User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 15

There is no such thing as the "UK Progressive Party". The page puts together a summary of two entirely unrelated organisations, the Progressive Party (London) and the Progressives (Scotland). There is no sense in retaining this bizarre hybrid of a disambiguation page and an article. Fences&Windows 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should correct myself: there is a registered party by that name, but that article wasn't about it.[1] If the extant party is notable then the article could be rewritten to be about it, with hatlinks to the London and Scotland parties. I am correcting links to Progressive Party (UK) to point to the correct articles. Fences&Windows 23:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this link in the history on 12:01, 24 February 2010 you said, "I don't know why this was removed. it is clearly in their principles."

To answer your question, it was removed because it was inaccurate. The previous revision stated that "Biblical principles" are "the inspired, inerrant written Word of God". That statement, quoted from the party website, referred to the Bible, not Biblical principles. It wasn't correct. When you re-added it, you corrected the statement, which I appreciate. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.169.53 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this link in the history on 12:01, 24 February 2010 you said, "I don't know why this was removed. it is clearly in their principles."

To answer your question, it was removed because it was inaccurate. The previous revision stated that "Biblical principles" are "the inspired, inerrant written Word of God". That statement, quoted from the party website, referred to the Bible, not Biblical principles. It wasn't correct. When you re-added it, you corrected the statement, which I appreciate. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.169.53 (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Avicennasis 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please explain why you have added 'this is an advert' on the Will Kevans page. Will is currently playlisted on Radio 2, the largest radio station in the UK, and the biggest radio station in Ireland. The BBC asked for him to have a Wikipedia page for them to link their BBC 'information on the artists' page so that their millions of listeners can find out more information on the artist. Will Kevans is far more successful and prominent than a lot of other bands who have Wikipedia entries but I don't see any 'this is an advert' signs on their pages!

Thanks. Secretsilversurfer (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree that there should be an article about him in Wikipedia. He is clearly notable enough. The article should be brought up to the standards of an encyclopaedia article, though. It reads like a promotional piece -- all glowing quotes and so on. I do not think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy on a neutral point of view. This version reads like it was written by a fan or by his manager. I think more work needs to be done to make it neutral and factual. Ground Zero | t 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought the rap video was something that was an example of this Keynesian Resurgence; the fact that the ideas of Keynes were elucidated (look up the word) quite well in the video, which makes it intellectually worthy of inclusion. Aside from fact that other videos from You Tube can be found on Wikipedia... Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovper (talk • contribs) 06:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ground Zero! I was wondering what you think of Now (magazine) vis-à-vis WP:RS? There is a query over at WP:RSN regarding this topic that seems to come down to: Is it Toronto’s equivalent to The National Enquirer, or is it Toronto’s equivalent to The Village Voice? I honestly don’t read it anymore, now that I am such an old man, so I was wondering if you might hazard an opinion in the WP:RSN discussion? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GZ for your input! — SpikeToronto 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ground Zero, I would like to thank you for editing the subtitles of the article Rudy Fernandez (labor leader). I was wondrin' if you could help us create the infobox of this article. I tried using Infobox Person, but it doesn't seem to complete itself. Please assist us on this problem. Thank you.Sharpie2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC). Hm. Sorry. I really don't know anything about info boxes. I don't care for them much myself, so I've never learned. Ground Zero | t 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ground Zero, wondering if you'd be interested in peer reviewing an article I've been working on over the past few years, David Lewis (politician). It recently went through a major rewrite, and I would really like to get this article up to feature status. Take care, --Abebenjoe (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tidying work on Ernest Lucas Guest - much appreciated. I'm still doing lots of ongoing research and working up the article: I'd welcome any further tidies and suggestions for improvement whenever you like. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deprod is a deprod. Unlike with speedy deletion an article creator can remove a prod and we have to respect that, so your reverting of the deprod was not appropriate. I'm taking it to AfD. Fences&Windows 10:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had thought that some sort of explanation would have been needed on the article's talk page, but I see from WP:PROD that this is not the case. You learn something new evryday. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited some of my article World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion. This is a univeristy project for a final grade. I was wondering if you could look it over, maybe copy edit and give a few suggestions. The article is being graded by our professor in a couple days and would really like to get an A! Thank you! Nicocorn20 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you took some time editing the Linda McMahon page to change every use of the name Linda to McMahon instead. On the Vince McMahon page, his first name is used many times. I'm curious why you decided to use McMahon instead of Linda? -- Screwball23 talk 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

"After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms"."

In general, an encyclopedia article should be written in a formal tone, and therefore not be on a first-name basis with its subject. In the case of the McMahons, it is important to maintain clarity within the article since the articles deal with two people with the same last name. The fact that the Vince McMahon article does not follow the Manual of Style in this regard should not be interpreted as being a basis for the Linda McMahon article not following it either. I hope that helps. Ground Zero | t 17:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the WKPT page. It is frustrating when somebody writes of a TV station 'they' do this, and 'they'. The station is an "it".. the employees are 'they.' Csneed (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At it again with this edit which i have reverted. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. I have left himn a warning, and will keep an eye out. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, [2]. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why screenshot of my desktop has been deleted. Surely, I am the author of that picture. No administrator has notice me about deletion. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How were you able to edit on this page when it's locked? Are you an admin?Malke2010 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am. Disambiguating a link is a non-controversial change. Ground Zero | t 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what edit you had made, I only noted that you'd made an edit. I thought the page was unlocked. I'm glad to find that it is not. It's probably a good idea if it stays locked a bit longer.Malke2010 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would appreciate help me with the grammar of my article SILAT. Thank you very much. --Giselle Chamorro (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bowser 1987 seems to be User talk:24.23.162.249 with an account. Keep an eye on him. I think he's a sloppy editor rather than a vandal, e.g. Tony Benn would describe himself as a socialist. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. While I agree that initially this editor was just a sloppy editor, his/her persistent refusal to heed appeals for reliable sources and discussion have turned him/her into a pest. This editor's contributions are not helpful, and waste the time of other editors, so I will deal with him/her as necessary. I have not blocked this account yet in case it really is a new editor making the same mistakes as User:24.23.162.249, but will do so if this behaviour continues. Thanks again. Ground Zero | t 02:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is cool! 187.86.208.10 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioning articles that I edit which have errors in them but you are not specific. I get the feeling this has to do with style and format not spelling errors. I would not intentionally commit grammatical errors. Strafidlo (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching whoever is hacking my feedbacks. I do know how to spell. Some idiots have nothing else to do. My hacker probably breaks into bank security systems and defense systems, because his parents don't know what he does on his computer.Csneed (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ground Zero

I was wondering if I could get your opinion in my favor. On the WMAQ former personalites, editors keep deleting all the names posted and I don't feel it is right. You had made some adjustments to the industry jargon on that page and I respected and agreed with your decision. I was wondering if you could write a statement in favor of the 98.223.95.42 edits posted on the village link on the discussion page. The person took a lot of time and effort into the list. We just need a few more in our favor and the edits will be reverted back to the way it should. Or if you just want to revert it back yourself. Ask any other editors you know if they could sign it too. Thanks so much--TVFAN24 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ground_Zero" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFAN24 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for issuing the re-block so swiftly. I feel the whole situation appears a bit tragic. The user does seem to have some good faith-intentions (although the 'democratic socialist international' stunt was seemingly hoaxish), but the systematic refusal to engage in any sort of dialogue makes blocking the only way to deal with the situation. I went through the contributions of the accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Greekboy12345er6, and I found it remarkable that there is not a single article or user talk page edit. He doesn't respond it any queries at all, and as long as that remains so I don't see any chance of improvement. --Soman (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I tried for quite a while to get this user to work with us, but it is clear that he/she is marching to his/her own beat and is unwilling to become a Wikipedian. I think the only thing for it is to revert all of this user's edits. The only one I did not revert was one to Mapai, which actually checked out. Cheers. Ground Zero | t 09:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In now, again... --Soman (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am unsure what to do as well. We've both tried to explain to him what he's doing wrong, but he refuses to heed the advise, or even respond. At this point, I don't know if a light block is even remotely appropriate, but I don't see a problem with wholesale reverts. If someone refuses to get a clue, I don't think their edits should be expected to stick around. *sigh* — Huntster (t @ c) 03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I intend to go back and revert all of my edits that have come into question as well as new articles. I cannot promise I will be a perfect editor as I have take a few hardcore college English classes with professors that have encouraged me to change my style. Grammar has never been by strongest skill and I assume other editors may have more experience with it which is why I assume others may change my edits. I welcome your changes to articles as long as my overall reorganization and research is not reverted. Strafidlo (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your changes to articles as long as you do not make the same grammatical or stylistic errors that I have asked you repeatedly not to make. You can learn the correct way to use "it" and "its" instead of "they" and "their" to describe a single subject like a TV station -- I have explained this many times to you on your talk page and in edit summaries. And you can learn to use lower case letters for "noon" and "midnight". These are not difficult matters of grammar or style. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

After seeing your most recent comment on his talk page, I'm beginning to think the situation may need to be escalated. Perhaps an AN/I thread requesting additional comments might be appropriate? I don't know, but it is beginning to stretch AGF to the breaking point. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about changing the format of KGET. There is too much info on there for the former staff. Don't know who put all that up, going to change it how I think it should be. I'm going to even take off the bolding for the names too I believe. Just wanted to let you know. It's on there for now, but I'm going to copy and paste it into my sandbox and work on it. Just wanted to let you know, so that you're not surprised to see it on there, but don't take it off. Once I've got it changed in my sandbox, I'm going to change it. Just wanted to let you know. Probably won't work on it tonight, since I've got to work at 6:00am in the morning, but I will be in the process of working on it. (JoeCool950 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For the very tedious "it/they" work on the many television station pages, I award you this barnstar. Well Done, Sir. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome! Thanks for the well-wishes. Getting better day-by-day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.23.162.249 (talk · contribs) is back after block expires. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Adamo Ruggiero, an article that you are main contributor to, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Steele. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 117Avenue (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]