User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 2

• Archive 1 - moved 12 July 2008

2008

Date: September 20 - re: your proposed deletion of the Ben Trebilcook film maker page.

Refs: Rain Dance UK (Trebilcook is listed as Trebilcock) , BBC archives, GMTV, Gersh Agency, WGA, BBC Ireland, IMDB, London Borough of Greenwich United Kingdom, Jeff Ross Entertainment, moviehole, EMAP, WMA, ICM, C/W, Cheyenne Ent, actor/producer Hugo Speer, Michael Ford (RDF).

I am a new internet user, colating material for a book on film makers in the United Kingdom and Netherlands. There is no reason for this page to be deleted. Are you jealous or angry with this particular person? Any business and knowledge on the subject in question, please respond. User:66D —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

As previously stated, I am a new user to the net / this site. It said when you begin a page to start it in your user page and then paste it elsewhere, which is exactly what i did. I did not realise the page i was creating would remain on my user page. i am interested in historical figures. For instance, Charles Darwin - if i were to do the same, would you think I am Darwin too? You come across extremely bitter. If you know Stel Pavlou and Ben Trebilcook, I would be grateful to hear anything you have on these two talents. --66D (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Call me: Alan. 06-204 26 883 or Trebilcook is on the web himself. Contact his assistant Jill Bonney info@bentrebilcook.com or his agent at Gersh or Jeff Ross Entertainment. Best, --66D (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I protected it per a request at WP:RFPP. It's a dispute between Tocino and about five other editors; the page has been protected while it's being discussed. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UT I was wondering the reason why my edit was removed? Phiman283 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1987 D-50 Issue

The Roland D-50 was invented in 1987, and forever changed the sound of pop music (and arguably, synthesizers themselves). In regards to removing this, CEASE AND DESIST. It is fact, and more credible to be listed than some of the other events listed in this year. Further removal of the reference to the D50 will be treated as WikiVandalism, and reported to the appropriate channels for action to be taken. Thank you. Kitsunexus (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1984 for a discussion of this issue, thx. 76.24.10.35 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Insinuations

Sorry if I got this wrong, but it seems to me that you were insinuating something against me in your comment about problematic user Rjecina. Please note that edit count is not supposed to be taken against any editor, and that my edits start in 2003, while your first edit is in 2006. I have been more active in the past and some of my edits, related to the photos that I downloaded, are not present in my edit history because the photos were removed (I have described each of the photos per request) Joka (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Message

Shouldn't you be watching the calendar's? Instead of say.. picking on minor editors? Simply struck my funny that you have nothing better to do than to pick on little ol' me.. I feel special.

Out of curiousity what is a Killkola? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.130.135 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ever need to talk to someone CW be sure to let me know. It has to be hard being wikipedia's only guardian and protector. 96.248.130.135 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:R.I.P. Makaveli

User:R.I.P. Makaveli caught vandalizing User:Snoopzta again. I'm not sure how banning users is handled. Joshuagross (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some BS for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Nice to see familiar names in the watchlist all the time. It's a thankless job and I'm sure many think you're just a bot. Keep up the good work. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

personal attack

sorry..98.222.196.27 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Miles Fisher

I would like to hear your reasoning for applying the {{refimprove}} and {{advertisement}} tags to this article, and especially if there are alternate viewpoints represented in other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that perhaps I have not found or overlooked that justifies the {{advertisement}} tag. I have started a subsection about the tags on the article's talk page, I'd love to discuss it with you there. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi as both yourself and Cirt have contacted me regarding this article and the AFD, I am going to respond to you both on the article talk page rather than having comments spread all over the place. Hope this is ok. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Films, like books and records, cannot be speedied. “Foo is a Bar movie released in YEAR” does in fact provide us with sufficient context to tell us the topic of the article. Prod such articles instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An article with the subject matter's name, identity, vintage and community of origin is not empty. It may be a stub, but it is neither empty nor lacking context. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blockdot

For Blockdot, I have provided references for the awards they have won. Please tell me if this clafifies notability.

Thank you,

da95008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da95008 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Fujimi mayoral election, 2008

Hi

There is ofcourse not need delete Fujimi mayoral election, 2008, if you look at [[1]] then you can see that there are many mayoral elections added for the past 10 years, some by me, some by others. As there are alot of electoral results from alla around the earth, both small and big there I do not see why you object to this. Wikipedia is painfully lacking of articles on elections and politics. I might however add some more about the issues and so on. Please remove the delete tag. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(reply to comment)

Your argument on the 'Other stuff exists' policy is really not valid here since they are very related subjects and could be seen as a part of a series. I have also discussed it with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan which the article belongs to and they have raised no objections. I think it's wonderful that this information can be made available to english users. But we could open up a vote on it if you want. --Jonte-- (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree with you. I think the article is a) relevant information and b) an important part of improving the lack of coverage concerning elections and politics on this site. As it seems we are not to get along I suggest we ask for a third opinion. Since it is you who have started the process I think it is your call to make the request. I have also requested guidiance from the WikiProject Japan and the WikiProject Elections and Referenda since they are the experts on the subject. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On 2007 cleanup

Why are you calling my edits vandalism, tell me if they are notable, not just call them vandalism? Again, do not call them vandalism, you knew what I was doing. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First called all of my edits vandalism and then restored most of the edits. I knew you were going to make sure that my edits are right which is important and which I highly respect. I know your very nice work on the Years Articles against vandals. But calling me a vandal was not nice (rather rude), and also the cautionary warning on the talk page. I can be seen on present (from 2008) and future articles on WP:Project Years. I revamped 2009 and added numerous references. So don't even think of me as a vandal. On Births, yes I was a little too fast, but I was, because I knew you were going make a decision on it. And stop adding that warning (seriously). Cheers and keep up the good work! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely don't regret, it was question, eh? I removed it because the paragraph which I wrote made more sense to situation, so keep it as you wish. I know you think of me as inexperienced, which not true. And I stand by the word rude. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be nice to me, oh yes the word Strike out hurt me. I am a very nice person and a sensitive too. Thanks. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I had used to rollback button and then restored the things in bounds, which is exactly what you did, but what hurt me was the extra string attached "Reverted vandalism". What are you talking about hiding, I was removing the warning which was inaccurate. Okay, so (seriously) please think of me as a nice person, which is was I do about you. In fact, I was very close to giving you an award on reverting vandalism on years articles (I know you already have the Vandalsleuth Award, but I am serious on another award). And be civil! Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarizen

I found some news articles about Clarizen from reliable sources, and added them to the references section of the article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarizen. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This gives all appearances of bad-faith vandalism. Please explain how you think the topic is missing "a world-wide perspective", or which citations give incorrect information, the problem with its lead paragraph and how you can justify stating that "Very few or no other articles link to this one." when 50 articles link to it? If you do not clearly express your alleged problems with the article on the talk page, I will revert it as vandalism. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blockdot

The references cited suggested a measure of independent coverage. As such, it's not really self-promotional. Feel free to challenge my assessment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Conduit (Web site) article marked for speedy deletion

CalendarWatcher, I was wondering if you can help me better understand why the Conduit (Web site) page as been marked for being written like an advertisement. Are there specific sentences or a section that make it that way? I based the structured the article on several other existing Wikipedia articles that mention company history, status and products/services. Please advise so we can make the necessary adjustments while we are working with additional moderators on the orphan and notability tags.

Thanks so much for your help!

--Marshfield (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Luciano

I would recommend that a request for comment for user conduct be filed against the user in question as two editors has tried to resolve the blatant misunderstanding and failed. I am making the comment now, as the RfC process is currently protected, so no one as of right now can file an RfC. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to. I've reported all the editors in question, including the IP, to WP:RCU. The case should be moved over soon and they will find the three people are one and the same and will be blocked indef. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs added

I have added the aviation references as per your request. Mark Sublette (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthashastra

so report me and show me 3rr in 24 hours from my IP 98.222.213.137 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

i only have one IP what are you babbling about? i think your nuts.. but enjoy banning me...98.222.213.137 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New page patrolling

Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across a few articles that you've nominated for deletion that haven't been patrolled (e.g AQtime). I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it for deletion (or any other tag) as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself. Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This message

Pull the other one: don't tell untruths about your history: [1]. Your various IPs all geolocate to Taylor, Michigan, so you'll have a hard time convincing anyone it's a co-incidence. And, of course, it's apparent that you went by the user ID Killkola, based on this last edit. Really, you're not even trying. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

you left this on my talk.i do not know killkola or you. i think you are suffering from wiki-paranoia. My location is Greenwood Indiana thats in INDIANA not michigan. but whatever. go back to watching out the blinds douche bag maybe you do have something to be paranoid about. and I AM NOT KILLKOLA stupid-head98.222.213.137 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

you are strange

i do not care what geo whatever says i am not in michigan. i am in the INDIANAPOLIS area. i did not read the rest of your pointless message so i have nothing left to say... other than i am still not your boyfriend killkola. i am a female. and i consider your obvious advances improper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.213.137 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Shacklesons Disease

Hi, I Afd'd the article. You can comment on it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shacklesons Disease. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comment --Flewis^(talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I AM NOT KILLKOLA

U ARE RETARDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.213.137 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CRY ME A RIVER... STOP ACCUSING ME OF BEING SOMEONE I AM NOT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.213.137 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1957

The calendar for this year seems to be wrong. I don't know how to edit this. If you could point out a reference page for me to follow I'd be happy to do this. Thanks. Mseliw (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Impetous Fire

Fine go ahead as you like, its your time thats being wasted. I'm not even going to attend the afd as it is clear that it is acceptable and will result in being kept. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a lot of the article is based on original research but how many other articles can be say are equally written this way? I fully agree it needs reliable professional sources to verify and imprve the article but that isn't a valid criteria for deletion particularly when the film is verifiable by reputable Hong Kong cinema sources and featured a notable actor Alan Tang and was directed by John Law who had links with Runde Shaw and Shaw Studios the biggest film studio in Hong Kong during this period which produced many of Bruce Lee's films. Not only am I one of the most experienced editors on English wikipedia, but I also have a good indication of what is notable for wikipedia otherwise I wouldn't bother starting articles. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S you do realise that it wasn't actually me who wrote the article don't you? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Or producing featured articles like Abbas Kiarostami, Preity Zinta, writing articles like Deforestation in Brazil, translating articles like Xalapa and in the middle of translating Tenerife from barely a stub. You know nothing about meBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I started the article, but I didn't write what we see in the article now Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Seychellois people

I think it would be more beneficial on the List of Seychellois people article if you were to remove the entries that you believe are fraudulent rather than removing all entries that do not have their own article. Lists are often composed of items that do not merit their own article, so that doesn't make a good criteria for deciding what to keep and what to throw away. Perhaps a better solution for the list items that you do not suspect are fraudulent would be to add a citation needed tag to them and delete them after an appropriate amount of time. LloydSommerer (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, all articles on Wikipedia--and lists are articles, make no mistake--are supposed to be in some way factually verifiable, and a list of random names without even the slightest nod in that direction are wildly against core policy and ordinary common-sense, and practically speaking an open invitation to abuse. The standard burden of proof or evidence on Wikipedia is not on those removing content, but on those adding it: this is core policy.

You could help me make better editing decisions by creating edit summaries that reflect your reason for deleting portions of articles. For example, when you wrote, "remove unlinked entries and one outright fraud" it made me think that you removed the list entries because they did not link to other articles. This is not a valid reason to remove list entries. Your next edit summary was better, "A list of unsourced, unreferenced, and suspect names. No article, no entry." Here you add some good information, namely that you've removed the information because it is unreferenced. But you also still suggested that this is related to whether or not an item in the list has an article when you say, "No article, no entry." Of course, having an article is no indication of whether or not the information is referenced. Several of the articles in the list are not. But in any event, it would be better if you would attach an appropriate citation needed template than if you simply delete portions of the article. Here is the relevant section from the policy page that you cite above:

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."

Of course, there are times when information without citations should simply be deleted, especially when it is negative information about a living person, but that is not the case here. In this instance, there may be editors who would take note of your citation needed templates and work to improve the article. Please keep in mind that I am not saying that you are wrong in your edit, just that there is a more constructive (if slightly more time consuming) way to go about doing it. Unless you object, I am going to add the deleted entries back into the article. It would be helpful if you could delete the entries that are fraudulent. One of us should slap the appropriate citation needed template on the page. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)