent to "We cannot be everything to everyone". It seemed as if you were being purposefully obtuse.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Yes, that wouldn't surprise me! All the best. --Jack | ^{talk page} 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit summary: If I agree and you agree and TeaHot agrees with some tweaking and Mark7144 perhaps having some concerns, but not disagreeing; that is not just one editor, is it? :-) The point of the section is to pull together the common ground identified in the RfC and so if constructed with that in mind, it will not ever be a single editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to say thanks for digging up that TAAB quote! Luminifer (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Progressive Rock music WikiProject. There are a lot of progressive rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a littlelot of attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few progressive rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you contributions and figured you might be interested. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I was taught that an 'and' was a comma and should always be treated as such. (Not that this is going to cure cancer or end world poverty, but it's interesting!) Captainclegg (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted! Captainclegg (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information for this edit? Happy‑melon 21:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Copied from User talk:happy-melon

Hi. I appreciate you're an Administrator etc. and verifiability is obviously important. However, our previous conversation has already proved to me that you're not as in touch with this subject as others (not a criticism, just a statement of fact) and what you see fit to remove may well be correct. My own view is that the area you are dealing with will be extremely well policed by many fans and any errors / vandalism will be corrected very quickly. Can I suggest you monitor the edits you've just removed and if they subsequently prove to be correct you amend your approach to more of a careful watching brief? Better still do what you did with me - query where the information came from. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "not as in touch... as others" you mean I watch the show a day late because I'm busy on Saturday nights, then yes. If you mean that I am lacking a psychic power that others have to make details of future shows common knowledge, then that is not good enough. All material on Wikipedia that makes challengeable statements of fact should be verifiable, this is a fundamental content policy. To quote from that policy, the required threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". It makes absolutely no difference whether the information is correct, accidentally wrong or a deliberate misconstruction, it matters only that a reliable secondary source can be found to support it. It is within the discression of any editor, not just administrators, to rewrite articles such that they do not make such unsupported claims. When I saw the dances being added, it was against my better judgement that I left them there at all without supporting sources. When I saw them being edited back and forth their position became untenable: one or other of the set of 'facts' is manifestly incorrect, but without citations it is impossible to say which one. As such, the only acceptable course of action is to remove the content entirely.

What you have done, by readding those of the facts that can be verified by reliable sources, is exactly correct. Those facts can now be verified: there is a link to an external source that supports the statement. If someone wants to change the fact in the article, they are now required to provide an equally good source for the new statement; the expectation is that if the original fact is correct, it will not be possible for them to do so.

So it is not a question of my approach assuming that the facts were erroneous, and hence that it can be proved wrong if they can be proved right. I will be delighted if the original facts prove correct, as it means that Wikipedia's verifiability and accuracy was not compromised to the many readers who read the page in that state. But writing a Wikipedia article is not as simple as throwing information onto the page as quickly as you can find it. The difference between a Wikipedia article and a blog or ragtop magazine article is that we take pride in asserting the verifiability of the information we provide: readers should know that the information we provide is correct not just 'because we say so', but because we can show that others say so. That's why the countless blogs around the internet are just countless, while we are the world's most popular source of information. The goal of every editor, admin or not, is to protect and build upon that reputation. Happy‑melon 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your oblique edit summary attack on my reverting several edits in order to get back to a safe version. You should be aware of this Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_7)#Low_score_notation before you ridicule other editors actions. This style guide is violated many times a week by flyby Ips and others. Perhaps if other editors considered the whole article instead of just entering unsourced details about this week’s upcoming dances, there would be no need for such radical measures.

I could not tell truth from fiction in the bottom and top dif. What I could see amounted to very little that someone who knows about SCD could not simply reinstate (as you did) and my edit summary was clear. The style violation takes some time to resolve and on this occasion only it seemed sensible to get back to a sound version given the intervening vandalism and unsourced additions. Leaky Caldron 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving the note on my page. My edit comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, but was certainly written out of frustration.

I have a suggestion for you to consider. In future, rather than reverting edits on the assumption that if they're not verified they must be wrong, why not do what it took me all of 5 minutes to do - see if you can find the necessary references yourself?

Deleting accurate information is every bit as much a problem as deleting false information. JMO, of course David T Tokyo (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. How about Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise? There may be some leeway, though not much, on a talk page, but as none of the comments in that section had any sources to support them, I think they are inappropriate. I made the edit in response to a message at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Fogerty so please feel free to comment there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe that removing an irreplaceable, historically valuable image from an article (based on your own opinion) is warranted? Explain, please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi was arrested on May, 3, 1969 in Toronto, Canada - and this official booking photo verifies it. Your choice to delete this image (because he was acquitted of the charges?!?) may demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose of WP's educational goal in general. Good luck... Doc9871 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ... there seems to be some disagreement on whether there should be a section of references to previous Disney films in the article for The Princess and the Frog. I was wondering if you would like to offer your opinions on the matter on the article's talk page so that we can discuss instead of revert over and over. Thanks, and hope you can join in! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your enigmatic comment on the Alesha Dixon discussion page, perhaps you could explain what was meant in further detail? 79.78.32.168 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on your user talk page. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your point on Talk:Alesha Dixon (it was accidental). Anyway, my IP has changed now but it is still me 79.78.78.92 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David T Tokyo! There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (I hope you'll let me know whether you find my request inappropriate. Cheers!)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of the discussion was delete, which I'm totally fine with. I am sorry it got nasty there with the accusations. But it was a healthy debate on your part. Thanks for your contributions. :-)
Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that this IP is a known sockpuppet of banned editor Wikipéire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their edits can be reverted as many times as you want as 3RR doesn't apply, although it would be easier to ask for semi-protection and/or the IP blocking obviously. Any Spanish/Irish IPs that turn up making the same edits are the same editor also. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the two international Emmys. Shocked at the BBC having wrong information (though now that i look at the page it hasn't been updated in a while). Just remove the two international Emmys from the lede. My username is in homage to the general.. alas someone had already stolen the latter part of the great mans phrase hence my elongated version.Rise before Zod, Kneel before Zod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Many years ago you added some referenced content and cites about the origin/meaning of this color. Today, another editor has stated that it is not valid WP content and instead replaced it with different (unreferenced but logically explained) content. Would be great if you could comment on this situation. My talkpage has his explanation of his changes and also my response to them, but we could just as well copy that to the article talk page if you prefer to centralize it. DMacks (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. The edits I made (however many years ago) are all from historical authorities. There are others that I could have called on to substantiate the point even further. I'm not sure where the other editor is coming from, particularly with the "defamatory" charge which I don't get at all, but he/she is flat-out wrong. Either that or all the historical authorities are wrong. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you added a comment to Jerome Kohl's you removed a comment, - I guess that may have been not your intention? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: your safest way to add is to click on "new section" on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually worry about the big picture, preferring to remove unsourced or unexplained changes on sight. By the time the implications come in I am usually playing Whac-A-Mole somewhere else. Britmax (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

my story today

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]