User talk:RickinBaltimore/Archive 3

Nice userbox

lol nice baltimorese userbox ForeverDEAD 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Dizkneelandaway

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonos (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkin' Crocus?

Whats the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkb 05 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkin Crocus

Please may you remove the speedy deletion thing.

I am adding more information to what i feel will be a good contribution to wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkb 05 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III

Resolved

Why were you accusing me of vandalism? Unless you have proof that being an old man is a requirement to watch that movie in Mexico, I will revert you again. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem happens all the time. Besides, I have been through worse. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realize now. My mistake. I probably got confused. Well, I will add a tag here, since no further discussion is needed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Message

Hey Wild thing 614 76, what's poppin'? <Baseballfan789 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said my page should be deleted

i dont understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akanara Studios (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tiffany Peters

No problem. I assumed that if the author wrote "Article in progress," it was because the author made a first edit and would add content in subsequent edits. If this has not happened after a couple of hours, then deletion is appropriate. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes, please check and see if it meets criteria now.

Could you please recheck my submission? I removed references to the company that treated my dog, the photos ARE copywrited, I don't know WHAT is going on with that.

Trose58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trose58 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK

How do you suggest I fix it, I certainly did NOT copy it from anything, I did a huge amount of reading to get my information correct. Please let me know what I can do so that Wikipedia will accept it!

Trose58

Julianna Mauriello

It's going to be hot until the YouTube is pulled. Meanwhile, I've just left this at an IP's talk page. Feel free to use if it recurs:

Perhaps the above warning was a little strong; however, this page has had this allegation, with link to YouTube added several times today. There are several issues here (1) Wikipedia's policy on biography of living persons says that unsourced and possibly libellous material should be removed immediately. (2) YouTube is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source (3) The YouTube page itself is doubtful as it says that Julianna (or its creator) has been married for four years. Unless Julianna is from, say, Arkansas, this is unlikely. She's actually from New York (4) In relation to LGBT issues, it is not considered proper to "out" people unless they out themselves. (5) Although these days being gay is not really an issue, it is still justiciable as libel, and the Wikipedia Foundation will need very strong evidence before allowing third-party allegations such as yours. I doubt if you'd want to be names as a co-defendant in any expensive litigation. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Julianna sexuality edits

Another video has been posted on that same account after the one announcing her lesbianism. It is obviousely home webcam video of her and two friends "Shaking the depression out". If this is not her real account then how could she continue to post home videos of herself on it. Unless this video can be found posted on the internet earlier somewhere else, this is proof. It has to be authentic. Her account is nearly 2 years old and she says that her passport is linked to the account so that anyone posing as her on youtube is caught instantly.

So essentially, we have proof that the account is hers, the videos are of her, by her, and the statements in her video and account details are hers. There is basically no stronger form of proof that she could give us on the internet.

Last note, I doubt that the marriage she refers to is a legal binding marriage, more likely a symbolic marriage, but I do not know how things work in Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuestionMarc (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather blonde

How do I leave a help me tag???

Trose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trose58 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Rose Mauriello

Hi, back when the big thread on the talk page was going on, Jklharris spotted a thread on 4chan from the account owner, admitting it was not real. [1] RainbowOfLight ^Talk 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to know that the faker's account and videos have been removed from YouTube. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band AidBuddies

Excuse me the band aid buddies are a real group that are global and just because you have never heard of it does not mean that it is not real. I think you should get information first before u report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babroxx (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the small articles?

Wikipedia is a website devoted to the expansion of human knowlege, both for the current day, but also the future. Although the article may not be of great significance, that is based just on opinion, something that is not supposed to affect wikipedia. If every wikipedia page you considered "irrelevant" was deleted, then the wikimedia project would be in shambles, and nowhere near its current levels of success and world-wide influence. Also, by deleting an article due to its lack of importance is taking away its oppertunity for expansion by other users until it becomes "relevant". It is for these reasons that I believe the page on really ard posse should remain a part of wikipedia and not be deleted for its size. Everything in this world has an influence no matter how small it is, imagine what life would be like without bacteria or fungi. Without these fundamental elements, it is likely life as we know it would be destroyed, and I think the same principal applies to wikipedia. Deleting the small articles changes and destroys the whole concept of the wikipedia project, and may effect manking long into the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyardposse123 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point

Thanks for the explaination, it's good to actually be given a reason why something has happened, rather than people just doing it. However, in my argument I wasn't trying to defend the article's size, but instead its relevance to society. But now that I know the reasons why article was deleted, I hope to make a better contribution to wikipedia. Thanks.

P.S.I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to vandalise wikipedia, but instead improve it. Unfortunately they only want articles of "real significance", which happens to be something really ard posse isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyardposse123 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considered Vandalism?

(Reverted 1 edit by Whittingham road identified as vandalism to last revision by 129.22.169.71." using TW")

This edit seemed to be a good edit. Evidence he was using TWINKLE?

Surplu ^TalkToMe! 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh alright. Nice edit, in that case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surplu (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Southern (wrestler)

you put the speedy on the redirect. If you think that it should be speedied then I suggest that you speedy the actual page. Also, notify the creator, I only moved the page. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I did not block you, a vandal was angered that I blocked them and started spamming my block notices. My sincere apologies. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked" account

Not a problem. My talk page was vandalised the same way. Jauerback (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THUNDERCLAN

Why do u want to delete it? iam working on the new page because i love the books please do not delete it. -Sorreltail(please) -december 21 9:25am

Do you just sit there all day Looking up random information about the worlds coolest animals?

Sydlexia.com

I posted an article about Sydlexia.com. You claimed that it did not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia Entry. I disagree and posted comments explaining why in User_talk:Bkazdan. Unfortunately that entire page was overwritten by a bot. Sydlexia.com as a website is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. Several articles on the site have received a great deal of fame, and the community is a slowly growing one, but it is 300+ with a great deal of content, over 10,000 forum messages, over 70 articles, and over 100 wiki contributions (Wiki is 1 week old). I do not own the site . I am simply trying to post an article on Wikipedia about it because it is a Pop Culture site that has some information collected not available anywhere else on the web. Please reconsider allowing this article to be created. —Preceding comment was added at 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I updated my talk page with a response User_talk:Bkazdan Bkazdan (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Help

Hello there. I saw your name on a list of editors who have volunteered to help out and would like to see if you can help me with a rogue editor who has repeatedly deleted information that has been verified for no apparent reason. The article, Cayey, Puerto Rico has a list of "Notable natives and residents." I have repeatedly revert the deletion of names by a user Asulyman. He has refused to listen to my requests. I would like to see if you can help me in preventing the deletion of these names and trying to communicate with this user so that this can stop. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind help. I have tried to communicate and have a constructive dialogue to no ado. I will let you know if the problem continues. Wishing you a Happy New Year!--XLR8TION (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Help #2

Hello there again. I am having trouble with an editor who is posting possibly libelous material on an article relating to the Dominican Day Parade. UnclePaco has been posting a photograph of an unknown person being arrested at the 2007 parade. I have informed him that the photograph can be libelous due to the fact that user did not authorize the use of his image in the photograph. Furthermore, the parade is about the parade in general and not only about the 2007 parade only. I find that the photo is degrading to the Dominican-American community in that it paints the community in an unflattering light. The user tends to ignore the liability of such a photograph and also the negative portrayal of the community with the usage of the photograph and reverts the page. I have tried communicating to him but instead he has directed me to use dispute resolution. If you you look at the article for the Puerto Rican Day Parade which I helped edit and clean up (removing commercial references) the article discusses the parade in general and have kept a NPOV when it comes to a general, yet positive article. User UnclePaco labels my deletions of the photograph from the article as vandalism, which is far from the truth. Is there anything can be done here. For the time being I will delete the offending photograph from the article.--XLR8TION (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Can you provide me with a wikilink to the dispute resolution page I should address my grievance?--XLR8TION (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:A7

Hi. :) I came across your speedy deletion tag on Zombies Ate My Neighbors (2), and I just wanted to point out to you that {{db-a7}} is specifically for people (individually or grouped) and websites. There is currently no consensus for speedily deleting other articles types under this criterion. Other articles that fail to assert notability should go through proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meh

Why do you keep removing that dude I always add on the famous people list??? Because you never heard of him???? So what?! I haven't heard of lotsa people and they're still famous in that shithole you call america! give me a brake man.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestofbothworlds (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

Dude, c'mon you're human(?). I'm writing this shit on this dude for a very long time already and you guys delete it every time I put it on...That sucks. I spend full work time in front of the computer...Oh and I'm sorry for lashing out, anger, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestofbothworlds (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....

I do have alot of info, I just need to shorten it up for a bit and then I'll put it up. Just don't delete him, please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestofbothworlds (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samulol

What is wrong with this article? TEll me and i will fix as it is famous in Adelaide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kelso (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have an IMDB source, it should be in the coats, i have a source relating to the pie cart. This term is popular amongst South Australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kelso (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the repair of my user page. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page by a disgruntled user. Keith D (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme page

On the page Were are enzimes found I removed the tag and redirected. In my edit summary, I said, "Disagree, read tag"... what I meant was, if you disagree with the redirect, feel free to replace the tag. Just wanted to clarify with you, thanks. Guldenat (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K bub, sorry for the confusion. Guldenat (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayey, Puerto Rico

Hello there again. A while back ago you helped me with a vandal who was erasing a list of notable natives from the Cayey, Puerto Rico article. Well he's back it again even after you warned him. Can you help me once again? He is deleting confirmed names for no apparent reason and refuses to listen.--XLR8TION (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You/Question

Many thanks for your help with the Cayey, Puerto Rico article. I was wondering if you can provide a third opinion and help mediate an edit war with a user who has multiple accounts and refuses to discuss his edits on the article talk page for List of Cuban Americans (please see my discussion under "List Cleanup"). This edit war is getting me tired and I am losing faith after requesting the help of several admins. Any help will be truly appreciated.--XLR8TION (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey, sorry about my latest edit to Schuminweb. I intended it as a joke so we could forget about the animosity between us. I thought big guys like been made fun of over their weight problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.202.12 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paul poteat

this page was created for my senior project in order to show the editability of wikipedia and its ability to be used to convey false information. I request that this page be left undeleted until April 10, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuker186 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dayumm

sure wish you'd get a sense of humour, read it, i am a student at the school, you are not, i therefore know more about the school than you and so have more of a right to edit this page than you do to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiop2468 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Andy Beard

I do not know why you would say Wikipedia:OWN, I have been asking people to help edit the article. I am not going around canvasing for votes, we do not vote! But if you think you can wikify the article your help would be greatly appreciated. Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article is being considered for deletion

I'm not quite sure why my article is being considered for deletion. I beleive it has something to do with references. Can you tell me what exactly you are looking for me to "prove" that my article is valid and the subject is real.

I am new to Wikipedia and thought that it was a community to spread knowledge and information across the world about many different subject matter. All I did was post an article about a book and I'm being told it might be deleted? I don't want this to happen, so please tell me exactly what needs to be done to prevent this from happening.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppriceiii (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nefab

A good point. A bit of everything on that one - COI, spam, copyvio. Oh, and a lot of banging of head against brick wall! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me.

The article is based on a "Self-Published Title". This must be one of the issues raised as to why my article should be deleted. If so, according to the policy of Wikipedia: "material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:"

it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

My article meets all the above criteria save one: "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;". The author of the book is me and I use the "pen name" Rex Crownen. What documents or references would I need to supply in order to prove this so that I meet all criteria above?

I would like to point out that there is absolutely no personal gain out of this article, other than providing information on the subject. I have not listed sales price, where to buy or any other information that would greatly benefit me regarding the subject.

My goal is to have fans of the book to go and add onto the article and provide information to other fans. I share the same goal as Wikipedia. People are currently working on a commercial website for the material but "I" wanted an alternative to some flashy, graphic heavy site that's looking to bring in sales and I thought what better place than Wikipedia.

Please just let me know now if this was the wrong choice, that way we don't waste either of our times. If there's nothing that I can do and ultimately the article will get deleted regardless of the changes that I will make, please just let me know if I'm fighting the inevitable.

Thanks again for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppriceiii (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then guess I got the answers that I was looking for.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppriceiii (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

january 2008

i was simply using it as a quick template while i replaced the content so it looked appropriate, why is it vandalism. you really jump to conclusions. Evilarry (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something Else

Why do you believe that my article about this webcomic, something else, should NOT be on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carannilion (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, I see your point, but I still think the comic should be in wikipedia, if for nothing else, then for the fact that is was the first comic that ever portrayed Jesus Christ as a satanist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carannilion (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report of Zifonex

This user hasn't edited for awhile and has only received 2 warnings (and not a final warning), so no action was taken. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

Thanks for the tip. I'll know for next time. I've never seen such crazy vandalism before! MSGJ (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find out what it was all about yesterday? By the way, these phrases (which came from some of our anonymous "contributors") must be Americanisms because I'm sure what they mean:

douchebag - something like a punchbag?
babyarm - this one I have no idea about but it came up a few times!

MSGJ (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNST

This will be an ongoing thing all week. The noontime program (BaD Radio) on KTCK is talking about it as I type this. The guys at the Ticket have had a running problem with Nestor for several years, and this always gets tons of airtime around the Super Bowl, which is the only time they're in close proximity. Caknuck (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've even resorted to leaving a note to the KTCK listeners on Talk:Nestor Aparicio trying to dissuade them from vandalizing the talk page. I doubt it'll do much... Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yey!

		The Original Barnstar
		For doing the right thing. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After that whole mess, I'm surprised that you didn't get a barnstar, so here you go! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AIV

I was only commenting on the single vandal edit to help out other admins when they went to check the user's contribs. Nothing wrong on your part. Maybe just WP:AGF a bit more, but it's no big deal, so don't worry about it. I try not to go by usernames (unless it's blatant) because it's not like my username isn't gibberish, and I'm an admin. Let's not take this any farther than it has to go =]. Malinaccier (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

I just created this page a week ago Friday (Jan 25) and so far I have been the only editor of this page, but I would like to avoid having it deleted in the hope that other editors will collaborate on it with me.

I want to let you know that many things have changed regarding this article since you voted to have it deleted.

I have fully read and responded to every Wikipedia guideline that I have been referred to,
I have modified my plans for the article and changed the way I view the subject in order to fit within those guidelines,
I have explained my position and my goals in detail on the AfD for the page,
and I have completely blanked the talk page of the article since most of the concerns about guidelines involved the talk page and not the actual article.

I am sure you will find that I have made a great effort to contribute to the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia, and that my actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia and to keep Wikipedia neutral.

I believe that the only guidelines my article can still be accused of violating are those concerning "notability" and "lists of random facts" and being that this is such a young article, I urge you to revisit the article, the AfD for the article, as well as the article's talk page, and make sure that you still feel that the article needs to be deleted right now.

Thank-you for your time, and I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clutter-free!

Sincerely,

VegKilla (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

charlotte bevins

i know this meets your criteria for speedy deletion but please do not delete this as i know that she is currently not famous but i believe that she one day will be thanks ref100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ref100 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was looking for the right place but failed to find it, can you enlighten me and guide me to the right discussion topic. I will appreciate it.

Regards.

Aulic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aulic (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Many Thanks indeed.

Regards.

Aulic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aulic (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

muhammad image

so.... in what way was my analysis of the islamic destruction of information "vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.97.144 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]