User talk:GoldDragon

I made an accurate chage to "No End in Sight", which you changed. Why? The reasons currently listed are not the "main three" that were talked about in the film. Watch it yourself! 66.0.131.50 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use
  welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Xizer 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Xizer 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit:The GameCube had support for online play, but very few games had support for it. Ever seen the bottom of a GameCube before? Quit reverting the RIGHT edits by User:Xizer.--72.49.19.124 22:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mark major reverts as minor edits. Some people might call that vandalism. Ashibaka (tock) 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit quality has much improved. Thank you! :) Ashibaka tock 04:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brazil4Linux has filed an

Ok, but please do a request for arbitration then or something. This conflict is spilling over to other articles. Jacoplane 21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldDragon. This is user Doom127 (I've had to login under an IP because Brazil4Linux is monitoring my User Contribs). Just thought you should know he's at it again. Right after Quackshot got banned, he started using anon IPs again to attack the Nintendo Revolution section, repeatedly reverting the "tech specs" section to to old inaccurate versions. I can't revert the article anymore today, think you could lend a hand? -- (Doom127)

Brazil4Linux has returned, again. I think the only viable option is that Kutaragi become a semiprotected article... Daniel Davis 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Your concerns were well founded. The IP address you listed (201.29.9.154) traces right back to Brazil4Linux's veloxzone.com.br ISP. It's him. Daniel Davis 23:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

He's going at the NeoWin article again. It looks like he's created another username (Dungeon Seige) and is using it to enforce his page blanking. If it gets beyond the point where a simple revert can take care of it, I'll alert the rest of the individuals who are aware of him, and let them know that B4L is once again violating the terms of his block. Daniel Davis 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Bet you'll never guess who this is. :) I'll get to the reason why I'm hiding behind it in a moment.

I've been watching the edits, writing style and posting history of Dungeon_Siege (including his use of a so-called "anonymous IP", calling everyone vandals, etc, and I'm now thoroughly convinced that he's another sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux. Alkivar's got his page protected (because B4L vandalized it a while back repeatedly), so I'll have to notify him about it via my regular account. Can we get someone who can do user traces to track this latest one back to B4L? I think this might be the cataylst for a Permablock. I'm sure he's tracking the Doom127 contributions, that's why I've created this Sock. I'll put this message on everyone's page so you guys are made aware of it, and you can put your responses here. Doom127sSecretSockPuppet 11:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Just updating you on that certain someone...

I gathered up his "paper trail" and posted it onto the Wiki notice board, and Alkivar is trying to get full verification. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=33621891#Brazil4Linux_again Daniel Davis 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)(Doom127)[reply]

What's gonna keep him from just creating a new username... Daniel Davis 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Hi Jacoplane, GoldDragon and Doom127 —

I'm sorry that there has been no response until now about the mediation request left at

If there is a desire from all parties to be involved in mediation, then one can be set up. Otherwise I can delete the entry.

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has Brazil4Linux been up? Jedi6 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is Brazil4Linux doing anything particully bad right now? Jedi6 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user Brazil4Linux is vandalizing pages. Again. So far he's been spotted at Neowin, enforcing his old old edit. I may need your assistance once again. Daniel Davis 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Nice to see you return to Wikipedia. As for Brazil4Linux, his original account was blocked indefinitely, so he won't be using it. Same with Microsoft fanboy. The last I've seen of him, he used a sock called LaMaroche in the NeoWin article and some "anon" IPs, but nothing really lately. Daniel Davis 04:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edits, I was wondering if you'd be prepared to look at the dialogue concerning this on the talk page and reconsider. I'm planning to create a separate article on the civic election, where the Jim Green-James Green imbroglio can be fully aired. The discussion on the talk page also explains my rationale for excising detail that, imo, adds nothing substantial to Sullivan's buiography. Thanks! Fishhead64 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon,

This may sound difficult to believe, but I'm actually trying to resolve our current impasse on the David Miller page.

In the last 24 hours, I've made two separate comments about you "earning the trust" of other Wikipedians. You may have interpreted the tone of these remarks as hostile, but this was not my intent (not entirely, at least -- I'll acknowledge I was somewhat frustrated when I wrote the original message). Implicit within these comments is the fact that you have the potential to earn my trust, and it may be less difficult than it seems.

During my time on Wikipedia, I've crossed swords with a number of different contributors. Most of these confrontations have ended with a viable compromise, and I've come to trust and respect a number of former adversaries. When this hasn't happened, it's usually for one of three reasons: (i) the poster wasn't a serious contributor to Wikipedia, (ii) the poster was a vandal, or (iii) the poster was a political extremist. The first two reasons clearly don't apply to you -- and, notwithstanding our apparent ideological differences, neither does the third. So why are we still at this impasse?

You obviously have an interest in Canadian politics, and a willingness to contribute to several different pages on the subject. I've often taken issue with your edits, and I stand by the comments I've made in the past, but I would not deny that you have something to valid contribute in this field. May I request, however, that you please make an effort to present material that is NPOV in nature, and not skewed in one direction or another? I am not reverting your edits simply for the sake of reverting them, but because I believe many of them are inappropriate to the project; I would request that you take this as professional criticism rather than a personal attack.

My period of exclusion from the Miller page will end in a few minutes, and I plan on revising the page again when that happens. I will give my reasons for so doing, and will request that you present your counter-arguments on the discussion page before reverting. This will not be done in a spirit of hostility. I may be able to find a compromise wording on the "police" section this time, actually.

I'd also invite you to continue this discussion on my talk page -- perhaps if we can dialogue for a bit in less formal setting, we can reach some sort of arrangement as to a compromise. CJCurrie 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the articles of Jack Layton and David Miller. Yes, the Layton article is a lot less formal but it is more about the facts. Just facts. Andrew Coyne's editorial was brought in because I felt that his column best described Layton's election strategy. At the same time, the reader does not get a sense of whether his direction is right or wrong.

I have two different responses here:

(i) Concerning the Layton article, I don't consider our differences to be that significant. The NDP campaign was clearly directed more against the Liberals than the Conservatives for most of the election period, but (in my judgement) there was a shift in the last two weeks when the Conservatives were clearly ahead in the polls. Coyne's article may be accurate for most of the campaign, but not (I think) for all of it. I may try to revise this section in the future, bringing in material from other sources.

(ii) As far as style goes, I've been expanding and adding footnotes to several articles, on parties and figures from across the political spectrum. Some of these contain more "critical" observations than others, depending on what information is available. (Feel free to look over the list at User:CJCurrie). I'm not sure if this was your point, but I don't think the arrangements and references are at the heart of our disputes.

• By contrast, the David Miller article is rather apologist and supportive. The facts are arranged in such a way so that the reader is driven towards a conclusion, whether it may be a sly dig at his opponents or a vindication of Miller's actions, even though the raw information might be NPOV on their own.

• One example is the "police in jail comments" which was described at great length and ends with Miller having an 82% approval rating.

The "82% approval rating" line was added before I became involved in the page, and I'd never really seen it as problematic. You're right, though -- it is inappropriate to the setting. I'll fix this shortly. I don't think the length is problematic, though -- if we're going to mention Fantino's response, we should explain the context in detail.

• Likewise, the garbage dispute which despite the Mayor's optimistic outlook has not been resolved and still remains at the mercy of Michigan politicians.

I believe this is already mentioned in the article. More could be added, but I don't think the wording for this section is leading.

• In our recent dispute, I feel that while you afford lots of attention is given to the downloading issue and the board of trade criticism, the spending policies are barely discussed and they are reduced to a footnote despite the abundance of material.

I agree that more could be said about spending issues; I've simply taken issue with the specifics of your edits (particularly the Globe and Mail summary, though we don't need to get into that again just know). I'm open to suggestions as to what else should be included.

• Raising the formality of the article effectively sets that apologist tone in stone, and that essentially stiffles any potential criticism whatever. Because of these constraints, there is less room to manuever and suddenly those minor words become all important. That is what I feel is causing the impasse.

I don't agree on this point -- if there are problems vis-a-vis "an apologist tone", I think they can be corrected within the current structure.

• Another article that has a similar problem is Joe Clark. Although I do admire his policies and his style, I do take issue with the way that his PC leadership comeback has been presented. It runs contrary to many pundits who feel that the effort had mixed results at best, or even a failure.

At the risk of overusing this phrase, I don't think we've crossed swords on this particular point (my understanding is that your edits were mostly about his tenure as PM). I think most observers would say his comeback had mixed results at best, although I wasn't involved in drafting that section of the article. CJCurrie 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call major edits minor. Minor edits only deal with things like spelling and grammer. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like the term lost but you are also adding spelling mistakes with your revert. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did an IP check on the addresses you put out. And they (with the exception of 212.240.81.165) belong to... *drumroll* none other than...

Brazil4Linux.

So, yeah, he's probably got your "recent changes" page on his watchlist and his foffling along and reverting any changes you're doing. Wouldn't be the first time- he did it to me, too. Daniel Davis 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's using anon IPs, it seems that the only way to prevent what he's been doing (outside of requesting a generalized IP block on veloxzone and dialuol) is just carefully watching any edits we make and erasing B4L's vandalism. I'll do what I can on my side with regards to that. Daniel Davis 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you've been reverting this point? While it's true that there's still a cloud of suspicion around [name removed], he hasn't been conclusively identified as the caller (unless something's happened in the last week or so). Unless and until he is, we should clarify that the accusation is only an independent suggestion, not verifiable proof.

I've also been doing some research on Hengen: it seems that he was a worker for the Saskatchewan Party in the late 1990s. This means that he would have been an opponent of Axworthy provincially and (possibly) a Vellacott supporter federally after 2000. This doesn't nullify his judgement, but it may make him something other than a disinterested observer. CJCurrie 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clear [name removed] -- it just indicates that the charges are as yet unproven (which is true). I'm worried that the other version comes close to defamation, in the absence of proof. CJCurrie 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dragon,

I just noticed something rather significant about the Axworthy/Vellacott situation. In the fallout from the original controversy, not one mainstream media source printed the name of the alleged caller. His name only appears on the affidavit reproduced by the Lifesite.

I don't know about you, but I suspect the Canadian Press knows more about Canadian libel laws than does the Lifesite. If every newspaper in the country refrains from printing the name, I'm led to conclude there must be a valid reason for it.

In light of this, I'm going to request that you not return the suspected caller's name to either article. This goes beyond our usual disagreements, and could (in theory, at least) lead to legal complications for the entire Wikipedia project. CJCurrie 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that shortly (I'm finishing up something else right now). CJCurrie 03:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon: you are in violation of the

Just thought you might like to know, our good friend Jedi6 is being considered for the adminship. The page can be found here, if you might want to lend your voice in regards to his qualifications.

Cheers! Daniel Davis 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi6 is a good guy- he deserves a fair shot at an adminship without interference from the likes of Brazil4Linux and the associated sockpuppets. So it's really just a matter of monitoring what happens there to make sure that a pile of socks doesn't fall into the machine and clog the workings. ;) Cheers! Daniel Davis 06:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the XBox article, I'm sure he doesn't hold any sort of a grudge about it. People have differences of edits and/or opinions on these things all the time- it only really becomes a problem when people don't let the situation resolve and keep digging at it. Daniel Davis 06:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the XBox article. It was a honest mistake! :-) P.S. You should try and make a user page or at least redirect your userpage to your talk page. That way you aren't a red link. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edits war going on with that page that you and CJCurrie need to work out. SFrank85 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I got from Pierre Trudeau's memoirs was that he got his majority back by attacking Robert Stanfield for advocating wage and price controls. Instead, it turned out that Trudeau accomplished the majority at the expense of David Lewis' NDP. Some said that Lewis may have played his hand too much during Trudeau's minority government, but I have found little info on this. Any thoughts?

I don't really think this is a dichotomy. Trudeau's most memorable activity in the '74 election was ridiculing Stanfield's wage/price control promises, and many believe this approach was key in allowing him to defeat the Tories. There was also a decline in NDP support in British Columbia and Ontario at the same time, mostly to the benefit of the Liberals (part of this decline was due to the unpopularity of Dave Barrett's government in BC, although this isn't often mentioned).

So, it was really a combination of both factors. CJCurrie 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never Cry Wolf 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits on the Battle of kursk and they are wrong with a reservation. Your numbers cover ONLY the first 10 days of the battle they do not cover the WHOLE battle. The numbers given are for the whole battle not just the first 10 days. This chap

To see that the numbers are only for the first 10 days go here, also buy the book or borrow it, you wont be sorry. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glabat.html

To see the report he made for the US army go here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

(Deng 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article covers the whole battle even the Soviet counter offensive, read the article and you will see. The article in wiki covers the time period of July 4, 1943 – August 23, 1943. Just because Hitler stoped advanceing dosent mean that the battle was over. Also the german casulties were not completly correct because when Hitler first recieved the casualties report he was pleased, thinking that a major tactical victory had been won. When he recieved the susequent requests for replacements he was horrified, as he realised that a disaster has befallen his army. (Deng 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I use these from time to time. I work part-time at a radio station, and I often contribute to Wikipedia while previewing music; the machine in the preview room is an eMac. My comment on the '93 page had to do with the fact that, until recently, it wasn't possible to edit long articles from eMacs -- the text kept cutting off at the bottom. They still aren't my first choice, but the situation has improved now.

On other matters: I still disagree with you on the Miller article, and will continue to oppose changes there. I plan on expanding the Moscoe page shortly (though I might be busy in the next week); I'll add criticisms of the fare increases and other matters, and will cover the "taxi" situation in more detail. CJCurrie 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert articles to restore your preferred wording, take care not to restore spelling and grammatical corrections that have been made by other editors. It is poor form, and diminishes Wikipedia. I have made other changes to the 2006 Liberal ad article, the most important of which I have explained on the talk page. Let's work toward consensus on this instead of perpetuating the revert war. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs some further information and reorganization beyond your revert, but I am not entirely sure how to go about it. See Talk:Buzz_Hargrove. Robbie dee 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I got your response on my talk page, thanks. Do you have a link to Buzz Hargrove taking credit for holding the Conservatives to a minority government? I think I remember that too, but I haven't turned up the quote yet using Google. Most of the stuff written on Hargrove and the 2006 election is not mine in any case - I just added the "suspension from NDP" and "CAW leadership race" info. Thanks again for your interest in the article and please feel free to edit away if you think you can make it more balanced.Robbie dee 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for removing another editor's comments from Talk:Howard Moscoe. It is a violation of wikipedia policy to tamper with or remove someone else's commetns on a talk page except in very specific circumstances none of which apply here. Do not do this again. Homey 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GD,

In an attempt to bring closure to these controversies, I've asked other Canadian editors to look over the Moscoe, Elliott, Longfield, Snobelen and Davis pages. Please do not revert the pages again until some discussion has occurred. In four of the five cases, there's a small consensus against your wording -- in the fifth, your edits (concerning the teaching unions) seem somewhat out of place.

Also, please note that I had nothing to do with the decision to block you. CJCurrie 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage you on the political aspects of this dispute, since CJCurrie's already doing that...but what I'd like to know is, why do you insist on undoing the correct footnoting format in the process? Bearcat 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to

Notwithstanding the above, your edit also removed several unrelated changes (including all information about the 1974 election). Please stop doing this. CJCurrie 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is a direct result of your puzzling decision to just repost the old edits. If you must make the same changes to these articles over and over again, please integrate the material into existing versions. CJCurrie 03:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GD,

You're in violation of the three-revert rule. Please return the page to my last edit. I think that some of your changes are legitimate, but we should wait until tomorrow before resolving the matter. CJCurrie 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to self-revert all of your recent changes to avoid being in violation of the 3RR (note that I don't fully support this policy, and that I tried to change it not long ago). CJCurrie 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think two separate references to unpopular NDP policies is excessive. (One would suffice.) But this is more of a technical matter, and isn't really about content. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're over the three-revert rule again. Please self-revert your last edit. CJCurrie 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Please note that I could have had you banned for violating the 3RR, but decided not to do so on principle (since it was probably accidental). I hope you'll show the same restraint if I accidentally make the same mistake at some point in the future. CJCurrie 04:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits. The only circumstances under which you should remove a {{

Looking over the official Hansard, I've discovered that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario held an unusual number of thirty-minute bells during its evening session of June 7, 2004 -- including two consecutive bells between 10:00 and 11:00 pm.[1] No formal explanation was given for this unusual turn of events, although it may not have been entirely coincidental that the final game of the

I would refer readers in particular to Marilyn Churley's comments after the legislature formally resumed:

While I was reflecting on my earlier comments, I was watching the end of the hockey game. I have to say that we're very sad. Calgary just lost. I don't know, Speaker, if you had an opportunity to leave the chair and see, but they lost. But we do want to congratulate both teams on games well played. It was a pleasure to see all the great hockey being played up until tonight. Again, I just want to congratulate Calgary -- yay, team -- for playing a good game. There you go.

I'm looking forward now to getting into baseball, which for me is more of a spring-summer kind of game anyway. It's kind of weird playing hockey in the middle of summer, with the weather in Florida, what, over 80 degrees or something.

Mr Speaker, I will have an opportunity to have a few more comments about the bill before us in my two-minute summary.

If anyone who follows this discussion page plans to watch tonight's game, if might be worthwhile to turn to the Legislative Assembly channel every twenty minutes or so to see if they'll do something similar this year.

(Originally posted by me to Talk:Legislative Assembly of Ontario a few minutes ago.) CJCurrie 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have gotten in some kind of argument over signitures. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to revise article Diego Simeone, please also check its talk page. I left a message regarding your edits, to which you did not reply, and ignored when you edited again the article. I'm restoring the previous versions, which implied certain compromise between the old version, and your version. Mariano(t/c) 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i 've seen that you've worked hard on all those articles... I hope france will go all the way.. you rooting for france? Abdelkweli 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tags from both of these articles. If you intend to readd them, you will list specific and concrete examples of what you consider to be the bias issues. A general "it's biased because I said so" statement is not acceptable; nobody on Wikipedia has a responsibility to be able to read your mind. Consider yourself warned that I may impose a temporary editblock on you if I ever see you add another NPOV tag to any article without discussing your specific concerns in depth. Bearcat 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it doesn't look like there was ever actually any discussion. It was listed for peer review at

I have responded on my talk page. Regards, Ground Zero | t 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should go (and already is) at the wc 78 article, or perhaps you want to add the 66 final and quarterfinal match details on the england national article too --Jor70 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i was just wondering if you could verfiy the edit you made saying most chapters were restricted to the use of one crusader? Lowris 10:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GD, you and CJCurrie have been at it so long that it's pretty impossible for anyone to sort out who's right here. I have, instead, compared your last two versions and tried to work out what sounds reasonable to me. I'm sorry that I don't have time to sort out the voluminous arguments on the tlak page. I haveposted explanations there, and some questions that, if answered, would be the basis for adding somethings back in. I hope that this helps. I am afraid the two of your will have to work it out between you otherwise.

An alternative would be to freeze the article (e.g., at my imposed compromise), and work out one issue at a time, make the change to which you agree, and then move on to the next issue. Best of luck. Ground Zero | t 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're over the 3RR. Please self-revert. CJCurrie 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look here to see the articles I have amended so far. The problem with editing articles in the FreeSpace universe is that there are so many. I believe, however, that if we edit the articles one by one, we might finish the job eventually. -- A. Exeunt 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I do that too. We should use it as a point of reference, in my opinion, but nothing more. What we want in Wikipedia are articles written in the form of an encyclopedia entry. We do not want too much or too little information. -- A. Exeunt 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try "a strong hull" or something like that. In FreeSpace, hitpoints is the same as hull integrity. When the GTVA Colossus was about to be destroyed by SJ Sathanas, didn't the captain say, "Colossus here! Command, hull failure seems imminent! We've bought the Bastion all the time we could! Let's hope this plan works." -- A. Exeunt 11:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a third party is necessary. Just don't ask me though. I only protected the page because that's what one should do during an edit war. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edit to the above: see the edit summary bigpad 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, your point about "Bobby Charlton" is fair enough so I have moved it up a little to fit in better with all his awards in the 1960s. All the best, bigpad 08:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you remove table of tiers and maps I've created for Quake III Arena entry? [2] In my opinion, it looked very much better with that table ^^ Best Regards, Visor 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC). The case " rejected . If so, please remove this template. All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

Hello, GoldDragon!

Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

• Middle-earth WikiProject discussion
• Middle-earth WikiProject things to do - A compilation of all the tasks that are needed to do
• Middle-earth Standards (talk)
• Middle-earth WikiProject Portal

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! —Mirlen 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you will find your niche in WP:Me. We are always glad to have members. :) (BTW, make sure to read the Standards for Tolkien articles, if you haven't.) Otherwise, feel free — no, please do — to jump in the talk page and post your opinions or any issues you find. —Mirlen 17:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edits to the Batman Begins article have been deemed inappropriate and reverted. Please do not assertive that an article or section is cited when it is not. Also, do not make further uncited claims. These kinds of edits can be viewed as damaging to the encyclopedia and thus vandalism. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read both this and your reply on Ace's page. I'd appreciate it if you could find that older section with critiques of the film-mkaing techniques, and create a section on the film's talk page for discussing re-adding it? I'd like to see more of that sort of thing in the film articles if it can be substantiated with citations. ThuranX 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by the fact that you reverted my edits to the NHL rivalries article (NYI/NYR section) without providing an edit comment or anything at all explaining why you did. We've collaborated on articles before, particularly Alexei Yashin, and I don't think there's anything that would indicate bad faith on my part. I feel that my changes to the article were beneficial, in some cases doing little more than cleaning up writing that had become garbled or messy. I hope that your reversion was a mistake, perhaps because you were editing at the same time and there was just some sort of edit conflict. I'm going to put my version back for now. If we have differences of opinion as to what belongs or does not belong in the article, let's discuss them on the talk page. Croctotheface 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that, as I expected, the reversion was unintentional. I know that we have a difference of opinion as far as the business about the NYI/NYR rivalry setting the hockey teams apart from other New York area teams. I'd be OK with you putting it back, though perhaps we could pare it down a bit. Croctotheface 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, under any circumstances, engage in a blanket

Actually, it is a greenlight to just delete. Please read the policy on

verification, particularly "Burden of Evidence". Unsourced material should be deleted, and may be restored if and only if sources are provided. I gave contributors a month to find sources, and none did. If you were gone, I'm sorry that the version I edited was objectionable to you. But Wikipedia's credibility demands that we follow the policies, and the article was not - and still is not - in compliance with those policies. Captainktainer * Talk 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your accusations of POV-pushing. Your pleasantness is truly awe-inspiring. Captainktainer * Talk 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove fact tags from articles. I'm sure you are correct, however, someone has placed the tags for a reason—if you source the statements, then you may remove the tags. _└ 

• I happen to agree with you about the salary issue, unfortunately, every time you try and take it out, the PoV Army that is VaughanWatch's SockFarm step in. If you're feeling brave, go ahead and take it out - I'll support you. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to be cordial regarding our differences on New York Islanders. I don't appreciate the fact that you simply revert to the version you prefer with no regard to anything that I have said. I said several times that we should leave the article alone, or in a tenuous state of compromise, until we can get some more opinions on the content. Wikipedia runs on consensus and discussion. You continually revert my good faith attempts to improve the article to the version you wrote without any consideration for the work or opinions of other editors. I have to strongly encourage you to take a step back before this escalates. Croctotheface 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. CJCurrie 01:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscoe. CJCurrie 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article. Calling CJCurrie's use of an NPOV tag, explained on the Talk:Conservative Party of Canada page, "vandalism" is not on. You must not behave this way if you want to continue as an editor here. Ground Zero | t 02:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, if you're going to be an advocate for CJCurrie you may want to disclose that position somewhere so we know where you're coming from. Alan.ca 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I posted this comment because I believed that calling a long-time editor's use of an NPOV tag "vandalism" constituted a personal attack violated the Wikipedia policy on civility, and not because I have any interest in being an advocate for any editor. Ground Zero | t 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page

Heh, I'd completely forgotten about that. Further expansion certainly couldn't hurt, but I don't see the current state of the article as raising too many POV issues, so I've removed the tag. Bearcat 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were in a revert war with admin user:CJCurrie. This is my second conflict with him and I have engaged in a cabal case with him. If you have further problems or have an interest in filing complaint about him, please contact me on my talk page. Alan.ca 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that Alan.ca is currently involved in a content dispute with me at the Judy Marsales page, and has a history of threatening to file complaints. CJCurrie 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a history of filing complaints. Do you want to have a discussion somewhere or shall we just play ring around the rosie? Alan.ca 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• GD, I appreciate that you're trying to stand up for what we believe is the correct edit on the Judy Marsales article, but I think we should just leave it at the agreed neutral form CJCurrie and I settled our truce on. I have a MEDCAB case filed and an AMA Advocate. CJCurrie has agreed to participate in the process and until I see evidence otherwise I think we should just push forward with dispute resolution. Alan.ca 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, It seems that CJCurrie wants to start the discussion on the article's talk page. Please participate in the discussion. Talk:Judy Marsales Let's see if we can stay focussed on the argument of the validity of the sourced information. Alan.ca 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon,

In light of Chabuk's comments, I'm willing to leave the Lapierre page in its current state (pending further discussions on specific points).

Could I please ask that you leave the Volpe page as it is. It should be clear by now that the consensus favours my version; if you have specific complaints, could you please raise them on the talk page rather than engaging in more blanket reverts. I'm getting quite tired of endless revert wars, and I'd like to see a more constructive way of dealing with these disputes. CJCurrie 05:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJ is a squirrely girlie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.38.189 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added some Harry Rosen trivia. Do you have sources for this? I'd like to incorporate this info into the main part of the article, but would need more context. Plus I like to verify things. MRoberts <> 02:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be

I have assumed good faith on your previous actions of reverting Can't sleep's edit, and I made sure to note the changes made in the edit summary so that everyone knew exactly what happened and the door would be open to discussion if someone disagreed. Obviously, you do. However, both times that you reverted the page, you made no explanation as to why you believe the revert is justified.

Again, I believe you are just wanting to make the article as good as it can be. I would appreciate if you respond in kind. Wangry 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to

Also, I understand that there's been a lot of Bose-bashing before, but again, please be sensitive when editing such articles, and try not to edit the article that it carries an unnecessary anti-Bose bias. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I'll invite you to review my comments on the talk page. I've made one factual correction to your last edit. CJCurrie 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon,

You're over the 3RR on the Dion page. Please self-revert now. CJCurrie 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GD, I'd like to make a suggestion on how to make your edits less POV and therefore less contentious. One of the edits you have been trying to make on Stephane Dion has been to describe the Liberals' performance in Quebec in the 2006 election as a "resounding defeat". This can be made NPOV by sticking to the facts, e.g., "the Liberals' share of the popular vote in Quebec declined from almost 34% in 2004 to just over 20% in 2006". This lets the reader decide for her or himself whether the defeat was "resounding" or not. There is a useful discussion at

I am trying to move along the three points of dispute at Talk:Joe Volpe. You and CJCurrie have come to a consensus on the Apotex donation, so I have implemented that change. There remain two outstanding issues. I would appreciate your attention to them so that we can resolve them and move on. Regards, Ground Zero | t 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD. Actually I was going to write about Joe Volpe although not directly related to the Volpe content. I noticed that you tagged a fairly substantial edits as "minor" there. I don't know if that was an accident; I know that some prefs. automatically mark edits as minor. If it was an accident, Help:Minor edit suggests making a "dummy edit" to note the mistake. My prefs. include minor edits but some people don't and with all the back and forth with you and CJCurrie, I'm sure that some people want to scrutinize everything. =) Cheers. --JGGardiner 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie, you reverted here an edit that I made and explained on the talk page. You provided no explanation for your reversion on the talk page. This is not an effective way of contributing to Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour leads to edit wars, which are a waste of everyone's time. If you think that that phrase must be there, explain why on the talk page, and if you convince other people of it, your edit will stand. Otherwise, it will just be reverted. Ground Zero | t 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take my hat off to your determination. However, I would appreciate it if you would stop making talk page arguments in your edit summaries. I know that you and CJCurrie are having a protracted fight, but you're not doing anything positive by dragging it into the edit summaries. I have made the same remark to CJCurrie. Alan.ca 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please do not remove {{

GD, acting on your comment about the "Provincial politics" section of this article being biased, I have reviewed the section and made seven suggestions for deletions and revisions to make it more balanced. Your comments would be appreciated. CJCurrie has already provided some comments, and I think that we should be able to get consensus on improving the article. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now reviewed three points of contention that remain between you and CJCurrie and made recommendations. Please review. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I could get your assistance on

[3] CJCurrie 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove {{

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information you recently added ([4], [5]) to the

I've put forward a suggestion for the "placement agency" paragraph. Please let me know if it's acceptable. CJCurrie 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward another compromise. If you agree, we can probably just go ahead and change the text. CJCurrie 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]