User talk:Urbanrenewal/Archive4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Urbanrenewal/Archive4

Changes regarding Bennett Lebow

Sir, I agree with most of the changes you made to this article. However, I believe it is very important to include the information I had mentioned in footnotes 6 and 7, the quotes regarding information that Mr. Lebow was motivated to act as he did out of fear of bankruptcy. This is crucial information that is well documented and there is frankly no reason it should not be included, since the source that cites the information quotes Mr. Lebow directly. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Urban regarding Lebow

Thank you Urban. I don't mind saying that I think you did a fine job of editing the article. I do disagree, however, that the portion regarding Mr. Lebow's quote regarding what he did to avoid bankruptcy should be left out. This is a direct quote, and it is factually based. Also, many people believe that it is particularly disturbing to have a man who sells a deadly and addictive product simultaneously act like some kind of a "public health advocate"; hence his resignation from the Dana Farber Institute. I believe the quote you want to eliminate is the linchpin of the arguments I have made, and while I do not need anyones permission to put it back, I am willing to leave it out at this point as this article has been through a lot (but will probably go through more changes), and the fact that you appear to be quite fair and a good editor. I will not, however, under any circumstances allow Kansas7474 (or whatever sockpuppet he/she wants to use) to violate the rules of Wikipedia again in such an extreme manner. I will also be watching this article for a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kennet Partners

Thanks for your help and good advice. I'm interested to join the Private Equity Task Force and to contribute more generally to this section. Can you let me know how to participate? Thanks. Yacout (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GTCR logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GTCR logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

logos

Hi Urbanrenewal

Sorry for the mess :)

Lamro (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a new PE article

Hi, Urbanrenewal

I have created an article about CIVC Partners, loosely basing it on Willis Stein & Partners. May you take a look? Feel free to edit, of course.

BR Lamro (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private equity task force

Urbanrenewal,

Thank you for your invitation to join your task force. I do not spend too much time on this site but I would try to help if I can do so. I see you are very involved with this effort and think you are doing a very good job.

Many thanks, V.E. Vlotte Exploitant (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanrenewal,

Thank you for your invitation i have been inactive in wikipedia for last 6 months. Right Now i am very busy in Stock Markets as a broker. I would like to contribute to this project wen ever i am available.

with thanks, praddy06 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Hi

Thanks for the star! Proud to wear it!

Lamro (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chase logo pre historical.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chase logo pre historical.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incoming links

Hi

I hope you are doing fine in these dog days. I want to share with you some trick if you don't know it. The goal is to creates new incoming links for your new articles. Do Google search in a separate window: "New Company" site:en.wikipedia.org Check results, and you will see how many new incoming links you can create! I like creating incoming links -- they fully incorporate articles into the web. As far as I remember, every article should have at least three incoming and three outcoming links. It is easy to create outcoming links, but incoming ones are hard to find.

I have created many incoming links for your articles.

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful. Thanks.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Flag Icons

All of these flagicons are merely being used as decoration in the infoboxes. The flagicons either add no encyclopedic value or I directly linked to WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate for those infoboxes that already had a link to the country such as Goldman Sachs. In the case of Leonardo Pisculichi, I directly linked to WP:MOSFLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death because flagicons are not to be used for locations of birth and death. The other infoboxes I linked to the general WP:MOSFLAG because they do not fit the appropriate use of a flagicon and I added a link to the country name so people know which country is being talked about.

You really should have waited for my response before undid all of my edits. In the future when you hit "undo" it states: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." Make sure you are leaving an edit summary so other editors know why you made those edits. Aspects (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently having a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Use_of_flags_in_Infobox_Company if you would like to join in. Aspects (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also you need to discuss potential changes to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) page on the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags) talk page first before making the changes. Aspects (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Capital Partners

Thanks for saving and developing the article! I started it because when I created incoming links for other private equity firms I saw links to nonexistant HCP so often that decided to create an article.

BTW, use my trick for incoming links -- it is really cool!

BR Lamro (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am happy to give you a little backup.

By the way, you have a convert on the incoming links. I generally try to go through portfolio companies before i create the article but your method is much more thorough. Anyway, I have got to do some real work now and then I am signing off early (for the weekend, if I can). Have a good weekend. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Saw your tag of Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor). His works are well known and well-respected in the engineering community, which a book published by Cambridge University Press attests. The article is in alignment with WP:PROF as far as I know. Can you explain why you tagged in terms of WP:PROF? Thank you in advance. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor)

Do you have an aritcle that you've worked according to these guidelines, so I can understand how you are interpreting them? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've add actual links to the google scholar citations. This let's a reader see the academic papers/books that are citing his books. The article is just a stub and it's not anywhere near the other Thomas H. Lee in terms of development, but I believe it does establish notability according to the prof. guidelines. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Urban. I see that you've been working on this article some more. And I think there's a different philosophy at work here. For example, the stub tag at the bottom of the article seemed adequate. The tags at the top seem redundant. The books and their number of times cited are enough to estabish the articles worth. I've really thought a lot about the guidlines and policies of wikipedia and I'm fairly confident that other editors either share my interpretations or find them acceptable. (e.g., comments from WP:3 requests and several other feedback sources). --Firefly322 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did make some additions because I am trying to be constructive. I still don't think he is particularly notable from the perspective of third party references. It would seem to me that just about any tenured professor would meet the standards you are suggesting. I am going to let others with more familiarity with the subject deal with it. It is still an orphaned article which is also sometimes a good indication that it is probably not a subject worthy of note. I would suggest looking for opportunities to link it the appropriate articles therefore giving it some additional context. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your tireless and entrepreneurial devotion to private equity, I award you this barnstar. Save your contributions, Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic would remain only seed of its vast potential. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AltAssets

Hi UrbanRenewal. You removed the notability tag on the AltAssets article saying notability was established through "circulation, importance within industry and references used by other articles within Wikipedia". Could you provide some evidence of that so the article could be improved? At the moment the article only mentions one of the things you refer to (website visitors which I'm equating to circulation) and has no independent sourcing of that claim. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 01:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may need additional refences but it is a stub. The lack of references does not impact its notability. I have knowledge more significant knowledge about PE than I do about newspapers, magazines and websites and would leave it to peaople with that expertise to try to expand the article further. A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that AltAssets is a source referenced in dozens of articles in the private equity and hedge fund space (including my own citations). A search of google will find AltAssets articles referenced in a host of different places. I have been looking for "references" that actually add to the article rather than just show the preponderance of sites that based their content on AltAssets. I think the notability is fairly easily established. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urbanrenewal - I know you proposed several new stub types recently, but this and the UK equivalent were among them! I've listed these at WP:WSS/D - if you'd like to comment there, feel free. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vestar

It is funny you say that. I've started creating the page with new references. We'll see how it goes.JakeH07 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template on Vestar

With that template on Vestar I mentioned, I'm honestely not sure what the problem is. I used it as I would any other template, but only the intro section of the article appeared. Also, you mentioned other references for Vestar Capital Partners, could you please send my a link for those on my talk page because I am having trouble finding them.JakeH07 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I can't beleive I made such a stupid mistake and didn't notice it. I'm gonna be leaving in about a half hour to watch a football game, but when I get back (or before I leave) I'll look throught those articles. Thank you.JakeH07 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private equity firms in the United Kingdom

Hi

I was a little surprised to see that you have reverted all my edits down categorising UK PE firms, apparently without further discussion. I thought I had given a considered reply to your concerns on my talk page here. Did you reply to my comments elsewhere?Mhockey (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be surprised, my first comment was fairly clear about what I was planning to do. I just put a full explanation on your talk page. And looking at some of your other UK categories, if I were more involved with those areas, I would probably suggest consolidating the bulk of them.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said: I would like to discuss before reverting and would like to get your input. I took that to mean that you would like to discuss, not just get my comments, before reverting. I have replied on my talk page, but suggested a discussion on the task force talk page to try and reach consensus. In the meantime, I am reverting just one article, so that the category is not deleted for being empty while the discussion is taking place.Mhockey (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KravisRoberts.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KravisRoberts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. meco (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please update yourself on WP policies regarding Non-free content

Your recent edits re-adding non-free images that lack a rationale for the articles in which they were used is clearly in breach of WP guidelines that are in place to protect legal copyright. Please update yourself on this area before reverting with spurious edit summaries like "Acceptable fair use for this article" which is an assertion that has no basis in WP policies. You can start by reading the links provided in the nomination for deletion of the images which you voted to keep at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 8. __meco (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MilkenPredatorsFall.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MilkenPredatorsFall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. meco (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I commented on a couple of those images. However, I'm not very good with images, so in the future contact me more on things like POV changes and finding refs.JakeH07 (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine covers

~~Your edits seem to show that you are not~~ I want to be sure you are aware that Wikipedia has an official policy that strongly discourages use of non-free images (like magazine covers). All non-free images must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. These requirements are far more restrictive than U.S. fair use law. In particular:

WP:NFCC#1 says “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose” For a magazine cover this means among other things that a magazine cover cannot be used just to show that a person was featured on the cover. It would serve the same encyclopedic purpose to say in text that the person was featured on the cover.
WP:NFCC#8 says “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” A magazine cover use that meets this requirement is Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png on Photo manipulation. Use of the image is needed for readers to understand the photo manipulation of the TIME cover. Except where a magazine cover is used for “identification” of the issue of the magazine in question, a strong rationale like this is required.
WP:NFCC#10c says that there must be a non-free use rationale for each use. This is the reason why some of your covers have been removed from some of your articles.

—teb728 t c 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments on my talk page. —teb728 t c 08:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JD/MBA

Hi,

Sheer frustration to see that you have deleted a list of prominent JD/MBAs. I have spent hours creating it. I guess some of links got orphanned. Agree to have the list cleaned, leaving only those mentioned in other articles.

BR, Lamro (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JPMorgan Chase 2008.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:JPMorgan Chase 2008.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Market History

Hi there, you have deleted that update: "As 2008 will mark the collapse of the credit market in history, the secondary market is inevitably affected. In particular, a return of the distressed sellers and more significant discount to the underlying manager's net asset value characterize the impact of the credit crunch on the secondary market. While prices are down, spreads widen and volumes are up. Alongside distressed sellers, several large institutions continue to actively manage their private equity portfolio taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities." Can you let me know what is wrong with it? I think it is a good picture of where we are. Thanks Tliaudet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.125.242 (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary market participants

Hi, re your comment "biased perspective" about "leading secondary market advisers". Of course one can claim that as it is my market and I work for one of them. That said I am trying to take as much perspective as possible. I would argue the following: if one was to to call all of the top secondary funds mentioned in the first section and ask them to say who are the "most active" or "leading" secondary market advisers. The names of Merril Lynch and Lazard would not come-up at all or maybe once. As a matter of fact, none of them have a dedicated secondary team unlike all the other advisers listed on the page. Furthermore, any inroad into the secondary advisory market is very very recent. So If you believe that they should be referred to, I would argue that we shoudl also add "accidental" secondary advisers or primary placement agents who have got their hands on one or two secondaries (executed by their placement team). Then list would stretch to 20 or more including big boys like Citi and smaller ones. Can you advise on the (unbiased) criteria to include an adviser name or not in the list? I thought the basic criteria was a) having a dedicated secondary team (which is easy to track down) and b) be recognised by the buy-side and/or sell-side...and of course a number of other such as: for how long has the firm been actively playing in the secondary market, are they mentioned in PR in relation to secondary deals, are they invited to speak at secondary focused panels at PE conferences,etc... I will not force my views given my capacity but I thought the bove should be considered by you or others (or by the firms listed if the play alongside wikipedia rules as opposed to promoting themselves). Cheers --Tliaudet (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing {{db-spam}} from HarbourVest Partners

Pardon, but as {{subst:uw-speedy1|HarbourVest Partners}} states, simply reverting the edit that placed {{db-spam}} at the top of this article is not the right process. Not only did the version of the article look like spam, at the time I looked at it, but it seemed similar to text from their website. Apologies if you feel I'm not WP:AGF, but I do think just deleting the tag was the wrong thing to do on your point (and somewhat dismissive, as if no reply was worthy of your time). Note that I'm not interested in an edit war (or "territor marking") on this issue, but no editors WP:OWN any articles, and all are encouraged to adhere to guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Simply deleting your tag is perfectly well within my rights on this and I think I did it without any issues", but that is untrue, or {{subst:uw-speedy1|HarbourVest Partners}} would not be written as it is. You did not follow the process, and if by :I spend a fair amount of time dealing with articles on the verge of deletion and I think quick work is expected." you mean you routinely ignore process, shame on you. Note: use of the hangon template is neither onerous nor time consuming - that's all you need to do, in the future.

You also say, "i'm not trying to offend you.", but then you say "Btw: If you are going to get offended by me simply deleting your tag, probably tagging articles for deletion is not the best line of work for you.". I'll thank you to please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette should you communicate with me further (another non-apology apology would be most unwelcome) - specifically, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I did not say I was "offended by me simply deleting your tag", I said "I do think just deleting the tag was the wrong thing to do". I also said your failure to do so was "dismissive" - not of me, but of policy. Respectfully, I note some recurring comments about failure to follow policy to you on your talk page from other editors. I really care for no further justification of your failure to follow simple guidelines henceforth - I only ask that you do so, and you refrain from further Wikipedia:No personal attacks, regardless of how you justify them. You have (as should be no surprise an outside observer) successfully offended me now, through your inappropriate personal suggestion of what elements of editing is "the best line of work for" me. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the tag my friend "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". That's it. I don't have to write hangon. That is for the original author. I am not going to go any further than to suggest that you are awfully sensitive and seem to be trying to create an issue where none exist. I have been polite (although pointing out the link to the etiquette page is not really necessary). I hope my non-apology has not further upset you. Have a lovely evening.|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly not my friend, and I'll thank you to refrain from continued personal attacks such as "you are awfully sensitive and seem to be trying to create an issue where none exist". If I was wrong in my interpretation of the use of the hangon policy was wrong, then you could have told me so with less effort than expended so far, and with less of what seems now to be intentional rancor. As you continue to make Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." while continuing to adress me impolitely, even in ways that seem calculated to offend "I hope my non-apology has not further upset you.", (a) I strongly disagree that you have been polite - quite the contrary and (b) I'll say posting a link was on etiquette was ineffective, but disagree it was not needed.

Finally, I cannot understand why you choose increased conflict over simple reconcilliation? Fine, I acceot your interpretation of policy - but was it really easier and more pleasant for you to wait until after you questioned my suitability as an editor for you to deign to explain your point of view? If you'd like to reconcile like a gentleman, try a genuinely polite comment, avoiding further denigrations of my character, in response. I'll respond in kind. If not, I'll try arbitration, for this simple reason - I've seen plenty of editors driven off of Wiki by unrepentent violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you look at my own comments with editors, or should some third party observer, I believe it will be found they are quite concilliatory and positive in their tone and content. Yours, to me, were not - even if they meet your definition of "polite", I believe I've demonstrated simply that they do not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks.

To summarize - care to move on, in a spirit of detente (if not genuine comradeship)? Say so, genuinely and with some genuine expression of reconcilliation, and then I'll gladly delete my comments from your talk page, while you delete yours. Say nothing or add more Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks, I'll ask for arbitration.

Sincerly, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete anything - this whole thing is just too amusing for me but the amusement factor has now run its course. I like having your repeated commentary here and your very earnest concern over my opinion of your suitability as an editor. Joe, it was a pleasure having this discussion with you - I like that you spent about 10 seconds editing Wikipedia and an hour editing my talk page. I am going out now and hope you are going to do likewise. Sorry if I somehow inconceivably offended you |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 06:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HarbourVest Partners LLC

Hello. i think you are helping with my new HarbourVest page. Can you tell me if this page is ok now or do i need more information? i am not sure exactly what i need to add. i tried to copy other similar pages. thanks again.

Re: Michael Milken

Oops, that was my mistake. I should have read this intro more carefully. Thanks for catching that. I have adjusted the members of the category accordingly. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Here it is. Greetings. --Tone 13:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Communications is a Boston-based private equity firm specializing in equity investments in media and telecommunications companies. Their equity funds are invested in about 100 companies with total market capitalization approximately $1.5 billion USD.

Alta Communications was formed in late 1996 as part of an an acquisition of Burr, Egan Deleage & Co. (BEDCO), a venture capital firm that had been founded in 1979. The current company has a mixed portfolio of investments in the following sectors:

External links

Re: Craig Burr

Done restored to User:Urbanrenewal/Craig Burr. Good luck! Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muntadhar al Zaidi ‎

Any particular reason you have still not shown up on the talk page to discuss your highly controversial deletions? You're invited to the talk page. Please don't edit war. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, still no discussion. Ok, let's see how the reader benefited from your edits:

There is no information about why shoes were thrown at President Bush. So now, the reader has absolutely no idea why Zaidi did it as you removed the information. That's probably not one of your best edits.
You rearranged the sections to highlight recent events, detracting from a biographical article. Instead, you moved chronological material and placed it at the end of the article. This is not how biographies are written on Wikipedia, and this plays into WP:RECENTISM instead of addressing the topic without leaning towards recent events.

Any chance you might discuss this on the talk page, or should I just wait to be reverted by you again, since you seem to know what is best for this article? Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -

I received your multiple messages on my talk page. Honestly I think the bigger issue than the fact that i didn't discuss minor textual edits that improve WP:NPOV in an article. You were the one who reverted my edits without discussing. My edits were completely legitimate and the real issue is your WP:OWN of the article.

As far as removing the section on "shoe throwing in the muslim world" there is already a perfectly good article on this. The entire article is in violation of WP:NPOV |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but consensus on the talk page was developed to keep the material you removed. When I pointed you to the talk page, you reverted me. The article is the work of dozens of different editors, all working towards a goal of improving and expanding what we have. I am currently tackling POV issues, sourcing discrepancies, and layout problems in real time, but your unilateral edits did not help the situation. Please use the talk page like everyone else to address specific problems. This is a collaborative project, please remember that. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: if you look at my recent contribution history, you'll see that I am working one on one with editors on both their talk page and the article talk page to improve the article. If you don't want to work with other editors, that's fine, but don't come back and insist on your version. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most amazing display I have witnessed. You write on my talk page 3 times then I finally respond briefly and now I am in for even more commentary. I haven't even edited that page in two hours. This article is a no win scenario with psycho editors involved so I will come back when it / they quiet down. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called discussion, and it's how things get done. I'm sorry you don't like it. One person does not get to determine the outcome of a single article, especially when it is controversial. You were bold in making changes, and I reverted you. At that point, it's best to discuss on the talk page. See: WP:BRD. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, your edits have been addressed by two different editors on the talk page. So, whenever you are ready to edit again, make sure you respond there before editing again, otherwise if you edit again without consensus this may have to be elevated to another level. In case you didn't understand me, let me repeat myself: your edits have been addressed on the talk page. Please use the discussion page when you have time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. I've been here long enough that I've seen a great many things. Instead of trying to improve the article, your edits appeared deliberately designed to support either a deletion, a merge, or a redirect. I want you to know that I'm concerned that you may be editing in bad faith. Hopefully, you will prove me wrong. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing but make a couple of perfectly acceptable edits to an obviously biased article.

What part of "discuss your controversial edits on the talk page" don't you understand? Seriously, your continued denial here is quite disturbing. If you don't want to discuss your edits, then don't edit the article. It's pretty simple. Good bye. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I have no disagreement with you. I only want to know if you go to Iolani or Punahou? |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit older than that, my friend. Listen, I appreciate you came to the talk page. Your first criticism was a good one, and I hope you act on it. Let's keep using the talk page. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]