User talk:SQGibbon/Archive 3

Itchycoo Park (MPeople version)

As you may be able to appreciate, all the 19 M People singles (are either in the process of, or currently have their own page ahead of their 21st Anniversary. 'Itchycoo Park', like 'Don't look any further' is a cover version by an original artiste and requires its own sub section. The information for 'Itchycoo Park' is on the way, but why are you preventing me from creating a sub section on the legendary Small Faces 'Itchycoo Park' page entry like 'Don't look any further' does on the Dennis Edwards page of the same single name? Please clarify.

Thanks. (Ebuaki (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Flag icons

Why do you ruin wiki pages by taking away the flag icons beside the countrys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC) SQ, how do you sign commenents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in lists still in discussion; guideline not yet changed so your revert was premature, just a FYI

I noticed your revert here of an IP user's edit. Your edit summary said, "Flags don't really belong here, please read MOS:ICONS." Some concerns:

• First, you pointed to the entire MOS:ICONS page. Please try to be specific as possible for those other editors who are more sensitive to reverts, such as pointing to specific sections like this: Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death. Note that my specific example covers only this: "biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality". It does not discuss flag icons in list tables.
• Second, in your edit summary, you said "flags don't really belong here" and that definitely sounds like an opinion, even after you mentioned MOS:ICONS. That should be avoided because some other editors may think, "I don't care what you think, I'm just following the norms!"
• Third, in case you are not aware, there is a current discussion at Village Pump about re-writing the MOS:FLAG guideline, and more specifically, discussion about flag icons in longevity lists. There seems to be a consensus that flag icons can be removed, but evidently, it is best if the guideline itself is changed first. So your revert is a little premature at this time. I see that another IP user has reverted your edit. I will leave everything alone as is, and suggest you do the same until the guideline is changed first so we don't get any more wrath from others. Cheers, CalvinTy 13:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in MMA articles

please stop your doing. It has been like this for years now, and we all got used to the flags. Also we got used to read informations out of them, for example if someone has fought staates opposition or overseas. WIth the flags i can see those information at once, and don't have to read all the names and bring up there pages. Wiki uses flags in Boxing, MMA, association football and they provide a great deal of information for only being a little icon.

The discussion isn't done, so please stop it. There is nothing to gain from destroying perfectly well articles. --Loxoman (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

answering to the message you left on my talk page:

About flags being used in football: I meant when the squad of a club (like manunited) is listed, all players have a flag icon next to them, also they are not representing any country while playing for a club.

About including informations into tables: The nationality only takes an icon, if mma-styles had icons it would be great to include them (when a fighter gets introduced they normaly say something like: This guy is a wrestler/free style fighter/ BJJ Fighter etc.).

Was there realy a situation in wich wikipedia users came forward being confused whether the fighters represented their country in an international event?

I really like the mma records on wikipedia. As i see it, they are the best on the web. They helped me to get to know the sport, the fighters. I spend endless hours scrolling through records, opening opponents and events in tabs and getting a good idea of where a guy might rank. To this day i like to check events on wikipedia before watching them. So to all guys involved in creating those sites: Great Job, thank you very much. --Loxoman (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What

Did you say I can change it. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You said I could change the consensus at at WP:MMA. I've figured it out now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you change consensus.--K22UFC (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Library of Rhetoric

SQGibbon:

Thank you for communicating your concern about my contributions for Library of Rhetoric content. I can understand and respect your goal of creating a secure, honest environment for information, so please forgive any mispresentation on my part.

I am responsible for all content on the Library of Rhetoric as it is meant to be an educational directory for students and professors who are doing research in various genres of rhetorical study. I am also contacted from time to time by various students and professors who wish to see content for genres that have not yet been written, so I take a great deal of time in researching and drafting annotations that suit the genres they wish to see at the library. Each genre includes a list of academic articles, books, and resources that would greatly assist a student who happens to investigate the genre of their choice. And from time to time (perhaps once every month or two), I stop by my Wikipedia page to see if there are any topics where these resources (listed at the Library of Rhetoric) might be additionally useful.

One of the recent genres that I drafted was Subconscious Rhetoric. And like all others, it included academic, scholarly books and articles for which the student of subconscious (and subliminal) studies might be able to use in their research. When I came to Wikipedia to add a supportive link for this content, I decided to attempt the creation of a new Wikipedia page, something I had not done before. As I can see now, the explicit word-for-word copy of my own words from the Library of Rhetoric to a new page at Wikipedia would and could appear problematic (the appearance of intellectual theft). I do, however, acknowledge and can prove that they are my words since I alone have access to their original cache.

I have been a loyal Wikipedia fan and user for some time now and I wholly apologize for any appearance of misconduct that I might have caused. I do understand how links to the Library of Rhetoric may appear self-promoting, but the content that I link is usually supplemental to words and pages of a similar nature at Wikipedia. All such supplemental content is built on academic research encouraged by those in the academic arena, including but not limited to, librarians from reputable universities around the United States. If it is possible to restore links that I previously added, I would greatly appreciate it. If there is something I can do to restore an honorable standing with Wikipedia, please let me know and I won't hesitate. (from USER:MercyBreeze)

Thanks for your timely and quick response. I must confess that the Wikipedia discussion format we're currently using is a bit unfamiliar (call me the 'new kid' on the block). Is there a 'discussion board' type log where our back-and-forth is tracked for easy reference to previous comments?

With regard to the imperfections of Wikipedia, I still have the utmost respect for an organization that works to secure a standard. Cass Sunstein once wrote, "Large numbers of knowledgeable people are willing to participate in creating Wikipedia, and whatever errors they make usually receive rapid correction, simply because so many minds are involved." (Infotopia, p.151) As a published author, I have always enjoyed the editing process because it demanded accountability... something that also makes Wikipedia so successful. If we don't hold one another's feet up to the fire of information-integrity, then we're just creating echo chambers of our own consent. That's not what I'm about, so your direction and advice is eagerly welcomed.

At one point in the LOR development process, an academic librarian suggested that the Library of Rhetoric be entirely wiki-based, so as to allow multiple academics and scholars to edit the content as needed. And while this has seemed probable for the future, the audience is too small at the moment and would require me to do far more editing and correction than I already do. For now, the LOR content is based on original research with private accountability that comes through emails I receive from academics in the field of rhetoric/communications.

In terms of LOR credibility, there are several ways that I could cite this. [Reviews for Academic Libraries] reviewed the LOR in December and published their analysis in the February 2011 issue of their online journal. Access to that assessment would require a subscription to their website, which is affiliated with the American Library Association. Quite a number of American universities also include the LOR Database as part of their library reference section. Among them are the University of Wisconsin, California State University, and Southeastern University.

Let me address your specific points from the last correspondence, however:

(1) Subconscious Rhetoric. Since this was my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page, I would like the opportunity of revising and rewriting it again. Part of the reason for creating this page in the first place was to gather insight from a broader and more critical eye of the Wikipedia community; those who would, in turn, edit as they wish. On a second go-around, the page would not be a cut-and-paste, but a more simple, direct explanation of the concept with a link to other, reliable sources on the subject (including, but not limited to, the LOR page).

(2) Notability. The most prominent 'in depth' review of the LOR has been from Choice (mentioned above as part of the American Library Association), but that review is for members only (something that often happens in the academic world of libraries). Although the LOR is 'listed' on other websites for rhetoric, I do not consider those to be notable unless they eminate from an .edu and thereby reflect the support of a credible college/university. Hence the brief mention above regarding UW, CSU, and SEU. Interestingly enough, the LOR is listed as a resource for several K-12 school districts in the U.S., but I gather that what I've mentioned so far is sufficient to give, at least initially, some credit to the library itself.

(3) Bad form and Self-Promotion. You're absolutely right. I suppose it's kind of like getting into a relationship where the only person you ever talk about is yourself. No doubt the couple would eventually split because it was a one-sided affair. I certainly don't want that to be my reputation with Wikipedia and thank you for the reminder. I've been happily married for 9 years and know what it is to invest beyond the scope of my own interests. I'll be sure to think about additional ways to get involved that don't compromise the integrity of other goals I hope to accomplish.

Since our exchange began, I haven't tried to do any posting or editing and I'm not sure if my Wiki privileges have been taken away. Please let me know if I am permitted to post and edit again.

Thank you again for playing a part in the success of Wikipedia. I look forward to continuing this exchange and learning to become a more integral part of the wiki community. (MercyBreeze (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

It would appear that my privileges are intact, so I went ahead and added a new section to the American Civil War page dealing with the recent Sesquicentennial. Little attention was given to the subject, but in my Wiki posting, I was careful to not only be brief, but avoid any direct linking to the Library of Rhetoric. Unless I'm mistaken, you would accept the occasional LOR link, so long as there is a balance to my involvement with the community and not simply a collection of LOR links as my only contribution. For the next week or so, I'll be sure to avoid any LOR links regardless and work to build up a gradual reputation for quality postings and edits.

Perhaps after a week or two, I'll make a second effort to draft a Subconscious Rhetoric page (as well as others) on Wikipedia with cited references beyond the LOR while balancing those postings with other, non-LOR-related contributions.

Thanks again and please don't hesitate to correct me on anything you believe is inappropriate for Wikipedia and/or user conduct.

(MercyBreeze (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Hope you've enjoyed your dinner. :) In light of our conversation and your deletion of all previous LOR links, would you consider it acceptable if I went back to replace some of them in moderation? Perhaps incorporating one or two in the form of citations/references where content came from other credible, academic sources cited within the LOR. Keep me posted. (MercyBreeze (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

As an example of my suggestion above, I went to the Wikipedia page on Rhetorical Questions, inserted two credible quotes from academic sources (while citing them from a respected WorldCat venue), then briefly edited the opening paragraph with an LOR reference. This, I believe, is what you would consider a more redeemable approach to the linking process. Again, keep me posted and enjoy the rest of your meal. My wife just brought in some Easter candy, so I'm munching away like a slob. :) (MercyBreeze (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Over the last several hours, I've joined the WikiProject New Page, edited/contributed several tidbits of content, and occasionally floated an LOR reference (just two or three) where I wanted to see them restored. I probably will not return to Wikipedia until sometime later this weekend, so please glance over my recent activity and confirm that I have had an appropriate night of contributions to the Wikipedia community. Time to crash. :) (MercyBreeze (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Happy Easter! Please know that the 'editing' process I've experienced with professionals can often last months, not hours. So I am in no way 'discouraged' by your continued suggestions. Although it may take some time to go about this process, I'm all for opening the floor of discussion for any edits/links/additions that I want to make where there could be a perceived COI. Thanks for your time and investment into ensuring I abide by the best practices of Wikipedia. Keep me posted if there are any additional concerns. (MercyBreeze (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Berra mentioned in Yankees page in intro section

Berra did not win a World Series as a manager with the Yankees. It doesn't count because he hardly ever was the manager of the Yankees. Those four were enough to mention. It seems like if you add Berra you could add in a few others, but don't want an exhaustive list there. Should just eventually get to him as a reader goes along on the page, like the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtorrct (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Itchycoo Park (MPeople version)

Thank you for your reply. Is it therefore, possible to therefore link to a brand new page through: '1995: 90s dance band M People covered the song for their album Bizarre Fruit II', stating 'Itchycoo Park (M People Version)', to stop interference with the Small Faces' own page? This would solve cluttering their page as well as providing continuity of info for the M People singles that I have been buiding-up and nearing completetion. Please let me know! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuaki (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanderlei Silva‎

This cannot go on like that. Shouldn't we inform administrators?--Razionale (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A mediation is all nice and dandy but he's a mute user and a mediation requires communication. I'll try this and post a warning. Agree?--Razionale (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Inter

I've seen that you keep editing the F.C. Internazionale Milano article, removing the reference to the "Inter" name. I live in Italy and 99% of times the team is referred to as "Inter"... I think that it's definitely important. Also, that caption is there from a long time, until 4 days ago it was removed with "slight trim" as reason ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Internazionale_Milano&diff=422661936&oldid=422582152 ). If you really want to remove that caption, please start a proper discussion with proper reasons in the discussion page. Thank you. -- ekerazha (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

....

But it doesnt seem like you people are gonna change it so what can i do. But why do you alll feel the need to make the pages look soo drab, why do you keeo deciding to use thos formula that makes teh pages look awful. It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't know. —LOL ^T/_C 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had noticed which is why was making another attempt to get K22UFC to participate in the discussion. So far it hasn't gotten anywhere. SQGibbon (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Panel game

Hello! I saw your editing of the panel game article and would really appreciate it if you could briefly pop into a discussion on the Hollywood Squares article on whether it is a panel game (there are cited descriptions if you're unfamiliar with the show). Here's the discussion. Thank you so much! 76.105.176.44 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Group Buying

Hello, I noticed you removed the link I had updated on the group buying page? I don't believe the source is spam - it's a local daily deals news blog. I work in the industry here and thought this was a fair source, and certainly better than a dead WSJ link. Anyway, appreciate your feedback. PS, new to editing, so sorry if this is not the correct procedure for communicating :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0z (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra of Yugoslavia

Please learn to edit rather than blindly revert. You disagree with one component of my edit, her name in the infobox, but you reverted the improvement on the infobox and her religion on also. I have reverted to my edits with the name as Alexandra of Yugoslavia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Inline links.

Let's just say that I indeed am using it for promoting something. What's wrong? You need facts and I need to increase my readership. Instead of creating a separate wikipedia page for nowrunning(which is one of the film websites with highest traffic in India), I thought we could let people see for themselves. I don't see, why not. Also, are you a regular wikipedia user like me or are you an administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selvainaction (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Selvainaction (talk contribs)

Traditha31

The items typed for Brooke Logan were sourced but the information was generously removed. Everytime I sourced it you guys removed it. Also, when the plot is occurring at the time such as Ridge and Brooke recently became divorced that is not fiction that is fact in soap world. There have been other contributors who have legitimately vandalized this page several times calling the character vile names and yet I don't rremember anyone calling them vandals. Even what is on the page at this time now is inaccurate information and the information is on Youtube.com. Eric seduced Brooke in her sleep this is not fiction but fact however, the writers never have the character Stephanie Forrester to relay it in the same manner. These facts need to be expressed. Soap Opera Digest is a source, Youtube.com, Soaps.com (Ridge and Brooke are listed in the Dankies for being a supercouple) a made a note of that and you guys removed that as well. If you truly don't wish for anyone to mmake contributions except for a few or one person then say so but please do not say I didn't source the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.84 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bank of Hawaii reversion

Your recent edit on this article was the third of apparently serial vandalism, and I've pulled together the history here Talk:Bank of Hawaii#Vandal(s)?. Maybe you can help with a more systemic response. Thanks, regardless. Swliv (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Steve14orhs & Addition of UFC Fighter Profile links

Check out the talk page of the MMA WikiProject. I just posted some information about this user and am looking to get others opinions on the matter before possibly moving forward. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the apparent sockpuppets. I've started the investigation and it can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve14orhs. As far as the UFC profile links go, while I would personally not put them in articles, if the consensus of the project is they belong then fair enough. Interestingly, the MMA Project already allows for adding of promotion profile pages though ordering and priority is not specified. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Want to place bets on whether BrianStannFan (talk · contribs) is another sockpuppet? --TreyGeek (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill Hicks

It looks like the anon IP now has a sockpuppet. I've got to run out right now, but you can say I support you, as a second editor, if you want to ask an admin for page protection or to block the anon IPs for edit warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Radbourn

I may well have added the part about the grave's location in reference to Stevenson's. I consider that an important detail, not because Stevenson has anything to do with Radbourn, but because the Stevenson grave is very prominent and easy to find. As to the other stuff you've removed - yes, it looks like someone else's writing, and even if not, it's not encyclopedic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you.

A cervix is a long pipe which is something or whatever it is. I just noticed a cervix is a pipe where you can go in and out of. For those things you'd probably can fit through a cervix. Besides its a thing where you can go down or up through. Maybe you have to learn about a cervix and its a different one. That page you reverted i edited was thinking about Carface falling into the cervix. Thats what i found out by myself. So i think you should put it back to my version on the All Dogs go to Heaven 2 page because i got the info right.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Newbie's edit of Bergen Catholic High School

Your recent editof the article for Bergen Catholic High School, removing Randi Patterson as a notable because no source was provided may well be technically correct. However, given that this was the user's first edit and given that the article for the individual states that he had attended the school, some small measure of leeway and user education may have been achieved by 1) tagging the entry as needing a citation, 2) finding / adding a source (the option I chose here), 3) notifying the individual, or 4), virtually any combination thereof. The editor did a respectable job of adding the entry and provided this person with no information about why it was removed. We more experienced editors often get tired of seeing what appear to us to be blatant violations of Wikipedia sourcing policy from new editors, but I have found that trying to help is usually a more productive solution in the long run than simply reverting. Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted your actions based on the totality of circumstances here and that of other edits in your edit history. I apologize if I misinterpreted your actions. If you review my edit history, I have deleted the vast majority of red links added to articles as notables by IP editors, after making some effort to figure out if there might have been a legitimate purpose to their edit. Where a potential notable is added to an article and the article exists, I will do my best to look at the original article and see if the corresponding information is mentioned (and preferably sourced), look for a source in Google / News / Archives and add it when found, tag as having citation needed, and/or notify the individual that the entry is being removed or that a source was added and explaining why Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources. Sure it's a royal pain in the ass. But it means that much more sourced material gets added to articles, real vandalism is removed, fewer newbies are frustrated that their initial edits are deleted and there is the increased possibility that they just might learn how to format and source other edits for the future, especially if an explanatory note is left on their talk page. I used the word "we" as I have found myself guilty at times of pruning too aggressively and sometimes have had to remind myself that not every questionable edit is vandalism. Again, my apologies if any insult was taken, as this was never my intention. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, there was absolutely no intention to insult you in any way and I hope none is taken. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This Is War

I think that you have to discuss on the talk page because you are actually removing reliable sources.--Trandingbrights (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources that I added say that This Is War has met with overall critical praise, they aren't reviews but articles that describe the album success.--Trandingbrights (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

recent edits to 'altporn'

Thank you for the notes on my edits to altporn. if i remove the notes from the blogger in question there is still the matter of the archived page saves he has provided, the intweriew with the sr editor at Xbiz as well as the articles on Xbiz. How can any of these be suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulcrum9 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rich Franklin

The owner of Evolve MMA has emailed using the Wikimedia template provided to confirm the release of the image of Rich Franklin and I have updated the image file with the {{OTRS pending}} tag. Do I need to wait until wikimedia confirms receipt of the OTRS email to restore the image? --Sadoka74 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Email contact?

I would like to email you something. Is there a way to do that?

hkeithhenson@gmail.com Keith Henson (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:109.127.86.56

Many thanks for your help with User:109.127.86.56. Much appreciated, Claviere (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden

Hello SQGibbon. I was contacted on the phone by Les Golden whom noticed your advert and coi tags added on 6 July 2011. DianeSteele has tried to clean-up potential issues with the article. Can you please list your specific concerns with the article on the article talk page so that your concerns might be addressed? Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden's page appears to have been created and/or edited by Mr. Golden, or someone very close to him, and nearly everything about it violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest's policy. Although extensively documented, nearly all links are self-referential to his own minor writings. Other than stories written in his local newspaper, there are almost no third party independent sources. I strenuously question the notability of Les Golden, and believe the article exists only so he can insert himself in multiple categories. Please view the edits of users [DianeSteele] and [Drlesmgolden]. This is self-promotion run amock.WikiMrsP (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the issues to the talk page. I still do not know why why home phone number was looked up and I was called at my home in regards to a person I have never heard of, much less ever met. His references will need to verify the claims and sock-puppetry is a violation of the ideas behind Wikipedia. -- Kheider (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh

Not sure about that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) says "Capitalized 'The' may be preferred when listing bands, e.g. 'In mid-1962 The Rolling Stones...'". But then right at the top of the section: "An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. For example, in the case of the Velvet Underground, it must be included...". Lower-case "t" there. And what does "may be preferred" mean anyway? What the heck kind of guidance is that? Pretty wimpy guideline. But whatever. I certainly don't have a strong preference either way. Herostratus (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your revert was fine (and I probably shouldn't have jumped in), if only on the principle of "if it's just a matter of style preference, and there's no clear guide, one should leave it as one found it". Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for you recent work on List of free software Android applications‎. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Two Towers Country

What do you think the country parameter means, then? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So, 1) No it doesn't state that "country" means where the film was made, but it does say, "nationality of the film". This has been heavily discussed recently on the Film Project talk page and apparently it's a tough thing to represent. There are many things to take into consideration when stating the nationality of the film, such as nationality of the director, cast, studio, production company, financers, where it was shot, etc. I'll bring this issue up there for some other editor's opinions.

2) If the studio is used, then it is not New Line (the distributor) that is considered, but rather WingNut Films (NZ) and the Saul Zaentz Company (US). As WingNut Films and the director are both from New Zealand, I personally would lean towards displaying New Zealand in the country parameter. However, the text you provided does state that a conflict should result in neither being used. But that doesn't appear to matter in the case of the Fellowship and Return films (hence my problem with consistency). Also, I think that editors at the Film Project may not oppose listing New Zealand or possibly both NZ and US.

3) Should be easily solved. Just may need to put something in the lead and find a source.

4) I agree with you there. Consistency is often overrated, and I would usually prefer to be correct. However, in this case, I believe that listing NZ is both correct and consistent, leading to a win-win situation.

Is it okay that I copy your answer from my talk page on the talk page of the article, so that this discussion can be held there instead? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Expulsion reasons

You know i noticed spam is a explusion reason. Spamming means to like advertise by putting a thing with shopping things such as links that which tells them to go there or anything. Thats what spam means. Also when someone gets caught for spamming, they get expelled from school. I know spamming can get students into trouble and may get sent to jail even if they spam everywhere which tells them to go to a shopping link such as ebay or anything.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spontaneous human combustion

Thanks for your corrective edits to this article. Spontaneous human combustion. Things were getting bizarre.Irassassin (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grand National

Hi there, thanks for your edit to Grand National, let me explain why I have reverted it: It seems to me that you were trying to revert the rather pedantic IP edit which came before yours, the IP made many little changes most of which contravened MOS. The trouble is that your edit didn't actually remove all of the IP's changes. As there were many of them (and they were difficult to spot) I decided to revert your edit so that I could simply use the revert function on the IP edit rather than doing it all manually. I think the end result is the same as you intended, but thought it best to drop you a line about it. Any problems, please contact me on my talk page. All the best Rough Quest (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scroll dating

Thank you for your message. Yes there is a way to illustrate the age of these scrolls by referring to them in the following way i.e they are about xxxx to xxxx years old (as at 2011) or something similar. Indeed if you look at the reference given after the dates you will see the author frequently refers to the BC/AD system as opposed to the BCE/CE one. Clearly then, there is a strong case to maintain continuity but somebody decided that BCE/CE was more appropriate and that goes against the spirit of the authors work. However I'm willing to compromise and use a reference to age that avoids any mention of BCE/CE or BC/AD. Even though that might be disengenuous to the authors work at least it keeps everybody happy, or should do. If it doesn't and BCE/CE continues to be pushed then I must express concern at the real reason why it is being passionately protected. You views are requested.--Cfimei (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Undid your page move of Play-Doh to Doh-Doh

I even saw that name doh-doh on the cartoon which was used to be in adult swim. I noticed it was there because i saw that object and he took some out. He used a liter, The sparks went that direction and blew up the locker to get the key to something.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)