User talk:L0b0t/archive 2

Ft. ORD 3\9 MANCHU

I REMEMBER THE DAYS OF D.R.F.AND BEING UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A PHONE:).I CAN STILL PICTURE THE BAKYARD THERE ON PLANET ORD .AND THOSE ROAD MARCHES WERE@#**#@!!! NEVER MIND THAT:) . I THINK BACK ON MY TIME AND WHAT IT MEANS THEN I THINK ABOUT YOU GUYS THAT ARE IN NOW. NO MATTER HOW HARD IT GETS REMEMBER YOU ARE A MANCHU BE WHERE THEY DONT EXPECT DOING WHAT NO ONE ELSE CAN . KEEP UP THE FIRE !!( LET THEM CHOKE ON THE SMOKE )IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE THE HISTORY I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WRITE IT ALL. THE 7 I.D. WAS A GREAT PLACE TO BE , BUT I GUESS YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO UNDERSTAND. WHOOAHH!! LIGHT FIGHTER

FORT ORD CA. 7th.I.D 3rd BN. 9th INF. RGT. LIGHT FIGHTER (88-92)

Keep Up the Fire

86-90 2nd Manchus Oldwildbill (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jockamo feeno ai na nay'

Hey, I have no idea how that AfD discussion on the Baton Rouge crewe is going to wind up, but I'm enjoying your input and observations. Please accept this as a token of my appreciation:

		The Purple Barnstar
		For standing out in your ability to bring vibrancy and style to the Wikipedia community! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

When this is over, let's hit Bourbon Street (or the Baton Rouge equivalent!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. My very first barnstar, I shall cherish it always. Last time I was in Baton Rouge was for a friend's graduation from LSU. Laura Bush was the speaker and she brought her husband, thanks to their security precautions traffic was bad and graduation was an absolute nightmare. Cops and Secret Service everywhere. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand how those guests would disrupt what should have been a memorable moment. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it appears the article wound up being kept, as per no consensus. Oh well, on to other points of interest... Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Muslim outrage

Hey, good to see you in the AfD debate on Muslim outrage -- and that was a great comment on the song, too! Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am quite well and hope you are too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More Stalinism coming

This person just doesn't get it. See Talk:Appeasement#Britain's strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy USSR. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take a look at it in the morning. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

9M311 vs 9K22

Hi L0b0t, I have been trying to make sense of the difference between missiles (such as 9M311) and missile systems (such as 9K22). The NATO reporting name convention does not stipulates explicitely when to use the missile or the missile system. as part of the Weaponry task force, we try to standardize and define the right name and level to use for the templates and categories.

Please ensure you understand the difference between the missile and missile system next time you remove categories and revert someone else's edits. Thanks Germ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think, the more I think you are right and the missiles should all have their own page, but they don't. For instance, look at the SA-6 : the missile system is 2K12 Kub but the missile is 3M9, which does not have a page. The template will redirect to the missile system in that case. I guess what I am saying here is asking for help with that mess... Germ (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good hello. I moved the tag simply because the missile itself did have a discrete article and the weapon system uses cannons in addition to missiles and I didn't feel that a missile specific tag was warranted. However, I would have no objection to moving it back if the task force already has a protocol for tagging such things. I agree, many of these articles are a mess. You should check out some of the Iranian military articles if you want to raise your blood pressure, they are a nightmare. I've had to take a break from them as I tired of all the Persian hyperbole and misinformation that kept creeping into the articles. Either Iran has made huge leaps in its ability to make things without reverse-engineering the work product of other nations in the few years since I was last there or we have a sizable group of editors and IPs that would like the Iranian military to seem much more advanced and fierce than they really are. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there. I just reverted an undoing of your talk page archiving by an IP address. You are free to edit your talk page as you wish but sometimes archiving old talk may be a better option than simple deletion and makes for easy reference. See WP:Archive for more info. I will do the job for you if you want me to. Still, feel free to ignore this if you prefer the deletion method. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yea, I've been hemming and hawing over the idea of werdnabot or the like for a while now. It's an issue that doesn't come up often enough to bother me (and my talk page is not very active) but the people who are bothered by deleting are often really bothered by deleting. So you're right an archiving method can save on headache remedy. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Deep oil"

For a thorough bashing of the hypothesis of Abiogenic petroleum origin by people who know their oil, see Talk:Petroleum#Abiogenic_Petroleum_Origin. Synthetic petroleum can be created in a lab, but no evidence or observations of oil field patterns exist which support the possibility that commercial amounts of petroleum are created without biological material.

BTW, also have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Yasis_reported_by_User:NJGW_.28Result:_.29. Create another one if you feel like collecting difs. NJGW (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your friend

Hi, L0bot. I've noticed your "buddy" you've managed to pick up. Per my comment here, if he happens to return, let me know and I can take care of him. Likewise, if a specific page becomes targeted, feel free to let me know, and I'll semi-protect it. I'll caveat that by letting you know I'll be going to sleep shortly, and won't be on much until about 13:00 EST, so you'll have better luck with AIV and RFPP until then. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, like most people with deep family roots in New Orleans, I am not "white" by any definition of the term. So I'm not really sure where the white-supremacy angle comes into play in this kid's febrile imagination. Thanks for the cleanup though, I appreciate it. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Was going to contact you over this matter, but I see the issue is in hand. On an amusing note, maybe your friend's statements of "removed vandalism by white supremacist hater" refer to the point that he/she is under the impression you hate white supremacists. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Parsecboy said for me as well. I also added this page to my watchlist, so I happen to catch "our friend" in the act, I too can block, revert, and protect as necessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Hopefully, being summer, his mom will send him off to camp or something and he'll tire of the wiki foolishness. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasis

If he uses IPs again he'll get blocked [1], so just report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when you see it. For reference, but it will get archived if there's no activity for a few days. NJGW (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Found an interesting article for you lobot

Russia’s "New Order" of security relations incorporating the US, Russia and the European Union: The Medvedev proposal http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9641 218.186.65.112 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is an interesting read. I appreciate the link, thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9725

Mugabe’s Biggest Sin Anglo-American and Chinese interests clash over Zimbabwe’s strategic mineral wealth

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9707 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Lemon Bay High School

I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to avoid edit warring, but you seriously need to stop violating the three revert rule. Not to sound threatening, but if I see any more edit warring on that article, I'm going to have to request page protection again, and then I'm afraid I'll have to report you for edit warring. God bless. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should check the edit history, I had 2 stalkers who were just blindly reverting several different editors across multiple articles. There was no edit warring here, just multiple people reverting petty, pointy, vandalism. Also, my last edit to that article was 4 days ago, nothing current to warrant a threat of protection (esp. seeing as I was the one that got it unprotected in the first place). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If Anarchist International is your cup of tea

then you'll just love K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies‎! -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, after a quick glance I think a nice, neat, small-batch bourbon is required to process that mess. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to To Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Manchu History

As a matter of practice I do not generally attempt to contact others regarding Manchu history. However, after reading this account of the 9th Infantry Regiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)) I felt compelled to. As a veteran of "Operation Just Cause" I feel the need to point out that the 2d Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment also participated in the Operation. We were also the unit that was initially deployed to Panama in support of "Operation Nimrod Dancer" from May 1989 through August 1989.

I am just trying to be inclusive in this history of the 9th Infantry Regiment.

Keep Up the Fire!

djs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapin98 (talk • contribs)

Cool. I have had VERY little to do with that article other than some minor copy-editing. If you have reliable sources to cite then you should add that info to the article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

user information

Your user page directs to your talk page so except for your userboxes you provide no user information yet one of the IP address I use has retained its user page.

I have been forced to use my IP as my user name again recently as the result of false claims of personal attack which were statements of fact in my defense, since statement of fact for any reason in the Wikipedia can be deemed a personal attack even if made in self defense.

I believe an article I wrote was nominated for deletion as a personal attack due to the expression of my philosophical belief stated elsewhere (similar to as your userbox about indicating that for you race is a social construct.) and was wondering if you might be willing to help me investigate the real motive for the attack. The user that initiated it was born in Beijing in 188, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist and sent off to Atlanta where he entered the public school system for 3 years and then went on to Georgia Tech for another 4 years and is now a graduate student there with ambitions to work at JPL where he is visiting this week.

It appears that a group of users at a school or connected in some other way such as a robotics cabal were able to gang up on me and have the article deleted. Since many users and administrators and even bureaucrats are under age 15 this type of thing is to be expected normally but the above information is what makes it special in this case. Wikipedia now appears not only to be a place where the new generation can kill off the old generation but now where Communists can even kill off Americans whose ancestors fought in the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.7.91 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, without a link to the AfD for the article in question (or even the article's name) there is not much that can be done (also, I am in no way, shape, or form, an administrator.) If you feel an article was deleted erroneously, then you should first contact the administrator that closed the AfD and see if they would be willing to restore it. Failing that, your next shop should be Deletion Review where there is a formal process that you can start to have the initial deletion discussion looked over and possibly reversed. If you post a link to the AfD, I would be happy to give it a read through. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

South Park

The episode itself is the source. If you can't be bothered to view the episode, you shouldn't work on an episode article. - Denimadept (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, I believe the {{cite episode}} template should be used (WP:CITE an WP:CITET would be the places to look.) The episode itself is a primary source however, and as such is subject to some use restrictions. It cannot, for example, be used a source to establish a connection with another work. That is, if one wants to say that a scene in an episode of South Park is an homage, parody (or any other semiotic element) of another work, then one would need to cite a secondary source such as a media studies textbook or a book about South Park. Without a source that says the writers intended a specific allusion or symbolism one runs the risk of violating the prohibition on editorial synthesis. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we can't say that a reference in a South Park episode is to a previous episode? And yes, there was a previous episode. - Denimadept (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartman gets an anal probe

You seem to be a fairly experienced editor, so I won't insult you by tagging your talk page with a {{blatantvandal}}. However, please be careful what version you restore. Your last edit to Cartman Gets an Anal Probe restored a heavily vandalized version of that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, thanks for catching that. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to apologize about my edit summary above (can't undo edit summaries). Your edit looked like vandalism, and I characterized it as such in my edit summary, but then I looked at your edit history and realized you just made an honest mistake. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, did the same thing myself. Also, I did not pay enough attention to what I was doing in the first place so I'm sorry for starting the whole mess. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whale tail

Thanks for your attention to the article. I have trying to get people to lend a hand, especially with the copy, which happens to be the trickiest proposition for me. I really appreciate (especially since I have this delusional hope to get this article to a GA status someday). But, well, I have a little disagreement with you here, especially about the spammy goodness that was removed. A website that's been covered by mainstream media as a part of the stuff intrinsically associated with the whale tail needs to be in the article for the sake of comprehensive coverage (a mandatory for article quality as described here and here, if nothing else. I am putting it back for a closer review (may be the copy is bad, may be bit of inappropriate material has crept in). Shall we discuss the matter then? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good hello. My opinion is that the website in question need not be in the article, the website is not a reliable source, fails the notability criteria for inclusion and has not been "covered by mainstream media" (a passing mention in the NYT style section in an opinion piece that is not about the website in question is not coverage.) I am, however, open to discussion on the matter. Do you have some sources that actually write about the website itself (beyond trivial mentions of the site's mere existence)? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the website in question was not used as a source, therefore I don't think its reliability is important. On the other hand, its notability should established enough for an inclusion in the article on the related subject, though it doesn't meet the notability criteria for a stand alone article. I know that there's a philosophy of exclusionism among many editors who prefer to have only the academically sound material included. But, probably the real spirit of Wikipedia lies in the philosophy of inclusionism upheld by many other editors, who believe that eventually Wikipedia can become a repository for any and every knowledge.

The bit on website (which seems to be "worthy of notice") is pure information, without added commentary or claims, and is in agreement with style guideline on trivia, content guideline against spamming and notability guidelines. Standing at position 33232 in traffic ranking its daily unique hit count compares to the French Wikipedia, and it shows more than 1200 hits in a google-search.

Two more things. Please, don't put refs "before" punctuation while fixing the copy. It's against Wikipedia manual of style. And, why are removing the redundant image repeatedly? There is no barrier for putting in two images of the same thing in the article on the subject of the image. The first image (beside the lead) illustrates the subject better, but the image you are repeatedly removing is a better looking image. Wikipedia doesn't stand against looking good, as long it doesn't violate one of the policies or guidelines or the spirit. And, the image in question is doing none of that. I am putting it back.

If you want to remove it again, please, consider clarifying the action on this talk page or the relevant article talk page. Consider that an edit war is bad, a pointless edit war is much worse. Such a post will only help removing disagreement and show good faith. Also, please, avoid using expressions like spammy website and spammy goodness. It's rather incivil, and shows a lot of disrespect for other editors. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't you post your reply to my observations on the website stuff unless I put the stuff back again? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for the edit war over images? As far as I understand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines have nothing to say against images that are in alignment with article context, especially when it involves free images. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are enough images in the article already. The more images you add the more you stymie a legion of users who access the encyclopedia via mobile device or even older computers. The allure of the image is far outweighed by the slowdown of the page load when there are already several images in the article that illustrate the subject quite nicely. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... by the way, you seem to have quite a legacy of reverting and removing stuff from this article (see: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]...), often with somewhat rude remarks. I understand that you care about the article, but it seems that you have so far added nothing to it while it graduated into a GA. Isn't that a bit odd already? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ash's Shotgun

L0b0t, I would rather not get into an edit war, but the fact that a boomstick is Ash's shotgun is some movie hardly takes precedence over what a "boomstick" is in popular culture. I happen to be a hunter and a hunting blogger and blog reader, and "boomstick" is very common slang for a musket or fouling piece (similar to a shotgun, but much earlier piece). If someone overheard the word "boomstick" and wanted to know what it was, having their page redirected to "Army of Darkness" is hardly helpful. If you must, create a disambiguation page and list "Army of Darkness", "Musket", and "Shotgun". Please.

p.s. I'm too lazy to go find my log-in to wikipedia, but I am currently an active user within other wikis on the wikia network

--64.33.203.67 (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

and there, I remembered my login lol

--Ggarfield (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Frankly, I'm neutral as to where the redirect points but a quick history of the article might be helpful. The article started out in 2005 as a dicdef of "boomstick" as a slang term to describe a shotgun with a sentence about Ash's shotgun from the Army of Darkness franchise (which Ash calls "boomstick"). As a result of an afd in 2007 the article was merged into sawed-off shotgun but since no one who regularly edits that article had ever heard "boomstick" used to describe a sawed-off shotgun other than in the movie Army of Darkness and, as per long-standing consensus, info about fictional weapons (or a real weapon used in a work of fiction) is not welcome in articles about firearms unless that fictional use is very notable, such as James Bond and the Walther PPK, a redirect to Army of Darkness was created. That is how the article came to point where it did. Your pointing it towards Musket is probably the right idea though as I can't see it being any more than a dicdef. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jen Richter

That's why articles on AFD are usually moved after consensus has been reached. Anyway, I've deleted the other one too. Sorry to see your work go. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi L0b0t! You have recently tagged the article Boys Noize for speedy deletion. I didn't review your contributions, but am concerned about other possible tags like this. The article does assert notability, and a simple Google search is enough to see that the subject clearly does not satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe that the article violates notability guidelines such as WP:N, WP:MUSIC, etc., you are welcome to open an AfD. The fact that the article has existed for a long time is another indication that it shouldn't be speedily deleted.

Again, I am not saying that the article should definitely be kept, just that speedy deletion is a process reserved for articles that should be clearly deleted without further discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Benny

The change to the beauty article is not a strange edit. Take a look at the discussion section. I made a note to under "Object and Subject." It's not a change I made willy-nilly, which I can understand you might think because I made the changes to the pronouns. I HAVE STOPPED making changes to the pronouns because I was unaware of the gender-neutral concensus page. Please don't take this for granted and revert all of my edits without thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:BennyQuixote (talk • contribs)

Good hello. Thank you for stopping. I did look at the discussion page, it took some time to find your comments. As a general rule you should always sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~), this will add your signature, the time and date of your post and quick links to your talk page. It makes slogging through a long discussion page easier for everybody. Also, please start new topics or sections at the bottom of a page, this keeps the flow chronological and will drastically increase the chance that your comment will be read. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

This edit summary is a little harsh. [8] Please feel free to correct my English usage if it's not up to par. But the articles I wikilinked to have sources supporting the information cited there. I'd like to restore the information. Would that be okay with you? Tiamut^talk 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, please accept my apologies. Today is my first day off in quite a spell and I have been drinking Sherry all day. That edit was made in error and I have reverted it. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problemo and thanks. Tiamut^talk 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason

I can't see it online. Maybe you should post to the article talk page, or use the info to make an edit it that is appropriate. Ty 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		for so tirelessly working on the LBHS page and fighting the vandals from there and their rival schools. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thank you, that's really sweet. BTW, great job finding a source for the rural/suburban question, Englewood certainly has grown. Thanks again and cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Gretting, This is Greg. The reason why the Chinese article links are there was (If you look back at the history pg) We need someone back then to varify the actress indeed had been in the news/press release here and over seas. I took much time (whole night) varifying the source since I can't read Chinese by using both Google and Yahoo translations reading the article page-by-page. The website belong to the Chinese Times under the website it's called The world Journal News. It has over 57 plus Chinese papers worldwide under the site. If you use the translation page, you will realized that each source of the article will in fact have the mention for the bio on Ms Wang's page. Hard to sort out since I am still reading on it word by word through translation.. It's alot of work, Give me time and let me finish so I may properly redirect the links to it's proper place. Thank you for reading this.

GM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantellg1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi punk

There is no reason to remove NaziPunk.8k.com from the 'See Also' section. It's an English website which contains very valuable information about the Wikipedia article. Further, it is a useful link for antiracist groups to monitor racist activity within the Punk Rock scene. Before deleting anything else from the article, start a topic about it in the discussion section of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.47.106 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL for our rules on linking to external sites. If it is such a useful site it should be incorporated as a reference, that article is woefully short of them. As for being a useful link for groups to "monitor" people. Well, quite frankly, the fact that you would think of that as good thing disturbs me. Having spent 20+ years in the military, fighting communism around the globe, I know only too well where that kind of thinking leads. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

apology

Seems I owe you an apology, as your comment was indented from mine, I presumed you were talking about me working at an international establishment paid for by member and host state taxes and reading wikipedia all day. I missed that it was more as likely applied to the secret service personnel, so my apologies for removing your comments. ^Khukri 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries and please accept my apologies for reacting impolitely. I too was guilty (until retirement) of occasionally playing on the wiki on the taxpayer's dime. My comment was mainly placed in frustration after seeing security infrastructure that was supposed to be used for good, get turned to evil (Carnivore, Magic Lantern, TIPPS, Secure Flight, et al.). It would seem from your talk page that are involved at the LHC, that's so cool and I'm sorry there were some blithering idiots out there trying to stop the science. Makes me wish I paid a little more attention in physics class but hey, the world needs infantry NCOs too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Such-and-such

I see that you've sold out to Big This-and-that...Never mind the fact that all this-and-that research has been fraudulently funded by Exxon Mobil, Pfizer and Al-Qaeda. Don't be such a sheep. I will continue fighting the battle against those who squash the research of the brave such-and-such researchers! — Scientizzle 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish ranks

Dear L0b0t,

Thank you for restoring my edits.

I am an independent researcher of military organizations (hobby level) and the section I wrote in the Swedish Armed Forces is an extract/translation from recent research papers from the Goteborg and Lund University by other researchers in the same field. I believe that the section complies with all wiki standards because those are conclusions from a widely published research paper, which do not necessarily represent my own opinion.

It is very annoying when my contributions are deleted without any comments and by individuals who only identify themselves by an ip number. I do not benefit from providing wiki with false information as I have no connection with the military and a reputation as an objective researcher to maintain.

Regards --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement

According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: [9]. Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric Lerner revert and RS/N

Did you happen to see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source_for_a_critique_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_book.3F before deciding to revert me? Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what drew me to the article in the first place. Those sources are fine and we would be doing our readers a disservice if we left them with any impression other than that Lerner's ideas are absolute rubbish. L0b0t (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it. I'll just think of you as SA Jr. then. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. L0b0t (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Iran-Iraq War

Thank you L0b0t, and thank you very much for your own work on the article. :) Terrakyte (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your commment

Your comment on Jimmy's talkpage really went over the line. More importantly, it demonstrated conclusively that you hadn't bothered even to read anything written above to which you were ostensibly replying. No one said anything about porn, or protecting children, and I very clearly wrote what we were hoping to achieve and why. In the future, please at least take the time to read what others have written before breaking out the personal attacks - and also keep in mind that you can be blocked for them. Avruch ^T 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, way to misinterpret comments that were not even directed towards, or about, you. In the future, at the very least, please do not make the mistake of assuming that a post that mentions another editor by name in one clause and makes a statement of personal opinion about a certain mindset that rears its ugly head every time the topic of explicit images comes up in separate clause, is in any way directed towards you (especially since, as you take pains to point out above, you do not hold that mindset). Seriously, I find the fact that you seem to have misunderstood (or didn't read) my post, jumped to a conclusion about my ability to understand a discussion, then posted a rather paternalistic reply on my talk page accusing me of the exact same thing quite risible. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "All of you "OH NOES IT'S TEH PR0NZ, PLEASE DO SOMETHING FOR THE CHILDREN" people disgust me and you really should head over to Wikipedia Review where you will find plenty of close-minded, like-minded, bigots to vent your wikihaterd with. Stop ruining the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Since I proposed the topic, and pointed out the image that was later deleted as a result, I assumed (reasonably) that you were referring to me. Avruch ^T 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you being more specific. I do see where you are coming from and have refactored the comment. Please accept my apology and rest assured that I was only referring to those who hold that nanny-state mindset and in no way meant that as an attack on you personally. I do, however, still strenuously object to Giggy's deletion of an image with no regard whatsoever for policy and process, ignoring a day old xfD that seemed to be leaning towards keep. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstract notions

(sarcasm) You must be kidding... you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the only practical difference between "races" is "Do a single layer of cells (visible only to a microscope in cross-section) produce X amount of melanin or Y amount of melanin?"? But the concept has proven so useful, and advanced the social evolution of Homo sapiens so much! (/sarcasm)
You might be interested, if you haven't read it already, in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. As the preface to the book says, one of the arguments anti-abolitionists used was "It's no different from the wage-slavery you practice." I differ on that, but the book makes it clear why the claim wasn't wholly unjustified. arimareiji (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee. While I haven't read The Jungle in more than a decade, if I recall correctly, I didn't see eye-to-eye with Sinclair but his use of prose was masterful and great to read. As for bias, we all have it, it's human nature to be selective (to discriminate if you will). We are, after all, tribal, pattern-seeking animals. Therefore, in my opinion, it is best that we all acknowledge our bias and make no attempt to hide it; that way we can all understand each other's POV and reasoning a little better. As always, I am happy to discuss my views with anyone who wants to do so in a civil manner, only through such dialog can we find common ground and get down to the task of building an encyclopedia (instead of fretting over other editor's ideologies). Now, however, it's time to go to my wage-slavery. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian military hardware

Sorry I won't be able to help much. My expertise (such as it is) is in the political religious history. I know little about military strategy, materiale, and such.
Good luck. As you say there is no good correlation at all between interest in a subject and NPOV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

At least post a comment on the talk page explaining your view. Publicly make incitements to violence would seem to be a notable topic in my view. As for sourcing the internet archive will pass any RS requirement you want to mention (independent, authoritative, consistent) it could be argued to be a primary source but as is is reporting what was posted on the subjects website seems to be reasonable to me. Links to the an old version of the wikipedia page showing it existed at a time when the list was taken down, so simple verification to a stable website (Note this was deliberately re phrased and changed to a permanent link to the history rather than the current article). Similarly the links to the Bullshido.net articles are simply demonstrating that they still exist. Could you please explain Why you feel the section is in breach of WP:BLP? --Nate1481 11:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As I believe the section is not in breach of WP:BLP I will re instate it unless there are objections. --Nate1481 11:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please could you put more detail of your view on the talk page so we can discuss how to improve the phrasing of the removed sections. --Nate^t/_c 08:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience POV

Lob, it's not clear to me why you seem to think that I hold or push a pseudoscience POV. In fact my editing history should pretty much dispel that idea. I'm a professional scientist/engineer/mathematician type, and generally work to keep pseudoscience out of technical articles. The particular article that you've interacted with me on, Eric Lerner, is not about science or pseudoscience, but about his own ideas; his "alternative" cosmology ideas may be all wrong, but they are born of the science of Nobel-prize-winning physicist Alfven; I only think that people with alternative, and fringe, ideas shouldn't by pilloried for them, and that in wikipedia their ideas ought be fairly articulated and not ridiculed; a fair level of criticism based on the mainstream POV is no problem. Why do you and SA prefer to go so far beyond that and attach people with non-mainstream ideas, as Ohm was attacked for Ohm's law and Wegener was attacked for continental drift? I just don't think wikipedia is the right battleground for that.

Can you at least try to be civil, accept good faith, and keep an open mind about what's going on here? Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

Please explain how merely stating that Al Roker appears throughout the episode violates anything. Please explain why I need to find another source to confirm that Kramer did not mention the coffee table book in previous episodes. Please explain why I should confirm that Kramer had later claimed he thought about the idea while going skiing. Please explain why I should prove that Benjamin W.S. Lum appears in both episodes.

I urge you to not go overboard with these citation demands. After all, there's common sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.177.35 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. It is not enough that one can watch an episode and guess what the trivia sections are talking about. One has to cite the sources for the information. WP:CITE is your new friend, there you will find all you need to know about citing sources. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all due respect, these aren't answers, these are aversions. I've addressed specific points, please address them back. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did, I have provided links to the germane policies and guidelines (those pages explain it much more succinctly than I would be able to). You have to use footnotes or refs to cite the sources you use to put information into the encyclopedia. Why you have to do this is laid out in our policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research and our guidelines on television episodes and writing about fiction. How you can easily do this is explained by our guideline WP:CITE. As for your specific questions. #1 Saying Roker appears throughout the episode violates or policy on verifiability and original research unless you cite a reliable source that backs up that claim, luckily it is easily cited by using the episode itself and IMDB. #2 You need to cite a source for the claim about Kramer, to not cite a source, once again, violates our policies on verifiability and original research. #3 Same thing, you need to cite a source for the claim about Kramer, to not cite a source, once again, violates our policies on verifiability and original research. #4 You need to cite a source for the claim about Lum, to not cite a source violates our policies on verifiability and original research, again, it's easy, just follow the procedure at WP:CITE and cite IMDB and the episode itself. I'm sorry if you feel that this is a burden but these policies have to be adhered to if you want your edits to remain. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... you've answered yourself: "Luckily, it is easily cited by using the episode itself and IMDb." Watch the episode, read the credits - as for Kramer, a) watch previous episodes and see that there's no mentioning of the coffee table book; b) watch his appearance on Regis and Kathy Lee in "The Opposite." As for Lum - check credits for both episodes. There is no WP:OR nor is there WP:SYNTH in any of these trivia bits. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but you still have to actually cite the source in the article, if you do not have a source to cite then yes you have just commited original research. If you, the editor, see something in a Seinfeld episode and just know it is a reference to another episode or work, to edit that into an article without citing a source is to commit both synthesis and original research. It is not that I doubt that one can find this info in the credits it is that if you want that info to stay in the encyclopedia you have to cite sources. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really fail to follow your logic: where do you see any conclusion concerning any inter-references between episodes? Lum appears in "The Stock Tip" and in "The Cigar Store Indian" - according to episode credits - where can you find original research here? Kramer tells Regis and Kathy Lee that he thought about the idea on a skiing trip and here we see him coming up with the idea in the cigar store - stating two verified facts does not constitute synthesis. Kramer had never mentioned the idea until this episode - again, verified fact. Roker is mentioned by the characters throughout the episode and appears as himself in the end - once again, we're dealing with stated facts. Not every entry must be challenged. There are plenty of other WP articles (of much greater importance) that could use a good editorial outlook. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure why this is causing you confusion. You seem to be able to tell me about your sources on my talk page so just follow the methodology given at WP:CITE and cite those sources in the article. The issue of OR and Syn only come up because you are not citing these sources. You have to cite sources for your claims, it's that simple. I am in no way trying to dispute the veracity of your claims but without cited sources we have no way to verify them. Yes, stating 2 verified facts is OR and Syn if you do not cite the source that verifies those facts. Again, please review our policies and guidelines on verifiability, original research, writing about fiction, and television episodes, you will see that the requirement for citing sources is quite clear. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show me how I cite the episode itself as a footnote. Isn't watching it enough? Did the plot have to be printed by someone else beforehand to establish credibility? 87.69.177.35 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you would be so kind as to go to citation templates and scroll down you will see some templates that can be used to make citing easier. About 3/4 of the page down there is a template for citing television episodes {{cite episode}}. If you copy and paste the template you can just edit the episode info onto the appropriate line. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoting WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film." 87.69.177.35 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is for the plot section. All other sections must be properly cited. L0b0t (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that all the facts listed in that section are bits of episode plots - and can therefore be validated by watching each respective episode - this policy applies here as well. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, no that only applies to the plot summary not to cast list, trivia, production, anything else. L0b0t (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So... let me get this straight. If a part of the plot appears in the plot summary section, it does not require a cite, However, if the same exact part is found in another section, it requires a cite. Therefore: the same information is to be treated differently depending on its location, am I correct in following this extremely warped logic that is utterly numb to common sense? 87.69.177.35 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of reaction proves the absurdity of this claim. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

C'mon now you're just being obtuse. These automatic reverts of yours are not the way to go about things, please stop. L0b0t (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm being obtuse? I've already explained my point multiple times, presented you with a yes-or-no question, which you've completely ignored (because the answer is too obvious)... Linking to the proper episode is enough, you don't have to make me copy the episode name and the series name 4329764 times within the template. I've referenced the episodes, please stop removing. If you really wish to contribute, find sources instead of mutilating articles - how's that for constructive? 87.69.177.35 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry chum, thought my answer was pretty clear, the policies and guidelines are quite specific. Yes, yes, yes, you must cite sources for your edits, if you are making claims that can be verified by watching the episode, you must cite the episode. If you are making claims that go beyond something that can be found by watching the episode (such as references to other episodes/works, critical reception, etc.) then you must cite a reliable secondary source. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

In President of the United States, the use of the word "President" is short for "President of the United States". The latter clearly should be capitalized. That should also apply to the former, because it is simply a shortened version of the latter. SMP0328. (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the MOS explicitly tells us not to capitalize the short form. The word president should only be capitalized when it begins a sentence, when it precedes the name of the office holder, or when it appears in the formal title, such as President of the United States. L0b0t (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

C-SPAN

Ok first of all its C-SPAN. Second there's no commercials (root word commerce) meaning they don't sell air time to advertisers. Third the voice overs are not "embodies" they're actual people. When they show Congress they leave the mic open instead of talking during down times, giving the viewer a feeling of actually being there. Fourth there's no delay either. Watch this youtube video to see several examples of profanity. You have obviously never watched the channel and I'm putting my edit back up.TomCat4680 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. I'm puzzled though, the things you bring up were already addressed in my comment on your talk-page. Yes, profanity sometimes makes it on-air but I assure you that there is a time-delay on the call-in shows. that's why they ask callers to turn down the volume on their sets and listen through the phone or they will be out sync with the program and leave several seconds of dead air. Yes, the Congressional sessions are open-mic, but they do not always leave it open during down time, they often take calls during votes/cloture motions or occasionally they will show what's airing on the companion channels. In the broadcasting industry, when you hear a voice and the speaker is not in view it is called a disembodied voice-over; whenever you see an archival clip on C-SPAN and hear Brian or the others speaking or when Congress is voting and you hear a voice telling you what is coming up on the network or what is airing on the companion stations you are hearing a disembodied voice-over from C-SPAN. As for commercials, advertisements would have been a better choice of words on my part; C-SPAN shows advertising, the advertising is all for C-SPAN but it is advertising. Come to think of it, they do air commercials; they show spots for their Congressional Handbook that mention both the price ($19.95) and the store to purchase it from (the C-SPAN website). So, again, I posit that the claim in the lead is incorrect and should be reworded or excised. Also, please assume good faith and don't make such silly claims as "You have obviously never watched the channel". You know nothing of my background, I have been watching the network since 1980 and have been a regular caller to Washington Journal for the past 15 years. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blue-on-blue

I agree with you about the UNDUEness of the IACD at SPLC... but you can't win this one unless you can find an irrefutable example in policy that agrees. I can't think of one myself, or I'd name it - and I'm not sure that even that would do any good. They've already shown that they'll tag-team anything they don't like to death. After all, policy is supposedly just something nice to fall back on if a vote doesn't make it clear. XP
Please back down, I don't want to see you get burned for 3rr. Even if it's unfair, sometimes you have to back off and let entrenched POV warriors "win". Let them keep WP:OWNing this one; better to find a few other articles you can contribute to productively in its place.
Sometimes it's better to take a step back and walk around an obstacle. Progress is rarely a straight path that only goes forward. arimareiji (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rational advice. You are correct, not only is it a pointless fight, it is also a fight that I don't have the energy to get into. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the many things I find frustrating about that article is the amount of space devoted to discussing the list of "hate groups". I understand that it is only exploitative hyperbole and fear mongering that allows Dees to keep raking in the donations from an incredulous public but the encyclopedia should strive for something more. Seriously, this is a law firm that has made Academy Award winning films but that only gets a sentence in the article. L0b0t (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is not Google

Hi, you deleted some externals links on the Carroll Quigley page, saying that "wiki is not google". What do you mean by that? Thank you. Ah Poh (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good hello. By that comment I was referring to our policies and guidelines on external links and what Wikipedia is not. Essentially it boils down to the idea that if an link is important enough to be in the article then it should be cited as a reference and used in the article. External links should be rare and articles should have no more than 1 or 2 if they are present at all. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rob Capriccioso

Hello L0b0t, last year I nominated for deletion an article about a person named Rob Capriccioso for being non-notable, original research, etc. The result was delete, and you may remember that the users Dcwash (who created the article and defended it) and Torrenceg (who showed up late to defend it) struck you as being eerily similar. Well, I always suspected that Dcwash was actually Capriccioso, considering the degree of familiarity with the person's career despite a lack of any sources about that, let alone reliable ones. I didn't mention this in my nomination because I didn't figure it being a probable vanity page was relevant to that.

But now I've noticed that this page exists: Rob capriccioso, note the lowercase. It was started by Torrenceg, and just recently Dcwash has edited it, and now a brand new account Nativejourno has made an edit, too. Hard to assume good faith in this circumstance. Looks like a sock puppet to me. I considered nominating the page for deletion myself, but it was kind of an ordeal the first time. Is there a better way to do it this time around? And should these users be banned? Looking for some advice if you can help. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged the article for speedy deletion per category G4 and notified the administrator who closed the first deletion. Let's give the process some time to work. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. I had to do a lot of reading up on deletion policy the first time and got a few things wrong then, and didn't know it could be speedied for recreated material. Good to know, and most appreciated. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Ah Poh. In case you hadn't been suspicious already. NJGW (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought we had seen the last of that one. Thanks for the pointer. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, check out the last weeks history on my talk and user pages. NJGW (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but just be careful with the reverts as it seems that range is DHCP for a huge chunk of Singapore. There are a lot of vandals using those IPs, but a lot of regular people too. It looks like Yasis either uses a dial-up or internet cafe every day (or maybe it's from his day school). NJGW (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On Njgw

User LobOt, why you want to help this Njgw?

I think I will end this little charade with him and start on you from now, since you like to help him so much. 02:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.225 (talk)

Thanks

For your work on Glenn Beck.E2a2j (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
For your work on making Wikipedia fair and balanced (pardon the pun) between glenn and keith. On a separate note, would you be for summarizing Glenn's quote on global warming? I don't think that that his main point on GW is that it is holocaust like stuff? Nicholas.tan (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Whale Tail

Lobot, I agree with you that the article does not need the March image which was added after the GA review. I have commented on the talkpage, I agree with you but both of you have passed 3RR, so I would advise both of you give it 36 hours before going near the page again. If Adiyta is serious about FA then I hope they will see sense. As it stands I removed the image and I would expect that the page would stay like that for the moment, however if either of you revert again then the other can file a 3RR and either one of you will be blocked, or possibly both of you. I would suggest you point Adiyta to the policy you are falling back on, or suggest an FA review where images were a problem. For the purposes of a 3RR report this is your warning, this is Aditya's. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not even come close to violating the three revert rule. With 5 edits to the article in all of 2009: 1 on 25 Feb, 1 on 4 April, 2 on 9 April (the date in question) and 1 on 11 April. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your AFD nomination of Katarzyna Dolinska

I fixed your AFD nomination of Katarzyna Dolinska and it is now complete. Why do you want to choose delete?

Well, it is a notable fashion model has a lot of fashion work. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to list it at WP:DRV. It may have been no concensus, but all those in favour of keeping the article didn't make any arguments regarding the subject's notability. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MIchael

Please participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tritter ... MistyWillows ^talk 02:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion templates

Just because there are thousands of useless articles on Pokemons and hamlet footballers that also should be deleted doesn't mean we can let other non notable subjects in. I don't believe that he meets WP:AUTHOR, in that the sources cited are his publisher and his assumedly self-published (or publisher-published) sites for the books themselves and the 'zine. If I totally thought it was a slam dunk A7, I would have deleted it myself out of hand...but having you remove the CSD with such a statement about pokemon fancruft articles does me a disservice.

You also know... you can move articles on your own, right? I don't believe Jeff Somers already has something in place. I'll go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, I tried it myself but the target was protected from creation. Sorry for doing you a disservice, I was under the impression that only the creator of the article was not supposed to remove the CSD tag (instead using the hangon tag) but that any other editor could remove the CSD and that meant the nominator would have to take it to AFD. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're correct that any editor can. I was under the impression that only admins could, but when I read up on the policy page I was in error. I only restored it because IMO you had removed it with a faulty premise in the edit summary. I have since removed the CSD once the creator started meeting the requirements of notability. :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. You are correct, my edit summary should have been less snarky and more based upon policy/guideline. Sorry mate, cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shayan Italia

Hi Lobot, thanks for keeping an eye on this page. Thikkimasala and now Editor004 are somewhat problematic; perhaps you've already noticed the history of those users, and the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thikkamasala. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, yea, I saw the history and am still trying very hard to WP:AGF with that user/users although their edits are eerily similar. That said, I will certainly be keeping the article watchlisted. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Lobot, the two disruptive users are now banned as sock puppets. What do you think of the article? The guy's had some coverage--three reliable sources. Is that enough, you think, or is AfD the next step? I can't decide. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't know if this artist passes muster with WP:N or WP:MUSIC. If he does not then AfD would be the way to go. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP and RS and V of criminal activity lists for Outlaw MCs

I've been seeking help deciding what standard to apply in declaring a group or club to be "criminal" and when a litany of crimes may be attached to the club as a whole. I struck out at the BLP notocieboard. I agree with this edit because I have read Jeremy Packer and others disparage the quality of the History Channel's shows, but I'm not certain of WP's position on reliability these TV shows.

Have these questions, specifically about the criminality of groups, been resolved somewhere? Should I try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to try to get stronger consensus? Or just keep editing and hoping it works itself out?

I've also been thinking that replacing Template:Infobox Criminal organization with Template:Infobox Organization would make the motorcycle gang articles more neutral and reliable, because I think some editors feel obligated to fill in every blank (like criminal activities), even if they lack strong sources.

Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good hello. It is my understanding that television shows, especially such sensationalist drivel that airs on the History channel is almost never a reliable secondary source and should only be used as a primary source about the television show itself. As for the BLP, I know quite a few members of the listed MCs who are not engaged in criminal activity so to paint the whole group with that wide brush is a massive BLP violation. Replacing the infobox is a great idea, as is the RS noticeboard and perhaps an RfC at the wikiproject motorcycles talk page. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel page

You keep deleting the official Johnny Rebel website, if you do it again, I will be contacting Wikipedia directly to report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.38.101 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Court of Cassation (Tunisia)

Just a friendly note on Court of Cassation (Tunisia). I declined the speedy deletion request because A3 specifically excludes stubs, and this is a perfectly valid stub.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Woops, my mistake. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to New Orleans Mardi gras constitutes vandalism and had to be reverted. If you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishing4327 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

They asked me for sources, now they are, what is the problem now?--Italian rsw (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

You have recently been engaging in an edit war at Glenn Beck. While you have not technically broached the 3RR "bright line," edit warring is still not acceptable, and as it has been fairly endemic to the Beck article recently I'm setting a firm rule that edit warring will result in blocks, even if the 3RR line is not crossed. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page, where there is an open thread on the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel "It's The Attitude, Stupid!" is officially released by Tightrope Records - tightrope.cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrebfan (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel "It's The Attitude, Stupid!" is officially released by Tightrope Records - tightrope.cc

Johnny Rebel "It's The Attitude, Stupid!" is officially released by Tightrope Records - tightrope.cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrebfan (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me why I no longer write articles on wikipedia

RE: [10]

See also, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists

Its not a club. It is an animal rights organization. If you are going to tag an article for speedy deletion, at least tagged it correctly.

Ikip (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote in {{hold on}} :

Nominator has confused this article with a band, using for bands, {{db-club}} In addition, db-club is "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." which this organization is none of the above.

If you are going to delete other editors contributions, with no WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE at least quote the correct reason for the deletion.

Please re-read the criteria for speedy deletion, quoting club for bands on an animal rights organization? LOL. Ikip (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Further:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.

Associated Press is not credible?

I would strongly suggest removing the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 tag, by all accounts, this is the wrong tag. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I know how this game works.

I actually called it a few minutes ago.

It is going to look REALLY bad when you or another editor nominate this article for deletion, after the speedy is removed, and you used "club" as the reason, when a casual reading shows that club absolutely does not apply. I am formulating the argument for the AFD now. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Grow up. My tagging was done with the Friendly interface and the A7 club button is located right next to the A7 company/organization button, which is right next to the A7 bands button (apparently too close for this omnivore's thick digits) but it's still all category A7. Obviously, you feel differently, the tag has been removed, and you claim to be working on the article. Cool, I look forward to seeing what you produce, maybe you can craft an article that far exceeds our inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) L0b0t you need to be more careful with the tagging, generally, keep speedy tags for emergencies - defamatory, profane or blps. The rest a PROD tag or AfD is more appopriate. We are losing new users and this sort of confrontational tagging is not helpful if we are trying to create a collaborative atmosphere. Ditto for the article below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seeing no prescriptions for emergency use anywhere at WP:CSD, we'll just chalk this up to a difference of editorial opinion. As for the histrionics from the editor above, category A7 (and specifically "{{db-club}} – for clubs, societies, groups, and organizations") is the correct categorization for a group that bills itself as an animal rights organization. But, apparently, this is all moot as the article is being worked upon so I'll assume good faith and give it some time. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry Latham Doherty was an important man

Why you want to delete my snub about Henry Latham Doherty?This American was an important man, as you can read in this site: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/D/DO006.html .Yes, the article(a snub) is small, but you improve it, not delete.Agre22 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

United Egg Producers

I gave that section another shot. "Scrutiny" was the mildest word I could think of, and it might be that it does apply if this controversy gains any traction. (Personally, I hope it doesn't. Even though I don't relish the thought of disposing of chicks this way, I'm also no fan of these extremist animal-rights groups, either.) See if the new version is better. The affair should be mentioned, since that's probably the first place that many people even heard of UEP. It was for me. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

{{db-foreign}} does not apply to Veiculo Lançador de Microssatelites or Tradição, Família e Propriedade because both articles are written in English. {{db-foreign}} only applies when the article is on another Wikimedia project and the version in the English-language encyclopedia is not in English. Please be more careful with your speedy taggings in the future. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, PRODDED instead. Thank you for your time. L0b0t (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Glenn Beck

Hi L0b0t,

While your recent post in Talk:Glenn Beck of the Penn Jilette video is interesting, and I know you are one of a handful of regular editors of the page, I'm going to ask that you consider deleting it because of WP:NOTFORUM. It sets a dangerous precedent in a topic where people are already restraining themselves from debating the subject instead of the article about the subject. God bless. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong there. I've removed it. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of Glenn Beck, tell me how this statement from the source I provided is not sympathetic to intelligent design and the teaching of it:

"Others worry that this would inject environmentalism propaganda into the classroom. No, where would they get that crazy idea? In California? Never! Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics will be included. Oh, yeah, that's going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's included in the science behind -- it was a big bang; it just started. Just, boom! "What happened before the Big Bang?" What was -- shhh, quiet. Wouldn't that be one of the theories in forgive me if my confidence is a little low on the, "We just want the opposite side, you know, to be able to be in there as well." Uh-huh."[11]

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't read the source properly(it is rambling I'll give you that), but quite frankly the contrarian attitude of some of the editors at the Glenn Beck article is wearing very thin. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, multiple times, and how you are able to synthesize a claim that Beck thinks anthropogenic climate change is analogous to creationism with the exception being that Beck want creationism forced onto the children I just can't fathom. Please read the source, Beck is comparing a specific bill before the California State Assembly to the shady tactics of the proponents of ID. Also, nowhere at all does the source mention Beck's position on ID, pro or con. You seem to be reading into the source things that it just does not say. L0b0t (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Beck is saying that he would want alternatives to global warming presented along side global warming, the same way that intelligent design proponents want intelligent design to be presented as an alternative along side Darwinism. Plus you are misusing the term synthesis. It's not synthesis, I used one source. I'll wait for a reply. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am relocating your post to the articles talkpage. Let's keep article discussions there please. L0b0t (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons cultural references

What makes the cultural references I added for The Simpsons episode "D'oh-in' in the Wind" 'unreferenced trivia'? They weren't wrong, you know - the episode's title is a play on Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind", and Grampa and Jasper do laugh like Beavis and Butt-head after drinking the peyote-laced juice. It says so in The Simpsons Archive page for this episode: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF02 Bluebird207 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you are making interpretive claims using primary sources, Wikipedia refers to this as original research and it really has no place in the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DePROD TFP

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Tradição, Família e Propriedade, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Chris Johnson (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Existence

"This user does not believe in the existence of human races"

Really? what's the Marathon all about then? SpinningSpark 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

HA Thanks for that. Your message was one of the first things I saw this morning and it made me giggle through breakfast. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)