Jump to content

User talk:Footwarrior/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Footwarrior, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently working on NWS refuges in Colorado. Footwarrior (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up

Just wanted to say thanks for the great "birds of.." lists. Cheers and keep up the great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected areas in Colorado

Created a stub for Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. All NWRs in Colorado now have an article with a protected area infobox. Created stub articles for wilderness areas in Colorado where needed. These still need a lot of work, but at least the redlinks are gone. Now working on adding protected area infoboxes to Colorado State Parks. Footwarrior (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Colorado State Parks all have infoboxes. Doing some work at improving the articles.Footwarrior (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

National Natural Landmarks.

Working on the List of National Natural Landmarks, updating lists for Colorado and other states. Footwarrior (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Was just coming her to say thanks for updating many of them. dm (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. Researching the sites on this list makes me want to go visit them. Might be the only way to get photos for some. Footwarrior (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW: NNL's are not necessarily "protected". There's a lot of discussion of this in various projects. dm (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

State mammal lists

Created List of mammals of Colorado, might do a few more states if I can find good sources. Footwarrior (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Should an image like the one on the left with an imbedded copyright notice ever be on WikiPedia? Or should we simply assume it's a copyright violation and ask for it to be removed?

Hi there! Thanks for catching this. Watermarks should not be placed on the image except in extremely rare cases (specifically, historical pieces where the watermark/proofing is considered a "part" of the the art itself). A tag has been placed on the image in question indicating that it has that watermark; typically this would fall under the category of potential copyright infringements, but the uploader has stated that he/she is the copyright holder, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. So, hopefully the watermark will be fixed soon. However, if you're going to keep watching it and you notice a few weeks have gone by and it still hasn't been addressed, you might consider bringing it up at Files For Deletion to take care of it. If it becomes evident that it is a copyright infringement, however, please edit it and add {{db-copyvio}} to get it quickly removed under the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks for catching this, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally no, they're discouraged at commons Commons:EXIF#Purpose for using EXIF at Commons. The uploader (User:Tsuru8) claims to be the photographer, and I'm making a bit of a good faith assumption and believing them and not going off to have it deleted/reviewed. But you're correct in that the actual copyright watermark shouldn't be on there. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Footwarrior (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodents

Central Texas Pocket Gopher and Llano Pocket Gopher are the same species. Should be only one article in WikiPedia.Footwarrior (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Made Llano Pocket Gopher a redirect and removed Llano from template. Footwarrior (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Western Jumping Mouse and Pacific Jumping Mouse might have the binomial names swapped.Footwarrior (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Is St. Lawrence Island Collared Lemming a separate species? Footwarrior (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever considered;

Applying to be a rollbacker? You seem to combat vandalism and it might be helpful. See WP:RBK or skip straight to the application

I may consider it, but the tools I have right now seem to be enough for the job. Footwarrior (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up some repellent vandalism in the Lincoln assassination article. You appear to be good at this. Bigturtle (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edit

why did you revert my edit I dont see any vandalism in it It was with reason and links to proof WikiBahal (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your change to 300 (film) appeared to violate a the policy Wikipedia:NPOV, and didn't have a footnote to document then clam as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. The editor's note at the beginning of the article section you changed also requests that changes to the section be discussed on the talk page. I would suggest opening a discussion on the talk page and see if you can get agreement on the wording and where in the article your statement belongs. I should have been more precise in pointing out the problem with your change. Thanks Footwarrior (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The welcome template I used on your talk page is worded a bit too strong. I replaced it with a more useful version. Footwarrior (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I was looking at the contribution history and only noticed it now. Sincerely,--PinkBull 03:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Andre DeJuan

I did not create the page, but I did delete the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redeyewatchman (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I hadn't used that specific warning template before, didn't know it said you created the page. Regardless of that, a speedy deletion template should never be removed without a check in comment or discussion on the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Oh ok, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redeyewatchman (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of information due to Vandalism on Brea Police Department site

The information added to the site is not vandalsim, however you may find it controversial it is factual.

Thus, do not delete it as such and mark it as vandalsim- if you can disprove, which you cannot because the information is based on facts and referenced herein you have no basis to mark it vandalsim and delete it.

Do some research and you will find it to be fact- follow the information and you will find it to be factual as well it may interest you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Brea PD Information (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears the content posted on the Brea PD site has set some members in motion- I am asking to collaborate with you then on the content and for your help as I am not fully familiar woth WIKI policy. The posting was not intended to be Vandalism- In regard to the shooting the official press release was used that the Brea Police Department put out. Perhaps you could suggest a rewording so that the information can be put out there and presented in accordance with WIKI- please help it would be much appreciated as I am asking for your expertise in this matter- I assure you that this is not vandalism or unfactual information, please see article from the Orange County Register and the Press Release from the BPD. Thank you for your consideration Footwarrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faumf (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the links provided in the warnings on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, information in articles must be backed up with references and written with a neutral point of view. Footwarrior (talk)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome and the useful links! LegacyDave (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lang Lang Information

I wasn't "vandalizing" Lang Lang's page nor was I adding incorrect information. Lang Lang has infact spoke about it in interviews and in his biography. The information is factual and just 30 seconds of research would have told you that. One of several sources is Lang Lang's official website - http://www.langlang.com/us/press/around-world-88-keys KaneRyles (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit, I reverted an edit by anon user 81.101.216.94 who had been removing info boxes without explanation and was rather clearly a vandal. The edit added statements that could be interpreted as defamatory right in front of a reference. I checked the reference and found that the information added was not in the reference. Since according to WP:BLP, information that may be defamatory must be verifiable, I reverted that edit. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kercher

As you have made a claim on the talkpage that is not backed up by anything I have written, you may want to refactor your comment. I have explained why on the page (again). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I recently wrote an article on Professional Petroleum Data Management Asssociation, but I cant find it when I search. How do I add my topic to search? I would like if people can search for the article on the acronym too, PPDM. Thanks for the wonderful welcome!! DHoodPPDM (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms are normally handled by redirects. Create a new article for PPDM and make it redirect to Professional Petroleum Data Management Association. See WP:redirect for details. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

usa states

just see u visited 49 of 50 states, which states u left behind ;=)? is it washington dc?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only state I haven't been to is Alaska. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Much

Thanks for the welcome. I know I some times fail to sign but thought I was okay with the edit summaries. I'll do better. I too found some of the actions of the administrator on the MoMK rather odd. More than anything he seems very resistant to changes and that is the whole point of Wikipedia I would have thought--the article should get better over time. In any event your true neutrality with regard to the MoMK article is very much appreciated.

I note your interest in birds and in wild places. We live in Michigan and those are interests we share. I am a good enough birder to realize I am no expert but one of our son's is.

Cheers,PietroLegno (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting to sign on comment pages is a rather common mistake by new editors. Forgot a few myself in my early days on Wikipedia. As for the MoMK article, it's slowly getting better, but there are still plenty of problems. The defense case was poorly covered by the press, so it's almost impossible to find a good source that documents the refutation of some of the witness testimony and other evidence. Overreaction by some of the article editors to anyone new trying to edit or even discuss the article doesn't help much. This is the first time I have seen an administrator threaten to block a user for violating WP:SYN for a talk page discussion. Or for violating WP:BLP for talk page comments backed up by a reliable source.
I have read complaints on other sites where this crime is being discussed about the editing of this article and the treatment of any new editor that attempts to edit this article. Many of those complaints are justified. It's even happened to me. Statements I have added to the article with a proper citation have been removed with the false claim that the source didn't support the statement.
On the subject of birds, could you or your son you look over List of birds of Michigan? I have done several of these lists and would appreciate someone else double checking my work. --Footwarrior (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that I didn't "threaten to block Phanuel for violating WP:SYN", I asked him to consider whether he was going to start to stick to our policies here or not - SYN is one of many. Phanuel has a very long history of ignoring Wikipedia policy and has been blocked a number of times for it; there are only so many times an editor can do this without being blocked. And that's twice you've put words into my mouth today (I see that you haven't refactored your mistaken talkpage comment from earlier as requested, and have repeated your error - that Phanuel's claims of Guede's drug-dealing paying for his rent was backed up by reliable sources when it wasn't - in the above posting). You may wish to reconsider those postings. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you threatened to block him for WP:BLP with these exact words on his talk page. "Please take this as a final warning - if you violate WP:BLP on the talk page again I will block you. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)", [1].
Yes, because he had violated BLP by claiming that Guede's flat was paid for by his drug-dealing activities, with no sources whatsoever! I am finding it difficult to comprehend how you are finding this hard to understand, unless you are doing it deliberately. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
We disagree on this and I have already given my reasons. Perhaps it's time you took the advice of your friend MLauba. Drop the argument and chill out. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not a question of "chilling out". I am a neutral administrator on that talkpage and so I need to keep the page within Wikipedia policies. Whether you disagree or not, Phanuel's posting was a BLP violation, and you would be better served by refraining from claiming that it was not. Having said that, Phanuel has not repeated the claim, so hopefully we can move on from here. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to remind you of this Wikipedia policy? "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability --Footwarrior (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely free to question or criticise, that is obvious (and welcome); what you're not allowed to do is claim things that aren't true (i.e. "This is the first time I have seen an administrator threaten to block a user for ... talk page comments backed up by a reliable source" posted above, and similar at the Kercher talk page). I hope this is clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Missed that earlier on... For clarity's sake: to my knowledge, Black Kite and myself have only ever intersected on MoMK-related matters, I believe "colleague" is an accurate description of our mutual relationship while "friend" carries notions of long-standing collaboration which, to the best of my knowledge, we never had the opportunity to develop so far. MLauba (Talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mignini

Read the source more carefully. It doesn't say that he investigated the Monster of Florence case. There are a couple of sources that do say this, but they are wrong. The case he investigated was an unrelated murder, but his investigation was related in that some of the people involved in the MoF case (although not the suspects) also appeared to be involved in his case. I think this is too much detail for the article, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this and read the source. It does not say that Mignini was investigating any particular case. It mentions the MoF case, but that is all. Please also don't edit war against me and then accuse me of edit warring. Just read the source and quote me the bit where it says what case Mignini was investigating, because it doesn't. --FormerIP (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
To make it easier for you, it says "tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings". This is a true statement, but note that is is the "police officers and journalists" who were investigating the case, not Mignini. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to the article talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have anything further to say though. The statement that was in the article isn't in the source, that's it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings Footwarrior: Several weeks ago you were kind enough to post a welcoming note on my new talk page. This is my first opportunity to interact with Wikipedia and I'm looking for some help and advice on a new article. It can be found here: Wisconsin Institutes for Discover

It has been sitting there waiting for someone to remove the new user's template, correct the title to Morgridge Institute for Research and move it to the publicly accessible Wiki space. It's not clear to me if this has not yet occurred because: a) it needs significant re-formatting and no one has gotten to it yet; or b)I inadvertently placed it in an incorrect location? Is this something you might be able to help with, or would you advise me to turn to the official Wiki help resources?

Thank you very much for any assistance, edits or feedback you might provide. Also, your state bird lists are quite impressive. We're from Wisconsin and particularly love the water and shore birds. (Jennifer Sereno 19:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) -- Jennifer Sereno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Sereno (talk • contribs)

The problem is that the page Morgridge Institute for Research already exists as a redirect to Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery. Considering the close relationship between the two institutions, I would suggest incorporating your article into the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery page and deleting the MorgridgeInstituteforResearch article after the move. --Footwarrior (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thanks so much for explaining this. Is there any way to change that re-direct and establish separate pages? On a go-forward basis, the challenge is going to be that actual research discoveries will be made by scientists at the private Morgridge Institute for Research and the public Wisconsin Institute(singular) for Discovery. The Wisconsin Institutes(plural) for Discovery is basically the building that both of the actual research institutions occupy and it was named in such a way that it is already leading to public confusion. Just curious about what the options might be to provide clarification. Again, thanks for your very kind feedback. Jennifer Sereno 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Sereno (talk • contribs)
It's rather simple to edit a redirect page and remove the redirect instruction. Go to Morgridge Institute for Research and when it redirects to Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery you will see a note that you were redirected. Clicking on that note will take you back to the page with the redirect instruction. Before doing so, you should start a discussion on the talk page for [[Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery] and get agreement from editors involved with that page. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Will give that a try and see what they say. Appreciate your thoughtful responses! Jennifer Sereno 21:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Sereno (talk • contribs)

t:Kercher

I think your definitions of "assuming good faith", "personal attacks", "outing" and "vandalism" are somewhat askew. Either that or mine are.  pablo 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments against the other editor were of a personal nature. Your linking of his off Wiki posts also looked like an attack on his person instead of a civil discussion about editing the article. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; There was nothing personal. I have no way of knowing it the screen name used here is the same person that posts on Youtube, Facebook, Amazon, every Seattle newspaper, every other newspaper, anywhere with a forum, blogs, blah blah etc etc etc. The posts are similar, but copy and paste will do that. Is it one person? Is it a team? Don't know, don't care. But that particular screen name creates a good 90% of the internet buzz aka "controversy" especially where Knox is concerned. That is a fact.  pablo 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Knowing that the screen name could be anyone, why did you feel obliged to post the links? If your interest was in scoring a cheap debating point rather that having a civil discussion about the article, it was outside the spirt of Wikipedia. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My interest was in pointing out the fake controversy. What was your interest in your accusations of vandalism, outing etcetera?  pablo 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
So far, at least six books and two documentaries have been created covering this murder. There are multiple web forums with ongoing discussion of the case. The controversy over this case is not fake and it wasn't all generated by one person as you seem to be claiming. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not all fake. Never thought it was, and if that's the impression you got then that is the impression you got. The murder has attracted commentary; the significant elements of which are documented in the article. The insignificant elements are copypaste spam all across the web.
I will have to leave you to it now though, be careful with that Twinkle now won't you?  pablo 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit isn't acceptable. Please note that using Twinkle to rollback edits that are not vandalism may result in you losing your ability to use it. If you believe a talkpage posting violates any of our policies, you should remove it with a relevant edit summary, and inform the user who posted it of your action with your reasoning. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Pablo X was attacking the person, not the argument. He also posted links to this users posts on other forums, which is a violation of civility if nothing else. I had believed it was a violation of the Wikipedia police on outing editors, but looking over the policy it appears I was wrong on that point. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am not saying that you didn't remove it in good faith (even though you were wrong), it was just a reminder not to use Twinkle vandalism rollback to do it, as that tends to get looked on rather dimly. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudha_Pennathur I have been reviewing potential flags for my article. One that concerns me is the overlinking in external links... all have are for a reference... but in reviewing I cannot find a method of linking these as inline references. Could you point me to the correct reference page or provide a quick example... Thanks

CharlesMs (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners would be a good place to start. Let me know if you need more help. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Think I've got it... Page text.[1] ... appreciate the help. Oddly I hand code Html5 but have found a bit of learning curve to Wiki... odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMs (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a bit of a learning curve for Wikipedia. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as advertising?

Footwarrior ... can you look at this page and see if you agree with the tag as advertising? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudha_Pennathur I thought I bowled this down the middle... Want a second opinion before I appeal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMs (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer may have found the tone of the article a bit too glowing for an encyclopedia article. I would suggest asking the reviewer directly for comments on what should be changed. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

MoMK talkpage

Do I have your consent to move the discussion in question to my talkpage as I proposed at MoMK's talkpage?TMCk (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately what I see is that you a) didn't respond here in regards to my inquire what I find strange. b) Didn't respond at MoMK's talkpage either. c) Responded at ANI with claiming your question was ignored, far away from the section/paragraph where this was already discussed and and therefore should've been kept together (no comment on that).
May I ask why or is it that you don't talk to me for whatever strange reason? I'm really in the blue here.TMCk (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
My question on why precisely user Gregmm was blocked has still not been answered. As for my more general comment about heavy handed moderation, I am a bit afraid to discuss it further. When I questioned the warnings given over WP:BLP, Black Kite took offense and demanded I revise my comments. Something that has never happened to me in over a year on Wikipedia. It's nothing personal against you. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for clarifying my worries. Though Other points are still open. I can't and "force you" to give an answer of course and BTW, respected longstanding editors like you (and me) get much more of a slack when posting at the edge of Wiki policy (even when given a warning or asked to re-factor some comment that one or some might see as offensive). So you shouldn't really worry about to much. Just my opinion. And you're an asset to the MoMK case which I (and I'm sure other established editors incl. admins think the same).TMCk (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The block thing

To reply to your question, no, I can't, I wasn't privy to what led to it. As Black Kite has e-mailed in response to a similar request from the admin handling the unblock-l request, I'm going to assume a CU was involved. MLauba (Talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

re t:Kercher

I have moved the discussion between you and TMCk out to a new section. (It seemed to be about over anyway, and was interrupting the thread). Feel free to revert if you think this was unnecessary.  pablo 09:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was dead before it was moved but seems to have come back to life. Perhaps if I ask again, Black Kite will properly explain his block decision. --Footwarrior (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It certainly has revived thoroughly, hasn't it!  pablo 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
re the suggested change to the trial section, you may want to revisit. I have edited it to make it clear that I also think the sentence on Luminol should go. Sorry!  pablo 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB's case respond

Just a short note. Since Phanuel currently seems to be off-line I've placed a note at the top of his draft to prevent further transfers by mistake. Ones he finished his draft he can update that note and you/me or anyone else can move it to the intended venue. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw the text added to the ANI page by an administrator, then removed by someone else with a comment that I found somewhat unclear as to the reasons. If it had said PhanulB was still working on his response, I would have not have restored the text. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No sorry needed at all. You just did in good faith what another editor did before, also in good faith. Just wanted to let you know that after my edit to Phanuel's page it is now clear to everyone as to when he wants to have it moved. Keeps down the work load a bit.TMCk (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete my talk page

Please request a speedy deletion for the edit you made to my talk page. I do not want a talk page. Thank you. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your talk page. You are allowed to delete the content if you wish. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If I remove it it remains in the history. I want it redlinked and since you're the one who made the first edit you're the one who needs to request its deletion. A Radish for Boris (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You should be able to request deletion of your talk page, user page and any sandbox pages. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Preston

I'm not expressing an opinion, as a matter of fact he can't make a real judgement since he's admittedly just a journalist, wouldn't it be appropriate if we hilighted the fact that what he says isn't something coming from an expert but just a guy with no idea of how a different system works who just happened to spend 6 months somehwere and had a beef with migninin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domino89 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete templates

Please accept my most sincere apoligy, i am new to editing on wikipedia and didnt fully understand the speedy deletion process. i hope i will be able to regain the trust and respect of the wikipedia community. Mynamismik (talk)

Apology accepted, processes on Wikipedia take a bit to get used to. But if you read the templates carefully before proceeding, you are less likely to make a mistake. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Wilkes

Did you mean a different account from Charlie wilkes, which has clearly not "made valuable contributions to Wikipedia"? In fact, they've never edited an article. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlie has close connections to the accused, and in keeping with Wikipedia policy he didn't edit the article directly. He did however make suggestions and help us find reliable sources. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame he didn't keep it up after mid-September, then, like the other 12 SPA accounts (oddly enough). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Footwarrior/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado

flagWikiProject
Colorado
flag United States
notice board

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. Several users have asked us to reactivate WikiProject Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. Many articles about Colorado need to be updated and many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs some new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you would like to remain an active member of WikiProject Colorado, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. If you cannot help right now, you can go to inactive status and then reactivate your status later. Thanks for any help you can provide. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Celebration

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice meeting you. Just a ping so you have a link to my talk page. If you ever have any questions of any kind, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It was a fun get together. Even learned a few things from your presentation. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too! Nice to meet you both. Footwarrior: let me know if you want to collaborate on any Colorado protected area articles, and I'll do the same. Awickert (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the redlinks on List of National Natural Landmarks in Colorado. If nothing else, it's an excuse to visit some interesting places and take photos.  :) --Footwarrior (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. It's on the eternal list, but since it could be used as an excuse to go exploring, I am fairly positive about actually making some progress. Awickert (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Colorado State Forest

If I am not mistaken, State Forest State Park is located within Colorado State Forest but is not co-extensive with the forest. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, apparently you are correct. State Forest State Park has apparently replaced the name Colorado State Forest. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I only figured that out today when I noticed the acreage for State Forest State Park was the same as Colorado State Forest.  ;) --Footwarrior (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, roadfan!

Hello, Footwarrior, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects — WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States) — and contribute. For those in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


WP:USRD, the US Roads WikiProject is currently working on a stub reduction drive this year called, "2011: A De-Stubbing Odyssey". You can follow the progress to our goal, 2011 stubs expanded, merged or otherwise eliminated in 2011. If you have any questions, feel free to ask us on the project talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been busy creating articles to get rid of redlinks for state highways in Colorado. Hopefully, they will not all be stubs so you can move forward with your de-stubbing project. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me echo Imzadi's welcome - I would like to thank you for de-redlinking Colorado, but when you are creating the pages, can you put a bit more into the route description. The one or two sentence articles are right on the border between stub and start class. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I plan to do a second pass on these articles after digging up some other sources to flesh out the route descriptions. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sand Creek

I created a stub article for Sand Creek (Colorado) that flows into the South Platte river near Commerce City. Also one for Big Sandy Creek (Colorado), the actual site of the Sand Creek Massacre. There is another Sand Creek in Larimer County that flows into Wyoming. It's the location of the Sand Creek National Natural Landmark. That probably should be called Sand Creek (Wyoming). Greeley and Colorado Springs also seem to have Sand Creeks, but they probably don't rate a Wikipedia article. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nominated you for Autopatrolled

Hi Footwarrior. I've just patrolled all the pages you created in January 2011. Thanks for all the great contributions to articles about Colorado roads and so on.

I've nominated you for autopatrolled privileges, as I trust that all the pages you've made pass the requirements of new page patrol and are likely to continue doing so. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.

Keep up the great work! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to keep out of trouble. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unaweep Canyon

Hi Footwarrior; please consider reassessing the "importance" level of the Unaweep Canyon page, owing to its status as a globally unique canyon, and also the possible paleoclimatic significance. (DustRx (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

I changed the importance for Project Colorado to Mid and added the page to project Geology. BTW - Can you find a reference to back up the "globally unique" claim? With a proper citation for that claim, Unaweep Canyon would be a good candidate for Wikipedia:Did you know. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder

Hi, I was thinking about Hypocrits remarks about the length of the section and I went about trying to find ways to shorten it. Here is what I came up with. I thought you might want to take a look. It is just over 100 words shorter. It still needs a little work. I added a time for Kerchers last meal, but did not add a cite.

On the evening of November 1, 2007 the flat where Kercher lived is empty. One Italian flatmate is at her boyfriends, and the other is out of town. So are the four young men who share the downstairs flat.[21]:41 Knox expects to work at Le Chic pub that night. At 8:18 pm her boss, Patrick Lumumba, sends a message to her phone that business is slow and she isn’t needed. Knox texts in reply "Okay see you later good evening!" in Italian. Knox answers the door at Sollecito's flat when a friend stops by at 8:45 pm, .[21]:47-48

Kercher spends her last evening with three English friends, at one of their homes. They share a meal starting about 6pm or 6:30pm, and they watch a movie. Kercher says she is tired and wants an early night. One of her friends walks her almost home, parting company at about 8:55 pm.[21]:48-49 The last 500 yards (460 m) Kercher walks alone.[22]

A neighbor later says she hears a "chilling scream" that night, followed by running footsteps.[23]

At 12:07 pm the next day Knox calls one of Kercher's two mobile phones. At 12:08 Knox calls Filomena Romanelli, an Italian flatmate and tells her she has returned to the flat, found the front door open and blood in a bathroom. Knox now calls Kercher's second mobile phone and then tries the first phone again. Romanelli calls Knox three times. The final call is at 12:34pm. In this call Knox tells Romanelli the window in her room is broken and the room is a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox calls her mother in Seattle who tells her to call the police, that is, the Carabinieri. Sollecito makes two calls, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm, to the Italian emergency number 112. He reports a break in, blood, a locked door and a missing roommate. During this call Knox can be heard giving the address for the flat.[21]:57-61 Before the arrival of the Carabinieri, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police come. They are investigating the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones in a nearby garden.[25]

Knox shows the two officers the room with the broken window, the locked door and the blood in the bathroom. Romanelli arrives with three friends. The Carabinieri have yet to arrive, and the Post and Communications Police are reluctant to break down Meredith’s locked door. Around 1:15 pm one of the friends kicks it open. Kercher is found lying on the floor covered by a duvet soaked in blood. The officers order everyone out.[21]:62-65Moodstream (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kercher edit [2]

The source only backed up a claim that was already removed way earlier by another editor. The remaining part that you removed was simply not sourced from the beginning. Cheers.TMCk (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Signing Talk Pages

Hi - Thanks for your welcome. I have a massive issue, because although I sign with the 4 ~s it still gives me an unsigned wikibot signature. Any solutions please let me know :D on my own page preferably. 04:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Giselle 04:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TILDE. It might be something simple like not leaving a space between your comments and the sig. --Footwarrior (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: Use primary sources for descriptive text

31-March-2011: You probably already realize this, but this is a reminder (also posted at Talk:MoMK) to feel free to use primary sources, when needed (please don't remove their footnotes everywhere!), in accordance with Wikipedia policy, see:
     • Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

which states, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." (quoted from WP:NOR)

There has been a lot of prior talk, in demanding secondary sources for everything, but that is not supported by long-term Wikipedia policy, which instead allows simple, descriptive text from primary sources. For example, primary sources can be used to state:

  • "Suspect was booked at 1:45:20 am and called attorney at 6:05:07 am on 30 December 1987."
  • "The head pathologist testified that cause of death was blunt force trauma, with time of death between 8-9 am 2 May 1996."
  • "The fingerprint expert testified 55 fingerprints were found and there was no evidence of a wipe-down of the surrounding smudges."

There is no need to get a secondary source to confirm a time-of-day entry, precise to the second, as long as the primary source is identified of that simple descriptive fact. The use of a secondary source is only needed for conclusions derived from the descriptive data in other sources, rather than being required for the common-sense facts of a case. There is no need to get a secondary source to list the charges filed against a suspect. If there is a question of facts being trivial, then merely cite a secondary source which states the general facts were discussed at trial (or such). I apologize I did not make this clear earlier. -Wikid77 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Hi, I'm a newbie and you welcomed me back in April. I plan to do some editing from time to time, mainly on psychology-related articles. I have a question for you just to make sure I don't get off on the wrong foot--I see that the article on "Narcissism" has a lot of good stuff in it but could also be improved. I know that in general I should preserve others' previous work and not make edits without a good reason. I also see some references in the article that seem randomly chosen, or confusing--e.g. a reference to the Spanish usage of the term, but no other national variations. And a Web-based "expert" seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention toward the article's end. I think if I name my proposed edits in the talk page and wait a couple of weeks for objections (if any) to surface, then it'd be OK for me to delete referenced statements that seem out of place in the article. Do you agree--is that a good way to proceed? thanks! for any pointers you have to share.Grebe39 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What?

This isn't helpful. Your comments at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher are amiss. I'm the one who raised BLP concerns and I'm not an admin. I have never tried RfA (in 4 1/2 years). I'm an outsider looking in and seeing the obvious. I started to post at that talk page but decided to post here and give you a chance to amend your statement there lest I have misunderstood your comments. I have taken time at Cody's talk page to try to keep things from running afoul. I'm neutral and not a member of either of the formed camps. Your current comments read as conspiratorial under the thread I started...they would not reflect as you intended.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you took offense, it wasn't aimed specifically at you. It's just my long term frustration at a pervasive climate in the MoMK article. Just about any change favorable to the defendants ends up getting Wikilawyered. It's a BLP, it's not a reliable source, the Italian translation is wrong, we need two sources for this claim. It gets shopped around to various noticeboards, looking for a way to keep it out of the article. Even a simple diagram of the flat gets turned into a major case. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm empathetic to your frustrations. I see Cody getting frustrated as well as other newcomers also...that is why I want the experienced Wikipedians to not take chipshots at each other. My effectiveness will be diluted if disparaging remarks cast doubts on the thread. I tried to keep a compromised version of Cody's edits in the article. Please don't goad any newcomers into thinking there's any kind of conspiracy. They don't understand the Wiki culture/policies/modus operandi. I'm worried that your comments may goad him on...his discussion is welcome but he almost got himself into a blocking situation today and that would be a pity because I think he has so much to add. Some of us are late to the party but hoping to lend a hand towards stability. I don't see a problem with Dempsey or Fisher...I have no idea about Oggi as I don't speak Italian (strikes me as a very cool language, however). I want both sides to stop firing at one another and even though I have launched but a few minor points...everyone keeps shooting at them. Please retract your comment for now. I hope that we may find levity and balance. I was hoping to enter as a non-admin seeking to referee a peace so that we may build a well-thought balanced article. Your cooperation would be very welcome. Coincidentally, I noticed that you welcome others to Wikipedia as I do so (very appreciated) I think you may understand...I need your help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed my comment in the interest of calming down the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you wholeheartedly. It may take a while to untangle all the knots but we may begin to make headway by making good examples of ourselves to newcomers.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I think the main reason is the same I see in many of the fringe articles I read - you tend to get new editors who are interested in that topic, have a strong POV, see something that supports their POV and immediately add it to the Wikipedia article. Familiar with writing in forums or blogs, they edit accordingly, producing something that violates just about as many policies as possible. Add in minimal use of the talk page - just revert, or try to run a discussion via edit summary and you've got a mess. The general tenor on this article sucks - accusations of censorship, cabals, POV, incompetence fly on the talk page. Gee, I wonder why people dig their heels in a bit. Yes. This article was a mess. Seriously - I think everyone knows it but when you see it brought up over and over and over, after a while, why should an editor try? They'll just get castigated and blamed. AGF? Pfft - what's that?
So let's look at today's debacle. It starts here - [3]. The original source is CNN's iReport, but that gets deleted in the next edit! Yes. That should be removed on the spot, as it was. That gets reverted. Still no source. An edit summary says it's being worked on, but BLP absolutely says get rid of it until you have the source done. Period. And we get an edit war over this. Then when there is a source, there are some problems with it. As the discussion goes on, more issues are found with the source.
Given the status of the case right now, most new material being added is from the defense. Much of the stuff that shouldn't have been in the article BJ (Before Jimbo) is gone. As a natural reaction to new editors and overreacting to a previously bad article, yes, you're going to see things challenged. Good. It should be done for everything. It really should be done on the talk page too, but that would get really, really ugly. There are lots of off-hand comments made by people that aren't pleasant. It's a contentious article though, and you WILL find tough editing.
The best way to handle it? Answer the concerns raised and go on. "Is this a RS for this?" "Yes, source is an RS because A, B and C, meeting the criteria in WP:RS". Objections to that, answer those if you can. If it can't be resolved, kick it to RSN and/or BLPN. Asking people to just ignore their concerns is, however, not helpful. Yes, some people will express concerns for material from one side. And? That's both sides here. It's called POV, and it absolutely exists. If the addition agrees with their POV, editors find it easier to agree with. If it's opposed, they are more inclined to find problems with it. Going against that is hard to do. Sometimes it takes someone challenging an edit to force an editor to take a hard look, even if they support it. And ultimately, that's a good thing. Wikipedia ends up with an article that has good information, solidly sourced. Not a slanted attack piece, sourced to blogs, advocacy sites and gossip rags. Ravensfire (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice you used the term "fringe article", when in fact this is a rather interesting murder case. Yes, it has been great tabloid fodder. Most of the early news articles used as sources for this article have screaming tabloid headlines. Most also include false and defamatory information about the defendants. Tales of finding a washing machine still running, clear video images of Amanda going to the cottage on the night of the murder, and Amanda calling Rudy when the body was discovered. Given the nature of the sources already used in the article, I find the attack on Oggi as an unreliable source to be rather odd.
BTW - I don't really support mentioning Nara's mental illness in the article. But would like to put her testimony in the trail section, next to the reports from the witnesses from the disabled car that was across the street from the cottage at the same time Nara claimed to have heard the scream. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Wilkes

I think you're reading too much into that. I'm not suggesting an absolute equivalence between the unblock supporters and Scientology, just the common application of Wikipedia policy in both cases. (And while this edit is certainly alone not enough to justify a block, neither is it in the best traditions of Wikipedia, IMO).

Anyhow, it looks at the current rate like this will be headed to arbitration at some point soon, and maybe all these things should be saved for that forum. All I do is front-line admin stuff (like and create articles ... I really don't want to get embroiled in any of this drama further, and if that means I should leave those unblock requests alone maybe I will). Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedia policy to warn users who step over the line, not to impose effectively permanent bans. Whatever happened to don't bite the newbies? --Footwarrior (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic

All Wikipedians are cordially invited to the Colorado celebration of the 2011 Great American Wiknic on June 25. We will meet Saturday afternoon from 3:00 to 5:00 at the D Note, 7519 Grandview Avenue in Arvada. Please e-mail Jacques Delaguerre at Special:EmailUser/Jaxdelaguerre if you plan to attend. Be there or be square!  Buaidh  18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for citation information

Thanks for the information on entering citations. It will be very useful.--StarryGrandma (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment!

Glad to see I'm appreciated -- WillEMacht (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For contributions to articles about the physical geography of Colorado.

Thank you so much for all your work. We really appreciate it.  Buaidh  21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Link text, additional text.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Footwarrior/Archive_1&oldid=1085631793"