User talk:Grace Note/Archive January-March 2006

You may want to to keep an eye on Template:Infobox pope. User:Netoholic is trying to redesign it in the form that was rejected in the vote some months ago. (Note: under an arbcom he is prohibited from doing more than 1 reversion by page per day. Under the arbcom ruling here if he oversteps the restrictions on him, block him immediately.) He has already forced through one ugly change to it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you might want to know we are at it again. My fault for jumping in without knowing what i was getting into. -Spaceriqui 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

If you wish to add your opinions to this page, please place your comments in their own section. Please do not comment in the sections of other users or the arbitrators' voting section. Carbonite | Talk 14:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Justforasecond

What happened to you? You didn't used to act like this. I for one would never have voted you in as an admin if I'd known you would. Bullyboy tactics are not the way to go, man. Yes, it would be nice if this knobend didn't harass Deeceevoice but you can just delete their comments if they offend you or her. Threatening other editors just isn't the tone. You just supply the guy with a grievance, when deleting the edit and ignoring the troll would be far more likely to have a positive effect.Grace Note 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing happned to me. There's more to this than meets the eye, GN. I stand by my position. I'm sorry you find it dissapointing. Regards, El_C 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm wondering if you found out about WMC's second RFA only after this message from SEWilco. NSLE _(T+C) 08:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I asked this question because if you hadn't realised about WMC's second RFA before SEWilco told you, it could well be a WP:POINT violation by him. Doesn't matter, if you say that you'd vote anyway, thanks again NSLE _(T+C) 08:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My talkpage

Please don't remove messages from my talkpage for any reason. I understand the motivation for doing so, but please don't. If you absolutely cannot restrain yourself, please make a note that you have done so, so that I'm aware there was a message you felt should be removed, or best of all, ask me to remove it after reading it, if you feel it should not be allowed to stand. I'll respect any good-faith request to remove a message that causes upset. Grace Note 08:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I will refrain from editing your talk page in the future. Sorry, if I upset you. Regards, El_C 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Short comment on your userpage

While I agree with some of what you said, there are exceptions to the vandalism, such as that which has revealed Jimbo Wales's and others' personal info (address, phone #, etc). These have immediately negative consequences, and can't be ignored. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 00:24

Bet El

I jts wanted to drop a short note to thank you for all your work monitoring Bet El. It is much appreciated. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think "took control of", which is clearly only used as a euphemism to avoid saying what really happened, should be in the article instead of "occupied"? It may be correct, but it is far less precise, and is only being put in for propaganda reasons because some people don't like the word "occupied". Also, the Wikipedia article on the topic is entitled Israeli-occupied territories, which suggests that the use of the word "occupied" is hardly prohibited. I don't think we should indulge ideological propagandists in their attempts to distort reality. Palmiro | Talk 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mistress Selina Kyle

As always, thank you for your comments and support. I do agree with most of your points; I always try to convince vandals to stay and help us rather than block them outright. And I always favor trying to reform problem users. I'm a bit undecided on MSK's case, though. While she definitely made some valuable contributions, the wealth of her disruptive edits was a bit disturbing, she did seem to turn up an awful lot in controversial areas, and she managed to cause a decent amount of trouble while she was here. I'm not certain that she didn't enjoy stirring up controversy. That being said, I am only peripherally aware of her case, so I can't really properly evaluate the situation. I do agree with your WP:AN/I proposal, in principle; by that, I mean that I wouldn't object if someone were willing to take MSK under her wing and mentor, and keep an eye on her. Your suggestion is a good one, but I don't think I can be the one to do it. For one, I simply don't know enough about her case to be taking charge of a situation like this. Also, my recent attempts at "mentoring" problematic users have been somewhat disappointing; I've only made a couple breakthroughs. But the big problem is time: at this point in my career, my time is so limited that I can only accomplish a small fraction of what I want to on Wikipedia, and I'd rather spend more time on writing articles. I'll consider it over the next couple days; or perhaps you can find someone else willing to take on the task. I always hate to see Wikipedia lose contributors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentoring Selina may be tricky. This user has a bizarre habit of ignoring (completely benign) comments or questions from certain users -- me, for instance -- despite our having, in theory, no past conflict and no relationship whatsoever. Check the edit history and you will see that s/he instantly began editing in highly controversial areas, and somehow had a near-encyclopedic knowledge of WP policies and procedures. Draw your own conclusions. Speaking personally, though, mentoring MSK wouldn't be my best choice for a time investment. BYT 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps there are other explanations. Anyway, you're approaching this with a very good heart, for which I applaud you.BYT 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your vote

I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder , and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unflagged alteration of signed comments

Someone complained on WP:AN/I about your unflagged alteration to a signed comment he made. Probably would have been wiser to append your own signed comment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

hey.

I just looked at your user page for the first time (the usual anon IP edits kinda threw me off) - are you in fact an artist? If so that's pretty cool. :)

Oh and reading the above I feel [i]kinda[/i] bad for pointing out some of the nasty things SlimVirgin's done on WR, I just don't understand what it is about her that makes you want to defend her so much: she's manipulative and deceitful seems to be the consensus of most. Anyway I'll try to keep shtut on the issue for you, I do appreciate the nice things you've said on my behalf (as well as this, elsewhere too) - and I have no problems with you whatsoever (and wonder if you meant it when you said "I laugh at everything she says" [note to others reading, this was on WR so nyah, you can't ban him for NPA suckas }])

Hope things are cool. by the way there's some debate on a post at wikipedia review as to whether you're a guy, I think you probably are but Zordrac thinks you're a girl because you have "Grace" in your name, lol --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA

You think people like corax, and clayboy don't have any aim in posting in the NAMBLA and pedophile pages?

I do have an aim. It's to correct the factual inaccuracies and hysterics put forth by people like you. If people like you never edited the NAMBLA article (or any other article related to the sexuality of teenagers), I would be able to devote my wikipedia time to working on other articles. As it is, I have to spend it beating dead horses. By the way, it seems you're more infatuated with pedophilia and NAMBLA than I have ever been. If you check my contributions, you'll see I contribute to a wide variety of articles, whereas you seem to be fixating on the ones relating to underage sexuality. Your attempts to cast aspersions about me seem to be a clear-cut case of projection. Corax 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's Talk Page

Thank you. I don't know if a barnstar could begin to show my gratitude. Hopefully together we've convinced Jimbo of what's going on. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to thank you. Karmafist 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. I hope one day we'll see more kind words than nastyness on here, but I fear that day is a ways off. Here's to that day... Karmafist 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Animal Research

I see your point, but I stated my reasons for deletion in the edit summary. You also didn't have to revert ALL my edits, some where simply corrections and minor additions which were properly sourced. But in the spirit of cooperation, I made some suggestions on the talk page of the article, feel free to comment. Nrets

Could you please provide proof for your accusation

The accusation you have made with regards to Igor Alexander is not a minor one and it requires a little more than the an unnamed reliable source or the claim of evidence. We therefore like you to comment on the matter because Igor Alexander is on record of saying that he is not Alex Linder and is not a neo-nazi and even wants to resign from his administrative position because of the accusation. Igor is still considered innocent and this is a very serious accusation and should not be taken frivously. Please be more specific and provide the evidence which lead you to this conclusion or the reliable source and the reasons he had to make this determination. Dartignan 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, Dartignan, Igor Alexander resigned from his administrative position just before Christmas last year. But he is still the founder of Wikipedia Review. Oh and here's a link to the thread you posted. And yes, until you state your gender either way, I am presuming female, since Grace is a girl's name. So there :P. Zordrac 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The matter can now be considered closed. Please add the following link to your user page as validation: http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1138582643&page=1 Dartignan 01:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A courageous stance

We haven't always seen eye-to-eye, I know, but I'd just like to say that if it is true that Linder founded Wikipedia review, I find your stance courageous and honest. My hat off to you sir/madam (can't work out if you are a male or a female based on your username!). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I don't know if you're still around. The thing is, both Slim Virgin and Gregory Maxwell do HUGE amounts of good work for wikipedia. In both cases, what you see directly on the wiki is only a small tip of the iceberg. Often other people are relying on work they do to mediate, learn about people and methods of interacting with them, make large scale changes to the wiki, gain insights into wikipedias past and predict wikipedias future. If we lose either of them, or if either goes nuts, well, that could be problematic on a large scale.

Of course, both occaisionally make mistakes. This is normal with hard working people, neither of them is ghandi or jesus by a long shot. :-P

The unfortunate thing is taht they've both made mistakes wrt the other. This is an extremely annoying situation, especially since I consider both of them friends.

I agree that Gregs current methods are rather nasty. It's just that it's very very very hard to argue with his logic for me. Can you come up with arguments that might work? At the same time, I disagree with slimvirgins treatment of this particular situation as well, and my arguments haven't swayed her either.

If you have any ideas on what could be done, that'd be good. :-)

Kim Bruning 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll talk about this. Anything else, I'd probably rather have an email.

This article was censored by Aaron Brenneman and Tony Sidaway. Why? Grace Note 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are You Back?

I had heard you left. If so, i'm glad you're back, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to help more in the past(the past few weeks have been tough both on and off Wikipedia). Me and Analogdemon have been standing in solidarity with SPUI on our user pages, I hope he doesn't leave due to all this nonsense lately, he's contributed more than all those cabalists combined. Karmafist 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, Grace

Hi Grace. I want to say: Please, I know that you are upset about the deletion of Brian Peppers, and the way that it was done. I myself am not too happy about it either, but the fact remains that, for better or for worse, Jimbo controls this site and has the authority to decree what goes in and what goes out if he so desires. If he (ab)uses this too much he will wind up chasing away all the contributors and the project will stall for that reason.

Regarding the article, understand that there are some external issues, apart from the internal processes such as AFD and DRV which call for the article's deletion. Sensitivity towards the privacy of a person with a facial abnormality, and who seems to have been horridly bullied by the internet community, appears to be the motive for deleting that article, not merely an arrogant "I know best" attitude.

I know that you are upset about Aaron Brenneman speedy deleting the article, in his shoes I don't think I would have speedied it. Yet I know Aaron as a pretty sensible administrator who usually works hard in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Sometimes he makes mistakes, sometimes he will do things which are controversial. Please don't describe him, as "the f***ing problem". There are several admins who are faced with tough decisions, and who finally decide to make a decision instead of leaving it up to another administrator. In return those who disagreed with them can be quite aggressive in accusing them of a number of things... it is very discouraging for a person who toils away at Wikipedia with no pay apart from self-satisfaction of having accomplished something and the occasional word of gratitude from other contributors.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, hi

I just realised I've addressed this in several places but not directly to you. So I'm going to try again to make my feelings a bit more clear.

I do understand why you're pissed off, and think that it's totally fair for you to be so. I won't disagree with you about deleting content being a problem. I won't disagree with you that it's unfortunate whenever we have Jimbo part the clouds and make a decision for us. I won't even disagree with you that him deleting the article may have been a bad thing. I won't even disagree with you that (in retrospect) me deleting the article was a bad thing.

The only thing we seem to be in disagreement about is what I was thinking when I did so, and what I think about it now.

I try always (he says as if he's been doing it for years) to keep "janitor" and "editor" seperate. The only think I was trying to do by re-deleting the article and closing the AfD was push us towards a slower, more thoughtful decision making process. Did you notice that I didn't delete that talk page? I'm totally open to the fact that it may have been a mistake, or ineffective, or made things worse. In fact, that why I'm still talking about it to you.

What I'm not open to is that I was trying to stifle debate, or enforce my will. I asked to be the one to restore it if that was the decision, and I meant that. All I'd ask is that you allow for the possibilty that people make mistakes. I did what I thought was best, and taken in the context of everything I've done and said before and after I'd hope to get more credit for that.

brenneman^{T}{L} 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I have no intention of "emailing" you for any reason whatsoever. You're trying to start some kind of trolling nonsense here, and I'm not biting. If you got a problem, you can keep it here. I'm no so much of a child as to start trading angry emails over nothing. No one has attacked anyone. If you want to continue a back and forth, go to your bathroom mirror. I refuse to oblige. --DanielCD 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you want the discussion about deleting content closed down. I'm not sure of your agenda.

I don't recall saying anything to this effect anywhere. My only point is a calm plea for more tact. I have no intention of letting this elevate into a row; it's pointless. I am not your enemy. I'm sorry about anything that offended you, but I'm bugging out of this matter. I wish you well. --DanielCD 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was taken aback to have you personally attacking me

I fail to see any blatant personal attack. --DanielCD 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"You're trying to start some kind of trolling nonsense here, and I'm not biting." As I said, this matter is closed. Grace Note 03:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Words

Thank you so much for the word "flower," which I will treasure. ;-D Seriously, thanks for the feedback, which I do appreciate. I think everyone on that page did a pretty good job of sorting the issues out, you included, so thank you (flower) to you too. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that your sole reason to be here? To bash others?

Its all good and fine to say that you were "proudly banned" but surely that's not the only reason you are at Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope that you are committed enough to go ahead with your own forum, and not just leave it as an idea. It will be good for people to have 2 choices. Hopefully most people will post on both. If you want it to be taken seriously, consider using a domain name. Maybe http://www.wikipediacritics.com/ or the like. And try to use a paid forum software so that you don't have annoying ads. Then perhaps things will be taken seriously.

The "new forum" is meant to be just an extension of the old one. It was planned (quite publicly) from early January, from as soon as we started getting serious trolls come in. I think from as soon as Ambi first posted. It was Lir's idea I think. User:Zordrac 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zordrac. I'm very proud that I was banned from a forum that allows Nazis to post freely. I'd hope always to be incompatible with that kind of forum. I think you'll find that your forum being an extension of the old one is your biggest problem. I suggested to Selina that you allow someone who is not tainted by being part of the Wikipedia Review "cabal" run your new board until it's settled in. Unfortunately, you guys seem to think that carrying on with the same behaviour, banning those who disagree with you and making a safe haven for neo-Nazis, adminning the worst trolls among you, including the woman who posted a pornographic picture and claimed it was a Wikipedia admin, among other defamations, will incline people to take you seriously. I'm sorry, it won't. It might have helped you a great deal to involve someone who is thought to be fair and evenhanded, which I generally am.

Please feel free to email me if you want to correspond with me further. You're currently banned from Wikipedia and I don't want to encourage you to get your ban extended further. Grace Note 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Grace Note, with all due respect, you will note that when you are being civil and reasonable, I don't "censor" you in any way. (I never banned your ardentspy account, for instance). When you are being a troll, I treat you like one. I know this is an off-wiki issue, but rather than playing the victim, It may help you to acknowledge that, for there to be a dispute, two people have to be involved. In addition, I really would like to request that you not link the new forum at this time. It's not supposed to be active yet; when it is, it will move simply to http://wikipediareview.com. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I have an email address. You can correspond with me there. I promise not to bite. I'm afraid you simply don't understand that one person's troll is another's serious commentator. That's the danger with free speech. Feel free to fix the link once you've gone live. This is a wiki and I have no problem with (nonbanned) editors fixing my userpage. Grace Note 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Snorlax.pngSn0rlax 16:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Catholic American actors

Please do not put nonsense on a website I have worked very hard on. You are manifestly unaware (to use a kinder word than the one I want to use) of the rules regarding qualified individuals to belong to this list.

There has never been a requirement that the person be a practicing Catholic or may not have converted to another faith (Scientology and Buddhism come to mind as the most popular). That has been understood by those of us who update and edit this list, which until today has not included you. As a matter of fact it still doesn't as you have added nothing, and deleted certain names that you had no right to delete. The sole requirement is baptism either at birth or by conversion. You can contact "Demiurge" or "Jack O'Lantern" if you want; perhaps they can explain it to you better than I can.

The Osments remain on the list b/c first of all they fulfill the criteria. As a matter of fact, if it makes you feel better, they are practicing Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. They even went to Mass the afternoon of the Oscar telecast the year that Haley was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor (he lost to Michael Caine, btw).

And, finally, why did you remove MY additions which I had finally convinced other Wikipedians belonged after weeks of disputes. If you want to apply criteria to MY additions to the list, you had better be prepared to go through every name on that list (from A to Z). I would also expect you to go through the lists of Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Scientologists, Baptists, et al before your mission is complete.

I hope this will be the last time I have to contact you in this vein. If you continue to post nonsense on a site that I built almost from scratch I will file a complaint with the Mediators and with WikiMedia.

Rms125a@hotmail.com 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. your own words betray you:

Rv. Provide a source. I don't see any stated "requirements" and if you suggest those, I'll oppose them fiercely; you are saying there ARE NO requirements, and yet you insist despite that to claim that my perfectly valid source is inadequate.

And if there ARE REQUIREMENTS, then you still cannot object to my source, as they are not spelled out (although I thought they were back when the page was new), and would have to be applied RETROACTIVELY.

The Osments are staying. I don't have 24 hour acces to the Internet, but I will soon when I buy myself a computer this year. If you wish to engage in an rv war, so be it...

Pro-Test

Hi Grace Note. I'd respectfully ask you that you read discussions fully in future before levelling criticism of others. I can take valid criticism and am willing to admit my mistakes. However, your criticism results from a cursory glance at a source before dismissing it as a blog (when the information i took from it is clearly not from a blog as the rest of the editors took the time to understand). Then your next offer was a few days later, further criticism on - i can only assume - the same issue, when the debate had moved on to other matters, suggesting to me you never bothered to read that thread fully either (or else failed to understand it). If there are other reasons for your puzzling comments then i apologise for this assumption, but i'd appreciate an explanation. Rockpocket 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Still not read it then? You are talking about The Guardian, "drop out" and Social Affairs Unit in your criticism. I was talking about the Livejournal source that SlimVirgin (who, you might have noticed, is not me) added to the article. Different sources, different people. So if you wish to patronise me, please make sure you understand what i'm talking about before you do so. Rockpocket 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason i thought it was personal, Grace, is because you restated your principle under a comment from me in a section that was not dealing with what you were referring to. If you had posted the principle further up, under the previous section, it would have been clear. It had been put to bed up there, and it was you reigniting a point i had already accepted that kicked it off again. As it was, it seemed to me that you were targeting me over another blog source that i had no part in citing. That "nonissue" you talk about was a direct response to something Marskell raised in a new section he or she created. Its all very well that you chose to ignore that, but seeing this "nonissue" was also about blogs, how am i supposed to know that you are not talking about the comment you posted directly under? I'm not psychic! I hope you can see, from my POV that seemed like a personal issue.

However, i appreciate now it was a misunderstanding on my part. I'm sorry for accusing you of a personal attack. As i said to Slim, i am taking a break, certainly from Pro-Test perhaps from Wikipedia, for a while anyway, as i get no pleasure out of conflict and i seem to be drawing a lot of it. I think that article is pretty complete for now anyway. Rockpocket 08:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Osments redux

How did I get involved in this? In any case, I actually think that's a pretty good source, IGN picked it up from an AP Wire story, no doubt. But whatever. JackO'Lantern 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Well, no question that I agree with you. I gave RMS a hard time about that TV Tome source because it is indeed, crap. And I've been battling all those people who seem to think the IMDB is reliable for anything anymore.

Sounds like I have the backing (however reluctant) of at least one other Wikipedian. Moreover, I have provied 2 sources for Emily and Haley Osment.

Plus I don't rely on IMDB for much; there are too many mistakes and omissions that they refuse to correct.

The Osments stay!! My 2 citations are perfectly valid. Where were you during the Eve Arden dispute?? Check out her citations. The alphabet doesn't begin with Osment and with Osment, so I suggest you get started on"A" and work your way down to "Z".

Cheers. Rms125a@hotmail.com 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Vulturell 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I can guess which comments were not civil. I don't much care, though. I am sick and tired of listening to people's would-be definition and abuse of the original research policy. And somehow these people always start with the list of Jews. Vulturell 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care why people start with the list of Jews, I care that they do. And that's where they usually seem to stop, too. Your definition of original research is unacceptable. Simply unacceptable. If we follow it, then every article that we don't copy-and-paste from somewhere is original research. Encyclopedia editors retain a certain freedom of judgment and common sense when editing. While our information must be verified in good sources, how we chose to use that information is not. I am not accepting that someone is only a "Swedish-American" if we read that "X is a Swedish-American", while "X was born to Swedish-American parents" doesn't work. It's not happening. This is not up for discussion. I am not wallowing in this kind of stupidity and I am not talking about this any further. It's a waste of my time. Vulturell 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we restate what others say. We do not have to use the exact words others use (otherwise it is, indeed, copy-vio). Human logic says that if someone is mentioned as having a Swedish father, then your perversion of original search policy is not going to stop me from calling them half-Swedish. Vulturell 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will call them half Swedish if I find a source that says they have a Swedish parent. Simple as that. Like math. If it's the specific choice of words that you're questioning, then I don't usually call people "half-something". What is usually put down, like in the lists, is "Swedish father" or "Jewish father". Check the lists as they are now, that's what it says. When Arniep added Tom Baker last week, he put down "Tom Baker (Jewish father)". if this was correct (I doubt it is), then that's the format it would have been in. Is this acceptable to you? Vulturell 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then you'd better start removing them from other pages, too. No way I'd let you do it to this page and only this page. Please start with List of Irish-Americans. There's a real unholy mess going on over there. Vulturell 06:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Haley Joel Osment

I checked out IGN and it looks like a legitimate website. They do celebrity interviews, write articles, etc. They aren't just a junk website. Robert may well have a POV, but it doesn't mean that if he's right, we can't acknowledge that. Obviously Haley Joel Osment is only 17, so if he was "raised a Catholic" it's not some ancient detail in his past. I think you are being too hard on this list (although entries should be sourced), and too picky on wording issues. JackO'Lantern 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would I get behind what you're saying? You seem to be saying that if someone was described as "being born to Swedish-American parents", I can't put them on a list of Swedish Americans. That makes no sense. Something making no sense means I don't follow it. Probably 90% of those Irish-American people have not explicitly been described as "X is an Irish-American". Some may have even been described as "being of full Irish ancestry", "being of Irish descent" on both sides. But that isn't good enough for you, is it? Some are just listed based on surname from what I can tell. I'm restoring David Milasomething (can't remember his last name). I have a guardian reference that talks about his father being Jewish. I will list as him as David M (Jewish father). Which is factually accurate and not POV. (I think his mother is probably Jewish, too, but I couldn't find it). Vulturell 07:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I do agree that these lists need to be cited, because many, especially that Irish one, are incorrect or misleading. But being very specific on words is not helping anyone, and it's not what Original Research means. You know, I know, everyone with a pickle for a brain knows that if someone is described as having two Swedish parents, they are a Swedish American. Yes, we can consult the article Swedish American. We don't live in a world where we're stuck on just one defition or one word description. If you agree on this very simple and obvious guideline then I am sure we can help each other source all these lists and make them accurate. Vulturell 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily correct about Swedish-Americans. There's no reason to remove factual information just because it's presented with wording that you don't like (i.e. Swedish parents = Swedish-American). Vulturell 07:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know what you told me. But I want action now. Simulataneous removals. Two from British Jews, two from Italians, two from Irish. You pick the two in any of the above. But that is how it's going to be done, otherwise no fair. Vulturell 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No. No. And no. This is ridiculous. The List of British Jews is sourced. Those other ones aren't. I already don't like the result. Work on all three pages that I mentioned, or not at all. It's not fair otherwise, especially, since as I told you, one is more likely to be described as "Jewish" than "Irish" (mostly because of the religious conotation). Vulturell 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments from User_talk_MSK

I don't understand why you removed comments from MSK's talkpage. I have reverted your removal. --Improv 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oops! You're right. --Improv 05:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert myself?

Why would I want to do that? In any case, screw it. I'm moving the page to a different title. The one me and SlimVirgin agreed to back in December. I hope not to see you bother any more lists of Jews before you take care of at least the blimey ol' mess on the Irish page/ Vulturell 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. By the way, I'm surprised that you took the line "a member of the Jewish inteligentia" as directly saying he was Jewish - but I guess I have to be thankful for small favors.... Vulturell 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I call it as it is. In any case, the big question is, are you pleased with the move? Does the page no longer violate your idea of what Original Research it? Vulturell 06:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)