User talk:Fan-1967/Archive1

User:TBC/Welcome --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer_Asset_Lifecycle_Management

hi, I made a contribution to the debate over the above topic. I'd like you to review my comment and see if you might be willing to change your mind about the vote? (link ) Thanks, ---J.Smith 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the article. It still looks more like original research than encyclopedic. It's also still an ad. Fan1967 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrick Nealy

I have expanded this article, on which you commented in AFD, and wondered whether you would be willing to look at it and possibly reconsider your position about deletion. -Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my Delete to neutral. I don't know enough to know if he's really notable (the NFL draft may answer that question) but at least the article now has content to support a claim of notability. Fan1967 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moog records

We're on the threshold of a no consensus here. I've moved relevant text into the appropriate section of Robert Moog. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is protologism, but I do agree that the style is perhaps worth mention. Would you support a merge and delete? -- Krash (Talk) 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my vote in the AfD to Merge and Delete. Fan1967 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Harlan Ellison

Thanks. It was because I wasn't familiar with him that I didn't close the thing myself. But it was a bit... suspicious. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Thanks for the heads up, it's much appreciated. I left a final warning for the user, hoping he'd learn something useful from it. If not, he's gone, but at least I tried to help him. - Bobet 21:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Hi. Thanks for the revert on my user page today! James084 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Tyranny

Could you please review the older version Judicial tyranny article, which I have reinstated in response to the deletion nomination, which I believe resolves the objections to the current, quite inappropriate, article. Judge Magney 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badass Xpress

Hi, I've added two more articles to this AfD. I don't know if you want to reconsider your vote as a result, but I felt it better to let you know. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion vote for Gapping

Vestigial's not that common a word. I'm more bothered that he can't spell "rabbit"

Thanks, that made me laugh Gwernol 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for pointing me to Round buildings, that's priceless. "The colosseum ranks as the highest form of circular building induced hysteria". Truly, WTF? Made me laugh, again. Thanks, Gwernol 19:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combining AfDs

Thanks for the instructions. I removed the conversation between the two of us from the AfD page since it wasn't really part of the voting process. Hope you don't mind. Thanks again for the instructions, Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Marian Dogma

Fan-1967, thanks for those kind words, and keep up the great work! --Lockley 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenrolled

OK, how do I bundle them? (I know, I know, it's explained somewhere but I'm busy with something else and I can't remember and don't really feel like looking). Daniel Case 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gprime

Mind if I put your comment in BJAODN? T K E 05:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you reconsider your vote to the delete Adaptation to global warming article?

I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page.

Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

The "how-to" criticism was off-the-mark because the article was never intended to be a "how-to". The skimpiness of the text and the section titles suggested that it was a "how-to" but it was never meant to be that.

The "unencyclopedic" charge was valid since the initial text extracted from the Mitigation of global warming article was very sketchy. I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources.

Several of the active contributors to global warming articles have voted to keep the article.

Would you take a look at current version of the Adaptation to global warming article and then consider voting to keep the article?

Thanks.

Richard 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

Hey, maybe you're User:DragonflySixtySeven too! (::rolls eyes::) Best, FreplySpang (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm really User:Chandler75 and I like to use different numbers... Fan1967 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for California-Nevada Interstate Maglev

Could you look at the sources I posted and reconsider your delete vote. This project is funded by the federal goveernment with $45 million for a 4 year planning phase on the Nevada leg. So it is alive. I think many of the early votes were based on a lack of information from a poorly written article. Vegaswikian 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.112.108.167

Hi there — I removed a personal attack by 69.112.108.167 (talk · contribs · count) from your talk page. I hope you don't mind. I don't know what he's so angry about, since he's only made three edits. Fe e zo (Talk) 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes below indicate the source of the attack. Fan1967 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Assume

Don't assume that just because it's unknown to YOU and the bunch of geeks who patrol this website that it doesn't exist and isn't WORTHY of inclusion in Wikipedia. And don't assume that just because it's unknown to you that the person who writes the article MUST be vain. You're extremely bias. EZZIE 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?????

I'm well aware you're able to trace things back to the person--but I don't care. EZZIE 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Life

Your diggin up of my previous AFD (which I didn't write to begin with) merely makes my point. One of the Admins says right on the discussion page that upon receiving more sources then Katherine could put the article back up--well more sources have certainly been found since then--and they all appear on the external links page. You have no grounds--but it does seem that because a couple of users have stepped up in defense--it has caused you to waste your time RESEARCHING AND INVESTIGATING something so trivial? Why is the deletion of this article so important to you? EZZIE 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ritter

Thanks for the heads up. I've been trying to keep up with this person, I have a list of her IPs and socks. I don't think she'll get very far the way she's going, but I'm trying to assume good faith, and not bite. Cheers, Mak (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She won't get anywhere. I think she ticked off enough people that more than one person is watching those pages. Fan1967 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I stopped watching those pages, maybe I should start again. I am eagerly anticipating October 13th. I'm going to sit there and wait until every one of those credits rolls by. If I don't see "young girl at court" after all this build-up, I'm going to be mighty disappointed. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I'm marking my calendar down for those. Doesn't she ever get tired of playing "Girl on something"? Typecasting? Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is she reading this right now? I'm wondering because the characters she submits are no longer John Doe-ish girls at various locales, but now have names, even in Pirates 3. I guess she really must be tired of typecasting. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that, huh? Funny thing, IMDB has full cast lists for those pictures, and she's still not there. Fan1967 12:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix Nosepipe Fiasco

Yeah, I figured that might have been what was going on. i just didn't have the energy to do any more than restore the AfD page though. Thanks for completing the task :-) Best, Gwernol 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

False

Accusing me of being someone I am not on an AFD discussion without proof (your only proof is my name ALMOST FAMOUS - not very hard evidence my friend. I assure I am not your good friend Ezzie, Ericnorcross, or whoever else he has appeared to be. Almost Famous 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it really doesn't matter. That debate is over, and there will be no problem if you don't behave like the person that you claim is not you. If you do exhibit the same behavior, the results wil be pretty much the same. Fan1967 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly know how to make friends. Almost Famous 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Downending Gang

Yeah, I stumbled across them while skimming the daily AfD list - once I saw the "Downending Films" list of links, all kinds of warning bells went off for me... I mean, really, do these self-promoters really think they're fooling anyone writing overblown pronouncements about how notable or relevant their beginning works are? Let someone else write about you, if you think you're worth writing about, is what I say... MikeWazowski 17:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The props

I did consider it, but didn't think of the {{prod}} as I haven't been really active for a few months. Have gone through all the bios for people born 2006 and downwards to and including 1991 so far, have probably afd'd/prodded something like 25-30 of them so far. Bjelleklang - talk 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that! Will finish up with 1990 before calling it a night...probably continue sometime tomorrow. Thanks for the input! Bjelleklang - talk 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AppCaliber copyvio

I thought that the copyvio 48hr thing was only for "commercial content providers;" has this changed? —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely in support of this and would certainly speedy articles like this if I were an admin. I guess my question was more whether it had been codified into a new CSD. If I were to tag an article like this, would I just use {{db|advertising}}?—WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been using that as most sites doing advertising aren't c.c.p.'s. I'm especially wary of using it as it specifically defines c.c.p. in the message and links to CSD A8, which clearly doesn't directly apply. I don't want anyone's, spammers included, first experience with Wikipedia be one where we contradict ourselves and then do something they don't like based on it. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD

Thanks for the tip! Weatherman90 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move vs. AfD

If you don't want me to move an AfD'd page, you can suggest to some admins that the media-wiki software should upgrade to the point where the page move feature shall be disabled temporarily of an indivitual article while AfD is in progress. --Nintendude 01:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic Centre Group

I must say that that as the nominator of the above AFD your comments are absolutely superb. Your understanding & explanation of Wikipedia policies is excellent.

Cheers

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Oule, Ave, and Hello. I would like to thank you for voting to keep the Aleksandra Wasowicz article. I really appreciate it. Again, thank you. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 3, 2006 12:25 P.M. EST

Tunday

Thank you so much for seeing the problem here. It just plain isn't notable or verifiable. In my opinion, this AfD has already taken far longer than is necessary. IrishGuy 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that by replying to him, we feed his ego and let him think he's getting somewhere. Let's face it, this was something made up in school and there are no sources he can come up with. There's zero chance of the article being kept. Fan1967 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was unable to find any verification and a couple of other editors have said the same thing. If this wasn't made up by the author, it is just about the best kept secret in history. IrishGuy 14:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dispute situation

It seems you clearly understand the context of my current dispute situation with Hanuman Das. What would ArbCom achieve? Do you think this is the correct step? How would it work? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this situation. Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhoji Rao Shitole article

Hi, Stifle closed this AfD and requested that I send it to "requested moves" [1], but I don't understand his logic. This is not a move, nor is it a merge, since none of the content needs to be preserved (it already exists in full on the main article, and then some). It's a simple redirect. I don't think he took the time to understand the situation fully. I put a comment on the requested merges page and put the redirect. Can the redirect be protected? Hamsacharya dan 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on deleting article

I did as you suggested. That will probably speed things up. Thanks! KarenAnn 18:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got a friend in me AfD

You recently voted in the AfD for the song "You've got a friend" - delete due to copyvio. I've since removed the copyrighted lyrics and cleaned it up a bit. Though still as stub, it is no longer a copyvio. You might want to return to the AfD and base your vote on the current article. (I've got no vested interest in the article, just wanted to deal with the copyvio issue.) —ERcheck @ 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdelete to "Strong Delete"

I have replaced your reference to {{Sdelete}} here to Strong delete because the template was not showing. Please correct if this was not your intention. Cedars 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhouse College

They do seem bright. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if they weren't evil, there would be no need for superheroes. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to learn Latin in high school, but not enough people signed up for the course so they dropped it after a week. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin teacher in my public high school was an ex-monk. (He also taught French, so he didn't lose his job when the Latin class got canceled). User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

5/15/06 Fan-1967, I was completely ignorant of Wikipolicies, I am not signed up at Wikipedia, when I commented on Afd board that you have been having the pleasure of reverting. I only want them down because I withdrew this unofficial nomination from consideration because one of the commenters suggested that Clean-up would be a better root to go for this particular article. It is foolish to leave them up. It is a waste of server space and is now irrelevant. Please be courteous and take my comments down for me. Thanks for your help.

P.S. I was informed that only three reverts within 24 hours to a single page or article are permitted and you definately broke that rule on that thread. Again, please remove my own posts. Thanks. Unsigned|67.98.154.35}}

Response I'm sorry if you weren't aware of policies, but quite frankly you should have checked them before attempting to delete an article which you didn't like. Discussion pages are taken very seriously, and once something is posted, it stays. In addition, once the AfD is created, only an admin can close it. "Never mind" is not a valid closure. Fan1967 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alexa

How do you pull up the Alexa rating?

Thanks.

65.35.168.248 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, was not logged in. :) Dlohcierekim 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm still compiling all these resources to make better AfD decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Hey Fan,

I was wondering if you could restore the history to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page which was deleted when the redirect page (Sidhoji Rao Shitole) was moved into its place. We had 4 months of page history that was wiped out because of that ridiculous move, which should have been a simple redirect, just as you had voted for during the AfD. Anyway, it's not a big deal, but I just want to make sure that that record of edit history is not gone forever. It should never have been removed. Thanks Hamsacharya dan 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly IT

Hmmm - missed that one - thanks - Peripitus 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tavsanoglu

Regarding Articles for deletion/Ali Tavsanoglu, I ask that you please don't feed the troll. It just makes things worse! Happy editing T e ke 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fameliveforever sock

Yup, that picture is definitely of the same person. Weird. I'm gonna AFD that article, but I'm not sure whether to bring up the other article or not, since there's not strong proof, plus the person isn't clearly a vandal, and hasn't been blocked/banned, but is more of a constant pain in the ass. Mak (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote of the week

You're up for my new quote of the week. Congratulations!, unless you don't approve. Happy editing! Te ke 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Patrick Maxwell article

Your comments about deletion of this poor excuse for an article were right on target. ==G. Patrick Maxwell article== The article has been renominated for deletion. It does not belong on Wikopedia. Will you please come discuss, as you had the first time? Thanks.MollyBloom 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrozinski

Thanks for keeping the peace, but why not just erase his comments? Amusing as they are, they don't help the discussion any. ;) Danny Lilithborne 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age 3 AfD

Thanks for completing the opening process for me. Much appreciated. :) 81.104.165.184 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [2]
Roger ambrose 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'how to' help on page moving

Sorry to have stuffed up the page move of Fernanda Seno, and thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I am constantly surprised by what I do not know :) Stumps 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reorder comments?

You wrote:

Don't reorder comments on the deletion page, except to move comments placed above the heading.

In fact, isn't it routine to reorder comments that were put in out of order, especially by new editors who mistakenly add them at the top? Fan1967 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. The intention was that people shouldn't group keep/delete/move etc., because it removes the ability of the closing admin to see who responded to whom, etc. I've revised it. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's, Sinc normalized, etc

Rather than blanking the pages and taking them to AfD, the proper (easier) place is Redirects for Deletion. Fan1967 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Fan. i didn't know. there are still many features and procedures about WP that i just don't know about. i know some signal processing and mathematics but little about WP esoteria. r b-j 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Nutrition Database

thanks, I'll let the article remain deleted for a few months. I'll add it again in the future when the site expands. Sgd2z 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets

Reading your comments on Talk:Leonard_Wolfson,_Baron_Wolfson I thought it might help you if I pointed you at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage#Articles_on_baronetcies in terms of the attempts to standardize these naming conventions and formats. Alci12 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a source to clarify if " Sir David Wolfson, Baron Wolfson of Sunningdale of Trevose in the County of Cornwall [Life Peer 26 March 1991] is the brother David you mention.

As to complex - you should take a look at Lord Longford. He was created a hereditary baron (UK), succeeded to a hereditary Irish earldom, barony and a UK barony. He was finally given a life peerage! Alci12 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wanted to bring your attention to this CheckUser request [3]. — Mike • 06:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accident reconstruction and the rules of PROD

Hi--I noticed you prodded Accident reconstruction. That article had already been prodded and the prod removed (by me). I'm not a fan of the article as it was (quite the opposite), but I think the topic is worthy, no I removed the prod and added a few sources. Once a prod is removed, the deal is it shouldn't be prodded again. So while I understand your concerns, I think it would be better to take it to AfD. Thanks! · rodii · 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you! I made the same point myself a while back, and tried to add some sources, but I was out of my depth on the overall topic. So... let's try to move forward, I guess. · rodii · 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: SideKick story

The incident has gained mention on the New York Times. In addition, the article has been rephrased to draw attention away from the website (as was complained) and towards the incident itself as well as the effects. Would you reconsider your vote? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with reasons. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotalk AfD

Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catorce

Hello! You are receiving this message because you participated in the deletion of a vanity article about Catorce, an improv troupe in Phoenix Arizona.

As an objective Wikipedian attempting to chronicle notable figures in Arizona music, comedy, and improv, I decided to take on the peculiar project of ressurecting the Catorce page, but now with more criteria for notability (which is difficult, since there aren't guidelines for improv groups like there are for bands and musicians) and an objective POV.

I am inviting you to come visit the page and leave comments.

my Catorce page: Catorce

Thanks! (Please respond at the Catorce talk page) Parsssseltongue 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blugztrakh

I don't know what you have against aliens from the planet Blugztrakh. I am delighted with my recently installed Blugztrakh-otron-3000 Brain Implant device and would thoroughly recommend one to you.

Seriously, thanks for the good work patiently explaining policy and guidelines on the AfD for Elias Tsatsomoiros. Gwernol 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are distracted by the falsely planted rumors about Martians and Venusians, so they are unaware of the true Blugztrakhian threat. Fan1967 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzenberg

I don't know anything about Schwarzenberg myself. The hoaxer behind Earl of Amersham inserted some members of that family in Line of succession to the British Throne (quickly reverted), and Amersham links to Schwarzenberg. See also List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. —Tamfang 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFD/Yesterday

Oops, the stuff at the bottom was stray code that I meant to remove before saving. As for the section editing links, they appear to be present and function properly. — Jun. 19, '06 [13:38] <freak|talk>

Heh, I didn't think of that. That is probably the reason. I didn't think that would happen because clicking on the links takes you to a screen for editing the individual discussion pages, not the /Yesterday page itself. I'd like to get the page unprotected as soon as Lightdarkness (talk · contribs) confirms that his bot will refrain from editing it every day at midnight UTC. — Jun. 19, '06 [13:46] <freak|talk>

AfD edit

from User_talk:Koffieyahoo Regarding the edits on this page, CltFn had mistakenly edited that AfD article in attempting to create the article for another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minaret of Freedom Institute. I saw the error and cleaned it out, and updated the other AfD with the needed information. Neither of us expressed any vote or opinion on the Christian pop radio article. Fan1967 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bro thanks for your explanation! Btw is this how we are supposed to communicate? i ont quite understand and i dont wanna flaw your page.

Yeah, I saw it happen. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. -- Koffieyahoo 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page sprotected

Hi, in response to your user page vandalism as reported at WP:AIV, I've sprotected your user page for a bit. Let me know when the vandalism calms down. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelkweli

ok alright thanks a lot fro everything... Abdelkweli 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fan1967 - like me you've been talking to Abdelkweli - not sure how he's doing it but his answers seem to end up on seperate pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fan-1967&action=edit

--Charlesknight 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Cdn

Thanks for the welcome... I have edited my page, moving the info about me to my user page and your opening comments to my talk page. Thanks again. --Gay Cdn 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

sorry bro i thought you would appreciate the barnstar. take careAbdelkweli 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in additions to my user page from someone whose own user page is a pack of lies: barnstars nobody gave you, wikiprojects you're not part of, articles you never contributed to. Fan1967 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abdelkweli

lol bro keep it cool, it's second degree humor... The smart man? come on, there is no such barnstar. Ok I was watching charlesknight discussion page. And i wanted to answer you: the articles that I list and weren't edited by AbdelKweli it's because before I really got myself into wikipedia I never signed on. I also had another screen name Abdekweli i think. For the thing i put back and removed. it was a pure joke, i was talking to that charles, he never answered and then did it by itself. I dont care aobut the vandalproof shit. I just think there should be at least some respect if wikipedia life is condidered with some much esteem. Then I never said I was working on any projects. there is one sat word, brownoser take care Abdelkweli 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some respect, show some. You show contempt for everyone else, then complain when you feel you're disrespected? Grow up. Fan1967 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep thats rite i show contempt for everyone else...you're too virtual bro Abdelkweli 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Dunno is the answer? I'm watching the article.

--Charlesknight 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think so. Have you seen the vandalism tag on my talkpage? It's from a editor we have in common.

--Charlesknight 21:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite violation?

You have been a great help to me so far in my introduction to this place... a question for you - I am trying to understand an issue around copywrite violation marked on a page I updated. The page is Landshark and I added a link to a web page that shows a clip of the skit into the external links section. It was reveresed as a possible violation. I have added a note into the talk page of the editor who reversed it as well as the article talk page but have not gotten any feedback. I read WP:CV but don't really see how I would have contravened the policy. Any thoughts or pointing to a person/article would be appreicate. Thanks. --Gay Cdn 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I posted the question on the WP:CV disucssion page, apparently the linking to external copyright violations is a grey area and is frowned upon.--Gay Cdn [[User_talk:Gay Cdn|(talk)]] 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Thanks for the info. I guess I've never really noticed that tab there before but I'll be sure to use it in the future. --Nebular110 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Chosen Marriage

I would like to say something about the comment you made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Chosen Marriage. You said, "A 14-year-old writing a book, is, to quote Dr. Johnson on a different subject, "like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." However, like the dog, it's not notable." In other words, I belive you're trying to say something like, "Even though the author has written and published one book, and is in the process of working on another, she is not notable and did not do a good job because she is 14 and doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia." But are you aware that the author of the book happened to read it and felt hurt by it? I agree that it wasn't nice because how exactly can you judge someone's book if you haven't even read it? And I remember what Jimbo says about Qubit Field Theory, "I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." So someone doesn't have to be notable. Of course, I'm not here to change your mind about your vote - I'm here to ask you to please apologize to the author. So would you mind apologizing to her? --71.118.84.86 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to the editor who was attemping to use her age to argue on behalf of the article being kept. The simple fact is that vanity-published books are almost never worth noting, and vanity-published books by 14-year-olds are no more notable. As far as the author's talk page is concerned, I have deep concerns about what is there now, and would not want to add to it in any way. Fan-1967 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On assuming good faith

- Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Tribune.

Don't know if you saw, but you had a slight, but not named, mention in the July 4th edition of the Chicago Tribune. [4] Near the end Zorn quotes you as saying that he would wite about how pathetic WPedians are. So not directly named, but "quoted" nonetheless. Just thought I'd say hello. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help on my user page thing, I was very confused, but I think I fixed now, at least I hope so! - ImxSoxRad 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I just have one more question. How do I, or can I, put an editing lock thing on my "user page" so that others cant edit my page? Because I've seen them on articles that dont allow anyone to edit that article. Or is that something I will have to take my chances with? - ImxSoxRad 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Gerhard Anna Concic Kaucic

Greetings. I wanted to ask you to please review the discussion so far, and see if the evidence listed there sways your vote. Thanks much. Universitytruth 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Gerhard_Anna_Concic-Kaucic[reply]

Hors d'œuvre

This is the target of the redirect, and as you can see, it does indeed exist. I'll talk to an admin about clearing the bandcruft out of the history. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, something screwing is going on with the server cache. I'll see if I can sort this out. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And it sorted itself out. I guess we are too fast for the 'pedia today :) youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]