User talk:Larklight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Minor Babbeling

hello! Larklight 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow...u started mine off an yours is still worse...Ha! Dragon of Xi Liang

[edit] Deleting Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles

The category, Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, in which you are listed, is being considered for deletion. You may share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. --DieWeibeRose 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Daftest link ever"

Guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.148.215 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Arthur Birling

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mr. Arthur Birling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Mr. Arthur Birling. andy 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkerton National Detective Agency

Hi Larklight - I reverted your insertion on the PNDA page. I took it out primarily because it interrupted the flow of the sentence making it hard to understand. However, it also wasn't sourced, and is likely to generate unnecessary lengthy back-and-forth. Since the history is included pretty well on the full Homestead Strike page, where the various assertions of guilt & responsibility can be better and more accurately detailed, I think the shorter summary style on the PNDA page is appropriate. If you think otherwise, though, let's talk about it on the Talk:Pinkerton National Detective Agency page. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Road

I remvoed your recent addition to Road "There is disagreement as to whether markets would be able to construct roads without Government intervention." It is unreferenced and does not represent a balanced point of view. If you have questions or comments please leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the response to your question and address the topic before reverting edits. Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Response at my talk page Jeepday (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Children In Need, without good reason. This removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Paul210 (talk)23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was relivant at all. Discuss at article talk page? I'm not that attacted to the edit. Larklight (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Children In Need Controversy section has been reinstated. This story about Wogan's fee provoked much discussion in the press and a referenced source was provided for this. Paul210 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky

Hi. I reverted some of your most recent edits to this article, but the earlier ones - which seemed reasonable - I left. Please do me a favour, before adding more material from newcriterion and Metzl, both of which are highly problematic sources, read this short article by Chomsky (picked more or less at random) and tell me what is so problematic to you about what he has to say. It's far better to read the work of someone you intend to target than to read his or her critics - who may have their own axes to grind. Pinkville (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all of Larklight's changes. This user has personal issues with Noam Chomsky, who (s)he keeps calling "Chompsky". (diff) It's not acceptable behaviour. smb (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic calculation argument

I hope you don't get upset by my reversions on Economic calculation argument - we've had to fight an ongoing war to stop the page being turned into a debating zone rather than an ecncyclopaedia article. Most of the points you covered are already icnluded in the article. teh main person who has worked on that article with me is User:Ultramarine who I believe is of similar political/economic persuasions to yourself, and I believe the article is largely balanced at the minute. I'm keen for it to stay that way (especially compared to the state it once got in). I'm alweays willing to hear constructive arguments towards it, all i ask is that both sides resist the urge to stick a rebuttal after each point. Cheers --Red Deathy (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Your comments on my talk page are ludicrous. You reverted my edit on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act page, then added a comment on my page criticizing me for "blanking of unsoruced matereal (sic) without instead requesting citations.". Maybe you can explain why you reverted the edit without adding the 'citations requested' tag yourself.

In any case, I'm well aware that you and the Wikipedia coterie of Libertarian-style economics acolytes are attempting to prevent me and others from undoing the blatant propaganda you've spammed in the economics articles. Why you think you'll succeed is beyond me. J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utility monster

Hey, sorry about not giving a reason for the change. Especially since our interpretations differ fundamentally. I actually took that spin verbatim from a book. I'll get back to you in a bit with the specifics, so we can come to a compromise :) LoveOfFate (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this out:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRsgtSBMh0YC

Page 258 is viewable. Top few lines. LoveOfFate (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Klein.

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." So it is 3RR. Hence:

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Regebro (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise it including reverting differrent matereal. And I had reverted myself earlyer. Larklight (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice try, but you are not an administrator

Do not leave threatening messages on my talk page -- especially ones that wrongly imply that you have some sort of administrative authority. Actually, it would be best if you not leave messages of any type on my talk page again. J.R. Hercules (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unemployment reference

Hello Larklight--Can you be more specific in your reference to the 2005 Budget report? I wasn't able to find the quote when I looked. Cretog8 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey--OK, since neither of us can find it, I'm going to pull it out. Maybe the paper you got it from had it wrong. Cretog8 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I might come back at it later. It's pretty POV, but so is everything else in that section, so I don't want to hit the supply side unfairly. If you can say the same thing via somebody else's words, it would be safe. Cretog8 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-welcome

Hello, Larklight! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

To keep the link convenient Larklight (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re User:J.R. Hercules , Opposition to trade unions and RfC

Hi, I am looking into this following the AIV report - and would ask you to link to the rfc. Please reply here, as I will be watching the page. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, do you mean [this]? If there's a special page for it, sorry, I don't know about it. (have never done this before) Larklight (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Er... yeah, there is a little bit more involved - see WP:Requests for comment. A RfC should be noted there so third parties know where the dispute is, and the RfC needs to have examples of the behaviour that requires comment. A good way to find out what happens is to look at a few examples listed on the sub-page (go to the disputed article and see how it developed in the history). I suggest you try to run the process again, once you are more familiar with process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start a request for comment, I'm requesting a block. If there is a special page to do with it, I never noticed it; the conclusion of the RfC is there on the page. Do you mean the RfC was handled incorrectly? Larklight (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The RfC was not properly concluded, so it appears that you and J.R. Hercules are still in a content dispute. It is unlikely that an AIV report will then succeed, unless the other party violates some other WP policy. If you have a proper RfC and it is decided that JR H should not only make mention of Hitler, but include other figures/political parties, and they persist in edit warring over the matter then an AIV report is likely to succeed. In short, you brought the block request to the right place - but there is not sufficient policy violation to enable a block to be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, lets do a RfC then. Thankyou, hadn't realised the RfC wasn't correct. Larklight (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, having read the RfC page, does this mean I simply have to wait for the 30 days on the RfC? Larklight (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Maximum of 30 days; if it is cut and dried and it is decided that a party is incorrect in what they are doing very quickly, then it can be ended sooner. The net result may not be a block, because the disputing parties may find that the dispute is over. This is the way things are supposed to be done, as blocking is always a measure of last resort and resolution by discussion is the preferred method. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M.A.D.

Hi--Could you explain your Mutual assured destruction changes? (Probably in the talk page rather than here.) I'm inclined to object, but might as well talk before reverting. Cretog8 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)