User:Joyous!/Talk archive 11

I don't get it

Why are all my articles being deleted, even ones I only edited, and why are all you users making so many inaccurate assumptions about my articles? I am brand new to wikipedia, and you have sucked all the motivation and enthusiasm from me. I didn't realize when I added Garbasail (an article I DID NOT create) to the "Sailing" category, that it would lead to you gathering your troops, and wiping me off this site completely. How can I possibly defend myself, not even understanding the process? How can I defend myself to multiple experienced users who have already made their extremely closed minds up? I don't know why you chose me to pick on, but you have succeeded, and it is unfair. I would add to the discussion if I could find any discussion. When users say merely "Vanity", "Original Research", or "Complete Bollocks", I can not sense any discussion. I also did not realize that the number of hits on google can make a definition credible, it seems to me like this is a VERY flawed system. I will likely just give up, because I don't have an army like you. Thanks for giving me the equivalent of a punch in the stomach. I apologize if I come across at all argumentative, it is not my intention, I am just seriously offended by the organized effort to attack my articles directly. - Ronsonmanchild 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems as though there's an organized effort to go after you or the articles you've created. I haven't gathered my troops together, nor am I interested in driving you from this site. When you placed the link for Garbasail, it caught my attention because I have "sailing" on a list of articles that I keep an eye on. When I looked at the article, nothing there persuaded me that it is a practice carried out by more than a very few people. Wikipedia has set some standards of notability for inclusion of articles here. It did not appear to me that garbasail met those standards. That's what prompted the discussion about the possible deletion. When other editors noticed the discussion, they looked at the related articles, and came to the conclusion on their own that they might not be suitable for Wikipedia. Really, no one is picking on you specifically: it's just that you've written and contributed to several articles that seem to be teetering on the edge of being publicity-gathering devices. Wikipedia tries to avoid being the vehicle for establishing popularity and "well-knownness," preferring to document recognition rather than establish it in the first place. Joyous | Talk 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere response. I'm sure I over reacted somewhat, but I still feel as though I'm on an uneven playing field. I can see now that you did not instigate all of this deletion activity, only that regarding the Garbasail page. I also understand that Wikipedia has these policies, and I don't necessarily claim as a blanket rule that all the pages I contributed to meet the confines of these policies. I wish I had the time to both address the comments I do not agree with, and edit the articles that I believe DO fall within... what do you call it? Wikipediavilleness? Wikivization? I am not looking to gather publicity for myself or anyone else, these are known, established, and previously published concepts that are actively pushing the boundaries of public / environmental art. How much time do I have to re-write the articles, and / or contribute to the "discussion"? - Ronsonmanchild 18:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here, I could go along with all of these projects going into a single Josh Levine (environmental artist) article, but only if there's some evidence of notability. Such evidence might include major newspaper, magazine, or TV coverage of these art projects. In any case I don't think each project alone needs a separate article. There are also many Josh Levines who appear to be as or more notable including another artist, so the article would have to be named something like Josh Levine (environmental artist). Is there enough verifiable third-party coverage of these projects to make a go of it? Thanks, KleenupKrew 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and suggestion. I could see this happening the way you've described, but I truly believe Garbasail is more noteworthy than is perceived, it is not some kind of joke, not vanity, not original research, and not "a bunch of guys messing around"... still, I am aware that none of this supporting evidence has been presented thus far, and no major edits have taken place to help address these concerns. I do agree that some of the other terms related to Josh Levine may have been improperly placed here, by me, due only to my lack of experience on wikipedia. Garbasail, however is a relevant topic I did not create, and I say this now only after reading all of the policies that users like you have drawn my attention to. I will attempt to both make my arguments for the term Garbasail, and re-write and attempt to wikify the somewhat incorrect description currently available. I will also attempt to re-write Josh Levine in the manner you've suggested, and then I will vote to merge some of the other topics into that new description. The only thing I'm not totally clear on is how much time a word spends in "delete limbo"? - Ronsonmanchild 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Greensboro Massacre

You're an Admin, right? Even if not, maybe you can help with this. On the page noted in the heading, I got into a tussle with this one guy who kept posting a website that is essentially an ad for a documentary film that his brother made, about the 1979 Greensboro incident. I kept reverting it as spam, and he kept re-reverting it on the grounds that it has free clips on it. I think he was sufficiently chastened, but I advised him to find an Admin because I could be wrong about this. Wahkeenah 00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Joy. I'm the guy that apparently got into a "tussle" with Wahkeenah. Look, I'm not going to press on with this -- this experience has pretty much frustrated me from participating in Wikipedia moving forward -- but I do want to give you a bit of context. Funny, I'm writing this post directly following the Beyond Broadcast conference at Berkman, where we spent two days attempting to pursuade old media to embrace new media approaches such as social tagging, open API's and wiki's...

• My brother and I are attempting to try a new form of storytelling. He wrote, directed and produced a documentary about the Greensboro Massacre between 1997 and 2002. We're attempting to carry the story beyond it's climax in 2002 (Andy's film helped get Kwame Cannon released from prison) by picking up the narrative just prior to the release of the first US-based Truth and Reconciliation Commission report in late May. The community (we both live in Greensboro) is already starting up a heated conversation, so Andy is going to use the blog to extend the narrative by releasing video footage of the TRC hearings, interviews in the community -- creating a part blog, part vlog, part documentary.

• Yeah, the awards he won in 2002 weren't from SXSW or Tribeca -- he spent less than $3,000 total on the project. Yeah, the blog isn't a popular one... yet, but why does any of this matter? We don't have advertising like a Boing Boing or other popular blogs and never will. We're being tagged as spam because there's an innocuous link to paypal just in case if someone wants to buy the film? I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with this determination. We're serving our own community -- *ours*, we live in Greensboro! -- yet we can't link to this conversation and film from the subject matter it covers?

• The Vietnam War was a real-life event, as was the Greensboro Massacre. On the Vietnam War Wikipedia page, there's a list of 25 films, each leading to a page with a link to an *official site* of the film. The only difference between that scenario and this scenario, is that I haven't created an official Wikipedia page for Greensboro's Child and linked there from the Greensboro Massacre page.

• Please take this logical perspective into consideration. Thank you. Spcoon 06:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I advised this user what you advised that he do, i.e. to plead his case to the wiki community, which it looks like he has not done. He complained about some other items on that page being spam, and I advised him if he thought they were spam, he was free to delete those as well. At this point I have lost interest in the discussion. Wahkeenah 14:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Your posting his entry on request for comment - kudos. I'll leave it alone. Maybe I made too much of it. But I've seen other cases where folks tried to promote stuff, and their main gripe was that they though they should be able to do whatever they want to. Wahkeenah 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FPA

THE FPA is a small organisation started in staffordshire england to campaign for rights for people of larger stature and to make them feel better about themselves i believe we are more propductive than the family planning accosiation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Big C (talk • contribs)

I respect your views on this subject, however i feel that all organisations must start somewhere and I believe that one day the the FPA will become a world renowed organisation. I do accept that that time isnt now and the current membership is only in the region of 80 members but across staffordshire but we are growing considerably and appeared briefely in a local newspaper. What is the threshold for the number of members for us to allow the posting of our information page?The Big C 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your continuing work on the Vandalism Patrol. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

...for the advice, the information, and for being nice. I did not know about the workspace, and I will not stress about any timeline. - Ronsonmanchild 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dimitri Spanoa

Just letting you know that the creator of Dimitri Spanoa contested your prod, and I have now taken it to AfD. You can find the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Spanoa. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what you did...you removed other peoples posts as well...do you consider The Moth band as vanity? and what is vain about having a link connected to someone that wants to feature a moth of the week on their site...you are making a poor example of what a WIKI gnome or troll should conduct themeselves as. Instead this is nothing more than harrasment.

Hey.

I'm not vandalising or testing. I just posted a delete message on an IP talk page, forgetting to log out first. Thanks. — NathanHP ^{(T • C • W)} 00:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to message

Hi.. I'm not sure, I think the article itself was created purely with the intent of promoting Dimitri Spamoa. But as you mentioned "urban art" does return resonable results on search engines, perhaps it just needs a complete re-work? - Deathrocker 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it needs a complete rewrite as well. By the way I have more than a sneaking suspicion that users User:67.190.163.11, User:Miamibreaksgirrl, User:Keodrah, and User:Darkmoth are all socks--Adrift* 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about the topic to start a page on it, but since the current article is completely void of any citation or veracity I don't see a reason why it can't be at least tagged until someone with more knowledge about the subject decides to edit it.--Adrift* 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

well noted-I would like to meet the person that is knowledgable in this area.-Keodrah

Yea I know

I blanked my user page, mostly because I wanted to change it around. But never got to it. IT's not a big deal if you delete the Melody Science article, I don't care if nobody believes...but it is true. Merge87

cause marketing

How do I do what you're talking about? How do I "take something to AfD"? JByrd 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Help! I'm not sure I formatted it right... JByrd 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Icelandology

I see that you have deleted the article about icelandology. I have been out of my office so I see the change just now. The term icelandology is the translation for the Polish term islandologia which was used first time by my colegues from Polish scientific institute which provide studies and website about Iceland. It is not only "tourism website" as you wrote. It is website with scientific articles about culture, politics, natural sciences etc. so the term "icelandology" is a good neologism for such activity. Because we use this term to describe our scientific activity, it is occurence for such term in the whole internet. I know that this term is not popular now, but the meaning of this word is clear and I think it will be used more often in future like sinology and egiptology.

Every day scientists create new words for new sciences, new chemical compounds, new stars etc., so I think that it justifies creation of the neologism and the article in Wikipedia. If you think that this article exists only for promoting purposes you may delete the link for www.iceland.pl. TomaszHolband(83.18.95.146 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Is this how I am supposed to talk to you?

Lee Hoiby was just the beginning of an article I'd hoped others would add to. I just felt it was odd an unrelated movie would come up for "A Month in the Country", and not him.

I hope there is no cause for copyright infringement at this point - should it only be a stub now?

PietVA 19:07, 5 June 2006

Regarding Hooplah!

Stop deleting my homie Hooplah!'s articles. Those are true stories. He's been through way more than you know. Don't call it nonsense either. Those are all religous traditions from his homeland in eastern Europe that you called nonsense. If he wasn't such a nice guy, he could get you sued for that ( not that I'm threatening you or anything, I'm a nice guy too). Just stop ratting on him, ok? --Deathslayer 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

72.82.111.188

If you have time, could you keep an eye on the Rush (band) page? 72.82.111.188 seems to be going nuts with vandal edits. I can revert them, but cannot block. Rsm99833 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

user:tact

What do we need to do to block him? He posts some variation of the spam and since I started patrolling earlier today, (about an hour, off and on) he has posted at 7 or 8 variations of the same thing. Cheers V. Joe 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:THISISME edits

Hey if your watching THISISME, could you help me check over some of his/her older edits? When people make things that look like potential vandalism, I tend to check over older actions by said users. In this case, they've moved around what the chart positions for numerous artists/songs are in various articles, while leaving the old numbers in other locations alone, and I can't verify half of it. Kevin_b_er 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brooklyn Latin

This brings up a question: What is the policy on the inclusion of articles on schools? -- Koffieyahoo 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A nice and shiny barnstar!

I haven't given one of these out in a very, very long time. I hope you will give me the honor of recognizing your long term contributions to Wikipedia today. Your quality edits keep going and going, and so I thought this tireless contributor barnstar would be a suitable one for you. To say the least, you're a wonderful, wonderful Wikipedian, and I treasure your friendship very much. Thank you so much! --HappyCamper 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Willothewisp

I'm not quite sure where to go with this as I'm mainly over on now, but would you mind taking a look at User:Willothewisp? The user appears to have recorded spoken articles in stupid voices deliberately, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. Archer7 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your page at . Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about any more that have been removed, but the all the OGG files curently on the contributions need to be deleted. 'Diary Of An Unborn Child' sounds like they were on helium, with extremely loud shouts every time they said 'GNU', 'Pyromania' is spoken in a monotone, and 'Shahadah' is an awful American country accent. If there's been no activity since March I suppose it's fine to just leave it at that now (I can't find any that have been removed), they're not likely to come back. It was rather worrying as I only came across it while researching pyromania, and I wonder how many new users have been put off Wikipedia from that. Archer7 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Listed on MfD. Thanks for all your help, the English Wikipedia is a rather daunting place when you spend all of your time on the smaller projects. Archer7 13:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My Quote

Please, take it and spread it widely. -- GWO

User:Yusufdaud

Hi Joyous! I noticed that you warned User:Yusufdaud about vandalising [1]. Can I ask if you could possible supply the difference for the vandalising that he has done? I belive that, in real life in my class, that this is a person I know and has actually told me he will "bring Wikipedia down," to quote (his name is Yusuf; as the use account name would suggest). I, of course, checked his contributions but it appears that he has not made any so I am asking you, if you can, recall what he has done? If you cannot remember, that's fine. Thank you. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Joseph Krumgold, was selected for DYK!

On June 22, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Krumgold, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Padlocks

You know those thingys that prevent non-registered users form vandalising pages. Well am I allowed to put one on FIFA World Rankings as it is constantly vandalised, and its getting tiresome, as there are about 3 of us who revert it, but often section-specific blanking goes un-noticed, and then decent contributions are made, so you cant just roll-back, and its all very tiresome getting the article back to a decnt state. So basically am I allowed to put them up? if so could you guide me through it, if not, could you do it for me? Cheers. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I might leave a note then, which part of the village pump should I leave my note at? It does seem that alot of users make their first edit here, unfortunately their first edit on this article is often governed by their urge to tell everyone, how amazing their favourite team is, or how rubbish their least favourite is, or their opinion on just about anything. Or destructive tendacies of some kind. What makes it more annoying is that the article is up for FA at the moment (and failing, contraversially), so I don't want important parts left blanked for several days. But no-ones objected on those grounds so I may as well not bother protecting it, so yeh where do I leave the note? Thank you! Philc _T^E_C^I 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well doesnt ringoria just seem charming. Yeh the July 9 is the big day england win it... so things should calm down after that. Thanks for the help, I posted on assistance, feel free to comment on the articles FA your approval, or constructive criticism would be valued. Thanks! Philc _T^E_C^I 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat

LEAVE MY PAGE ALONE YOU FAGGOT OR ILL BLANK YOUR PAGE LOL --Ringoria 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but your edits have been disruptive. Joyous! | Talk 22:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User--->talk

Hi. Just to let you know I found a nothanks template on User:Texas am's user page that you had placed and relocated it to his talk page (and substituted it) which I'm sure it what you intended (I do the same thing ocassionally). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

This tool found four more articles with the same site that you removed from Geocaching and I cleaned them up. Apart from the replication lag, it's a useful tool. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good eye on the Children's Literature page where you removed a link on create-your-own books for kids. --SafeLibraries 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Morano on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Frank Morano. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! It wasn't expected but certainly is appreciated. I notice that you are also a frequent contributor to the calendar pages - thank you for your work on the project. Fabricationary 06:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dreamachine

Thanks for doing that, and nicely done. FYI, information can be more thoroughly removed by following these steps: 1. delete page 2. recreate only the offending edit 3. move it to some new name 4. delete it 5. recreate the remaining edits of the original article.

Arbitrators and some others have a special tool called "oversight" which allows them to do all of that more easily. I asked one of them about it yesterday, but thanks for getting the job done in the meantime. BTW, I expect we'll see some more edits like this from the same editor before he leaves. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary

Thanks. I do try. Except I realized I said "indented" instead of "intended." Oops. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Navy shower, was selected for DYK!

On July 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Navy shower, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for working on this article to get it selectable. Much appreciated, as the author is a relative newcomer I gather... ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

MEAN

YOUR MEAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdog12 (talk • contribs)

Re: 3 RR

Well i was under the impression that 3 RR ment 3rd was the offending revert, i was wrong however. I now know otherwise. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

BarCamp: "no consensus"? (query)

Joyous!, thanks for KEEP-ing the article on BarCamp. I'm confused, though, and a little disappointed, that the decision was by default, "no consensus among established editors"! By my count, there were 4 established WP editors:

• 2 had judged it to be "advert spam" and recommended "Delete." But there's no indication that they reviewed the article after I had overhauled it to answer their concerns about POV. Nothing suggests they bothered to check back.

• 1 changed a "Delete Fails WP:NEO" to "Keep," citing my improvements.

• 1 who saw it only after my improvements gave it a "Strong Keep."

I guess the math adds up to "no consensus," but I thought there would be more deliberation in the final decide. I worked hard to bring the article up to WP standards. I was eventually bold in my editing (I pretty much re-wrote it from scratch). But I was very cautious in approaching the discussion.

• I went out of my way to avoid a 'meat puppets' situation. I'm regretting now that I didn't put out a call to Wikipedians in the BarCamp community.

• Should I have specifically asked the commenting editors to review the article again after my improvements? If so, I'll make a note of that on the Deletion process page, since there's no mention of this part of the deletion discussion process there.

I know you're busy. But, I'm new and, having braved the waters, it's a bit discouraging. Any light you could shed here would help. Thanks!

—Latrippi 05:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Answered on your talk page. Joyous! | Talk 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Joyous!, thanks for the thoughtful note. Did you see that this AfD debate made the news (scroll down to "Wikipedia spat")? Anyway, I've noticed that some Wikipedians keep a log of articles they've saved from deletion, as a feather in their cap. Since I got 1 editor to change his vote from delete to keep, and rewrote the article to neutralize the POV, is it fair to say I salvaged it from deletion? Thanks again! Latrippi 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you know -- it's the Web 2.0 digerati. "We'll drop a line to Jimmy and see what he says." ;)

Newbery Medals

I noticed on your userpage that you were working on Newbery Medal-winning book articles, so I thought I'd go ahead and run this idea by you for feedback before embarking on the tedious procedure of enacting it.

I'm thinking of adding a succession box to every such article, as so:

Do you think this makes sense? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather like that idea. Joyous! | Talk 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quick response. I guess I'll get to it, then. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Miracles on Maple Hill: certainly. I created the redirect when we had two articles that basically said the same thing: "Virginia Sorenson is the author of the 1957 Newbery Medal winning Miracles on Maple Hill." and "1957 Newbery Medal winning book written by Virginia Sorenson." They should certainly be split apart again when there is more to be written about each. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon Edits

As a crusader for the well-being of potentially useful contributors, which I took you to be, regarding several comments you made, including unwillingness to padlock pages, incase new users are confused, or dont help out as a result, I would think that maybe you would have a few things to day on this. Cheers! Philc _T^E_C^I 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Icelandology Mark II

I see a new article, Icelandology has just been created. I then discovered the above entry on your talk page in which you seem to have deleted a recent incarnation of the same title. I am trying to determine whether the article is a recreation of the previous article, or if it's an entirely different article. I cannot find a deletion log to show the old article. Purhaps you can look at the new incarnation. I don't wan't to bite someone who appears to be a new user by immediately posting a {{prod}} or some other similar template. Agent 86 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and advice! Agent 86 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2 Unlimited

HELP! The following IP address: 62.25.109.194 keeps adding incorrect information to all the 2 Unlimited related articles. When I queried this on the 2 Unlimited talk page and his user page I got a load of abuse. As I am not an administrator, I am unable to do anything about this. As you are the only admin I've spoken to in my time on here, I wondered if you would be able to help. Triangle e 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He won't provide a source for the information! Have you seen the way he responded to the previous comments? I'll just have to keep changing it back. Triangle e 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that page you sent me but I could only find out guidelines as to how a Third Option thing should operate. There isn't anything outlining how to actually mark up the page as needing a third party to look at it. Do you use the "disputed" template? Tbh, I think I'll win so I want to go for it! Triangle e 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU!!!

you revert all of my edits, at least give the other moderators something to do, are you stalking me? PEACE. Beyatch91 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

'Bout that infobox of mine.

Hah, that not-an-admin infobox? I've always thought of it mostly as a joke. And were you to nominate me, I'd have to decline. I hardly read Wikipedia anymore, much less sign in and contribute, so... I'd have to get heavily involved again to feel like being an admin, which might not happen. Thanks for mentioning it, though. The Literate Engineer 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

what to do when a "disapproving" box shows up

In the case of Talk:Melissa Farley where a person identified only as an IP address put a 'blp' box on what seemed to me a (short) pleasant and cordial discussion. Is there something wrong with what either of us said?

If not can the tag be removed?

In the case of Media portrayal of bisexuality someone IMMEDIATELY (before the initial data was even entered) put a 'merge' tag on. The site continues to be updated. And no further 'discussion' seems to ever have taken place.

As far as I can see only one person objected, that was two months ago and s/he seems to have lost interest. So can the tag be removed?

Thanks CyntWorkStuff 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Not meaing to be a pest or for you to 'take sides'. Realy am not sure how to deal with the above. Especially when one of the complaining parties appears to be just an IP address and I cannot figure out who I should discuss their concerns with.

Is there a place in "Guidelines" that addresses this that I am overlooking? Should I just remove the box? Am I as just a plain old person 'allowed' by wiki-standards to do that? Thanks again CyntWorkStuff 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I always get nervous and think I've done something wrong.

So in the case where someone has slapped a "Weasel word" tag on an article because the SUBJECT of the article doesn't conform to their religious beliefs (PFLAG: they list to teach as part of their mission, the other user thinks a positive view of the LGBT community is a type of propaganda), I should bring that to the attention of the LGBT notice board?

Since the person who put the tag on is a member of the Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board would he even be bound by what another "Notice Board" says? CyntWorkStuff 22:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I got a message from you about my last edit being reverted. It was that thank you for experimenting, yadda yadda, the one you get when you screw with a page. Thing is, I don't recall having edited anything more than spelling and stuff recently. So.. why did I get this message? 69.37.103.86 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm answering here because you may log in again under a different IP address. This is the edit that prompted me to leave the message on the talk page. If you have a dynamic IP address, it may have been assigned to someone else who vandalized the article. If the message was meant for someone else, don't sweat it. Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

in re Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

A weasel words box has been placed on the above named article by User:Chooserr to register his/her political or theological disagreement with the subject of a given article. While not claiming to be an expert on the subject matter and admittedly being a novice and only occasional Wikipedia users, I have carefully reviewed the main PFLAG Site [2] and the weasel words entry and I must respectfully suggest that the box's present use was not it's intended use.

I have contacted User talk:Chooserr and seen her/his reasoning but still do feel this box should be removed. What is the proper next step please? Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Monolithic dome

I've rewritten this article, and have added an additional reference which lists some disadvantages of the monolithic dome. I've removed the POV tag, and would appreciate it if you could proof the article and see if you agree. scot 14:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. I've also done some significant updating to the concrete dome article to expand and de-stub it, if you'd like to take a look at it. It's got some overlap with the monolithic dome article, and I might add some of the relevant bits from there back into the monolithic dome article. I did run across an interesting set of instructions for a DIY dome. The source appears to be an apocolyptic/alien warning website, but the instructions still look sound, as they match instructions I've seen for ferroconcrete boat hull construction. scot 16:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Helloooo

Hey its me again (darn!) I was just wondering if since your an admin, you once told me that you could see deleted pages(?) (I think) you could look and see if there is one on the article Fandangle I have since re added some of the info, but I remember seeing it, and wondered why it has gone. So, I was wondering if you could conform my mind is fabrcating things, or if I was right. Thank you! Philc _T^E_C^I 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I haven't have a chance to wiki (at least logged in anyway) for a while and so I just logged on and saw your note on my talk page. Not sure why I wasn't doing that to begin with : ). Thanks. --Wotwu 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not back yet?

I hope your Wikibreak is a restful one. --HappyCamper 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilemma story

Joyous!, an example is the best way to explain a story-form like this. Njál 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (Substitute another if you like, but there needs to be something. The EB article gives four.) Njál 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that one's in poor taste, though I realise some societies have hang-ups about poo. I only know a couple of such stories (I came to Wikipedia looking for more information), and that's the most illustrative of the genre. As far as I know, it's traditional, not modern teenage. Suggestions: get a few more opinions on whether it's suitable / stick in lots of euphemisms / ask someone for a better example. Njál 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Simnotic

I'm not sure the word exists, but it did do one thing: It let me know you were online!  :) I'm back, re-adminned and adding lots of new stuff. How are you? Missed ya!! - Lucky 6.9 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate you.

You know, it isn't necessarily vandalism. I happen to have coined the term "Anthonybradburyism" and I don't much appreciate your smelly ass removing my efforts to push humanity and society forward with innovative new terminology and new perspectives on "history". If we don't get to contribute to our reality anymore, why bother even living in it? Like, don't you have anything better to do? Seriously. I hope when I'm your age I'm doing something way cooler than what you're doing right now. Did you at least let Anthony Bradbury SEE what inspiration his attempts to suffocate my creativity has led to? Did you? Did you even let him read it before senselessly and brutishly clicking DELETE, therefore evermore removing my brand-new, barely-out-of-the-womb, fledgling concept from the vast pantheon of human history? How do you sleep at night. Really.

You have a nice day, too. Joyous! | Talk 19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

i hope a wikiflock of wikirabid wikiraccoons finds you in your sleep and wikimauls you to wikideath. but i do love you.

response

_Thanks,I Guess_

i didnt know that was vanalism, i didnt know about the sandbox ;-)

also can you check the page i created #REDIRECTT3CHN0PH0B1A and tell me if this is spam...its on a band but im not sure if i did enough to help Wikipedia

A very naughty word beginning with "C"

Thanks for deleting the alternate words. It started out by just mentioning "pussy" as a less-vulgar alternative, then the whole world started adding others. The huge list of euphemisms needs a similar trimming, as does the near-useless Testimonials. I've been slowly copyediting the article over several months, with no complaints, but I haven't wanted to get rid of all that stuff in one fell swoop. Lou Sander 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As an Aussie might say, (presuming ye'r a bloke and not a Shiela), "Ye'r a good cunt, Joyous!" Lou Sander 23:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MilitaryTarget has just made an extensive edit to Cunt. There's some good stuff in it, but IMHO it destroys a lot of careful work by his predecessors. (I'm hoping it wasn't you, using an alias!) For example, MilitaryTarget states, wrongly, that "cunt" refers to the entire female reproductive system. (I don't believe it refers to fallopian tubes, for example.) My desire is to revert the entire edit, but I don't know how to do such things, (and I really AM concerned about the alias). Can you help? Lou Sander 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

sakkuth

is it accaptable to remove the delete warning now that i have added some references? Cadmiumcandy 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)