User talk:Aecis/Messages 109-120

Advert tag

I just couldn't see where you were coming from. I think that the music section simply reflects the wealth of talent in the school and the fact that the school is a centre of excellence for it in the region. It is more figurative than anything. However I have put it back on, in case anyone else dissagrees with me. However I doubt that any edits will stay on there for long - there is a veritable community of POV wikipedians proudly editing their school article! Anyway, sorry, I should have discussed it first on a talk page. Regards - Benjaminstewart05 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying, that it has POV, and I am working on telling people that it shouldn't. But I don't think that specific tag is appropriate, because I don't think that it reads like an advert. It needs a POV tag which I will try to find. The music section needs a cleanup and those who know the music department well are the people to do it - This will happen shortly when I and my fellow PGSers edit it, you can do so, but more information is required which is only known by its audience. Benjaminstewart05 16:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

mediation request on cartoon image display

I have requested mediation on the cartoon image display issue.[1] Raphael1 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talkpage seems quite canting, after you have repeatedly urged me to "stop beating this dead horse". Now you pretend, that I may argue my case on the article's talk page. Raphael1 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have written on the 5th of March: "Bringing all this nonsense up again is beating a dead horse." Raphael1 09:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Caustic Christ

hey, can you check out my unprotect request on the Caustic Christ page and maybe let me know your reasons for protecting the page in the first place? thanks. Sokeripupu 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the reply, i've written a cursory article on the talk page that i think establishes notability. it's my first written from scratch so let me know if i screwed anything up. Sokeripupu 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

as far as i can see, the band already meets a few of those criteria according to the article: both Behind Enemy Lines and The Pist have survived votes for deletion, the notability of Aus-Rotten has never been questioned, the band has toured the united states, they have been interviewed and all of their releases reviewed in Maximum RocknRoll, HeartattaCk and numerous other magazines and websites. is that last part really necessary to somehow include in the article, considering that bands only need to meet one criterion?

cool, thanks very much for all your help!Sokeripupu 21:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A little something

Greetings Aecis, just thought you should be aware of this list as you are mentioned by name. Cheers. Netscott 15:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And about the cartoons. Based upon this "Less than neutral image" talk I've uploaded another image and edited into the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Could you move the talk from here to that new image's talk page and then protect it? That'd be appreciated. Thanks and keep up the good fight. Netscott 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bedankt

Antwoord staat op mijn pagina. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trigger Happy

Dear Administrator: I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are. The world owes you. I owe You.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories for "-related stubs"

Hi Aecis, I had a quick question for you. I'm trying to locate the discussions where it was decided that "-related" would be removed from stub category names. I've searched the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals with no luck. I noticed you nominated some "-related" categories for renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005, so I wondered if you might know where the "-related" discussions had been conducted at. Any help in locating these would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, have a great day! Kurieeto 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please support

Hi. I'm wondering if you could lend support to a proposal for a Stub-sorting Barnstar. The page is here. Have a good day :) SynergeticMaggot 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, please excuse the wording. I do not mean to ask for a vote, just that you participate. SynergeticMaggot 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics

Refer to the physics talk page. I was unaware that some of the material was copyrighted as a different user had supplied the info. last week. I only supported its inclusion without the knowledge of its status. --68.224.247.234 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lilli Promet

Hi there, just wondering why you removed the IMDB link on my new article... it (and it alone) verifies the information in the "filmography" section. Srose (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Darn it - I had the correct number written down (copy and paste is acting funny). Argh. On top of that I just responded on my talk page. Perhaps I should sleep. Anyway, thanks a bunch! :) Srose (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Legality of the invasion of Iceland

If the legality of the invasion of Iceland interests you I suggest this transcript from the Nuremberg trials: [2] See if you agree with the thrust of Dr. Siemers' argument. Haukur 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Stub Sort

Just an FYI, the stub sort on Bankers Life and Casualty was sorted into the wrong category -- the company is an insurance company, not a bank. —Cliffb 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)