User talk:Hetar/archive1

This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Hetar/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skl1 vandal

Thanks for helping me stop that vandal, ive got those 2 images he uploaded up for deletion right now.Brokenscope 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, always a pleasure to help :). I didn't even notice the images so its a good thing you caught them. --Hetar 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Broadcasting Network mediation

Greetings, I am the mediator working on the BBN disagreement. Please join us at the talk page where we will get together and talk our way to solution. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Spencer at The West Wing (television)

I see no mention of his death in the article and its effect on the series. Should this be included somewhere? --Hetar 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look to the cast section, you'll find that the last paragraph reads:

The show suffered a surprising loss following the death of John Spencer, who played Leo McGarry. Spencer experienced a fatal heart attack in December 2005, about a year after his character experienced a nearly fatal heart attack. As of February 2006, Spencer's death had not been addressed by the series, except for an opening message from Martin Sheen before the first new episode after Spencer's death.

It's, admittedly, quite important. ;) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hetar 07:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Work and the Story

Good save on that article. You might be interested, though, that anyone can remove a speedy tag if it no longer matches the criteria, and in fact you can remove it if you haven't even begun to fix it but say you will and do it soon. The only people who can't remove those tags are those who actually started the article. Cheers, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Being somewhat new I just wanted to err on the side of caution. --Hetar 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wm2

Hi. I disagreed on the deletion of Wm2. Apparently, it has been mentioned in a number of books [1], and I think it has a sufficient number of users, even if this may be hard to prove. I have therefore removed the prod tag. Feel free to carry it to AfD, but my feeling is that this article would be kept. - Liberatore(T) 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoW deletion issue

Issue wasnt that the information was uncited. (A simple google search turned up a copy of the email I receved myself) The information was removed for being 'trivial' (check the edit summary on history), citation issue came up after the first revert. --Barberio 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands. We already had two separate users who agreed that the information did not belong where it was. You should have taken it to the talk page, instead of hunting down poor users and making absurd accusations. --Hetar 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Re: your edits to Optics and Reflection loss. If you're going to disambiguate links, please make sure you get the right meaning. A link to a disambiguation page is always better than a completely wrong link. The correct meaning for interface in the context of optics was certainly not electrical connector!--Srleffler 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, the "right" link would always be interface. In this case, wiktionary:interface also works for the interface between two media. --Srleffler 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the link to the dab page . The whole point in link disambiguation is to remove the link to those dab pages... --Hetar 07:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a wrong link is worse than a dab link, anyday. Anyway, sorry to fuss about this. I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that you were apparently doing a big "run" of disambiguation, and I wanted to head off further mistakes.

On Primary channel you misspelled "interface" in the link you created.--Srleffler 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my 'nonsense'

I would like to question why you refered to the changes I made to the Strathfield, New South Wales page as nonsense. I have been a resident of Strathfield for almost 15 years, so I think I would have a better idea of what happens there then you. I would appreciate if you apologised for the comments you made against my person. Reynolds45 09:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Reynolds, welcome to the world of Wikipedia. I cited your comments because they were unverifiable and considered original research. In order for you to cite yourself as a notable resident of Strathfield, you need to provide some significant and verifiable sources that prove this. --Hetar 09:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for explaining the situation to me. I will ensure I provide verifiable sources in future updates. Reynolds45 10:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stubs

See Wikipedia:Stubs, to quote: "they are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's usefulness". The stereotypical stub is a few sentences long, if that. Once it gets beyond a paragraph or two, I think the cleanup or wikify tag is more useful than a stub tag. --W.marsh 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Southern Pacific 2472 qualifies as a stub. --Hetar 06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So revert me :-) That's the beauty of Wikipedia. --W.marsh 06:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, That is true, and your awfully nice to say that. Anyways, I suppose if I felt really strong about it, I would pursue other means of taking this to the next level. However, I respect your experience as an editor more than I do mine. Also, I'm trying to pick and choose my battles here carefully, I think WP will be a much better place if I can keep my interactions positive. --Hetar 06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Engle

Hey, just giving you a heads up. This guy seems to be notable enough, but I added the {{unreferenced}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} templates onto the page because it's a pretty poorly-written article right now! Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, thanks for the heads up. --Hetar 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Black and Gold

In regards to St Patrick's College, Strathfield. The "Notable Ex-Students" title has to be changed to "Notable Old Boys". Anyone who knows anything about the school would agree with me here. So change it. DJ LaReynnn 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your school refers to ex-students as "notable old boys" is irrelevant. Sections headings on Wikipedia are meant to be uniform and standardized, so that users from all over the world will be able to understand articles and quickly navigate them. Wikipedia: School Project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities both list appropriate section headings as alumni. "Old-boys" is a vague term and only locally applicable, thus in this case the term ex-students, or ex-alumni should be used. --Hetar 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22/7

Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of pi topics?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Wikipedia's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Wikipedia mathematics articles?

I'm not sure why you bothered to leave a note on my talk page about this article, as I did not nominate it for deletion and your note consisted of asking a bunch of questions to other users. Futhermore, I didn't even recommend that it be deleted, only that it be transfered to a more appropriate medium. --Hetar 01:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I did it. I thought you might address those same concerns, since you don't seem to think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this. I don't understand why not. I thought you might explain. Michael Hardy 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to leave me a message on my talk page, please address it to me, I prefer not to receive a copy and pasted message that you spammed to everyone involved with the AfD debate for this article.
There is a debate page for the Afd article for a reason, please use it, and not my personal talk page.
The first line of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is "This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of math texts." The fact that there's a particular proof out there may be mathematically interesting, but the proof alone does not constitute an encyclopedia article. --Hetar 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not just the proof alone.

And this proof really would be out of place in any typical textbook. I don't understand what looks textbookish about it to you. To me it looks more like the sort of thing sometimes found in the Notes section of the Monthly. Michael Hardy 02:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed #2 above. I'll repeat it again for your benefit: "There is a debate page for the Afd article for a reason, please use it, and not my personal talk page." --Hetar 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

caption on SDA logo

I noticed that you added a caption to the logo at the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. Usually logos don't need captions on Wikipedia "Company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. - no caption needed" Wikipedia:Captions.

If you really think it does need to be there, or want to add more information (when we chose that logo, or the symbolism) we are going to have to add some more whitespace around it so that the text does not hit the edge.

Thanks --Terrible Tim 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No biggy, I thought it looked a little isolated over there in the corner, but WP policy is obviously the overriding issue on this. --Hetar 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Llamaheadshot.jpg

I'm not sure exactly why you reverted this image to a previous version, but the version you reverted to was a vandalized one. My own fault for not deleting the bad version outright, I suppose, but still. Were you trying to fix something, or... I dunno, something? :) --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 06:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this it was done using your account, anyway. I guess no harm, no foul - I just thought I'd check and see you had intended to do something else. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 07:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper form for AfD

It is inappropriate, per WP:AFD to place the AfD tag on an article without mentioning the tag in your edit summary, as you did with Mother Pollard. Monicasdude 04:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it was a genuine mistake. Normally I do this with all of my AfDs, and it was not my intent to mask the AfD in any way. --Hetar 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Now could you explain whatever gave you the remarkably arrogant and foolish idea that you're more qualified to judge which figures in the Montgomery bus boycott are notable than Martin Luther King was? Is this a skill you picked up from World of Warcraft, or perhaps from Legend of Zelda? Monicasdude 07:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any statement as to anyone's notability, so please don't put words in my mouth. My AfD for the article is based on the fact that it is a quote, and not an encyclopedia article. Quotes obviously belong on wikiquote. Also, please avoid personal attacks in the future. --Hetar 07:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I could just step in here, Monicasdude, I don't think there's any need to get so aggressive with Hetar here. First, the page is just a quote. You may disagree with the nomination, but it is a reasonable nomination given the way the article stands. It is not being nominated because the subject is NN. It is being nominated because the article, as it stands, is nothing like what a Wikipedia article should look like. And, after clicking on the AfD nomination, it seems that several users (in fact, everyone except you who expressed an opinion) agrees with the reasons behind Hetar's nomination. All I'm saying is, hey, Can't we all just get along? --Deville (Talk) 19:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Thank you for your nomination. I have accepted it. tv316 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection/radar

Hi there Hetar! Just thought I'd let you know that the link for reflection that eluded you (is that a word?) in Radar was hiding in "reflective materials". Good job on the others, it must have taken ages! Not sure I have as much patience as you. -- Con Dem^Talk 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hetar 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The puppy channel

Hello, here is source: http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/03/233.html thank you 210.142.29.125 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know you have a good source for the article, unfortunately that doesn't mention anything about the two phrases I tagged for citation. It makes no mention of your claim that, "41% say they would prefer watching the channel to CNBC and 37% would prefer it to TBS" nor does it make any statements about Simons watching TV during the Simpson trial. --Hetar 08:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy "Hater"

"Be careful with what you say. When I put this up for deletion, the creator of the article vandalized my user page with the non-existant user box "user hatespuppies"."

If only I were so lucky, rofl that is hilarious! --Hetar 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought so too. And after I put that comment on the AfD page, I got my user page blanked and replaced with "this person hates puppies!" It's ironic too since I have three dogs! Ah, people... Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em... ;-) Dismas|^(talk) 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "vanity" template

Hi Hetar! It's here: User:Redvers/Vanity if you'd like to steal it and make it your own! You'll just need to change the talk page reference. Hope this helps! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hetar 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Optical physics; Lens (anatomy); Laser science; Stokes parameters; Magnesium fluoride; Gregorian telescope; Inertial frame of reference; Column vector; Collimating lens; Spectral interferometry for direct electric field reconstruction; Ballast (electrical); Optical path length; Acousto-optic effect; Distributed Bragg reflector; Paraxial approximation; Waveguide; ARROW waveguide; WCWM; George Zweig

Cleanup: Aberration in optical systems; Electromagnetic field; Transmission (telecommunications)
Merge: Solid-state physics; Ring wave guide; Crystal
Add Sources: Rotational invariance; Sunset Thomas; Field (physics)
Wikify: Electional astrology; LIDAR; Optical Cross Section
Expand: Potassium hydroxide; Gangrel (World of Darkness); Gallium arsenide

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cogasoc member -- Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer page

Hello Hetar:

I'm not sure if you are the one I should write to, and if not, I apologize. Yesterday I added a page entitled Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer, a former pastor of my congregation Church of God and Saints of Christ. You marked the page as "This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources."

The information is from my church's website, cogasoc.org. What more verification is needed? What other sources do I need to cite to have this removed?

I am not a vandal, nor do I intend to vandalize the encyclopedia or the newly made Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer page. I am just a member of the Church offering information about a religious/civic notable. Thank you.

From: --COGASOC member 11:11 AM EST 3/31/2006

Thank you for your information concerning the page Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer. Based on your response, I have marked the page for deletion. It would be difficult for me to resource external sources besides the books and website published by our congregation. Cogasoc member 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong guy

The vandal did that before I edited the page back...I think you were the one that was fixing it while I was too. No bad feelings though. Did the vandal do that about the Tuskarr or is that truth? Nerion 23:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, [2] clearly shows your vandalism. --Hetar 23:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape

Please stop removing images after a compromise has been made. If you haven't noticed from your removal of the images in the article RuneScape, I haven't re-added back all the images. I have only re-added what was necessary, seeing as the article has been shortened significantly.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, a consensus is a final decision on a topic from a group of people. From what I have seen in the RuneScape article's talk page, it was not completely finished at a decision and still have opinions to be collected. Even if the argument is against me doesn't mean that it's a final accepted fact.

I compromised with your actions of removing many images, mine and others, and allowed it to happen. In exchange, I, with knowledge of RuneScape, added what would be deemed appropriate and what has not already previously be mentioned.

You have clearly drained out the size of the article, so there is no need to be overly aggressive on something that was at an attempt to better the article.

Tarikochi 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drained out the size of the article? That article is huge, it is still way too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gamers manual. Also, your use of such a large number of screenshot images definately does not meet their fair use restrictions. --Hetar 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have managed to cut the article in half. While it may still be longer than the usual articles, it has still been cut down to a size. My concern is of you working as if everything needs to be miniscule.

I have also already kept in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gamers manual. How do these images reflect this?

Finally, I have not yet to see a policy presented to me with such specifics as restrictions on the amount of content.

Tarikochi 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be miniscule. The article is significantly larger than Wikipedia's recommended article size, and without sufficient justification. The gamers guide comment was not directed specifically toward the images, but towards the size of the article - which by continually expanding into fancruft does nothing to further the interests of an encyclopedia. While no fair use policy exists that says once you have X number of images they stop being fair use; the use of an excessive amount of images in the Runescape articles clearly violations the following Wikipedia fair use policy points taken from Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy

Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. --Hetar 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the gamers manual comment is not relevant to the argument, and if you have already removed the content alongside the images, then there is no reason to be mentioning such.

While it appears clear, you have misinterpreted what it has said. The first one you mentioned had a string of text behind it, which mentions that this is for copyrighted material, straight from a source. What I have created were recorded and permitted.

The second rule you placed mentions contributions and relevancy, which those that were re-added do. Also, they do not serve as only decoration, as what you have mentioned in the parts that you have italicized.

Tarikochi 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now noted you attempting to "recruit" people to opinionate against me, which is pretty interesting, considering you never used words such as "gallery" in our arguments by far. Alongside that, it's pretty biased to automatically command them (if viewed as such) to automatically choose your point of view. And you're saying you're not going against the Wikipedia is not a democracy policy? Tarikochi 20:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting other users to participate in the debate is not an attempt to call for a vote, but rather an attempt to obtain consensus, which is something the Wikipedia is not a democracy policy specifically encourages. --Hetar 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't a statement such as "If you disagree with this article turning into a gallery, you can do two things to help" completely biased, a statement far from an interest in consensus, which is basically inviting people to be against a point of view, in turn an attempt at making it a democracy? Tarikochi 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, since part of achieving consensus is discussing view points from both sides of an issue. Obviously I'm in favor of one side, but discussing that side is certainly a valid part of obtaining consensus. --Hetar 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you've chose to do such does not clearly state the two optional view points. Discussing one side with such an opinionation is not truly what I would call a consensus invitation. Tarikochi 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indignation

I see what you're aiming at. I didn't write the "april fools joke" part or the blurb about the "Tuskarrs." I DID capitalize the T in Tuskarrs, since I wasn't sure if that thing was real news or not. After checking the WoW page today, I realize that the part about wisps and Tuskarrs were most likely made by the same person who added things about "Assgrabbers" and such.

I haven't made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia, so I might have made some errors (like saveing the page w/o signing name and then stopping to add my signature then re-saving), so please forgive me. I am NOT, however, a vandal, and I refuse to be painted as such.

No hard feelings though, I feel that more articles need vigilance against vandalism as you have exhibited here Nerion 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly

Could you please explain why we need two copies of the same article? --Hetar 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I merely changed the articles for Cold Mountain around by adding an article for the novel and a disambig page for both. I didn't know how else to do it, but I think I got the job done... Sorry if I've made a mistake, I'm new at this sorta stuff. --Ben Tibbetts 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking we try to avoid disambiguation pages, as they simply create more loops for users to hop through. Most users who search for this, will probably be looking for the film, so it would make more sense just to put a simpe disambiguation sentence at the front of that article. In fact, there is a whole project dedicated to removing links to disambiguation pages at WP:DPL. While you created a page for the Cold Mountain (novel), and the Cold Mountain (film), you have now left Cold Mountain floating in lost space. I will fix this. --Hetar 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, not to disagree with a more experienced user, but I did this on account'a there was some discussion on the film page that there should be a disambig page with a separate article for the book, which is a notable modern literary classic and is worthy of inclusion in WP. --Ben Tibbetts 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I see what you're doing now. Sorry; thank you for fixing this, much obliged.

Ropshitz

FYI, I have contested prod. Reasons are listed. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë

Thanks for the heads up. --Hetar 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just wanted to say hi! The backup's appreciated. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) 07:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Personal attacks make Wikipedia no fun for everyone involved. --Hetar 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit

Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

We just edit conflicted over Google rule. I think a simple redirect is the answer - Frankencow has linked to Google Test which is the same redirect. If you want AfD - fine I won't object but I think a redirect is simpler - I will protect the page if you like. -- RHaworth 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really shouldn't be a redirect, because it's in the main namespace. --Hetar 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is Google Test. Perhaps you should add that to the AfD. -- RHaworth 06:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, adding that to WP:RFD now. --Hetar 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion at Black Mountain College page

Hetar,

Not to be rude, but I'm not sure why you erased the link regarding Merce Cunningham and John Cage? Is this incorrect? Should I provide a citation confirming the factuality of this? I'd appreciate your input before I add that info back into the article.

Cheers!Christian Roess 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were incorrect. When I reverted it I was doing RC patrol, but a closer look reveals it should be fine. Feel free to revert me/add the info back - a citation would probably be a good idea to. Happy editing. --Hetar 18:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C&VG

I have changed the title to List of deaths attributed to computer or video games and would like to request that you take a look again at this nomination. The attributions are verified, including, in at least one case the deputy coroner. There is no policy against such lists, and it serves a useful purpose in identifying deaths that have, in fact, been attributed to c&vg by reputable source. Yours, For great justice. 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning

Friendly warning, you are close to breaking WP:3RR at Criticism of World of Warcraft, so cool down for the next 24 hours. I am a lesbian but I do not mind the term, it is generally less negative experienced than you maybe do. KimvdLinde 00:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoW criticism section

It looks like someone else has already gone in and edited the section. At least grammatically it seems fine to me. Factually, I never really bothered to keep up with the issue so I don't really know if all the information is true or not. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your image tip

Hi Hetar, thank you for your image tip, I was trying to do basically what you said, but must have been doing something wrong. Tried it again and it worked fine now - perhaps the reason is that one must save the page after the image has been saved to commmons. I just wanted to let you know it helped. Best regards, Torfason 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NCO creed is not a copyright violation

Hello, I was just wondering why you marked the NCO creed as a violation of a copywright. There is no way to plagiarize the army creed. I did not claim to write it, nor has anybody, the creed is open source. There never has been an attributed author. I would appreciate it if you removed the copywrite violation. If you did not put the violation there, then I think I am misreading the changes page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smart001 (talk • contribs) .

Could you please provide a source for the fact that it is open source? Also, the article in its current form belongs at Wikibooks, not at Wikipedia. --Hetar 08:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page 210 on this PDF. http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/NCOoutlook/Documents/FM%207-22-7.pdf Make sure you read page one as well, when it says public dissemination is unlimited. smart001 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will go ahead and tag this for AfD then. --Hetar 08:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankssmart001 08:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John's reply

Dear Hetar, I did not re-create the content, I posted a REVISED version of the text. --John hyams

Same thing. It's recreating deleted content. If you contest the deletion, bring it up at deletion review, but don't re-create the article. --Hetar 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]