For that one, I'd rather that the IFD run its course. The difference is that for the houston chronicle image, the text is not legible and it is very low resolution. It's at least arguably a fair use of the image. For the AP image, it reprinted the entire story, which is clearly not fair use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of newspaper articles that aren't on the internet that are used here as sources. Check out Akris, which I just wrote, for example. To cite to the source, just write the name of the article, the author (if appropriate), the newspaper, and the date. If someone wants to verify it, they can check LexisNexis or go to the library. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vandalise my user page. Do it again and you get reported - ok? INTGAFW (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my user page and vandalised it when I had nothing there. I have a user talk page which you are more than entitled to write on, but you chose to vandalise by user page. INTGAFW (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not your choice to turn the user page blue. I am entitled to keep nothing on it. Yes? INTGAFW (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed, but in this edit you (accidentally?) deleted a comment I'd made half an hour earlier. Don't worry, I've restored it already, but please do try to be more careful in the future. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't know why you'd done that, but I was fairly certain you didn't realize what you'd done. I removed the name of a recently added wounded, it didn't sound familiar. If I was wrong, please let me know. The thing about the images is, agree or not, I gave my opinion on them, and decided not to go back and revisit them, except to change the comment about the court case to clarify that this is what the rationale stated. I'm not a fan of reproduced newspaper titles, the Truman/Dewey one would be a notable exception to me, mostly because the newspaper itself, and that image, were hugely and notably reproduced, discussed and cited for decades. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, you do like stirring things up. They shouldn't be on the right under the subheading you know. Not to mention they screw up the nice boxed listings already there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it on your browser? In mine, it lines up with the photo of Whitman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now they line up with the .357 image. I use Firefox, I don't know how it looks other places. Speaking of Firefox, it's about time to clear the cache. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a template at the bottom of the section. I moved it once and it got lost in an edit conflict. Try it now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main photo is a bit big myself. It makes me think Whitman would have right at home in the end scenes of the original Night of the Living Dead, toothpick in his mouth "Shoot him good there. Yeah, that's right. There's another one for the fire..." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the size can just be adjusted. imagesize=150px maybe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The default infobox size is 200px, and usually that works fine, but sometimes it is just too overwhelming. I recall having adjusted image sizes and left edit summaries like "big, scary teeth". I think that was for Julia Roberts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitmans 357.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitman arsenal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitmandeck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just started looking at the article, so give me some time to look over what's going on. One comment I can make is that if these are public domain images, they could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so they will be retained whether they are used in articles or not. Just be sure the licensing is correct. I'll get back to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, off-hand, the licensing needs to be supported. I need to do some looking to find what they actually need to show. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They need verification of the source to prove it is a government work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the FBI, they took over the case because of control substance issues and their sources as well as other issues as well as Whitman being a Marine.Victor9876 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page. I moved the box placements and I think it's a lot more balanced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is that they don't much like the closable content links in the main body of the article because not all web browsers support it (antiquated, but true). Regarding the work, with all due respect, the changes I made make the article look a lot better than the way the boxes and images were lined up before. I'd fight reverting it back to the unbalanced view. I'm kind of in the middle here, but so far, no one has undone the good faith improvement efforts I've put in. I would think that should continue.

About Chronie, she's a good girl, be nice to her. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were nice to Chronie. I was patting you on the back for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as in a new article page? If so, I'd bet it would be challenged as not detailed or significant enough to support a separate article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm brain-dead tonight. I can't picture what you mean. Show me and if it isn't workable, it can always be undone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that actually is a separate article... well, list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a little surprised that list is still there. In general, victim lists have been diverted back to main articles. There used to be a separate page for Columbine victims and that was redirected back to the main article and removed as a separate list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted, you could create a new article for it, but I'm betting it won't survive deletion. I think the boxes look fine as they are myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I didn't have much of a Thanksgiving, we had dinner on Sunday, so on the surface, it was just another day, though underneath, it felt quite weird. I think the turkey is about gone now, and for that I'm relieved!!

I don't know what brought on the sudden "incident" onslaught, but it looked to me like it was going to become more than a minor point, so I tried rewording things to minimize that before it happened. Personally, I think that when an ill individual climbs a clock tower and starts playing sniper, there are few who would classify it as anything other than a tragedy, but that's me. Obviously, there are people in the world who can find a reason to snipe (with apologies) about anything, and I think this is one of those cases. I find it a bit bizarre to see the same people who would object to photos on the page being among the ones who takes exception to the word "tragedy". Until the image issues, the second tragedy objector had not edited the article before, and now seems to watchdog it. That, of course, is just my perspective, and my thoughts on why should be clear. Meanwhile, have you put in the sources for the second round of images that person targeted? If they are all public domain released by the government, etc., I don't see that there is a need for a source url, perhaps a statement of where you got them, wherever that is? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you post that clarification was made on the images for deletion page? If not, they will get deleted. Actually, I think that nominating them for deletion before ever tagging them for clarification of source was out of synch with what is supposed to be done. First you tag, then if nothing is forthcoming, nominate. Maybe because the first nominations were challenged? Ya think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should really post it on the nomination page or things will proceed without discussion. You can do the Godfather Moment too, though, if you want. Like I said, I think he put his cart before his horse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the images for deletion page, but nothing's been added to the image page itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd let you know that he's still challenging the last round of images, wanting library record numbers or some such nonsense. Can you say "can't let it go"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is something like I wanted. I might tweak it a little bit later, but not right now. I adjusted some spacing since the removal of the deletion notes in the images changed the spacing on the boxes and a couple big spaces, but it looks good. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up copy is what I do best. You're welcome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. His motives MAY have been different, but the initial two killings were very much a part of his killing spree. As is, with no clarification as to why there is a number discrepency, the article makes little sense. At the very beginning it shows a death toll of 14, then lists all 16 victims in the same section. If we're to truly believe that the killings were two separate killing sprees, then we need to split them up as such. As is, listing all the victims together, but then saying the family members weren't related to the rest of the killings, makes no sense. It also makes little sense to say that the killing of his family members wasn't related to the killings on/around campus. Additionally, who are we to say that the killings were unrelated, this Time article calls the initial killings a "prelude to his senseless rampage." [1]. Just my thoughts, it's not really worth getting our hair mussed about, but figured I'd throw in my two cents. Additionally, it would behoove us to check the other pages which discuss school/spree shootings, as the numbers on those pages range anywhere from 14 dead to 17 for this incident. 98.220.54.37 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't ambiguous or a number discrepancy. It clearly says "killed 14 people and wounded 31 others as part of a shooting rampage on and around the campus of the University of Texas at Austin." After a sentence explaining where each was shot, the next sentence says clearly "He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother at their homes." It isn't ambiguous and it doesn't say the first killings weren't in the same spree or unrelated to the rest, it says he did that first, then went on his way to the University tower. Unless I need remedial math, 2 killings are noted that weren't part of a shooting rampage - they were stabbed - and then 14 deaths - in a shooting rampage - and that makes 16 total victims.

On another note, I'd be interested to know how one would go about referencing a statement that begins "There is no information..." Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was regarding that I'd put the reference into a cite web template but when you moved it, you put it back in with the inline style. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to do better than that. How would one define historical damage? How does one damage history? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sort of thing happens with everything that happens, and in particular crime-related events. There's a difference between actually damaging history and distorting, misrepresenting or taking liberties with history, especially in films. History is what is, it can't be damaged itself. I mean, for example, do we really believe that Achilles was the son of Zeus and was invulnerable except for the heel his mother held when she dipped him in the River Styx, or was he a really great warrior who managed to avoid getting killed because of his fighting skills? Or did the Holocaust really happen or was it just anti-Germanic propoganda? (And please don't take that as either an endorsement of Holocaust deniers or anti-Semetism.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I picked extreme examples just because they are blatantly obvious. I play around on a website called the Four Word Film Review, which is more pun and joke than actual review, but I have a series of reviews about Mel Gibson/Randall Wallace films that use the "Revisionist history" theme (Braveheart - Wallace's Scottish revisionist history; The Patriot - Mel's American revisionist history; The Man in the Iron Mask - Wallace's French revisionist history) to just hit that note as often as possible. I'm personally aware of what media does to distort the reality of a tragedy - when my 11 year old goddaughter was raped and strangled, the press tended to slant the story based on the fact that she was a bright and mature 11 year old who never knew a stranger. Did you know that this makes an 11 year old little girl ask for it? That was quite a while ago now, and I learned then that what's published isn't necessarily true. They love a human interest slant. A lot of more recent high profile things attest to that - Columbine, 9/11, Guantanamo Bay... how long was it before the daily press acknowledged that JFK had a thing going with Marilyn Monroe? And yet still, it doesn't change the real history of it, we haven't quite graduated to a complete rewrite of history based on the current political climate or thought crime. Not quite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, one can override consensus if one wants. The first set of Whitman images have been deleted despite consensus to keep them. Meanwhile, the second set is still in jeopardy. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 21#Image:Whitman arsenal.jpg, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 21#Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 21#Image:Whitmandeck.jpg, and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 21#Image:Whitmans 357.jpg. They want better clarification on the source. The page explains it. I'm not sure you can get OTRS clearance, but surely you can on the library source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what the other four images need is the source to be verified. If you'll notice, I pointed out where I thought you meant that you got them (The Austin History Center is a division of the Austin Public Library). If that's the place, then I would think that just needs to be clarified on the image pages and a proper fair use rationale template be used. I don't see how one would argue that the ones deleted should be undeleted, I suspect a deletion review wouldn't be successful because the rationale to delete them would be hard to disprove. I know that attacking the person who deleted them would be futile and nothing would be provable. Sherurcij has already approached him about it, and was told to go to deletion review about it. The way I see it on the ones already deleted is that if he/she doesn't feel confident enough them, I know less about their origination than he does. I would really like to see the ones that are left and are under discussion now remain. However, I don't know the source, and wouldn't know where or who to contact about that. If it's the Austin History Center, then it shouldn't be hard to establish if you were the one who got them. Or the website has an email address to write for use and permissions. As it is, I have no way of knowing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want to battle this adminstrator, fine, but like I said, it won't help the images still up in the air. He said somewhere, although I'm not sure where right now, that another administrator would deal with the ones remaining, and they still require clarification of source. If they came from the Austin History Center, then I will be glad to email them to try and obtain permission to use them here for OTRS, but I have to know for certain if that is where they came from. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to try and verify the sourcing, I need to know if that is where the images came from. Going back and forth with the administrator isn't going to get the correct sourcing verified for the images and without that, they will get deleted. I'm not really wanting to get in the thick of a back and forth, I'm only interested in trying to provide what's needed on the images that really add value to the article. This is the clarification I brought up in the "ongoing incidents" section above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was sent, dealing with images is what he seems to do routinely. I'm not thinking it was set up in advance months ago. As long as we rescue the images, the goal is accomplished. Let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to submit anything to OTRS for verification, we need the permission from the library, which can be written and scanned, or sent directly to OTRS. Otherwise, we probably need library catalog numbers and locations. I know the few images on the library site have catalog numbers with them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions come up then. Did you keep copies of forms and permissions you had to get to view and reproduce them? And are the images that you uploaded here now at the Austin History Center? If they are, permission might be obtainable through them. If you were writing a book, would these permissions from then be enough to use them in the book? Perhaps the thing to do would be for you to write to OTRS at the email address and explain this, name the agencies from which you got them and ask what you need to do to use them here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I (am) able to submit is where they are located, if they are at the Austin History Center. I can't verify the source myself without some specifics, and I appreciate your explaining how you got them to me. Like I said, if this is the case, then perhaps submitting that explanation to the OTRS email address would be enough to keep the images. I can't provide the fair use rationale sourcing without something. Wikipedia isn't asking you to go to any expense, but the case for Wikipedia is the same as if the images were going to (be) published in a book or magazine. Permissions or public domain has to be established to publish. I'm just trying to help keep the images because I think they are an improvement to the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, leave out a few verbs, I did. Anyway, trouble for what? Removing the images for delete tags? I made an aside comment on the deletion page, thanking them for being so helpful in detailing what they specifically want to verify the images use. Well, sort of. I've written to the Austin History Center to try and get use permission from them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established in past deletion reviews that local consensus does not override Wikipedia policy. The images were deleted because they failed WP:NFCC#8 and the discussions to keep the images presented no objective evidence otherwise. If you believe the deletions were improper, you should list them at deletion review. The image I nominated for deletion and the other three I discussed will not be processed by me. I completed for one semester at UT right after high school, but was not really interested in going to college at the time so I did not return. I received my Bachelors many years later from the Austin extension of Park College (Now park University). -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that Wikipedia policy overrides local consensus. If you would like to dispute the deletion of the images then deletion review is the proper forum.

The sourcing on the other images is not accurate. There is no Austin Historical Society Library. There is an Austin History Center but I cannot surmise that these two or the same. There is no URL provided for a site the images came from or notation as to how the images were obtained. There is no way to verify these images are in the public domain and without that I believe the images need to be deleted. -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't live anywhere near Austin -- not even the right country. But if you could get a librarian to just send an eMail (from their web server/officialAddress) stating that they are releasing the images to the Public Domain to permissions@wikimedia.org, that'll guarantee their safety. I know we've had disputes in the past you and I, but I think we can both agree that all images of CW are notable -- and I hope you put them online at your own website if they are deleted from here. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even enemies have common causes at times, right Sherurcij!? Thanks for the info, putting it to work. Have a good Holiday season!Victor9876 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Hopefully you can get the documentary made at a low cost. Regular old VHS tapes used to cost $25 each when they first came out, so I don't doubt any price for anything anymore. I actually did hear back from the library, today. Interestingly enough, LM (know those initials?) also wrote to them. The curator sent me a copy of the email he received from that person and the reply in with the reply to me. He asked what he would need to give permission and I sent him the templates to fill out and told him where to send them. LM also posted on the deletion page that he'd received an email from the curator that said only that the images came from the Austin Police Department and they weren't public domain as tagged. I added after that I had also received the email from the curator and quoted his request that I let him know if anything more formal was needed. It seems to me that now it's more about being right than about helping get an image status sorted out. The images are not on the December 10 page, they are on the November 21 page. He reposted the notice on the article page with the wrong date on them.

I am sorry, I thought I had said it clearer about my goddaughter - the man strangled her after he raped her. He's doing life in prison on 3 consecutive 35 year to life 2nd degree murder charges from the event. She didn't have to suffer the PTSD from it, although her sister, who was 15 and who found her, did have problems with it for a while. She seems to be doing fine now, but it took a bit of therapy to get her there. The rest of us had issues over it too. I'm glad it was then and not now. I'm not sure how we'd cope today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess I only said it in the way I'm most comfortable saying it. We try. As for the images and LM, look on talk page at your postings at User talk:Wildhartlivie#Historical Damage. That is who contacted the library, but it was in the context of alerting them that the images were being used and being claimed as public domain, and did they know this or what. If you'd click email user on the right hand side of my talk page and email me, I'd forward the email to you, but I'm not going to post it all on here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. He's already posted his intent on them on the deletion page - they don't provide critical commentary or lend significant understanding to the article, under #8 of the free use criteria. I challenged his intent on them, which probably wasn't very nice, but it does seem like he's taking his objection to them to a new extreme. Besides which, he posted the wrong date on the image tags on the article page when he returned them. I'm not sure if that was a mistake or a deliberate error to keep people from finding the deletion review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't in error, it is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 21, but the links he put in the image tags on the actual Whitman article are all for December 10, so if anyone clicks the "See images and media for deletion" link under the photos, they go to the wrong deletion page (which is where the canister image is actually the only one posted). Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two ways to get it to show up differently. The first is to request a username change and the other would be to copy and paste [[User:Victor9876|Paranoid 'til Noon]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]} ~~~~~ <--5 tildes. I forwarded the email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photo of McCoy it fails WP:NFCC#1. The image is a non-free image of a living person. This was noted in the closing of the IFD discussion.

"Why did you not notify others of the change of date for the deletion of the photos on the Whitman page?" - I don't understand what this is about. Please give me a diff of the change of date for the deletion of the photos on the Whitman page.

• I figured it out thanks to the "Stuff" posting above. That was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that. I have fixed it. -Nv8200p talk 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why didn't you use the proper term on your photo "being Pompous" as stated in the description?" - I don't know, I guess at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. -Nv8200p talk 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, you Moores deserve each other ;) Anyways, glad to see the photos seem to be saved by wildHart...may have to give him a mini-barnstar for that work. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would I restore the photo of Houston McCoy? Was it included in the images that were granted a CC license? -Nv8200p talk 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The image was listed for IFD here. Notice was given to the uploader here and in the article here. You made an edit here when the deletion notice was on the image before it was improperly removed. If User:Stifle, who handled the OTRS for the other images agrees with you that the same permission should be extended to this image, then he can restore it and apply the OTRS tag. Otherwise, I will leave the deletion alone as the IFD procedure appears to have been followed correctly. -Nv8200p talk 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to get this sorted. I think the photos are important to the article, especially ones where he is relaxed and happy. They add a dimension to the article beyond what can be conveyed in the article itself. In most biographies of this sort, you get grim images of a discontented, somber, angry, etc. person which also lends a POV of the subject. Seeing the otherwise tells the reader something seminal - that these are people also. The Empire State Building weighs 370,000 short tons, so I'd get a-totin' if I were you!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, short tons. Wikipedia provides many important facts, that is but one of them. I'll look at the image a bit later. We don't win many battles on images, because usually, they don't have a copyright release to stand on. I'm pleased, and happy, that the image people were gracious about it. And you hate Moores. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose one can retain his self-loathing, but how constructive is that? 'Tis the season!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Houstonarmy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of two I removed. The general trend for these articles is, IF there is a pop culture/depictions section, then it should only contain items that are specifically about the article subject directly, and not just a reference to them in something else entirely. At some point, the Parenthood and Full Metal Jacket items should come out too.

In other news, I need a new sound card, which I should be getting next week, so I'll get back to you on the sound files you sent when I get the card in and listen to them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Houstonarmy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Merry Christmas to you!! Santa has to wait, I still have cookies in the oven!! I don't know, I've been naughty and nice both... wonder if I get extra rewards for that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas!
		Wildhartlivie wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Thanks for being my Wiki-buddy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Connelly.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your removal the Connelly.jpg on the Whitman page. As Wildhartlivie noted on the idf page, it was never notified as being up for deletion, so no one knew. Do you just willy nilly according to your interpretations and dismiss input from other Wikipedians? I'll re-post the image again - this time if you have an issue, place the proper notification, or you will be reported to the appropriate committee! Victor9876 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I explained in some depth for your understanding

• PhilKnight nominated the image for deletion on the basis that it did not add significantly to reader's understanding (required under WP:NFCC#8) and that the image was replaceable with text only (with means it fails WP:NFCC#1). IP user 96.36.90.14 agreed that it failed NFCC#8 and as there was noone arguing that it did meet the requirements the image was deleted. For non-free (copyrighted) images it is the responsibility of those wishing to have the images on Wikipedia to show how they meet the requirements, and in this case there was no justification either on the image page nor the IfD discussion that showed how it met them. If you disagree with this deletion then you need to start a deletion review showing how the image can meet all of the non-free content criteria particularly #1 and #8 which were the points it was found to fail - my personal reading is that the DrV discussion would not end in your favour. Note also that the justification required would be much more extensive than the uploaded text Fair Use. Austin Historical Society Library. Only the cover page of the document. Has mp value loss to source.
• While is it requested that those nominating images for deletion tag instances it is only required that they notify uploaders (see here) - tagging images is not consistently done.
• If you were to re-upload the image then any administrator could speedy delete it without further discussion under WP:CSD#G4 so perhaps this would not be productive. Deletion review is the place to dispute deletions.
• As for reporting to a committee....that is the last step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution... not the first.

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, silly, you're not on my lost list. I thought I had responded to your last post, but apparently I was suffering from a brain cloud that day. Were you the person who left a note about Audrey Hepburn on my talk page? No? Okay. The dog thing. Sheesh. One of my neighbors - the antisocial one with whom I've never spoken - moved out on the Saturday after Christmas and we discovered that he'd left his dog behind in a chain link kennel. I hadn't noticed because the dog was spending his time in the dog house (it was decent at least) and wasn't out when I was. I heard him bark the other night and discovered, after some checking and observation, that someone was coming to feed it, but not everyday and not adequately. His water was frozen over and any dog food that had been there was gone. I had a couple partial bags of cat food that my cats wouldn't eat, so I had been giving him that. I saw that someone had come Sunday and dumped part of a bag of dog food on the ground of the kennel, although the water was still frozen. I took over a rather large ham bone for him the other night and fell flat on my ass and hurt my back. The dog was more interested in the bone than the idiot laying there in the kennel, although I don't blame him. In any case, I called animal control on Saturday and they said they couldn't come out until today, which resulted in a note saying "call within 24 hours or we will take the dog". I feel badly about calling, because I'm afraid he'll end up being put down, but I can't afford to keep him and I can't let him starve slowly. He's a nice part-Rottweiler. Sigh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what irony! I can barely afford my two cats and they cost all of $5 a week to feed. I can't imagine what a part-Rottweiler would cost. There is a grain mill across the street and they sell dog food, so I went over and the owner gave me a sack full of dog food samples to tide the poor feller over a few days. I will call tomorrow morning if no one has done anything. It's supposed to get very very cold tomorrow night here and pets like that should be indoors during zero weather. It's that simple. I'm a sap. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sap part will come in tomorrow night if they don't get him and I try bringing him here so he doesn't freeze to death. He'll wreck the house and I'll get no sleep. That's a sap. Have you SEEN the forecast for the next few days in Indiana? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. My ex-husband used to make his point by handing me his soda and asking me to keep it between my thighs so it would stay cold. Then again, you never saw my ex-husband. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Are you making a documentary or a film? It's fairly dramatic, though not bad. I need a new computer too. Don't want a Mac, just a superduper computer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what was going on but this time, I'm not sure I think your solution is the best one. I thought the boxes were fine in the article. Other articles use boxes of lists with no problem. See Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech massacre which is a featured article, etc. Meanwhile, he's right about the click here thing. The most that should be put in would be a {{wikisource|Charles Whitman police report}} template on the page. WP:ECITE says "This style of external link should only be used as a citation for a specific section or fact. Other external links should go in an External links section." In this case, the wikisource template. Besides, the article is correctly and well-sourced and a rogue click here link isn't very professional looking. So after all this time, why have you decided to remove this? The two of you should discuss this somewhere besides the edit summaries. I don't know what you mean about moving the list and link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you wouldn't be pleased, but you want honesty, doncha? I moved it down to the bottom where wiki-content templates go. I'm not thinking the other guy will be satisfied, but if that is the case, you need to discuss it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't generally listed in the text of the article, only at the bottom of the page, although if ypu move it back, I won't revert it. This is a link to a wikisource page, it isn't a real substitute. You haven't said why you have suddenly decided you wanted the boxes removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about the boxes. My only real concern with the article is the placement of images, some of which can't be placed elsewhere due to section lengths, etc. Images aren't supposed to be directly under section headings, so with the boxes gone, I moved the two images in that section back to the right. There's not much else can be done with some of the others, though without throwing it off balance. It's fine. Meanwhile, have you ever given me a well done for my featured list? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh! It must of been real cold that day and I missed the feature list. Can you link me and I'll give you the "well done" after I see it. Sorry!

Well, yeahhhh. List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations. I created it on December 20 and it passed featured on January 4. That's so close to a record approve! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It wasn't just typing Joel and Ethan Coen, there was the Roger Deakins and Javier Bardem. Thank God for copy & paste! I'm mostly pleased since I did by myself in my Easy Bake Oven!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about your ex. Was she cold as ice to you but shake and bake everywhere else? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...newest reply on my talk page.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, you guys sure seem to butt heads a lot. I looked at what you'd added, and honestly, I had no opinion on it one way or another. The point that it's most probably more suited for an article on the book was a valid one, but if you have other authors/points/etc. to add into this type of section, then it deserves a fair hearing. You don't need to revert it, and if you did, you'd be violating 3RR which would probably get you a brief vacation and that would push the unspoken who are you. All you need to do is use this link for a comparison of the two versions. Go to WP:RfC to open a request for comments. You'll put the template on the talk page and follow the directions on what to do with it. Meanwhile, you can certainly go ahead and work up a more thorough section in your user space, or on your computer. If you need to make a new user space page, just put a User:Victor9876/whatevernameyouwant on a page and open it from the redlink. Then you can do whatever you want with it. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but edit warring isn't productive, and calling in someone else to revert to both avoid 3RR and back your opinion on a 2/1 basis isn't garnering consensus. I dunno about you guys sometimes. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did, I was just commenting on what went on over a short period of time with the article as a whole. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open the request for comments and continue developing the section in your userspace, with good sources that connect each point. They are tag-teaming this. Jwy had never made an edit on the page until yesterday. That and/or do one of the things suggested at WP:DISPUTE. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which form and what do you need copy & pasted? I'm confused. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the contribution history, I used the revision history statistics tool and it didn't pick up on Jwy's first edit, all it showed me was the last couple days. I may have jumped to conclusions on the tag-teaming, and if so, I will apologize. You know that I don't jump in and only take one person's side on this article, I really try to comment honestly from my perspective and I've not always agreed with you. We do know there is a long history there between you, so I always try to keep it in mind. And I archive my talk page each month, thank you very much!! So are you going to work a bit on it and talk about it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've added a lot of sources, maybe what it needs is brushed up in terms of the reason it is notable to include, and expand upon it. I'll try to look at it later in the week. It won't disappear, so that is a plus. As for the dog, he's no longer in my care, the Humane Society found it a nice home. At least I know he's not starving or freezing in the winter storm we're having tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I couldn't afford to feed a dog the size of a Rottie, I can barely afford my two cats. I'm trying to wean them back to cheaper cat food - they were eating expensive vet food while the boy kitty recovered from his bladder scraping and repositioning of his ureter. Yeah, they made him pee like a girl, but I HAD to or he was going to die!! Apparently boy kitties have oddly running ureters and they are prone to blockage, especially when they are fixed and the cut tubes wrap themselves around the base of the bladder. But I love him and he was too young to die. Anyway, it's time to go back to real food and they balk at it. I wait until they reluctantly eat the store bought dry food, then I'll reward them with a small spoon of wet food. It's working. Anyway, I realize you sort of enjoy antagonizing whatsisname, so I won't tell you to stop, but like I said, I'll see what I can do with it to make it more suitable later in the week, if you don't mind. Also, do you smoke? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I did not realize you could pick and choose the Surgeon General warnings on the pack. I only asked because if you moved here, you'd have to bring good will gifts. And I am gratified to know that you would never read my talk page comments on someone else's page. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant bring smokes. :) No, we did manage to avoid the ice, although I was wrong about the snowfall measurements I posted on someone else's page - it was more like a foot and I couldn't get my storm door open. But I threw the cats out of the crack and they clawed their way to the snow shovel and dug us out. It's actually light and fluffy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the cheapest with tax is $25. They've gone up obscenely the last couple years. I smoke the cheapest 100 lights and then take the tobacco out of the butts and make new ones. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been scooped up in an ongoing dispute I was unaware of. I had indeed edited the Charles Whitman page a month or so ago and it was therefore on my watchlist. When I agreed with another editor about a reversion, I re-reverted you with an appropriate edit comment. I have not touched the section since it has been brought up on the talk page, preferring to discuss it there. I had no intention of tag teaming, was unaware that the other editor had reverted again until I caught it in your diffs and was disappointed that s/he did. I'm sorry I've aggravated what looks like a painful history, but please recognize I am a separate entity - maybe a separate problem, but separate. I do still have some concerns and also think it best developed off the page, but am not insistent on that point myself. I'll continue my discussion of that issue on the article.

As for Carnival of Light, I have to disagree with you on several points: "Some believe..." might be classified as "weasel words," and that paragraph would still need sourcing about who believes. Without it, it also smells a bit of original research. I will tag it.

(John User:Jwy talk) 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reread carefully the Whitman section tomorrow with fresh eyes and calmer heart. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden to the above theories is that the glioblastoma brain tumor would have killed Whitman within a year, and conceivably contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966, and goes against the Connalley Commission Report of 1966 as reported above."

This is saying Gary Lavergne is wrong by putting together other sources, none of which (I imagine) discuss Lavergne. That is exactly what WP:SYN is about. You should be able to find good sources for this - or Lavergne isn't notable enough to be mentioned. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting a source indicating (explicityly) that Lavergne's view is wrong. The one you added does not. In fact, it has little to do with the sentence you added the reference to. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being pedantic and a grammar troll. If you look again, read all of Lavergne's content that is linked, read the statement and it's link, look at the Connalley Commission report (also linked) the statement stands true - sourced - and verifiable! What YOU were expecting is irrelevant. I thought you wanted a source to conclusions of the statement, not a non-observation by others. Now stop this pseudo-intellectual mental masterbation, and get on with something constructive. Victor9876 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." What I was expecting is based on the WP:SYN guidelines, not just arbitrary concerns on my part.

I understand the general meaning of the section to be:

"Lavergne dismisses all Whitman's personal issues and attributes his actions simply to his being 'evil.' This is wrong because he had the tumor and personal issues."

The first sentence is well sourced. The "he had the tumor and personal issues" is well sourced. Its the "this is wrong" part that I think is synthesis not in the sources and is important to how the section reads. You can have a tumor and be "evil."

My main objections are described in the talk page, OR was one of several minor, but collectively problematic items that should be addressed. If I can maintain the energy, I'll provide a re-write, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on my other objections there. At least indicate that I've made my self clear and you understand but disagree. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more at User Talk:Jwy. Sorry I didn't cross post before. If you want to continue the whole conversation here, I can pick it up here if you like. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've not been around that page for a while, it seems you all are haggling things out quite well. It's been a long couple of weeks, I've felt poorly and the weather sucks. 16-18 inches of snow, below zero, then in the 50s and lots of rain. It's wet here. Simply wet. My eye has been bothering me, so I've mostly just patrolled the pages on my watchlist. The other thing is doing okay, finally got to town and did a little shopping (not much). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided you are not forth right and have an agenda. I will not discuss anything with you anymore. You are becoming predictable, and that bores me!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you base that unfortunate decision on and don't know how I might reverse it. If there is, let me know. I was hoping a third opinion would help. I don't mind being predictable and boring in this context. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor!!! This and this are personal attacks. Take a deep breath! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna get yourself blocked! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can avoid it if you stop dicking around and antagonizing. I know you know you're doing it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That guy wasn't going to stop and he used some inciteful language. He made accusations, said untruths and like I ssid before, I have a problem taking shit from people. I'll try and ignore shit and move away from it. Thanks for the heads up!Victor9876 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring it and moving away from it is a lot better choice than taking it. And besides, I defended you. Honestly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you wake up and see a long yellow streak in the snow outside, I win the contest! lol!Victor9876 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your prostate won't allow that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She won't care!!!Victor9876 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need a humor check - you know I was purposely mistaking prostate for prostitute right!? If not, I'm changing my ways. I do appreciate your defense, however, I did start the Whitman project before meeting McCoy. My COI is the same as the other guy being Jewish and editing a Jewish article as far as I'm concerned.Victor9876 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was reading it completely off key and was thinking it meant your girlfriend or wife wouldn't care if you could piss okay or not. I still smiled. However, I still remain concerned that at some point you might get outed and blocked from some earlier time, so I try to keep you a bit in check. Like I can do that... Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 58 yrs old, and my history with "I'll Love You Forever...Until The Next Guy Comes Along", I've committed the lyrics of Tom Waits song, "Better Off Without A Wife" to heart. I can't get blocked for being Anti-Semetic because I'm on the Palestinians side...and I know you'll show up to save me - two minutes after my head has been cut off. So see, everything's good!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy that, I had you pegged for about 53, now I know my prostate comment was probably not far off the mark. :) Besides, I try to give you enough rope to almost hang yourself, then loosen the noose just before the snap. My theme songs have been "Never Leave a Good Man Down" and "I Won't Make That Mistake Again". Assimilate that. Besides, my cats get jealous. I have the purple clothes, I'm still looking for a red hat. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Apache Scarf? You mean you aren't Cherokee? Hmmm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the casino in Cherokee. I made a huge issue of going there to play Blackjack when we were in Gatlinburg and was sorely disappointed because they had electronic Blackjack instead of using a dealer. WTF? Actually, we went once before the casino because my ex, who was a whole lot Cherokee wanted to go. There is a really cool mountain stream at one of the sharper turns on the road between Cherokee and Gatlinburg and both times I've gone through there, we stopped, climbed the stream and I found myself a nice flat stone. I collect rocks from places that I visit, as opposed to ashtrays or other cool stuff that most tourists collect. A guy I know sent me chips from the Great Wall of China and rocks from the Kalahari desert from some of his trips. I have my own drummer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you ever heard of marching to the beat of your own drummer? I do. And my ex was a drummer as well, with the high cheek bones, dark skin and waist length hair to go with it. I suppose I should have had a child with him, it would have been the best part of a bad relationship. The Belterra is on the Ohio River and I live just a few miles north of I-70, which divides the state roughly in half, so it's a couple hour drive. I haven't been there for a while now. I'm not that crazy about slots, or any type of electronic gambling devices, I can play those on my computer at home and but get the cheap meals without cooking. I haven't been to the new casino thing at Hoosier Downs yet, but that's an iffy trip, I don't like horse racing (conscientious objector and all that). I haven't been to the Lake Lure region, though I'd love to go and see all of that scenery. Finances force me to do most of my traveling with Google Earth and webpages these days. Maybe one of these days, SSD will finally come through! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen it. Maybe I can get it from Netflix? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lesser known film called Duets, which has one story arc with a man (Paul Giamatti) who is travelling around to karaoke bars and picks up what he doesn't realize is actually an escaped convict (Andre Braugher), who happens to sing like an angel. When pressed for why he was in jail, the convict says he made an error in judgment. He also tells a truck driver the same, just before he kills him. My ex was an error in judgment, but still, the baby would have been gorgeous. That's the story. And good night. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a song that goes "Do I love you because you're beautiful, or are you beautiful because I love you?" Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, I don't turn me on, but that's a good thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it change your view of me if I said I had a good personality? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the way that Elizabeth Taylor was beautiful? No. In the way that Grace Kelly was beautiful? No. In the way that Jenna Elfman is pretty. Maybe a little. I've got nice eyes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I got caught up in arguing with someone and then was watching Craig Ferguson. Actually, I rarely come out in the daylight, have long hair and pale skin and may well be turning into a vampire. How pretty is that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't wear the red lipstick and black eyeliner. Anymore. And I haven't developed the taste for blood. Yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget to sign back in, did we? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth happened in the last hour? I am not concerned about the posts, if I thought they were out of line, I would have said so. Get some sleep, shake it off. Come back refreshed and renewed. But if you really disappear, I hope you'll let me know how the doco is going? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, you have my email or you can find me here. (Besides, you've flirted with me even when we first were fighting.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did. I did too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for an outside opinion from Wikiquette alerts about your continuing edits to my comments, which I believe are highly inappropriate. arimareiji (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victor9876, your removal of content from Talk:Charles Whitman is following a dangerous road of incivility and WP:ATTACK. Specifically, calling someone an "idiot" in the edit descriptor while you're censoring the talk page is yes, a very bad idea. Refactoring other people's comments without their permission, name-calling, soapboxing...we don't do that here. I am STRONGLY warning you to stop the edit warring on the talk page, along with the incivility. If you fail to do so, this goes to WP:AN3 as recommendation for an immediate block, for WP:3RR and WP:EW. (Yes, 3RR also applies to talk pages as well.) Edit Centric (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point of the WQA. Please post your reply and thoughts to the WQA page, as this is where the discussion is taking place. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed your video interview, especially the part where you had to stop because of the background noise. So when will the documentary be out? 2000 and never? If you want to be taken seriously try to avoid doing interviews where the follow-up guest spots are strippers sorry Burlesque Dancers...oh and explain who Charles Whitman is and what he did FIRST before you start going on and on about a side topic. Hopefully you will get that all worked out for next time...can't wait for the next one

You're hired! I need a good PR person and agent. I pay a little less than Wikipedia, but there are perks.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response on the Wikiquette page. You really do need to stop changing other's postings. Outside of that, they really don't have much of an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Centric (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you that a WQA (Wikiquette Alert) has been filed here, in which you have been named as an involved party. Your input, while not required, may prove of value in the resolution of this alert. Thank you for taking the time to review this. Edit Centric (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, let me start by saying here that I bear you no ill will whatsoever. My goal here is to see everyone become a versed, strong and positive editing force at Wikipedia. While I fully realize that this might be asking too much of some people, (there are those select few out there that insist on being knuckleheads!) I expect that is not the case with you. You seem to be an astute person, with a lot of potential.

That being said, and "putting our behinds in the past", I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about things like HTML mark-up, conversation flow, WP's and such. If I don't have the answers, I can surely get the answers for you. That's what I do, and I'm good at it (and I know it!). As an example, I taught myself HTML in two weeks back in the late 90's, and computer OS and hardware in two months before that. What I learned by self-teaching resulted in me being A+ and Net+ certified.

If I have a question on something, I go look it up, read it, and then read it again. I do this with WP (Wiki Policies) all the time, to ensure that I'm applying them correctly and in the right context. I also check all my edits (most of the time, there are the occasional hasty clicks of the "save page" button, which are usually followed by a "dammit!") with the "Show preview" button before posting them. Sure, there are also minor tweaks, the forgotten close-bracket, the misspelt (yes, that spelling is right, I just Googled it!) word or two. But the important thing there is review.

When I post in a conversation thread, I always follow the "backslash structure" (\) of the thread down the page, unless it has gotten so far over to the right, that an (outdent) is needed. It generally makes it easier for all others to follow, instead of having to jump around inside of the thread. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not set up with a full-fledged, "message board" type of interface, or like MS Outlook, where threads can be mapped out and followed. For this reason, we kind of have to "self-police" and have come up with the current methodology, I suspect out of necessity. (The mother of invention.)

Wikipedians consider it a "faux pas" to edit others' comments, and tend to get quite worked up over the whole mess! I can remember a few months back, when another (novice) editor refactored an entire talk page, from top to bottom. You talk about a conflagration! The editor in question was summarily chastised, and took it rather well given the circumstances. Editing others' article contributions? Absolutely. Others' talk page or user talk comments? Nischt gut.

Again in closing, if you have any questions, by all means ask before assuming. (I've been guilty - and convicted, might I add! - of doing the "makes an a%$ out of u and me" thing!) But I've never been blocked, never gotten into a pi*&ing contest with an admin, (well, there was this one time...) and always kept in mind that there are other editors here with way more experience than I have. It is those editors that I rely on to help me in the editing processes. Edit Centric (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

rp again Edit Centric (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

rp new - PING! Edit Centric (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are waiting, I will get to your source, but I can't take the time at the moment. I should get to it tomorrow. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk) I'm not sure what your point is Jwy. I do know that you came in, became flustered, then semi-requested a 30, arima shows up, you go away, come back, go away, mis-interpret a WQA suggestion, don't protest the move by arima to the article page, move a whole paragraph to another section, leaving the balance to have nothing to do with a "Discussion", only conflicting reports over Whitman's motivations, overturn my naming the section appropriately, and now, a new party has arrived reverting and changing my edits. All over the name Gary Lavergne - CABAL! Let's go to An/I together, just you and I.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind invitation, but on what grounds shall we set foot over there? Nothing in what you describe me doing here is beyond normal, human, editor behavior - nothing out of the ordinary - except maybe the patience. I am not full time on wikipedia and don't have the same passion for this particular topic as you do, so I won't be around all the time. I'm willing to discuss the renaming of the section with you on the talk page. But I'm willing to head over to AN/I if you wish.

An observation: you seem to have a very strong opinion about Lavergne. All I know about him is what I've seen in the last month with respect to our discussion here, which is not much, but the only negative discussion I've seen of him has come from you. I get the impression you are carrying on a war with the guy and/or his supporters. I am not one of them and this is not the place to carry on such a war anyway. I feel like I am in the field of fire while trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by insisting what is put here be well supported by sources. If that makes it look like I am part of a cabal, I'm sorry, but I'm not. At least, not a Lavergne cabal. Maybe a WP cabal. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Okay, something is happening here, and I'm not quite sure what but I definitely sniff something odd. I'm going to bring BMW in on this one, simply because I find it extremely odd that a new user would create an account, and then jump right in to a hotbed issue in this way. It's just strange.

No worries about BMW having any preconceived biases on this one, I think once I fill him in, he'll see what I'm talking about...Edit Centric (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Centric (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Victor9876. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Centric (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]