User talk:BillWeiss/Archive1

Igotugood

Hi, but I was just cruising around looking for a good article to improve when I looked at User_talk:Igotugood and found that he had two "last chance" block warnings within 2 days and one of them was from you. Am I just missing a policy about how it doesn't matter after a day or does he need to be blocked? I don't know it just looks confusing. Lyradog 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Yes, that person should be blocked. I made a comment on the relevant admin page about it as well. -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

Hello, I noticed that you, in your handling the talkpage for the Hiptop, you added your comment to the top rather than the bottom. This makes it hard to find and is otherwise not in good Wiki tradition. I moved your comment down to the bottom. Otherwise, thanks for cleaning up the Hiptop page. --Improv 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- BillWeiss | Talk 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Visual Turntablist"

I have re-worded the last section of "Visual Turntablist" so as to not sound too self centered, but to my knowledge, I am the first person to publicly drop the long standing "DJ" prefix in favor of a new prefix that more accurately describes and differentiates VT's (Visual Turntablists) from common DJ's who often times do not use traditional equipment, methods or visual elements, much less synchronize audio and video via traditional form factor 12" vinyl records. I would like to hear any further suggestions you may have. I am knew to Wikipedia so I hope that I have posted this in the correct place. VT ConQuest 06:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I may not have done it right then, I found a disambig page already made at First National Bank, The Albuquerque article is on First National Bank (Albuquerque) because there are literally dozens of places that are notable, especially on the National Register of Historic Places called First National Bank or First National Bank Building or some variation thereof. So the article is still there. A mcmurray 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the mess I made in Talk:William Gibson (novelist), I must have edited an old version of that page without noticing. --Lost Goblin

No problem. -- BillWeiss | Talk 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ATT poll vote

Hi Bill, I just wanted to be sure you wanted to cast your vote in the 'neutral' section, because this is where it is right now. If you want to vote 'support' (as in broad support of the ATT merger), your vote should be moved to the Support section. Thanks, Crum375 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out! -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Crum375 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xylitol

It was a revert of a Sock Puppet. It revolves around a user who is editing articles in a pro-Wrigley's Gum stance. It's been on the Conflict of Interest notice board[1] for a while and today the user showed up with a new name and the same IP address and started adding info again (all of which was reverted - not all by me). There's also a discussion on the Wrigley's discussion page and on the Wikiproject:Dentistry page[2]. - X201 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Something in the edit summary would be useful, or an entry on the talk page. -- BillWeiss | Talk 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I usually do but it was a mixture of boss roaming around at work and me being fed up of someone repeating what they had already been told was wrong that caused me to just hit revert on it's own. - X201 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lil' Flip still on good terms with Three 6 Mafia?

If so, then why did you undo my edit on Prophet Entertainment? Lil Flip(the only member on good terms with Three 6 Mafia) It was perfectly legitimate. Tom Danson 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw in a reference, and you're free to put it back. -- BillWeiss | Talk 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson

Hi, can you explain how the link you deleted from the above article meets the spam criteria. Thanks, CaNNoNFoDDa^Talk 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

My reason for reverting your change wasn't the link, actually. It was that you also were changing a number in the text to not agree with the dates (which come with references). While I could have corrected just that part, I felt that a reminder to be careful with reverts would be good. My edit summary didn't really indicate that. Sorry!

-- BillWeiss | Talk 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, there are some inconsistencies between different sources that will need to be resolved. I'll add the link back in. CaNNoNFoDDa^Talk 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on Energetic_Materials_Research_and_Training

Hi again, Bill. Thank you for your help / suggestions on this page. In the next few days, I'll have a crack at editing it per your comments/suggestions. I appreciate your patience with my "newbie" questions/comments and I should have been more diligent in reading FAQs/HOWTOs/etc. prior to starting. Thanks. NewMexicoCitizenJournalist (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. Welcome to Wikipedia.

On an unrelated note, it's considered good practice to add to the bottom of a talk page instead of the top. I'll move this discussion there. Don't worry, it's not a big deal.

-- BillWeiss | Talk 14:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UMIX

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article UMIX, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SJK (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]