User talk:Sparsefarce

Please put new messages at the TOP of the page. Thanks!

In need of your opinion

Hi. Could you please give your opinion concerning this matter: Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest. (Related to this one: Talk:Rodrigues (island)#Soapbox)

Thanks in advance. Aeons | Talk 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Pug site labeled as spam

An excellent Pug site has recently been removed as spam here, several times and I'd like to ask why? PugVillage.com is an extremely popular web site dedicated to Pugs. It contains dozens of articles about Pugs, and is home to a busy community forum visited by Pug owners from all over the world. Why is it being labeled as spam?

Re: Yo

My last name does start with an L and ends with an ambrou. How do we know each other? I see an interest in Mr. Show in your discussion history... we must be friends. and if not, soon will be.

hyphy edits

Hi, you just edited hyphy and removed what you considered to be "unencyclopedic material." I wonder what criteria you use to judge something unencyclopedic? The two sentences you removed[1] aren't necessarily important to the page but they do provide key insights into the hyphy movement and culture and those edits can be sourced to reliable sources. I'm just wondering how you're thinking. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to tell you. I'm using The Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:V, and WP:RS. The sentences I removed (if i remember correctly they were calling certain asects of hyphy "retarded" among other things) were not written in an encyclopedic manner. Unless a reliable, verifiable source has called these aspects "retarded" then it doesn't belong in the article; even if a reliable source did say something like that it would probably be an instance when we would want to use a direct quote of the person. The other thing, the thizz face, just didn't work in the context of the paragraph around it. Sparsefarce 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize for not putting my comments at the top of your talk page (I used the "+" icon at the top of the page and I guess that always adds comments to the bottom of the page).

I take your point about thizz face. However, on the other issue, I think you might be misunderstanding the point of that sentence (I propose an improvement below). That is, one of the central claims, tendencies, etc. of the Hyphy movement is that these individuals are "going dumb"; they specifically refer to themselves as going "dumb", "retarded" and a whole manner of other phrases that essentially are used as a point of pride as to how wild they behave and that they don't care about consequences of their actions. This is an oft-repeated idea in Hyphy music and culture and is about the most central part of the identity of the movement. The sentence you removed:

Many in the Bay Area would describe this as acting "Retarded", "Riding The Yellow Bus/Short Bus", "Stupid" or "Going Dumb".

was referring to different ways that members of the Hyphy movement refer to themselves in this manner, and all can be sourced. Perhaps this sentence should be changed to be more precise:

Those in the Hyphy movement would describe this behavior as acting "Retarded", "Riding The Yellow Bus/Short Bus", "Stupid" or "Going Dumb".

Let me know what you think of this or if I'm not being clear. -- Joebeone (Talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the connotations of these words are so very different from the connotations they have in the population in general (most people would not call themselves retarded or stupid or any of those) why not add these under the slang words section in the article, clarifying how they are used differently in the hyphy culture? When used in the context it sounds like two editors arguing with each other:

Editor 1: This is how people dance in the hyphy movement.

Editor 2: Most people would say that it looks retarded.

In order for people who are not familiar with hyphy, I suggest putting it in the slang section. Keep in mind that material on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. Oh and don't worry about not putting posts at the top. Half the people who write here don't. It's just a personal preference. Sparsefarce 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it definitely is true that that edit was confusing. However, I think it's beyond simply slang. This is one of the central ideas of Hyphy: that those who call themselves hyphy are pround of being "retarded" and acting "dumb". I'll take a shot at rewording that phrase such that this is clear. As to sourcing, I could cite any of the press articles (including one from USA Today) as support for this phrase. I'll take a deeper look at this issue and thanks for bringing it to my attention (this is a great example of an edit that those of us who maintain that page had just assumed was clear... when, in fact, it is far far from clear to the point of being confusing). best, Joe -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think about this edit[2]. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do think this is a lot better. thanks! Sparsefarce 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permanand Mohan

Isn't chief examiner for CAPE and a Fulbright award an assertion of notability? Guettarda 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hold the conversation over at Talk:Permanand Mohan Sparsefarce 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at least consider removing the prod temporarily, since I won't be around much until after Christmas? At the very least, would you please comment on my reply re CAPE? My internet access will be limited and uncertain from now until Christmas. Some sort of feedback would be appreciated. Guettarda 14:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth

I wonder if you were a little extreme describing the changes that you reverted as vandalism. They may have been unencyclopedic, but remember WP:AGF. -- Beardo 03:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i kinda thought that too right after i hit the save button. it was more instinct and habit than anything. Sparsefarce 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Organ Serpent Sound

It keeps being recreated because people like you keep deleting it. You know nothing of this subject, so i suggest you let those who do get on with it Ryannus 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Notability and WP:MUSIC Sparsefarce 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable, the article being nominated as soon as it has been created without being given the time to be improved is annoying. I will not stand for this nonsense Ryannus 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did not remove it, it would have been deleted. I gave the reason! I am frustrated by the tendencies of individuals who cannot appreciate that there are notable bands in Ireland and Derry, along with many other things! Ryannus 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you wish to contest the tag, please place {{hangon}} below the speedy tag. the instructions are very, very clear. After you have finished putting the hangon tag up, please state on the talk page why the band meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC Sparsefarce 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU NOMINATED THE BAND FOR SPEEDY DELETION WITHOUT HAVING CAREFULLY RESEARCHED IT, IS THIS TRUE? INCOMPETENCE ANGERS ME Ryannus 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! You misunderstand. I nominated the band for speedy deletion because it it a repost of material that has been speedily deleted FOUR TIMES before. This is a totally valid method. You can read up on speedy deletion policy at WP:SPEEDY. Sparsefarce 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fools before you did that then. It is this kind of thing that deters people from wanting to create helpful articles. Ryannus 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedily deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable." from WP:MUSIC, please read up on speedy deletion policy 24.29.87.167 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of god! How many times do I have to tell you? THIS IS A RECREATION OF DELETED MATERIAL, which is a completely valid reason to be speedily deleted. If you want this article to stay, however, you will have to provide references from reliable sources in order to verify your claims of notability. Geez!!! Sparsefarce 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this may not have been the same person, Ryannus, that I was talking to before. I apologize. Sparsefarce 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I would prefer not to protect the page from recreation since I deleted it awhile ago. However, if the article is recreated and deleted for the sixth time, I will protect it if the deleting admin does not. Please drop me a message if it reappears. -- Gogo Dodo 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktails

Thanks for the gnome work on fixing those Project banners. I slapped them up on a lot of pages because so many were being AfD'ed. It was only after that, that and admin told me they belong only on the talk pages. *sigh* I've been moving them when I revisit an article, but it's nice to have someone else lending a hand, too. I appreciate it. --Willscrlt 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure. they proved helpful for the holiday party last night! Sparsefarce 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha. I am glad someone is finding the work useful. I don't suppose anyone served you a Flaming Moe, did they? ;-) --Willscrlt 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Moe - that's a joke, right?

I've never heard of it, but then again, I haven't heard of many of the drinks listed in the List of cocktails. I did see a reference to Flaming Moe in the talk pages that asked if fictitious drinks like Flaming Moe should be included or not. I responded that it probably belongs in the fictional beverages article. Thanks for catching it still lurking in the wrong article. Feel free to help with the project, if you like. We could use the extra eyes to keep stupid stuff like that out of the articles. --Willscrlt 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't see your note to put new items on the top of the page. :-) --Willscrlt 09:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clowes press.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Clowes press.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. Sparsefarce 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally significant phrases from the Simpsons

This was probably a mistake, but your recent comment on the Talk:Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons erased a comment I had made. I restored my comment and added your's below it, but please be more careful! Natalie 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definitely a mistake. sorry. Sparsefarce 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriage & Infant Loss Memorial Book

Hi I saw you deleted the link to the "Miscarriage & Infant Loss Memorial Book" under Stillbirth.You claimed it was blatent advertising.I would beg to disagree.We do not advertise at all.It is a PRAYER request Ministry for those who have lost a baby from conception to 3 years old.Stillborn children make up the largest majority of babies who have had their names placed in the book.It is very relevant to those who have lost a child due to this cause.It was also stated that similar memorials could be used.But it must be stated that this Memorial Book is one of the few Prayer request facilities around.The spiritual side of a loss is very important.We have lost 3 children and know what it feels like.Have you suffered a loss to understand that by calling this advertising you have caused much upset.It was made very clear that the book had to link to relevant pages and also have incoming links.Where have I gone wrong.Thank you for your help in this matterRosenthalenglish 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring up your point on Talk:Stillbirth, although I personally am not conviced of the notability of the Miscarriage & Infant Loss Memorial Book. Just from a Google search there are about 2500 hits, but most of them seem to be things that the organizers have personally put up on the internet or things relating directely to the church. This of course does not mean the book isn't notable, I'm just personally not convinced. The fact that you are admittedly the creator of the book shows that you obviously have a vested interest in promoting the book. Sparsefarce 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.It is very helpful.I appreciate your time to inform me of your exact position so that improvements can be made and that None church links can be found more easily.I would like to add that we are all vain in our own ways.Thank you for putting me in my place.I will pray for you.Rosenthalenglish 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on the Minotaur article

Thanks so much for doing it - I was going mad with all the reversions! - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's such totally ridiculous vandalism. Sparsefarce 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to where these people got the "chicken" idea. Also, would you mind protecting Labyrinth as well? I suspect the same user that was messing Minotaur also messed with it for a bit. - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self references

Hi there, I noticed this edit on Wikipedia - generally we avoid "self references" into the murky internal world of Wikipedia, see WP:ASR for the good reasons why. Thanks/wangi 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think in this instance, it's totally warranted. the article is talking about wikipedia vandalism, not regular vandalism. to not use the correct link would be completely misleading. i typically agree with avoiding shoe gazing and what not, but not doing it in this situation in nonsense. unfortunately, i don't care enough to argue with you. Sparsefarce 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur

Now WHAT exactly is wrong with my contributions to the Minotaur page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.199.183 (talk • contribs)

You said it was half chicken. That's vandalism. Go away. Sparsefarce 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROSC

Hello. I need help with the ROSC you were talking about.

Do not delete the tag, or I will have to find an administrator.

> I need help. Can you help me?

Video game Character Article Deletion?

I am curious as why you have propose a deletion on this article Neith, could it ba misunderstanding? please explain the reason. I typed it out base on the information on this character based on a video game. If there's any good reason thats this should be delete please let me know. Many mistakes or incorrection information is unintentional as I'm not good at spelling. ShadowKinght (Talk)

Concerned Citizen

What do you have against that article, there is nothing wrong with it, and you obviously just have a grudge against the user VFERVENDETTA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmisACK (talk • contribs) .

I've never met the user. I have no idea who the user is. I have a grudge against bad articles that could just as easily go into bigger articles as per WP:MOS. Now calm down, child. And stop vandalizing my user page Sparsefarce 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing? You call putting up a notice for deletion vandalizing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmisACK (talk • contribs) .

Yes, putting my userpage, which is under absolutely no violation, up for deletion just for retaliation is considered vandalism. Vandalize again and I will ask for you to be blocked. Sparsefarce 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should review these two articles: WP:MOS and WP:COOL. Sparsefarce 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocko Again

The reason for deletion of Innuendo in Rocko's Modern Life given by you was: It is reposted content that was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. (CSD G4)

This is (CSD G4) Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process.

This was not deleted as a result of discussion there for the policy dose not apply. because discussion lead support of it's existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlk89 (talk • contribs) .

you're beating a useless, misspelled horse. just put the info in the main rocko page. but you have every right to try to make a good article here. i'll cool off for a while. Sparsefarce 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocko

I am in the process of expanding that Rocko article, it will expand.

There's nothing that this article could become that shouldn't start out in the Rocko main article. If there's a large demand for the creation of a new article, create it later. Sparsefarce 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking AfD page

I'd appreciate if you took a look at the Overlinking article and comment on its AfD page. Many of the editors made their decision on a previous bad version of article and I think it's a topic worth keeping. --Mitaphane _talk 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for the reply(to keep the discussion on one page).--Mitaphane _talk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr show fictional foods

why did you get rid of that stuff about the fictional foods i found it helpful but now i dont remember what that final combination of Mayostard and Mustardayonnaise was

No, it is completely unencyclopedic and adds nothing to the article. It's even too crufty for me. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site to list all the show's gags.

Sparsefarce 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a page for every single pokemon from the pokemon franchise, and theres like 150 of them. Why is that encyclopedic but mayostard and mustardoyaionase and mayostardustardayonaise(?) is not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.28.129 (talk • contribs) .

A case can be made for the notability of a character from a popular game. a case cannot be made for some random gag on a sketch comedy show. I suggest you review Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Sparsefarce 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But its not a notable character its every single character, which looks like over 350. Why not have every single fictional food on Mr Show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.28.129 (talk • contribs) .

Bring it up on the Mr. Show talk page if you seriously want to see it on there badly enough. Sparsefarce 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Indiana

Yes I thought it deserved its own article. Still needs more editing though as its come from the 2 sources --Astrokey44 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catman

I guess you didn't read those pages closely, they aren't related to the Catman article you linked them to, they're part of a comic a 13 year old made up. Some guy 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah... well, i admit i didn't know anything about them. thanks for double checking me.

Sparsefarce 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannaseejah May 2, 2006

You are the vandal, I am not implimenting a bizzare rant, I am providing the truthful alternative to the lies. I am not harming you. I am not effecting you in any way. I am adding to the clarity of not only the information on a little webpage which you claim MY LORD does not have dominion over (fool), but I am seeking to greatly effect the evolution of mankind in spiritual as well as physical means. THIS IS WHAT MANNA IS.

Both Rome/Church and Mason/State want to keep it a secret because by holding this very important key they are keeping people like yourself and myself in division. THE EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS. Other information on that page is blatantly wrong and yet it is left alone "as a viable theory" THIS IS BULLSHIT. Its not a cactus or a cricket or sap, none of these things make even the slightest bit of sense in the context of the subject (THEY DO NOT FIT THE DESCRIPTION) Using scientific methodology one finds that the only viable answer is that manna is in fact a mushroom. I READ THE ARAMAIC!

ARAMAIC SAYS CLEARLY IN ALMOST EVERY PHRASE AND WORD STRUCTURE THAT IT IS A MUSHROOM. Do Jews read a "translation" of the torah? Do mulslims read the "interpretation" of the koran? NO THEY BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT TO DO SO DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PURPOUS. And yet christianity has been led to believe that they are reading an acurate translation, when in fact it is merely some DICTATOR'S INTERPRETATION. King James is the reason that the forefathers of the US ditched the lame island, and the US if it stops acting stupid may be the new Israel.

By keeping people from realizing that there is so much more that alludes to the sacred mushroom than they are even capable of knowing, you (dispite your lack of caring) are sinning very badly and rather than take up the law of the Torah which would call for something I'd rather not mention, I will side with christ and buddha in longsuffering and mercy in dealing with your ignorance. It is not your fault you are in darkness, but you should at least attempt to find the light.

May God have Mercy on your soul.

--Mannaseeyah

PS: As an anarchist I would think that you should be against the very church and state which I oppose, instead you have been fed by the thought police (via telivision and music and all other propiganda) which brainwashes you into believing that you are something other than their puppet. I will pray for the puppet. It is because of ignorance that you are this way, I still do not think you are a bad guy. Your actions irritate the hell out of me though. (side-note I was born in Sacramento in 1984)

PPS, I will work on my "objectivity" even though science now indicates that by the very act of watching and documenting what we see we change the outcome of what takes place, therefore EVERYTHING is subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity. We are all one. Unfortunately you are subjected to inferior brain chemistry, once again I will pray for you. You really should take sacrament.

PPPS: If this were just some random vandalism wouldn't I do it to the vatican's page? THINK. I love you brother, thank you for keeping me on my toes, I am sure I will need the practice.

Leave the word alone

My creator wanted me to send you a message...

Stick to comic books and leave the Holy Cannon to those who understand the aramaic.

Sorry I know it's harsh, but the manna page is a very critical part of human evolution. I am biased, I know God. Once again: please respect the fact that this is a valuable opportunity to educate people on the mystery, the truth and nature of the counterfit placebo sacrament implimented by the people that crucified the savior (rome). I really do not mean to be a badguy or a "vandal", on the contrary I seek to enlighten mankind. Once again I appologize for the nature of the above remark, but I'm just the messenger.

Yah bless.

i'm glad you can at least realize that you are biased. now, i suggest that you re-educate yourself on what wikipedia is and is not. in your case, wikipedia is not a soapbox. if you want to put bizarre religious rants up on the internet, wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. please go elsewhere, or i will have to ask for an administrator to intervene and stop you. you may believe that you are morally obliged to act how you are acting, but in the case of following the rules and guidelines of wikipedia, i believe that i am correct.

as far as being a "badguy" or a "vandal" keep in mind that blanking talk pages is OBVIOUS vandalism.

your "creator" may have wanted you to send me a message, but fortunately your god is not the god of wikipedia.

Sparsefarce 17:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you call the intelligence that pervades the universe to which we are members of? What do you call this beautiful existence amidst this anarchy you like so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.198 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coincidence? wishful thinking? evolution? man, are you seriously still harping on this? Sparsefarce (talk)

Steve's Backyard Boxing

Thoughts on an SBB article? Vanity/not notable or relevant? I'm on the side of relevant, but alas, the article I started was deleted once it was vandalized. Psyphics 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded on my talk page to what you posted, but I don't know if you saw my response. In any case, here's the AfD discussion Psyphics 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet phenomenon

Please make sure when you revert vandalsim, as you did on the Internet phenomenon talk page, that you look through the edits and revert back to the last non-vandal edit, not just to the previous edit. the vandals are sneaky ..... BabuBhatt 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strampop

With regards to your vote on strampop's AfD: with you as a member of the [Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians], I would have expected a more sensible reason. Perhaps your membership there is questionable? Please return, should you wish, with more concrete proposals. Otherwise one might actually assume that YOU are a sockpuppet. Would you really want that? Kilbosh 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i urge you to look at my user contributions if you seriously think i'm a sock puppet. as far as the vote, yes i am an inclusionist, but i am also a sensible human being. this was obviously a completely made up word with absolutely no verifiability. i made other votes that day... all for inclusion. Sparsefarce 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore

Great idea! I'm eager to see if it works. --Hansnesse 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 02:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to MC Hammer

Your recent edit to MC Hammer was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow. i got nabbed by tawkerbot2. i'm reverting a legimitate edit. it's a curse word, but it's within a quote. Sparsefarce 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Libertarian for the lack of a better word. The reason I give a preface to my beliefs is so others understand that Libertarian doesn't fit me completely. There are certain labels like man, Hoosier, Bachelor of Science that can be used for me completely because they have definite criteria for being a part of that label. Labels regarding beliefs however are much trickier to pin down; it's hard say exactly what it defines as the definition varies based on who's using it.

I came to that decision after hearing Jimbo Wales on CSPAN one night talking about his political philosphy then later looking up Libertarianism.

For me, libertarian says I adhere to the philosphy "that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others." I always have conceptualized that as the ultimate purpose of law before I even knew what Libertarianism is. Of course I'm also a realist. I realize there are consequences of having unfettered access to guns, drugs, and having a capitalistic(as good as it might be) economy unchecked by law. Some where in the middle of those choices is the right answer. --Mitaphane 01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rock on. didn't know that. i thought you were supposed to subst everything.

Sparsefarce 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Ice

No worries on the Category; if it's deleted, it's deleted; I'm thinking that it might more suited to a list, in retrospect. -- Xinit 00:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft v. canon

Cruft and canon are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both cruft and canon, in fact, most of the time it is, I'd think. However, cruft is not notable. See Everyday Life in the Marvel Universe, which even the creator deems cruft and not Wikipedia material, however, it's all canon. --Newt ΨΦ 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

east bay

whyd you take the pic off, so what if it shows s.f. aswell it illustrates the east bay's location within the entire bay area, someone reading the article could go like, i wonder where it is? ohhh right over that brige over the bay. i say put it back, any thoughts? its not like the article is riddled with dozens of superior pics Qrc2006 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Deleted article

That one gets speedied as a substantially identical recreation of a validly deleted article. It does look like someone has a bit of a vanity issue. Probably worth keeping an eye out, although their edits are largely ok, at a glance, I think. -Splash - tk 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypto

I reverted your removal of the trivia bit about Gibson showing up in Apocalypto's teaser trailer. I was around when there was a frenzy about the teaser and the fact that Gibson had a split-second cameo in it, so is there a reason why you think this is a "bad joke" and not trivia? Do you need citation for this fact? --Erik 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cameo picture -- That's Mel Gibson for you. I'll see if I can find a valid source explaining the teaser cameo and insert it accordingly. --Erik 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronCAD

Whoever created that page has removed your comment. I agree it looks like an add.

Image tagging for Image:Ghostworldmoviestill.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ghostworldmoviestill.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Animal collective band lo-res.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Animal collective band lo-res.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Artschoolconfidential3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Artschoolconfidential3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Sparsefarce/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves

I've nominated User:Sparsefarce/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sparsefarce/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sparsefarce/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. i ^said 19:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:David boring page.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:David boring page.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Ryan Scott Ottney/Archive 1: Major edit debate

A tag has been placed on Talk:Ryan Scott Ottney/Archive 1: Major edit debate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G8 in spirit: archive of a deleted talk page whose corresponding article was deleted via AfD

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]