User talk:Ghosts&empties/Osama's cave

Archives[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Ghosts&empties/Osama's cave, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olive (band)[edit]

I just checked your edits you made to this article. I'm just wondering, why were the notes on the group's formation removed? --JB Adder | Talk 11:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I had two screens opened. I was reading your edits on one, and keeping an eye on a vandal on the other. Both had their rollback buttons on display and when trying to rollback the vandal I hit the wrong screen and accidentially rolled your edit back instead. By the time I went to the article being targeted by the vandal someone else had reverted the vandalism. I went to revert my own revertion on the EVIII page but then noticed that one of your edits was rather wrong, so I corrected it but reverted everything else back to your version, with a little tweaking. I meant to leave a message explaining that but got sidetracked. Mea culpa. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collins[edit]

Good edit on the innuendo para - you've cut to the heart of the issue in a way that I didn't succeed in doing - see Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)#Black_propaganda. But to avoid another revert war, you could usefully expand on your edit comment on the talk page. (I understood it very clearly, but others may not). --Red King 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, some may not understand! :) --Red King 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Vasquez[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Dismas|^(talk) 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Phallological Museum[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Unfortunately, you do not cite any of your editions and most of your edits appear disruptive attempts to insert inuendo. Please consider contributing in a more formal and verifiable tone. Savidan 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flatulence[edit]

Regarding the piped links you added to Scott McClellan from the flatulence article: Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and NPOV. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! --Muchness 16:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Tull[edit]

Hi. Where did you read about or find out about Tull's plans for a new studio album to be released in October 2006? Thanks! -- Daniel 19:54, 17 February 2006 (EST)

Bagel cutter[edit]

May I ask why you removed the image of the bagel cutter (and relevant text portion) from the bagel article? Your edit summary gave no rationale. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of vandalism warnings[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, the removal of warnings is itself vandalism. Instead of removing the warnings, I would encourage you to just stop performing various acts of vandalism such as the child like edits for which you received the warnings in the first place. Dismas|^(talk) 22:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: St. Albans School[edit]

Come on, now, choirboys aren't castrati and you know it. I mean, ha ha--but come on, now, that's vandalism. CHE 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people DO mistake St. Albans as Roman Catholic. ALL THE TIME. Consider that people think Washington National Cathedral is Catholic or non-denominational, but surprisingly rarely Episcopalian. Don't be so cavalier next time. Donbas 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Hawn[edit]

Hi, could you please comment on this? Thanks in advance, <K F> 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Rogers[edit]

Your recent edits to the article on Mimi Rogers were of low quality and have been reverted. --Yamla 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Lee Travolta[edit]

Hi I notice you tried to mark this article as advertising. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Travolta_family Thanks Arniep 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbeau[edit]

Well, we can definitely somehow include the breast info if you can source that she was very well known for that. I.e. something reliable, not just a video review. "Astonishing age" is an opinion. It is a very valid opinion, no doubt, but we can't express it. If some publication used the phrase "astonishing age", we can quote them and cite them. As for the troops/stag movie/etc., I don't see why we shouldn't keep it out, it was brought up in interviews and it is more or less notable for Barbeau, especially if we want to go in depth. JackO'Lantern 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, well it's not me who is demanding, it's Wikipedia. If 51 is obviously an astonishing age, than why bother commenting on it? But in any case, if you want to use a descriptive word like "astonishing" it would have to be in a quote or something like that. I'll use your references and add quotes from these two reviews to the article. Tell me if you like it. JackO'Lantern 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I added the Briggs comment (during the 1970s section). Siskel was kinda iffy, he just said she couldn't act if her blouse wasn't unbuttoned - I didn't think it worth mentioning. I added that Stag Movie was a musical play. OK, as for this Wikisaurus - what is the term that she inspired exactly, and has it been confirmed elsewhere online (besides Wikisauraus, which is a Wiki...)? If it has, we can certainly put that into the article. JackO'Lantern 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about disruption[edit]

I see above a series of warnings about the disruption on the encyclopedia. This is another warning. Do not edit disruptively or you will be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. I am warning you as an administrator. By all means, contribute positively and put the disruption behind you.--Commander Keane 14:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to mention that edit summaries should be used when making large content deletions to articles. It's hard to understand why you are deleting content which appears legit: an edit summary would be helpful. It can be viewed as deceptive to type "copy edit" or nothing in an edit summary which includes large content deletions. Sandy 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references.[edit]

umlaut[edit]

Any reason to remove bands with an umlaut from the bloodhag article? I thought you made a good decision when you added it in... --Dwiki 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put it back. I know it's a slippery slope, but I think bloodhag is worth it. -Dwiki 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do![edit]

Well if you want you can take the Abercombie & whatever part out, it isn't sourced anyway. But the school grades thing and her friendship with Paxton/Roberts are sourced and more or less relevant to personal life. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Crashers[edit]

Gidday. I notice you are frequently removing data from the Wedding Crashers article and not offering accurate or informative edit summaries. I'm afraid I must inform you that such behavior is considered Vandalism and could result in you being block from edtting Wikipedia. It seems your edits may also be in conflict with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. In the future, please try to make constructive edits rather than harm Wikipedia. Ace Class Shadow 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken. On the first edit I gave a two line summary of my changes. The unidentified user that reverted all of my changes cited no reason in his edit summary. The primary intent of my edits was to remove spoilers in the overly long character descriptions, such as Will Ferrell's character. Removing spoilers broadens the audience for the article. The opening of the article was very poorly written. For example, why list other members of the Frat Pack in the third sentence. When it comes to writing, less is often more, so deleting rambling or peripheral material is not vandalism. You may not agree with my changes, but please give me the respect of reviewing them individually rather than lazily reverting all of them. I would appreciate if you would retract your acusation of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs)

Ha! Please. I pride myself on making the best edits for the article, even if said edits are manual, so don't even try to claim "laziness" on my part. As for your half hearted little rewrite, it reads like a child wrote it. I included the only thing of worth and reverted the mess. Furthermore, "a full-fled lout" is more a negatively bias comment than a summarize description. Thus, it's a violation of the NPOV policy. Run along and put this behind you. You were wrong. It happens. Ace Class Shadow 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piped Links, and other[edit]

G&e, I notice that you do some very effective copy editing! I'm glad to see that you're sometimes remembering to sign your talk page entries, and providing edit summaries more often now, but I notice that your edit summaries are sometimes so brief that they appear deceptive.

I hope you'll have a look at the page on Wikipedia:Piped links. In particular,

Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. For example, do not write this:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few [[Thomas Bowdler|exceptions]]) back in to stay.

The readers will not see the hidden reference to Thomas Bowdler unless they click on the piped exceptions link — in a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions; ''see'' [[Thomas Bowdler]]) back in to stay.

Because you use this easter egg piped link technique often, your edits may appear deceptive to others.

I also notice that you often delete large chunks of text without an adequate explanation, and without taking a discussion of the delete to the talk page. Your copyediting is often so effective, that I hope you will discontinue some of these editing practices, which can appear as vandalism or deceptive edits. With some of the excellent copyediting and contributions you have made, I hope that your editing practices will enhance Wiki! Regards, Sandy 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question at the Reference Desk[edit]

Typically you will want to watch the Ref Desk for answers. You've received one; here's a link to it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd never even seen the magic words page before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered? Assassinated?[edit]

Hello,

I have been working on ‘dead politicians’ (Assassinated v. Murdered) for a while now [and, believe me, they are not a happy bunch to spend much time with]. The discussion had gotten murky with no clear consensus as to how to proceed; so I went ahead on my own. I have stopped working on it for now, because I did not want to complete the long task, only to have someone come along and want to change it.

My belief (and I feel it coincides with yours) is that it depends on the circumstances of their death. The Leo Ryan example you gave is an excellent one. Also, if a wife kills her husband who happens to be a US Senator – did she assassinate him? If so, that would make her an assassin. I don’t think so!

I propose going through the entire‘Murdered Politicians’ list and, if the circumstances of their death was not politically motivated, categorizing them as simply ‘Murder Victims’.

Further subdividing the “Assassinated Politicians” by nationality is also a good idea.

Are we on the same page?

Be healthy,

Michael David 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued deceptive edit summaries and edits[edit]

[1] I'm curious about why you placed a wiki link to an adult magazine as a reference to the youthful status of the girl band, All_Saints_1.9.7.5. ? Sandy 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely believed that I returned to that article and removed "barely legal" from the article and returned the connection between the street & the name of the band because I realized that the first change was inappropriate and the later was relevant information. I got distracted by the article for the similarly named sucessor band which has an identical 2nd paragraph and forgot to save my edits. I apologize. Ghosts&empties 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that's cleared up. However, I'm wondering why your next edit (where I reverted a significant content change that you had indicated only as a minor typo correction in your edit summary) was marked as "revert vindictive nitpicking"? [2] Sandy 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --rogerd 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this isn't how it's done. Really sloppy. First, this guy isn't a GIPU with a history of nothing but vandalism. Second, you left out what he vandalized.—Jennifer Coolidge and A Mighty Wind, right?—Third, isn't is a little harsh to block him over only two or three recent incidents? ACS (Wikipedian) 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having reverted multiple deceptive edits and potential vandalism by Ghosts&empties just today, I have to disagree with your characterization of Rogerd's message. Sandy 01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to feel insulted or honored. I never expected someone to come to my defense. Take a close look at my so-called vandalism to Jennifer Coolidge and Edmund Trebus. These were simple changes that were entirely acurate, improved the article & followed every principle of wikipedianism. I don't always exhaustively summarize my edits, but I'd say I write longer summaries than most people, Ghosts&empties 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in A Mighty Wind, you piped Plenty O'Toole into the Annette O'Toole [3]. That is clearly vandalism. In Jennifer Coolidge you added something about MILF [4]. In Lord William Beresford, you also piped Plenty O'Toole into another person of the same last name [5]. From the looks of your talk page, it looks like you've been at it for a while. Please stop the vandalism. --rogerd 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives?[edit]

To Lucille Ball?