User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive7

IP sockpuppets

Hey, there's a bunch of IP addresses whose edits suspiciously seem very similar to each other. They've been blanking userpages and making personal attacks. Most of their edits have been at User talk:Neil. You may want to check that out (went you you cause I've seen you around). The Chronic 05:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been watching that and blocking on their first edit. Thanks for all the work! --TeaDrinker 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I shut down his whole range for an hour (just in case you didn't notice) -- 87.122.0.0/18. If he comes back we can do it again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's probably a wise move. --TeaDrinker 05:42, 1 December 2007(UTC)

Pictures

Hey guys! Do any of you know how to put pictures on your user page easily? It'd be great if you can help me out.--Daniella95 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the steps are

1. Find a picture you like (there are a lot on Wikimedia commons or Featured images worth checking out). Be sure to note the image name. For instance, suppose you select Image:SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg.
2. Verify the image is not being used as "fair use" (look over the license on the image page, if it says "public domain," "GFDL," or "Creative Commons," you're good to go; if it has a copyright logo, then it probably can't be used). Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
3. On your userpage, put in the code [[Image:SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg | thumb | right | 250px | caption]] (you can play around with these options, including removing them, to get variations in size and location).
4. You can also check out my (simple) userpage design by going to User:TeaDrinker and clicking edit this page. The image I used is contained in the first line of text: [[Image:Haeckel Actiniae.jpg|right|185px]]

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Images. If you run into any difficulties, or you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! --TeaDrinker 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot, but I got this huge picutre on my user page (as you can tell) so how do I make it smaller? --Daniella95 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, you can shrink it in two ways:

1. Use the code [[Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg|250px]] (which sets the size to 250 pixels), or
2. Use the code [[Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg|thumb]] (which makes the image a thumbnail, of a size defined by the reader).

I use the first method on my userpage, although the second method is almost always preferred in the main article space. Looks like a great picture! --TeaDrinker 22:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Why did you delete this? You cited G6, but how does that apply when the page was legitimately moved, and the redirect would be needed? I (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed the Wikipedia:WikiLawyering was going to be moved to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (which seemed a relatively uncontroversial move). The page deletion was requested by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), and when the deletion was complete, I left a note on the user's talk page. I presume either he forgot about the page, or misinterpreted my message to mean I had moved the page as well. I have gone ahead and restored the page until we can get this straightened out. Thanks for the heads up and let me know if there is more I can do. --TeaDrinker 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RJRocket53

I suppose I should initiate this conversation. I saw that I was reported by the above named user for vandalism. If I could, I would like to explain my actions. If you have some familiarity with the creation/evolution debate, this may make a little more sense. These articles are some of the most highly contentious and troll inducing articles on Wikipedia. Firstly, he blatantly attacked editors of the page, notably by saying anyone who believes creationism is pseudoscience is an atheist. Not only is this uncivil, but it is also completely irrelevant to the classification. Also, it is an old standby of the creationist crowd to use such an attack. He also didn't even sign his name, which is a classic drive-by move trolling seen on a lot of creationist articles (both sides have parties guilty of this). I gathered that he was just trying to provoke a reaction (trolling), especially since he has a tiny amount of edits and has not made any sort of edit until the one in question for a several month period. The second talk comment was not any better and it clearly did not serve to further any improvements to the article.

Plus, all of his thoughts have been addressed ad nauseam on the creationism articles. I am trying to steer him towards articles where he could debate such points. But truthfully, he won't get far on the creationism articles either. If you have anything to ask, feel free to do so. Cheers!!! Baegis 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I don't think removing personal attacks or off-topic discussion is at all problematic. Indeed keeping order on contentious pages is difficult. His addition, even if made in good faith (which may not be an unreasonable assumption still), is unlikely to lead to any change in the article as (as you note) these issues have been discussed to death. I don't see anything wrong with removing from the article talk policy-wise, in fact dealing with these sorts of problems is something that is still evolving on Wikipedia (see, for another example, the Global warming talk page). Thanks for your patience in taking this on. Best, --TeaDrinker 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry. I was not trying to be offensive to anybody. I wasn't trying to troll. I was offended by the article a little, and I guess I acted inappropriately. About the not signing posts thing: I'm not really used to this Wikipedia thing, and forget sometimes. I will try to remember that in the future.

Also, it is an old standby of the creationist crowd to use such an attack.

That's offensive to me, even if it is true that they do do that. (I wouldn't know, I haven't participated in this much).

I really, truly want to make Wikipedia better, I use it all the time for school and research. I'm not really used to this editing thing though. I will try to stop making my posts less troll-ish.

Thanks, RJRocket53 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Section ordering in condom article

Hi, I'm following up on your comment at Talk:Condom/Archive 3#Good article status from, um, eight months ago. I've requested a peer review for condom, and one of the reviewers (as you had also commented) wanted to see the "History" section higher in the article.

I'm not sure how high to put it. Midway through the article - maybe after "Female condom" but before "Use"? Or at the top, like in combined oral contraceptive pill and the general birth control article? Any advice would be appreciated! Lyrl^Talk _C 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And a belated congratulations on the mop! I've always been impressed with your editing and civility and it's good to see that recognized by the community. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The article looks very nice. (Thanks for taking on so much revision--it is one of those that rather fell by the wayside for me.) I agree the history section could be put higher up; In fact, my first inclination is to start off the article with it. You mention a concern that most people may be looking for other information, which is true. Although organizationally it makes sense to me, so I suppose it has my vote as the first section, I'd go with whatever you think fits the best. --TeaDrinker 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Per your note, re-requesting this be speedied via {{db-move}}; I'm online now for a while and can complete the move. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like you took care of it. Keep up the great work and let me know if there is anything else I can do. --TeaDrinker 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Late congratulations

This is a little late, but congratulations on become an admin! Solo1234 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --TeaDrinker 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kutkh

Hi TeaDrinker. I indulged my mystical side and wrote an article about an eastern Russian deity called Kutkh. I know you have diverse tastes and suspect there might be a glimmer of the mystical under that hard eco-quantitative exterior, so maybe you wouldn't mind looking it over? thanks, Eliezg 04:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, superb work! I was a bit confused by the difference between references and sources, but it looks like the article is very good! I checked the Russian Wikipedia, and there is no article for it under the name Кутх, but the word is used several times in two other pages (trickster (Трикстер) and Itelmens people (Ительмены)). Great work! --TeaDrinker 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TeaDrinker! References/Sources ... who knows. I didn't cite lines separately because almost everything came from one source, but then some other things came up so I thought I'd list them. Anyways, it would be nice if the article were illustrated, but there is very little material on the web about Kutkh. I did find an excellent image of a wooden carving - very typical of Koryak handicrafts, here, on a website (http://www.northernlights.ru) geared towards selling Kamchatka souvenirs. Do you know what one would need to do to be able to post it? I can e-mail the contact there and ask, and I imagine they wouldn't be opposed, but I wouldn't want to ask them to make an account, upload the image, etc. Is there a way they could release it so that I could upload it? Since they are dealers that are representing the work several artists, does that somehow complicate things? Can I link TO the image in the article? How do I avoid "advertising"? Also, there's a neat Russian-language cartoon on YouTube here recounting the legend of Kutkh and the Mice. I've never seen YouTube linked from Wikipidia .. is that just not done? Any suggestions appreciated! thanks, Eliezg 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a photo would be a great addition to the article. There is a page on how to go about requesting copyright permissions: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If they are amenable to releasing it under one of the free-content licenses (remember it can't be for use only on Wikipedia; it must also permit off-Wiki commercial use), fantastic. You can link to the image, although it would perhaps be frowned upon, and not really as useful. I think the best bet is to try and obtain permissions by email, then forward that email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. There's even a helpful page, Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Let me know if you have any problems. --TeaDrinker 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1968 Riot in Baltimore City, The Insurrection Act, and Federalization of the National Guard

It is nonsense... see Talk:The 1968 Riot in Baltimore City, The Insurrection Act, and Federalization of the National Guard Its a copy from the fake wikipedia. Hammer1980·^talk 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree and deleted the page. --TeaDrinker 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was in the process of putting the link on the main page when the clean-up appeared ! Hammer1980·^talk 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This shouldnt be deleted

I have witnessed this event take place. Jacob Dworkin is a record setting player

David Dworkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobdworkin (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the twice-deleted Jacob Dworkin article, winning a local chess championship does not garner substantial media coverage, as is needed for an article. Also, it is usually a bad idea to create an article about yourself (or someone you are related to). Please see notability guidelines and autobiography guidelines. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

al-said Barakah

Hi TeaDrinker, Thank you for your help and adding info. Was you the one tried to delete that article or was it a robot? because was really very speedy. I will complete that article later. Regards. Samsam22 (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Anyone can mark a page for deletion, however only an administrator can actually delete it. Because there is a constant stream of unencyclopedic material (often advertisements, autobiographies, or vandalism), there are a number of volunteers who monitor Special:Newpages and tag any article which should not be in the encyclopedia. Because so many articles come in, however, the initial assessment is generally done quickly and without checking outside additional reference works). As a secondary measure, before the article is deleted, an administrator (me in this case) reviews the article to make sure we're not deleting something which should be saved. Your additions to the article, and the discussion on the talk page, indicated that the original request to delete the article was an error. Thanks for the great work, and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you TeaDrinker Samsam22 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hive (Resident Evil)

I would ask you to reconsider your ruling on keeping this article, as it has had ample opportunity to demonstrate notability per WP:FICTION through reliable secondary out-of-universe sourcing and has failed. Moreover, the keep votes that predominated in the discussion are not rooted in policy, as they assert notability with no proof, and should probably be thus discounted, because as you know this is not a vote but a discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I did review the discussion and article again, to be sure I did not miss anything. I share your doubts as to the true notability. The editors contributing to the AfD, however, seemed to find the sourcing sufficient, and that there is some measure of notability. On the balance, I had to lean toward keeping the article. I can very much appreciate the goal of keeping fancruft out of Wikipedia, and you should be commended for attempting to do so. But I'm afraid I can't change my assessment of the discussion. Thanks again for all your work, and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pehlewani CSD A7

Re: "seems to be an extinct dialect or language"

The word "Pehlewani" appears to have misappropriated by the guy who wrote the linked url and originally means this. There is/was no such language by that name: it does not appear on the Ethnologue (i.e. no ISO language code assignment, which it would have even if it was an extinct dialect), nor does it appear in the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, which is pretty much the tertiary authority on Iranian languages, nor are there any references to it on JSTOR.

That said, since filing the CSD I've discovered that the article was created by an SPA, Kurdology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is very likely Kurdology1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who in turn is annoying a bunch of people for his "enthusiasm for [Kurdish] ethnicity." At any rate, the same fellow is using "Pehlewani" as the authority for edit-warring at the Medes article.

Do you still think I need to file that AfD? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Strike that. The editor has simply misspelled the name. Rather obscure, but there is evidently one peer-reviewed book on the subject (by the same author as the one of the reference). -- Fullstop (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for the welcome message you left me on my user talk page! Let's see if that ~~~~ thing works: Afarnen (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, glad you're here! Let me know if you have any questions. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Oehling

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carl Oehling. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (I closed the original AfD) Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Username

Hi again! Can you help me find out out to decorate my username -like change its font or color and stuff? I know you're very knowledgable about wikipedia!:D--Daniella95 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, I'd be happy to help. Adding some flair to your signature is pretty straightforward. Rules, rules, everything starts with some rules. Wikipedia rules on signatures are here. To create a new signature, click my preferences at the top of the screen. It should open to your user preferences tab. Check the "raw signature" box and enter the code you want into the signature box. The code is html, usually, and is the only tricky part of the process. Some examples are below.

An unmodified signature (ignoring the color) looks like [[User:Daniella95|Daniella95]] ([[User talk:Daniella95|talk]]). This is what is generated automatically. By changing the parts highlighted in red (either changing the words that are there or by adding some code), the appearance is easily modified.

Code	Resulting display
[[User:Daniella95|Daniella95]] ([[User talk:Daniella95|talk]])	Daniella95 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Daniella95| <font color="green">Daniella95</font> ]] ([[User talk:Daniella95|<font color="#7E2217">talk</font>]])	Daniella95 (talk)10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A very simple change might be the color or font. To do this, use the second example above. The only difference between this and the standard signature is I wrapped the parts in red in <font> </font> tags. By themselves the font tags don't do much, but you can put options in, like color= or face=. Colors can be referenced either by name (like green, aquamarine, etc.) or by hexidecimal RGB code. A handy reference is here. We could also change the font by using the <font face="fontname"></font> option. And of course, you can modify both at the same time. Different people will have different fonts on their computer, so calling obscure fonts is probably going to look odd on other computers. A safer bet is to use the options from standard html, found in Font family (HTML).

You can also use  tags to elevate (or  to depress), and you can user more than one color or font:

Code	Resulting display
[[User:Daniella95| <font color="green" face=broadway>Daniella</font><sup><font face="impact" color="black">''95''</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Daniella95|<small><font color="green">Talk to me</font></small>]]	Daniella95 Talk to me10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Daniella95| <font color="#4C7D7E" face="cursive">Danilla</font><font color="firebrick" face="Courier">95</font>]] [[User talk:Danilla95|<font color="#4C7D7E" face="fantasy" >(talk)</font>]]	Danilla95 (talk)10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this will get you started. There are many many other modifications that can be made; let me know if you had something more specific in mind, or if something here doesn't work or make sense. Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request indef for recently blocked user

User:W345thn, who you just blocked for only 24 hours, is a blatant sock of user:Layla27 -- the user repeatedly adds unsourced death tolls to nuclear power-based articles, claiming that it's "common knowledge," and accuses anyone who opposes him of being an "ignorant right-winger." He's had numerous socks, so I'm requesting you indef this one so he can't come back to it. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking back over the contributions, I believe you are correct. I changed the block to indefinite, and will note that on the user's talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the user to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Layla27, since - as noted - it is obvious. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Arsonists Get All The Girls

Yes, I want to do a deletion review on Arsonists Get All The Girls, the band meets music notability guidelines due to them having released 2 albums on a recognizable independant label. Not sure of the proper way to go about that. I had added the template, but is there something more to be done? Web250 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately the template you added to the article (delreview) does not exist. Your best course of action would be to

1. Contact the admin who deleted the page (Keegan (talk · contribs) in this case), and see if he might restore it. He may be willing to restore it to go though an articles for deletion discussion, or just restore it outright.
2. If he does not agree, you can list a deletion review notice. The instructions are at WP:DRV#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. (Be sure you list the title as Arsonists Get All the Girls (lowercase t on "the"), since that is where the content was deleted.)

Let me know if you have any questions, or something in the above is confusing. We try our best to make things accessible, but I'm afraid things get bureaucratic at times. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge sturgeon

Hi TeaDrinker. If you have a chance, would you take a look at the Sturgeon discussion and perhaps help facilitate a proposed merger with Acipenserids? Thanks, Eliezg (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I took a look at the page. I didn't find anything in the Acipenserid article which wasn't already in the Sturgeon. Usually animals are titled under their common name (if it is unambiguous and truly common, see WP:MOS), so I made the Acipenserid redirect to Sturgeon. Hope this helps. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy removal of article

Hi,

Sorry to trouble you.

I posted an article earlier tonight in the 'List of All-Female Bands' section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_group, having found an entry for the band 'Dame'.

My intention was to add relevant information on the band. I am not connected with them in any way, and as I say, did not create the page.

I know that I really should have studied the rules in more detail, perhaps 'sandboxed' while formatting/reviewing/editing the information, and possibly posting a full review by author/journalist Laurie Lonsdale was a breach of rule.

If you can help me in formatting information in an acceptable way, I would be most grateful.

PJ

Murphypj (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I took a look at the DAME article. Alas, it seems to be a copyright violation from mp3.com so it can not be recreated. Additionally, articles in Wikipedia must be written in a neural tone and have balanced coverage of their subject. As such, bands usually have to be covered farily well by non-trivial, independent, reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia. Not all bands have received independent coverage to allow for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:BAND for a basic guideline). If you do want to contribute an article on this band, it is critical that (i) it be in your own words (ii) it be written in a neutral tone (see WP:NPOV for more information), and (iii) it shows the band meets the criteria in WP:BAND. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

TeaDrinker,

Thank you for getting back, and for the advice. I will check out the guidelines and take it from there. I hadn't intended including the full review, but to refer to it with a short quote - I pressed save intending to edit immediately, but you guys are quick!

Thanks once again for the help and advice

PJ 194.46.231.150 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker,

I would ask you to bear with me while I get to grips with both the rules and the navigation here. Following your advice, I tried placing a short article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAME) , with some factual information about the band, referencing rather than quoting from reliable sources ( MP3.COM, Toronto Exclusive Magazine ) to establish authenticity and notability. I kept the article deliberately short, to try to grasp the correct approach and avoid breach of etiquette. The article has been marked 'CSD G11'. Again, apologies, but I don't follow the {{hangon}} process - it seems I should edit the page and add this tag below the system message, but I can't find an edit option.

I am trying to add accurate and verifiable information to an article which was already in Wikipedia, and want to observe the rules and protocols which make Wikipedia what it is. I would appreciate at least a 'stay of execution', while I again attempt to gather and present the information in the correct way.

Many thanks for your patience.

PJ

Murphypj (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I looked over the article you wrote, which was deleted (deleted article are still viewable by administrators). The code CSD G11 is criteria for speedy deletion General criteria number 11: Advertising. You can check with the admin who deleted the page this time, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs), but I strongly suspect that the issue is one of notability. We get a lot of articles about bands, so the band needs to show notability of a fairly substantial measure. (Two CDs released on a major label, for instance, see WP:BAND for details) Coverage in a local magazine is good, although usually some more substantial coverage is needed.

The {{hangon}} tag is placed by simply editing the article and putting it below the speedy deletion notice. To do so, just click the "edit this page" tab and type {{hangon}} under the deletion notice and save the edit. All it does is alert the administrator that some explanation is required. You can add that explanation to the article talk page, Talk:DAME (just click the "discussion" tab in the article at the top of the page). The page can be, and often is, still deleted. But the hangon tag alerts the admin to do a more careful investigation.

As far as what we can do from here, if you have a collection of sources which indicate the band's notability, I can recreate the article and you can add them. The article still might be deleted (most often under the articles for deletion process which is more lengthy than speedy deletion). Otherwise your best bet would be to request a deletion review (there are instructions on the page for how to do this).

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

TeaDrinker, thanks for your support.
--A. B. ^(talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- cool picture on your user page!

Thanks, and congratulations! --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action

Thanks for quickly removing that rogue tag at my new page User talk:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, TD. Some of these bots need reining in, don't they? Sheesh! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jazz lists

I merged that list with the original jazz template, so the jazz list template should be deleted. I don't know how to delete template, so if you could that would help, Thanks. 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see it now, you merged it with Template:Jazzfooter. The template seems to still be commonly in use, so I have made Jazz lists a redirect to Jazz footer. This makes Jazz lists show the same thing as Jazzfooter. It may be wise to go through the articles and make sure they don't have both templates linked (which seems rare). Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for all the work, it looks great! --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Announced on a website

It was announced on a website i can remember. But, you have to log in to view it. I also have forgot the name of the website. I saw it 3 weeks ago. (Minopas (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Please locate the reference and add it to the article. I have added the tags back. There are several issues which need to be addressed: without knowing the website, it is impossible to determine if it was a reliable source (much of the web is not). It is highly peculiar that there is no mention of it in common news sources, nor on the team 17 website. There is also the question of the notability of a video game such as this; commonly Wikipedia needs multiple independent sources to validate an article. Articles which do not have such usually are not notable enough for their own article. Please do not remove any of the tags again until you can find a reliable source and add it to the article. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Like i said, you have to be a member of the website to view the source. Listen to me! (Minopas (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

I understand, but what is the website? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will see if i can find it. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, please do not remove the templates until you do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotiger 13 has deleted the notability tag. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

I have restored it, thanks for the heads up. Please see the article's talk page for my reasoning. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Minopa is lying. The game was announced on the Team 17 forum, but it wasn't announced in full detail. In a thread, people were asking for a new Worms 2D PC game. Spadge, a director at Team 17, mentioned on there that a new Worms PC game is in production, to be announced towards the end of the year. So Minopa is making the whole thing up, about the release date, clothes e.t.c. But there is a problem. In order to view the thread, you must be a member of the Team 17 forum. So, basically, one of the Team 17 members, have said that a game is in production. (Gotiger13 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the update, I have marked the page for deletion via the proposed deletion process. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire thread looks like blatant speculation, in violation of WP:CBALL. Can you give us any reason why this article should be kept, Gotiger? GlassCobra 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It should NOT be deleted. (Minopas (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

I think it should be deleted. I think there should be a note, that there is a PC game in production on the Worms series page though. Its Minopa who disagrees with you. (Gotiger13 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

I have put the article up for an articles for deletion. Feel free to discuss there. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please!

Please do not delete my article. (Minopas (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

The best way to have the article kept is to add reliable sources. Failing that, I don't see how the article could be kept, since Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or your own personal website (remember, no one user owns an article). Hope this helps. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PC worms game in production

Like Gotiger said, Spadge announced on the Team 17 forum that a PC game is in production. Could i possibly say on the Worms series page that there is a PC game in production? But i know you will want the source for this, and i would post you the link. However, you would have to register in order to view it. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

You can certainly use a reference from a site which requires registration, however an user in a forum may is probably not a reliable source. It may be better to hold off until it is officially announced. There is a long history of Vaporware in the release of software, as well as viral marketing and similar efforts which we should eschew in Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user is a director at the Team 17 company, and he often announces new things in production on the forum. But, i will just wait until it is announced. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Here is the link to where Spadge said it click here Like i said, you will have to register to view it. Or, you might not. I am a member of the forum.(Shadowmoon13 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks! I did check out the link, although as I feared, it is not really a reliable source. Note also that it was about 6 months ago, indicating they would be releasing any day now, but have evidentially not made any further announcements about it. This may mean the poster was incorrect, or plans have changed. It may be better to wait for an official announcement. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Weirdy (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Weirdy Talk 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain

Thank you for your input on the Talk Page of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. I have been attemtping to keep the article balanced. There seem to be so many biographical articles on Wikipedia which are attacked by political opponents. I am not, I don't believe, political. In fact I don't even vote. Chamberlain was essentially a Victorian author, and his credentials are well-established. Naturally there are those who are completely opposed to his theories etc., and who then try and connect him, in this case, with nazis or whoever. That is pure politics. I believe that we should carry biographical articles about the subject himself and his works (most of which were not political, such as the mammoth Immanuel Kant). If a work has been controversial, definite clear links might be added in an academic (as opposed to journalistic) manner, but these should not reflect merely jaundiced opinions of those who might find a fellow-traveller's jaundiced book to support his views. Thanks again. David Lauder (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much an expert on the topic, but edits like this are not helpful. Keep focused on the contributions, not the contributors (see WP:NPA). If need be, I would be happy to take a more active role in trying to come to some kind of agreement--or I can refer you to the usual dispute resolution paths (usually starting with WP:RFC). I'll take a look back over the talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt given the tone and threatening attititude of Mr Anderson's comments that was a fair response. There was ONE complainant about this article, who, by his many comments, simply hated the subject of the biography. There was modest unconfrontational comment by another. I did not write this article although I contributed to it from the various sources I could locate. The complainant does not approve of the article's subject and wants him accordingly denigrated as he has clearly made out. Is that the way Wikipedia works? David Lauder (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works if people talk to each other about the contributions, not degenerate into a shouting match about the motivations, biases, or personal interests of the contributors. For myself, I don't see any problem with Mr. Anderson's comments, however responding to an (perceived) attack with another attack will only get everyone blocked. Regardless of the provocation, I ask you to refrain from commenting on contributors and stay focused on the content of the article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Seasons Greetings TeaDrinker/Archive7 Happy New Year !

^{Sandahl 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)}

uw-selfrevert

Hi TeaDrinker, are you aware of the existence of {{uw-selfrevert}}? I saw your warning to 24.118.8.80 (talk · contribs) and felt I would have used that instead, is all. Phaunt (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks for the note! I have seen the template before, but thanks for the reminder. I think in this case I had reverted and warned with Twinkle at approximately the same time the user undid the test. As a result, I didn't see the user's last edit until after I had sent the note. Probably just working too fast. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More Chamberlain

Hi TeaDrinker. I appreciate the endorsement of my edits on Peter Cohen's page, though the reversion is actually welcome. Perhaps you would like to cast a vote on the Chamberlain talk page. Best, Eliezg (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern was that it Peter's edit was made in error, since the edit summary did not match what he was doing. I'll take a look back at the page, although be aware of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointing out the policy link. I wasn't sure suggesting a vote would be an appropriate thing to do. On the other hand, the primary editor of the page has displayed unwillingness to compromise or even acknowledge differing viewpoints as legitimate. In view of the potential difficulty of attaining consensus, directing some energy into a discussion of actual content seemed like a constructive strategy. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an excellent bit of work and hopefully will inspire more discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I considered the edit so sarcastic and pointish that it constituted vandalism. Point 5 (as labelled in the article talk page) was particularly over the top with David included as a reference.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as was noted on the talk page, it was a bit pointy, but it is best to keep cool. It looks like substantial progress is being made on the talk page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Probably the hundredth time you received gratitude! :D)

That advice on how you can change your signature was great!I guess I understand it, but the codes are sooo confusing and long. Is there a way to make it shorter? Also,where do you find all the codes for the signatures anyway? Sorry to pile you with so much questions. Well anyways.... Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!--Daniella95 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. The codes used in the signatures are almost always HTML (or sometimes CSS), which is the language web-browsers read. There are a large number of online sources for tutorials and such, but I suspect the easiest way to make a new signature is look for someone else's signature looks and copy their code (with suitable modification). Code should be visible if you click "edit this page" on a page with someone's signature. As far as the length, unfortunately, there is no good way to make the signature code shorter (without, say, removing a link to either your user or talk page). Templates, which are used elsewhere on Wikipedia for this purpose, are not allowed for signatures since it is a strain on the servers (and really slows down talk page load times, if there are a lot of signatures on a page). I'd be happy to help with making a signature look a certain way if you have something particular in mind. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How do i craete an artical?

Hi. Sory abuot my spaelling. You are an administator, and i think you might know how to do this. How i suposed to craete an artical? i do not know how! (Sazuref (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

General help on creating a new article can be found at Help:Starting a new page. Please also see the policy on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Violation of the latter policy can (and will) result in a block. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Again!

Thanks for helping me and have a very Merry Christmas!--Daniella95 (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too! --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Template:Jazz lists

Please see Template talk:Jazzfooter for my thoughts regarding your recent speedy deletion of this template. • Freechild'sup? 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I don't think that template was deleted, but I will reply in full on the appropriate talk page. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Signatures (Again!)

Can you help me with the code to make "Daniella95" gold, and "talk" red? I'm really sorry to bother you so much! --Daniella95 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind! (Please ignore that first message up there.) I finally got a code down. I don't know how to get the timestamp to go with the signature though. That's fine I guess. Thank you sooooo much for all your help! Daniella95 ( talk)

Looks nice! About the date and time, it should appear automatically if you use four tildes (three will put just your name). If you are using four tildes, what happens when you put five? This should make the signature appear as just the date with no name (like 08:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)). Let me know if you're still having trouble. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I tried to enter my signature's code in "my prefrences" it wouldn't let me and instead, it said something about being invalid. How would I make this code valid? > Daniella95 (talk)

Curiouser and curiouser! That I have not seen before. What was the code you were trying to add? (If it changes when you save the page, you can put ... tags around the code so it displays the code as text.) Playing around with the feature, I discovered unbalanced tags (that is, opening a <font> but not closing it with </font>) will cause that sort of error, so it may be a good idea to check if the tags are all closed. Let me know if I can help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the code show but I guess you could just click edit and see how I did it. Daniella95 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is the code you're putting in my preferences [[User:Daniella95|<font color= "teal">Daniella95</font>]] [[User Talk:Daniella95| <font color= "darkred">(talk)</font>]]? It seems to work for me, but perhaps I am missing something (or there is a bug in the software...). --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OH MY GOSH! I guess you were right! I had an unbalanced tag, so I closed it and now it's valid! Thank you thank you thank you! --Daniella95 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, the signature looks great! Let me know if anything else comes up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Walter Ratcliffe

Um... I really don't appreciate the deletion of the late Walter Ratcliffe page. I have been talking with MKoltnow about adding more evidence and information (which in part relies on the original page creator). The page was also a main piece of evidence in a dispute over puppetry that has been surrounding a few users. I would like to have it put back up. Thanks -Makesfolkslose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makesfolkslose (talk • contribs) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article won't be recreated in the main article space unless reliable sourcing can be found which indicates notability. Deleted article will still be visible to administrators, which should be sufficient for purposes of evidence, although it looks like a request for check user will be filed and that should settle the matter. Let me know if you have any further concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Suburbs of Thuringowa City

Hi sorry to be a pain but you just took care of 3 other speedy deletions that a user put on some pages that i made but you have left out this one Suburbs of Thuringowa City can i please ask why you didn't remove the tag and can you have a look as see if you can femove it please, as i think the user that added all the tags had a bit of a problem with me so he has done this to try to tick me off....i don't know....Thanks Thuringowacityrep (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it looks like the article was kept and the speedy deletion request was already removed. Let me know if you have any further concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin M. Spencer (page deletin)

I wouldn't say we got off on the wrong foot and I certainly do plan on sticking around. This entry that was deleted was actually created as a placeholder for my own entry and I can understand your justification on why it was deleted. No worries! :)

Generic248 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know if you have any further concerns; we're here to help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

GalmF15C

Why did you delete my page on Team SD? what I said was Factual and I was Intending to Expand that page. Please send a reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GalmF15C (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In addition to being factual, articles on Wikipedia also have to be about notable subjects. Because information has to be fact-checked, the subject of an article usually has to be covered in several non-trivial independent publications (see corporate notability guidelines). Here the article did not assert any indication of notability, however if you can find such information, you are welcome to recreate the article. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User page of User:S-charete

You have removed the speedy deletion tag I put on User:S-charete on the rationale that it was probably inserted as a joke. Believe me, I wish it were. This is the user page of a just-blocked vandalism-only account, which was used to impersonate another, legit user, User:S charette. Please reconsider. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, my mistake entirely. I apologize. I went ahead and replaced the page with a indefblock notice. I hope this is ok with you. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is okay with me, but I think it would be a good idea to ask User:S charette. That person is already aware of the impersonator, but perhaps not of the copied page. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

FYI, as a general rule, we don't delete user talk pages just because an editor requests it. Friday (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I had not thought it would be controversial (given csd and meta:right to vanish. Is this part of a customary practice, or is it documented somewhere? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me with so much patience! I know that I can be quite slow sometimes! --Daniella95 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You have made my day! --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! You deserve it. :D --Daniella95 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban of Special:Contributions/Harry Duke

Hi. I noticed you blocked Harry Duke, a user with only three contributions, and put the blocked as a vandalism template on the user's talk page. If there is evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, then it totally makes sense to block the user. However, the three edits that this user made do not appear to be vandalism, and if the person hasn't been blocked before, then it is possible that this user could become a constructive contributor. Would you please review your block or change the template on the user's talk page? Thanks. - Enuja (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I must be slipping. I wrote sockblock on the edit summary and put voablock on the talk page. I had intended to block as a sock of Obedium. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

How do I go about reporting this? --RambutanKing (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but User:StuartDD has crossed the 3RR already so he/she needs to be blocked for 24 hours.--RambutanKing (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but it is quite possible that both of you would be blocked. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. I started an AN/I on this here if you'd like to comment. Thanks again! Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like the user has been indefinitely blocked. I appreciate your patience on this (would have probably been easier if I had acted as you suggested on the initial AIV report). Thanks again and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah probably :) but you felt more discussion was necessary, and just 'cause it ended in a block doesn't mean it wasn't. No emergencies, discussion never hurts. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Brian Klock

I ran across a page here about the Texas 22nd congressional district at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_22nd_congressional_district.

I've known Brian Klock for many years and had volunteered to help him out by working on his web site. Brian just decided to run for the district 22 seat. So I added a little bit about Brian and you were kind enough to let that stay on that page. As it should. Well, unless you decide otherwise.

I noticed that there were references to other candidates on the page linking to their own pages here. Including a judge who while elected to the bench has no more served in any elected representative positon than Brian has. So I figured "what the heck" and added a page reference to Brian. Maybe a guy who had put himself in harms way for the taxpayer for many years might warrant a little mention?

I'm a newcomer to this place and did not understand "notability", etc. and also that you would presume that things written on a candidates web page were a copyrighted work. In that regard I wonder what we could put on his web site such that anyone would know they could use the information and pictures if they like. Which include images of Brian defending the US Sec. of defense and what have you.

What I wrote got stomped on pretty hard and you folks removed the page. But this is "your" sand box and what you think is important "is" no matter what my opinion might be. Just because I know about how Brian ran around the planet and put himself in situations where he could have been killed many times that's just not common knowledge so he is not notable enough to be mentioned here. Like maybe Vanilla Ice or others have been.

Hopefully he will get elected and I can come back again and post a page about him.

Have a great 2008!

FB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisbaken (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I apologize if anyone (including me) made you feel unwelcome. Please understand that (on some days at least) over a thousand articles are contributed which must be deleted, so the process is fairly streamlined--which can seem impersonal and cold. How to improve this process without impeding it is a perennial topic for discussion. In this case, I deleted the article as a copyright violation, which qualifies under the criteria for speedy deletion (General criteria 12). Since Wikipedia is widely mirrored across the web (meaning we loose control of the content, but is still cited back to Wikipedia), and copyrighted material can cause legal headaches, this sort of issue is deleted especially swiftly. The other issues under discussion are notability, the specific guideline of which here is WP:BIO and WP:BLP, and conflicts of interest. Notability guidelines exist since a fair amount of volunteer effort (all Wikipedia is volunteer) must be expended to check facts, monitor for vandalism, etc. the pages which are created. Additionally, a subject must have been covered in reliable, independent sources to a sufficient degree that the content can be verified. Notability is not a reflection of the individuals worth or contribution to society.

The last concern that you should be aware of is the conflict of interest guideline. Since Wikipedia strives to not only be a good source of information but a neutral source as well, content which was written as part of a press release, advertisement, promotional website, etc. are (even when copyright permissions can be obtained) not usually usable for the project. We even recommend people closely related to a topic refrain from editing about that, since they have the appearance of a bias. Of course, how close is too close is usually left to the conscience of the individual (although there have been some cases where companies or people have been reported the media attempting to slant their Wikipedia pages, see this for instance.)

There's a lot of policies and procedures to take in here, I know. But do feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that regarding the page I cite it's construct is such that it gives the incumbent or anyone else who has held other office or are "notable" enough to have a page here an advantage of sorts. The page in itself is not about a person but about an office. Something none of the people listed on the page have any ownership of. The incumbent is just "renting". Some have persued the office but then failed. It appears that such failure is at some point notable enough to justify a page here for them. A person may be notable because it's notable that they didn't do anything notable except what others are doing right now (running for office) who are not notable yet (according to this place) but eventually if they fail they will be notable like the aformentioned "other losers" now are? What you do here reminds me of the guy on Ed Sullivan show with the sticks and dinner plates he spun on them . I wonder if he has a page here? He does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar_Pallana

Pages here are without a doubt subjective at times. You cannot argue with that. That is the nature of things human. What the heck......

Happy New Year

Hello TeaDrinker, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and happy new year to you! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Babytoysfor bill

Please note that he continues to vandalize the same articles. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have extended the block. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Soulja Boy

Hi TeaDrinker,

I'm brand new at Wikipedia, but I see you have done some editing on the Soulja Boy article, so I hope you can help me.

I wrote some comments under the Initial Reception section a few days ago and no one has responded - could you please look at this? Here they are:

Please consider removing the last line of the Initial Reception section, referring to "his goal as making ...music that avoids the negative, violent image that he sees in most hip-hop.[18][17]" This doesn't seem to be his real goal if you look at the lyrics to Crank That Soulja Boy. Even if it is his goal, I think his goal is not relevant to his reception.

Also, if this alleged goal is included anywhere in the article, please balance it with facts about his lyrics. so that people can draw their own conclusions. Lyrics to Crank That Soulja Boy include inviting others to watch him "supersoak dat b*tch" and "superman dat hoe", and perform other mysogynistic acts that are clearly negative and violent. References for translations of the slang include your external link to the words and urbandictionary.com translations of the slang. Some public schools have banned it too - reference http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122000913.html Another user in the comment above about song meaning references an article by a student who explains very well how it demeans women.

Thank you.Wikiwacky1 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have gone ahead and replied on the article talk page, Talk:Soulja Boy and made a change to the article. Thanks again and welcome to Wikipedia! --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tea Drinker! I don't really understand how this Wikipedia stuff works, but I did see your edit and I appreciate it very much. Thanks for the welcome - I'll try to find some time to read the things that you suggested too. Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia - I use this as a resource very frequently and appreciate all the volunteers who contribute to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwacky1 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir

Hi TeaDrinker. I see that you deleted Vladimir Sicinschi article under section CDS A7 (Bio) . But it doesn't make sense for me. I would appreciate if you can explain the reason and tell me what to do. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seevladimir (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Biographies in Wikipedia have to be about people who are fairly famous, or have otherwise been covered in the news or other reliable sources. Very few people, even among professionals such as doctors, lawyers, or in this case, journalists or musicians, meet the guidelines, see WP:BIO for more details. If Mr. Sicinschi has been covered in the news (or other reliable source) in a fairly detailed way, he may meet the standard. In that case, you should make it clear how he is notable when writing the article, citing sources for relevant facts. If you think the article already met the standard, the best option for you would be deletion review. Let me know if you have any further questions! Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering so fast. Actually Mr. Sicinschi was famous enough in Moldova (where he was born) and many people know about him as his name was published many times in magazines (that unfortunatally dont have online version wich would make it easier to proove) and appeared very often on television as well. I am sure that this name totaly deserves a place on wikipedia and many people would be interested to find this page. I would appreciate if you can activate the page again or provide instructions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seevladimir (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a problem to cite sources in other languages or in print (so long as they are published), but remember the sources should be about him, not by him. I did a quick google search (not an entirely reliable indicator, of course) for Влади́мир Сичинский (I presume his name in Russian?) and was unable to locate information about him (the first links seemed to be about a historian and art critic of the early 20th C.). If there are reliable and independent, published biographies or biographical information about him, it would probably go a long way to establishing his notability. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Walker (minister)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kevin Walker (minister), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kevin Walker (minister). Fabrictramp (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this notice -- I know you didn't create the page as it stands, but Twinkle isn't so smart. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

The Astonisher Strikes Again... [1] - Eliezg (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Bimal mukherjee

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bimal mukherjee, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bimal mukherjee is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bimal mukherjee, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!

No problem, I knew a section called "I'm a faggot" probably wasn't meant for any good :) Also, I saw you blocked one IP in that range, there were 2 other IPs from the same range (and same school obviously) vandalizing your page as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bellevue High School

I have been removing unsourced info from a lot of pages, such as Bellevue High School (Bellevue, Washington). Unfortunately, the IP address 24.22.140.84 has removed sources and relevant text from the page. I restored what he/she/it removed and even improved on the IP edits by clarifying dates, but he/she/it has reverted my edits. I dont want to revert any more because that would probably constitute an edit war, but this IP address either needs to be blocked or the page protected. The IP edits are very similar to that of User:Bellevuecommonsense, who I gather was warned about edit warring on his/her/its talk page before. 24.22.140.84 has not been open to talking on the talk page either, except for one sentence which does not make sense. Im coming to you because I see you are an administrator and I have not run into this problem before. What should I do when an IP address is removing sources and reverting to a version with bad grammar? I could continue to improve the page but it seems a little futile when the page is not protected. --DerRichter (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I will take a look. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have decided to pretty much stop editing high school pages in the future to avoid this stuff in general. --DerRichter (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question.

Does it really matter that much? Seriously, it's the internet. Does it cause that much trouble if you put things on your Wikipedia User page that doesn't really "pertain" to anything. Come on. Wikipedia is uptight. "The Free Encyclopedia" where you can't put anything up or it'll be deleted. Maybe I was insane when I decided to get a Wikipedia account. But I guess I'll go play in the street, that's what you're trying to tell me right? That I'm not serious enough to post pages on here. Ok, will do sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.171.130 (talk • contribs)

Alas, you have the same common misconception of many people: Wikipedia is not the internet. It is merely on the internet. Social networking sites, file hosts, web hosts, etc. have their own problems which we can not afford to take on. I can appreciate you mean no harm (and perhaps your school blocks social networking sites), but Wikipedia is just not a good place to play in general. Hope this clarifies things, --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:23,

27 February 2008 (UTC)

Our Life

Request to make the article

Poland

Hiya mate,

Ehh, was on wikipedia just now and a message popped up from you about editing the article on poland etc. The weird thing is, though, that it appears to date from October 30 2007!

I kind of think it must have been some sort of odd computer error or something, but the message came from your username, saying that I had made some dodgy edits to the poland article, and that they had been removed.

The thing is I never edited poland, (I don't really make many edits at all) and this is my own ip address too.. Do you have any idea what may have happened?

cheers,

D.

(I dont have an account, so maybe you could pop your suggestion here if you get the chance?)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.134.56 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Saprophytes (band)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Saprophytes (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: List

I took a look back and it was indeed me who performed the merge. In all honesty, I didn't even remember doing so and I couldn't tell you now what my rationale was then. Seeing as you seem to have used proper judgment, i'll defer to you on whether to keep the merge or create one large article that possible links to or otherwise showcases both the Sunni and Shi'a lists. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Likelihood computation question

I've been trying to work out a maximum likelihood estimate for a statistical model. I have the joint density for an observed variable X and an unobserved variable T, $f(X,T|\theta )$, as a function of parameter vector $\theta$. Fortunately T is discrete, so estimate $\theta$ I figured I'd sum over T and get the likelihood of $\theta$ as a function of X alone. That is

$l(\theta |X)=\sum _{T=0}^{\infty }f(X,T|\theta )$

(I can reasonably put a bound to make the sum finite with a known error.) However when I do this sum I can no longer take the log, so my computer chokes on the small values. Before recoding this to calculate using higher floating point precision (it is in R right now, I'd put it in python), does anyone see either a flaw in my logic, or a slick computational trick? Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a known probability distribution of T? Have you tried the following?

$\ell (\theta |X)=\sum _{t=0}^{\infty }f(X,t|\theta )\Pr(T=t)$

(You'll notice how I distinguish between lower-case t and capital T, and more importantly why I distinguish between them.) Michael Hardy (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I replied on WP:RD/MATH. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)