User talk:Ave Caesar

If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there

Comments by unregistered editors or trolls may be removed without comment.

This talk page is not archived due to privacy reasons. See the talk history for your viewing pleasure.


User	Talk	Contribs	Email

Start a new talk topic.

Withdrawing AFD nominations

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Oliver Denny, please note that AFDs can only be withdrawn as long as there is nobody else wishing to delete the article. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I did not know that. My apologies - Did you reopen it or should I do that? --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reopened it. Based on what's there, the article probably would have been kept anyway so don't worry about it. You'll know for next time :) Stifle (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Denny / LA Four

If you check the edit history of L.A. Four Incident you will notice (other than you) that nobody has edited the page since last year. It might be a while before anyone speaks up over the fate of that article. I doubt anyone will object to the merging of LA Four with Reginald Denny... but we shall see. As far as I know, there is no time limit for merge requests. If you haven't already, I suggest reading over the Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages article for more info and how to handle the merge. If you would like to handle the merge, I would recommend only deleting information that is redundant, and moving the rest to the new page. That will provide a base to work from, and perhaps some tibits of info to search for... although the info is mostly unsourced, it is probably somewhat accurate. As for finding suitable citations and copyediting for the new article, I would be willing to help with that. Just let me know. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate the help. I'm not going to be online much in the next few days, but I think that we agree on the best course of action for the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've got nothing better to do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

But you did write it, as shown here on 5:09, 24 April 2008 -- Esemono (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done -- Esemono (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories - Kathleen Battle

I removed the category:people from Ohio (now twice) as we in the Ohio Wiki project are trying to clean up the parent category and use subcategories. Wiki suggested policy is not to use both the parent cat and the subcat for the same article. Regards!!! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did not notice there were two cats being used. Thanks. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Hi, why did you revert this? Explain reverts. Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you still haven't answered, and I don't have time to engage in a discussion that takes long. So I'm just going to repeat my edits one by one and then you can revert what you really mean to, I won't come back. Explanation for my edits (I'll copy it to the article talk, too):

1. "This use of a surname was a deliberate insult, since royalty do not normally use surnames." >> "This use of a surname was an anti-royalist statement ..." etc. Now, monarchy in France was abolished. He was not "royalty" any more. Hence, it was normal to refer to the boy by his name and surname, unless one didn't recognize the republic. In the same way, all the aristocrats, including many revolutionaries, had changed their names and their titles were not supposed to be used any longer. To say the opposite would be pro-royalist/pro-feudal POV.

2. Deletion of the last paragraph. - It depicts the same events that the next section depicts, so there is a duplication. It also depicts them from another, royalist POV, so it contradicts the next section. It describes cruelties that the next section disputes or refutes. It also includes rather wild and unusual claims such as the one that Simon led 8 year old Louis to prostitutes to contract venereal diseases!! So all in all, I think the article is better without it.

Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I know any IP arouses suspicions, whatever the edit summary, although it shouldn't be like this. It's just that I'm too lazy to log in each time. But I guess I'm going to have to change that, because incidents like this are getting too frequent and it's pretty distracting. Anyway - happy editing! --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva edit

Thanks for removing that. It appeared that someone had removed an entire lump of the article. I wanted to reinsert it. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People insert a lot of unusual stuff on this article. It can be a bit overwhelming sometimes. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth of Russia

Hi Ave Caesar! I'm not removing the titular elements of the infobox, I'm just removing the unnecessary imperial title which is placed in the field "Name" (and she surely wasn't named "Empress Elizabeth"). Her title is written below her name. See for example Victoria of the United Kingdom - it is not "Queen Victoria" but simply "Victoria" because the title is placed below her name. I didn't notice that you reverted my edit so I edited the article again, sorry. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only Russian monarchs have the title beside their names. See Philip II of Spain, Isabella of Armenia, Louis XIV of France, Maria II of Portugal, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, Victor Emmanuel II of Italy, Margaret II of Denmark, Gustaf V of Sweden, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I remove the unnecessary title? Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran royal family

that is true but all the other royal families eg greece romania etc who had there titles striped still have the titles put on here that is why i changed them as the iranian family is the same as them and if you take all titles away from these then you have to do it for all the other familiesAliaBuhler (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if i remove them like other have done in the past certain people change then back stating what i have said and using other wiki rules on here to keep it how it was AliaBuhler (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is the links they use [1] point 7 [2] point 7 AliaBuhler (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, good luck

I respect that you are responsibly enacting your civic duty like that. Since he does it in bursts with sometimes large gaps in between, it never broke my frustration threshold, and I didn't make an rfc. You are to be commended.--Asdfg12345 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Indef blocked user

Heya! You stated here that you suspected that user of being indef-blocked. If there's a possibility this guy is a sock, do you think you could find some diffs supporting the case so that I can take further action? That'd be very helpful. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were mistaken that's ok. If you happen to remember though please do drop by, as it could be very useful. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I understand your concerns. Is there any way I can persuade you otherwise?Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sally Hemings

"Not sure if you're aware, but you shouldn't revert anymore on this article today per WP:3RR." Point taken. But please also be aware that reverting copyright violations and other policy violations is not a violation of 3RR. That having been said, I don't intend to edit war. I also hope you will revert copyright and other violations on that page as well. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, I just wanted to make sure you didn't get yourself into trouble with an admin who views it as a content dispute rather than policy vio. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. Ward3001 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valparaiso High School

So what's up with reverting Valparaiso High School back to before my changes? 134.240.94.56 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment revert

While the assessments are generally done by members only, I had just forgotten to log in when I made the edit. However, I think your revert may have been a little premature. If it does get downgraded by a non-member, a review of the article prior to a revert might be a better route to go. If this is contrary to policy, feel free to ignore this. Thanks! Schu1321 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that it's wiser to do the review first. I gave it a once over and didn't really have a problem with B-class though. That coupled with the fact that members are usually the only ones who change the assessments led me to go ahead and revert it. Thanks for letting me know that was you though. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an explanation for the downgrade on the talk page, and you are also not a member of the medicine wikiproject (I didn't see you on the list at least). Just a little bit more review before the rapid revert is good. Thanks for the quick reply though. Schu1321 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not a member, but nor is the IP (which at that time did not know was you). Which is why I restored it. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for strongly supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) DRV

I've got ahead and WP:BOLDly reopened it for you. I've asked that it not be speedy closed again for a day, so you should have a little time to clairify your rationale. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Extension School

Thanks for contacting me about this, but I fear I may introduce or keep in biases which would be inappropriate as I am both (part-time) student and staff. I recommend reverting anything which doesn't match their website, as you proposed. [ [User:Jrp|JRP]] (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ave Caesar. You've been mentioned at WP:AN3, in a 3RR report about Harvard Extension School. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark the sections on the Harvard Extension School page you feel need citations with a 'cn' tag. Please see Wikipedia:Template messages or Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles for further information on appropriate standards. --Benjamin Briggs (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ave Caesar. I notice some tag removal happening at Harvard Extension School and I didn't notice any Talk page consensus for removal of the tags. If you believe that the article has POV issues or needs additional sources, it wouldn't hurt to say something on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ave Caesar. I'm trying to represent the extension school very clearly on the page as they should be. I've found POV many times, specifically in the comparison of the Eli Whitney Program and Columbia citations. I've been personally attacked by Firstinline2009. He called me a troll. I've made, from what I understand, relevant and honest edits. Nobody gives reasons for strong reasons for changing my edits. I fear that the wikipage isn't accurate. Indeed, I'm new to wikipedia, but I'm getting ready to start a dispute about the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extensiontf (talk • contribs)

Yes, I agree that the article has many problems. However, you need to take this to the talk page. I am sure that First will start calming his language. You should, however, restrict your editing of an article in which you have a conflict of interest...This is true for all sides of this discussion. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PCPP

There may be something wrong with his agenda, but I believe that he happens to be right on the matter of CIPFG. I feel that none have succeeded in demonstrating that this organisation is notable. None have advanced concrete arguments based on existing wikipedia policies and guidelines to keep this article. Even asdfg has suggested it may be notable for having organised the torch relay, but that tacitly admitted that it is not notable for itself. Notablity is not associative. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my argument is more so along the lines that the very fact that CIPFG is responsible for the torch relay as well as the investigation report from some time back makes it a notable organization. It passes WP:ORG by it and its efforts (ie the torch relay) being the primary subject of multiple sources. Anyway, this is a discussion better suited for the AfD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move

Sorry, I'm new at this. I was reading over the discussion and it looked like there was a general agreement from both sides that the title of the article sucked and wasn't neutral and I thought this was a good solution. If people object to the title they can move it back but why don't we just hold off moving it and see if the move is generally acceptable to folks? Strongbrow (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS info

Hi. I noticed you changed the tag on User talk:66.229.101.36 to a shared IP. However, judging by edits and behaviour I'm almost sure this is a static IP. Or do you know something I've missed? Kind regards, Channel ® 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm on second though, I think you're correct. Thanks for pointing that out! --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Munro Middle School

Hi, sorry for intruding on your talk page, but since you commented on this AfD a swathe of sporting achievements and academic awards have been added with multiple sources that, together, I would argue easily meet WP:N. Perhaps you would be good enough to take another look, please? TerriersFan (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExtensionTF

I remember when I was warned of being blocked for removing or adding material to the site without discussing it on the talks page. Is there anything you can do to warn ExtensionTF who keeps adding this ridiculous addition about the Extension Studies degrees? The information he is posting was already made apparent in the aricle, yet he keeps adding it back on. Atleast a mention that he is treading on thin ice. Thanks.Firstinline2009 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a formal 3RR warning concerning the addition of information that is already in the article. I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other about the inclusion of comparative material concerning how the school's program is or is not like that of Columbia or Yale. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there: ExtensionTF here. I felt like the Undergraduate degrees and Graduate degrees sections of the page (and certificates) did not represent the school precisely as they appear on the website or in the commencement book (and it's still ambiguous). All information that I provided, people can verify pretty easily. I'm actually the one who added the term Extension Studies in the first place. I agree, however, that the some of the diploma information, such as house affiliation, might be considered by some over-kill on information. Also, the people above told me that, "my comments weren't helping the extension school... and that i was obviously a troll (finishline!)." It's not too important who said what, but what I think is important is that I am not here to "help" the extension school or troll. I am here to represent it as adequately as possible, because that's the wiki (and right) thing to do. Anything else is non-wiki like. You might not like what the school represents. You can look at all my contributions and decide for yourself if you can verify the claims or not. I go to the extension school, indeed. But my claims are neutral and verifiable. I don't compare it to other schools because it's not the Harvard Extension Comparison page--it's the Harvard Extension School page. If anything was strongly out of place with my comments or articles, wikipedian's would call me on it. All I'm trying to do is be a good wikipedian. Call it what you will, but the idea behind wiki is as, jimbo whales might say, "trusting people." So don't trust me--go and make your claims--wikipedia will deal with you the way it deals with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extensiontf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rant on my talk page. Rants will not be read. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ave Caesar. I'm sorry if it seemed like a rant. I figured that I'd better clarify my edits to Finishline and you both. I'll not rant on your page. --Extensiontf (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I am willing to discuss concise arguments concerning specific article edits. However, it seems that there is currently a healthy discussion already in progress on the article's talk page. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Owens

Which parts of Robert M. Owens wiki page sounds like an advertisement? Let me know and I'll get the sections corrected. Suggestions on how to properly word the article to promote neutrality would be greatly welcome. Thank you. - Vitacore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac 1 5--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. )

Sorry, my mistake I used a subst template to add that message. First time I've used it so should have read it! There was no DRV discussion. The prod was contested after deletion by a user, as you saw in most eloquent terms! I was tempted to leave it deleted but even though it wasn't polite it was a valid contest. If you wish, you can pursue this as an WP:AfD. Thanks, Malla nox 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]