Jump to content

User talk:Tony Fox/archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good catch on the 'spacing' Tony... my bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.13.90 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

[edit]

How about John Anderson (musician)? His article should definitely be longer than his infobox. So get swingin', and do it now, don't wait until it's a straight tequila night. The article may be an old chunk of coal, but it's gonna be a diamond someday. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, I love his stuff. Good call! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you please check all of Suzy Bogguss' albums? Most of them have very non-conventional intros that need to be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at those tonight, and try to get some sourcing started. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know at least one editor cares. I've asked a zillion times on #wikipedia-en and their response is somewhere along the lines of "nobody cares, go do it your [bad word] self." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely written in a lot of cases, but they need some sources to help out - I'll take a look at some other album articles and see how to work these out. I didn't get to them last night, but did get a good start on the rewrite - in progress here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just finished filling in all the missing studio albums by John Anderson. You might also want to check to see that their album covers are uploaded properly and whatnot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for semi-prot on Paramore

[edit]

Thanks for protecting the article. It was getting pretty ridiculous, pretty fast. Have a great day! Wikiwikikid (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson

[edit]

Nice work. Still needs major expansion, but it's a lot better than what was there before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What areas do you think should be expanded on? I'd have done more, but the refs I found didn't really offer much more to say. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go album-by-album, listing off all the singles released from each, as sort of a building block. See Steve Wariner as an example. I also swapped the Billboard bio for an Allmusic link, as a.) Billboard just copies from Allmusic, and b.) the Allmusic link verifies his middle name. But at the same time, Allmusic says he was born in 1955, not 1954, so it's Collin Raye all over again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

[edit]

Okay, this time, do you want to work with me on an article? I've been doing a lot of work on The Kentucky Headhunters, which I want to get to GA. I've gotten a lot of work done so far, but I could use an extra pair of hands. Give me or the otters a poke if you want some suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly take a shot at it - anything in particular you want me to work on? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I got on a roll and did a buttload of work. You wanna help by giving a peer review and making any suggestions there. I'm having a hard time writing about their musical influences and styles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any useful images of them on Flickr or Commons. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think I should point the Headhunters to WP:YOURPHOTO? I've had e-mail correspondence with them before, so they might remember me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been in low-grade burnout the last couple days, my productivity's sucked. =P You'd probably do well to start with that - if you've had the oportunity to touch base with them before, then you're likely to have a pretty good response. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I e-mailed the guys. How many other bands have a Hotmail account? Also, what's a fox doing in the chicken coop again? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to have for dinner? =) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hee hee. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna get Chicken Shops too? Basically the same thing. Might be time to break out the salt shaker soon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More headhunting. You wanna keep looking for a picture of the band, just in case I don't hear back from them? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll poke around. It'll give me something to do other than gnaw on my desk out of frustration. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Francis

[edit]

I think that I showed quite well why Matt Francis deserved a Wikipedia page. Tell me, in detail, why you deleted it! Zookeeper54 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you get to decide who's "notable" enough to get a Wikipedia page? Zookeeper54 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lanotjegia (article of Charcoal (band)

[edit]

I've been writing songs and I have this band. I want the world to know about me. I was going to put a song of mine on YouTube or something, at least they won't delete it! Please explain what was so useless about my article?! 'Cause I thought it would be handy to know what other people do and like! --Lanotjegia (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) well, can you at least send my text back? i really want it for my own personal report then. sorry btw.--Lanotjegia (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this.

[edit]

[1] I had to tell an administrator about this! On the french Wikipedia! --10000 Walls (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gunt"

[edit]

I edit conflicted with you on that delete. I just thought you'd like to know it was a valid G4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunt. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no room for NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION??

[edit]

Dear sir/Ma'am,


I posted about Chhahari Organisation in wikipedia, which was delted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. But I thought wikipedia allow room for such non profit organisation.


Chhahari Organization is a registered NGO (non-governmental organization) based in Kathmandu, Nepal. Established in August 2007. The organisation is a Non profit, working continuously for those children whose parents have either passed away, disappeared or are too poor to feed and educate them.


Chhahari rescues Nepali Children from poverty, malnutrition, drug addiction, sex trade and murder for organs. Chhahari provides a unique opportunity for orphans to be educated at a school and to be loved and cared for in a small, family-like environment.


Sir/Ma'am, the most vulnerable children in the world are orphans without a mother or a father to protect love and care for them. Many countries have little choice when dealing with their growing orphan problem except to place the children in orphanages. Here, these children, if they are fortunate, may receive shelter, food, clothing and basic medical care. But they rarely receive the time, attention and love necessary for optimal social and personal development. But Chhahari organisation Nepal believe that " All Children have potential , All Children deserve Chance".


I thought via Wikipedia people will know about such organisation and may come forward with helping hand.

More about Chhahari org : http://www.chhahari.org

Thank you, sgrpdl

Chhahari U.S. is a non profit corporation with 501(c)(3) status: Tax I.D. # 26-1949612

We Need Your Helping Hand, so that together we can build a bright future for these CHILDREN. - Chhahari.

chhahari.org deleted article link [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgrpdl (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s I'm not aware whether am allow to write this on this page. If it is against rule plz delete it.

Vandalism and the destruction of the article on the Canadian Children's Rights Council-Vandalism by WLU who took off all links into the CanadianCRC on Wikipedia

[edit]

The users Slp1 and WLU have decided to dominate the article on the Canadian Children's Rights Council. They even cite statements made from none existant newspaper articles or from articles that can't be verified. They appear to be radical feminists who hate any group which says anything good about fathers. They cite a couple of radical feminist authors who are of the opinion that the Canadian Children's Rights Council isn't about child rights. The content about the Canadian Children's Rights Council is defamation. A review of the notability on the discussion page will show that these 2 wouldn't even agree on the legal name of the organisation.

WLU, in particular has written in regard to others editing that page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WLU "Please try to be civil in your edit summaries, especially with new users. That really wasn't necessary. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's not a new user, that's a sockpuppet of the community-banned editor ResearchEditor, who has a history of editing pages related to satanic ritual abuse, dissociative identity disorder and child abuse in an unacceptably POV manner. Note his sockpuppeting history. His latest habit is to create throw-away accounts like this one and this one. Note that the comment and reversion are exactly the same. If the editor edits any other page, I will report them as a suspected sockpuppet to confirm. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. But I really like telling him to fuck off 'cause he's a douche. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Well, then the WP:BITE references is moot then and retracted, but the point still stands. Telling people to "fuck off", sockpuppet or not, is exceedingly rude. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) " WLU then destroyed all links on Wikipedia to the Canadian Children's Rights Council Virtual Library as a hate measure and stated falsely that they were all spam and blacklisted their website url. Any help to correct the damage done by such people would be appreciated. No one that made any entries swore or was abusive to WLU or Slp1 as far as I can see. Do the lawyers for the Canadian Children's Rights Council have to sue the Wiki foundation for defamation? No person or organisation should have defamation published on Wikipedia. What can be done? MSLTT (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of some of the falsifications of quotes attributed to the president of this organisation on the ciscussion page for the Canadian Children's Rights Council. A review of the discussion page will show the warring by WLU who is of the view that WLU is above all other editors. First WLU said the organizsation wasn't notable and then agreed it was notable. WLU and Slp1 called it the CCRC which it isn;t and then finally agreed that the short form was CanadianCRC which didn't conflict with another organisation. They even changed the legal name and wanted to fight over that. Is ther some way to lock out these 2 editors from that page? I'm just happen to be one of the top authorities on child rights around. MSLTT (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: it appears that there are a number of established editors in agreement about the way that article's being edited and that the additions by a number of anonymous and new editors are not within our guidelines; if you feel there's a need for further interest, I suggest a request for comment or other dispute resolution. Second, discussing "defamation" and lawyers as you do above is a legal threat, which is grounds for indefinite blocking unless retracted or resolved. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyers stated that the Canadian Children's Rights Council must take legal action in cases of defamation. We have a legal obligation to advise the people doing the defamation that it exists, the details and the remedy. Courts don't look kindly on those that claim to cut off our attempt to stop the defamation.

We don't have to spend the time to become experts on Wikipedia to fight such a battle. we have notified you and others in positions of authority at Wikipedia and you won't allow us to edit the defamation. Kindly provide the email address of someone who can resolve this matter. The specifics of some of the defamation is listed on the discussion page attached to the page on the Canadian Children's Rights Council.

If you wish to let us correct the defmation rather than you doing it or sking someone higher than yourself, open up the page to be edited by us. What do you think of the swearing nand aggression of those editors? Are swearing condescending editors "established" in your view? MSLTT (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my first legal threat block coming up. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of Gayth

[edit]

You recently deleted Gayth under WP:CSD#G1. It is my understanding that that criterion only applies to pages like "jlkfsadjkgdfhjkdfgbljkadfgs;kuhnsrg". The Gayth page was comprehensible, though it did have many other problems. Is my understanding of G1 wrong? Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up.—C45207 | Talk 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for ColorfulTabs

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ColorfulTabs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Regards, varun21 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think it needs written, huh?

[edit]

So you think I should write WP:YOUVEGOTTOBESHITTINGME? LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or it could be a redirect to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

[edit]

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting.Tatterfly (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA reminder

[edit]

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

[edit]

Thank you for your efforts at Battle of Antietam. I believe you were right in questioning my suspicions of POV pushing, there doesn't seem to be any agenda involved. I am hoping you can point me to the proper venue for a situation involving a blocked user. I am talking about Freewayguy, who knows how to follow tracks so I am not linking his blocked username. He apparently is a harmless but troubled high school student, I know these details through previous private correspondence with another admin. He has resurfaced in recent days as 69.228.145.50 and is following a tack similar to the one which got him blocked, but probably not violating any rules other than unofficial ones of decorum i.e. using very poor English in edits. I would like to know if I should alert people to the fact the two are the same, should a notice be placed on the IP talk page, do I need to report him as a suspected sockpuppet, is that even necessary? What if anything should be done, I would at a minimum like to alert Hertz1888 to the situation without alerting Freewayguy, so Hertz doesn't waste any more time trying to counsel him. It is actually a bit sad, and he has honored the block until this latest spree of edits as far as I know. Sswonk (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'd suggest that you might want to take it either to the administrator who enacted the original block, or to sockpuppet investigations - if he's taking the same route as before, and looks like he might be leaning towards throwing around threats again, I'd think it should be dealt with pretty quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

[edit]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Now/Why

[edit]

Tony,

there seems to be a deletion call on the Rodney Lough Jr. wiki? I thought we were through with all that.

Rodney 97.120.106.109 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who started the discussion feels that the article doesn't effectively convey notability; Articles for Deletion discussions can take place at any time, if an editor feels necessary. Once it's started, they last seven days, in which editors can discuss the merits of the article before an administrator makes a decision. I'd suggest that you go to the discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Lough, Jr., and comment on the nominator's reasoning; other editors will be along to comment at some point as well. Please don't remove the tags that have been placed in the article, as well; the AFD one will be removed when the discussion ends, and the citation needed tags can be removed by providing citations for where they appear. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, folks with this page watchlisted...

[edit]

If anyone who's watching this page could be so kind, I'd appreciate if folks could keep an eye out in my recent contribs for any changes made by anon editors using IPs in the 84.* or 86.* ranges; they're most likely a banned editor. The edit summaries are a pretty good giveaway most of the time. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add 93.* to that as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alan roger currie afd

[edit]

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in my commenting; the guy is obviously self-promoting, but too many editors feel that a couple of random comments in random newspapers counts as reliable sourcing these days. So we'll host another article about some dude who wrote a book about how to con women. Whoo. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Tony Fox and Theserialcomma are "buds." Doesn't surprise me. You make it extremely obvious that you no nothing about Author Alan Roger Currie, because if you did, you would know that the very last thing that Mr. Currie would ever endorse would be the idea of "conning women." This is exactly why Mr. Currie is so notable among his followers, which admittedly includes me. This is why Mr. Currie doesn't like his name associated with those from the Seduction Community. This is where you will find men encouraging other men to lie to women, mislead them or manipulate them. I challenge you or anyone else to ever find such principles in any of Mr. Currie's books. You need to be more thorough Mr. Fox. You're talking out of your "you-know-what" (hint: posterior area). Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not interacted with Theserialcomma before the message he left above. I have an opinion. I've expressed it. Do not post on my talk page again, especially to make personal attacks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Chandos Ring

[edit]

Hello Tony Fox, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chandos Ring has been removed. It was removed by Snizhana with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Snizhana before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 07:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

[edit]

Well, that went over like... something that doesn't go over well.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much utterly pissed off and disgusted with how that went, and between that steaming pile of hotspur and other issues right now am tempted to say "screw you Wikipedia" and go play in traffic instead of, like, spending time trying to improve the place. Utter garbage. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I'm tempted to go on a vandalism/sockpuppet spree involving pagemoves and Goatse on every talk page take a little break myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest getting boozed up and giving the otters some vodka-cured herring instead. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN and Climate of the Arctic

[edit]
Current events globe On 5 September, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Climate of the Arctic, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--RxS (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, exactly?

[edit]

Who are you and where do you get off vandalising my talk page? Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits. Your talk page was not vandalised and yes, you were engaged in an edit war on the Mark Walters article. Edit warring shall only be ignored when dealing with vandalism; in which this was not the case. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how did you see the edits? Seriously. You just happened to be browsing Walters' page at that time? Or are you in cahoots with the user who was unnecessarily deleting my contributions? I know where my money's at. Peace out. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free-trading, interactive encylopedia. People butting-into conversations happens all the time. Also, I was not browsing his talk page. I saw the edits in the recent changed feed, which I patrol. You came close to being in clear violation of the WP:3RR and from the looks of it you are not providing constructive edits. Also, be reminded WP:NPA states not to attack the editors. Keep that in mind when you leave messages on other user's talk pages. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called recent changes patrol. And i'm an administrator, so monitoring and shutting down edit wars is part of what I do. You were edit-warring, inserting personal opinion, and not following the proper guidelines for editing here. I'd do the same thing again if I needed to. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed, Tony Fox

[edit]

Why do you delete my edits made to Drew Barrymore? Everything I was adding was true. Are you a fanboy of hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnterStanman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I violated wikipedia's guideline's of editing a biography of a living person by reporting something that had actually happened, on live radio, and witnessed by probably thousands of people? Please, fill me in as to why this was such a taboo act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnterStanman (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have proof this took place will you leave my edit alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnterStanman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that your view is not necessary in the slightest. It is a valuable piece of information that I feel the general public should know. It is not my fault if an actress's actions on a syndicated radio show make her viewed in a less then positive light. We should all be aware that Tony Fox's actions (in this one instance and undoubtedly many others) make Wikipedia not as knowledgeable on certain topics then they should be. Keep up the good work! ----EnterStanman

The fact that I'm being told off by people who are interjecting pointless cruft, BLP violations, et al, into articles indicates that I *am* doing good work. Please feel free to continue to violate policy; I have other settings on my block drop-down. Have a lovely day. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Hey Tony. I understand your concern. If you look at my personal "my contributions" section for the past few months, you will find probably 50 or so user talk pages that I have edited in a friendly manner asking for the user to refrain from vandalism. After doing this so many times, and never getting through to anyone, I got a little perturbed, as you may understand. I guess I figured saying "grow up" might have more of an impact than "Please don't do this again, mmkay?" Either way, I think the entire Wiki community should have a vote as to whether or not to allow edits by non-registered users anymore. I strongly feel that only registered, proven users should be allowed to edit any and all Wiki pages. Has this been considered before? If not, I would like to propose this idea for discussion. Thanks. hsxeric (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know the frustration - I've probably got hundreds, if not thousands, of warnings issued to vandals over the past few years. Thing is, if you use the template system, that makes it easier for admins to block the idiots as they come along; making editorial comments like you were only makes the trolls try harder, I've noticed. As for the registered users thing, that comes up every couple of months, and it's pretty much uniformly shot down because when you break it down, a large portion of the good edits that are done here are by IP editors who either don't want to or don't feel the need to register an account. I'm sure it's been discussed at the Village Pump and on User talk:Jimbo Wales numerous times, though you'd have to go through the archives to find the discussions. If you want to start another discussion, then the policy Village Pump would be the place to try - don't expect much, though, as Jimbo himself feels that IPs are a valuable part of the project. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

Re:Barzani Article

[edit]

I left you a post in the Ahmed Barzani talk page. Please do as i have requested. Don't be non judgmental about it. That guy is a liar and is definitely not who he says he is. He even falsely claimed that i am a Christian convert without any proof. You read that. He is dishonest and can't be reasoned with. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Barzani Article

As you read, User Joyson Noel requested for an online source that states that Ahmed Barzani is Muslim, and I already posted that source on discussion page, it is in Arabic but they could copy and paste it to google Arabic-English dictionary. (http://www.pdksp.net/vb/showthread.php?t=7457) And why would I lie about who I am, why would I falsely claim that he is related to me? As I said i am willing to provide wikipedia with any information about him. It is just not fair to claim that he was something, when he was not. It is widely known among the Kurdish community that he was not only a Muslim, but he was a Muslim scholar. Wikipedia is a credible source, please let's keep it that way. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.75.168.26 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


P.S. I am willing to provide you with the email addresses of Kurdish government officials, intellectuals and journalists to ask them about Ahmed Barzani's religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.75.168.26 (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is another document from publications by Kurdistan Regional Government, it is in arabic too, but you could translate it via google translation, it talks about Ahmed Barzani and his religion and it is titled as (Religion: Islam.... sect: Naqshbandi) here is the link

http://www.krg.org/articles/print.asp?anr=11810&lngnr=14&rnr=84

Let Ahmed Barzani be what he was, it is not moraly right to call him something he was not, and it is misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.75.168.26 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: 'Invisible Nation' by Quil Lawrence, page 16. The author clearly states that he was not Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.4.215 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


HERE IS ANOTHER Source, it is called 'The Kurds: a concise handbook' by Mehrdad R. Izady, page 158 “Sufi rituals in Kurdistan, led by Sufi masters, or Shaykhs, contain so many clearly non-Islamic rituals and practices that an objective observer would not consider them Islamic in the Orthodox sense” the book goes on to say “These members (murids) then participate in many rituals, including Sufi dances, chants, and prayers. When necessary they’ll go into combat for their Shaykhs. Shaykh Ubaydullah, Shaykh Sa’id, Shaykh Ahmad Barzani, and Shaykh Mahmud Barzanji, among others, were Sufi masters who asked for and received armed support from their murids in the political adventures”

It clearly states that Sheikh Ahmed Barzani was “Sufi” master. So please remove Christianity from his religious beliefs, I have provided enough sources to prove that he was not a Christian, and I am willing to provide even more sources if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.75.168.26 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

note

[edit]

Please talk to Wknight94, off-wiki, about the PCH situation. Don't say any more here. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

Greetings.

[edit]

Hi.

Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danville High School (Illinois)

[edit]

Greetings Tony Fox!

I have been recently doing some work on this article. IIn October 2007, you placed a cleanup tag on the article. While I think the article still needs a lot of expansion, I think it has reached a sufficient level of "cleanliness" that the tag can be removed. I know this was a long time ago, but I don't like to remove maintenance tags like this unless I alert the editor who placed it there. I will leave the tag alone for a few days, and if I don't hear from you I will probably remove it ... but I thought that you should be at least notified that it may be removed. Continued success in editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Yeah, the article looks fine - go ahead and remove the tag. Thanks for checking with me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

My deletions today

[edit]

Hey. I see you noticed the back-and-forth over the TRASH article. I'm getting a lot of flak on another forum, so I should ask: Was Game Show Congress within policy? At least one person has said that I was subverting policies by "insta-zapping" with Jéské's help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one might have been better sent to AFD - it's got a lot of big names that were apparently involved with it. It had no sources, though, so I think it would have been notable. Kind of on the borderline, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I could find were press releases. If you can find any source to prove me wrong, go ahead. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you know I trust your judgment on deletions, that one's just an article I might have done an AFD on to see further discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've still asked for them to be overturned and taken to afd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

User:Themoodyblue

[edit]

I've unblocked them as they have retracted the legal threat, see User talk:Themoodyblue#November 2009 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible unblocking needed. I don't think that their belief in the posting of the signature is wrong has any bearing on the block. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warriors

[edit]

Calebderosa isn't the only disruptive genre warrior we're all dealing with at this moment, there's also this guy Viper5hdz who is doing this even more so then Calebderosa. I've already given him a warning for all this, but could I ask if assistance of keeping an eye on him? • GunMetal Angel 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. Tough to shut these guys down sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking lately seeing how there's tags for such things such as "possible vandalism" or "references removed" there should be a tag that should say "Tag: genres changed" whenever an IP address or newly registered user edits music-based articles. -- GunMetal Angel 20:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

[edit]
WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdwtalk 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, any chance we'd be able to grab you for little bits here and there for this one? Mkdwtalk 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably manage to help out here and there - just finishing up a side project and have some pressure at work, but I'll take a look at what's going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, we'll take all the help we can get! Mkdwtalk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help on the references. At the start of the project we all recognized it as being the most messed up, outdated, and inconsistent aspect of the project that would require some very tedious work to fix. Mkdwtalk 05:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll continue working the cites, updating access dates, etc., as I can - the tedium breaks my poor little brain sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pingas

[edit]

You deleted the article Pingas. But why is it a protected deleted page, as opposed to a redirect to Pinga (disambiguation)? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it was straight vandalism that had been recreated several times. Do you think there's a need for the redir? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pingas" appears to be the plural of "pinga", a Spanish slang word for "penis" that the disambiguation page already mentions, and the plural is attested in the title of a pornographic film. WP:R claims that redirecting from plurals is a common practice. A protected redirect from plural doesn't appear to meet any of the undesirable redirect definitions, won't be vandalized any more than a protected deleted page, and will at least let readers know about the existence of the plural of "pinga". Another possibility is a protected soft redirect to wikt:pinga. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Created the redirect. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll watch the redirect for vandalism by YTP fans. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like, it's just like a mini-mall

[edit]

Talk:Flea Market Montgomery#Notability. Is this a valid concern? What's your take on it? It survived an AFD which was closed as "no consensus" after only one week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It might be worth another AFD, but check first whether there's been continuing media coverage since the last one - it was over a year ago. It's kind of on the edge of notability, but I've never been good with assessing things that are based on YouTube notability (mostly because I still think using YouTube to gauge notability is stupid). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any more coverage. The most recent sources I found were from 2007. PS, do you want to lock Pingas to prevent vandalism? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd give it another AfD then, and see if a clear consensus comes out of it this time. And thanks for the reminder, I thought I'd edited through the protection... Tony Fox (arf!) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

Many many Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for reverting those image sequence from my talk page...It would have caused my browser to crash.. :)  arun  talk  12:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

[edit]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

Guess what?

[edit]

Calebderosa did it again, I would suggest blocking him to stop his disruptive edits once and for all, he's received more than enough warnings. • GunMetal Angel 05:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a month, with his editing pattern that will at least get the message across. If he agrees to start seeking consensus for his edits, I'd shorten it, but after the block comes off if he continues to edit-war, I'll do him for an indef block. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I just got done reverting all the disruptions he has made. -- GunMetal Angel 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inre: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Filmography

[edit]

I offered a couple sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll monitor the discussion, but am not totally convinced. The sources you provide are in a lot of cases what you might see for most any reference book. A few are more, but I'm not sure that they establish notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The notability of a reviewed reference book on Irish film will mean nothing to a politician, sports fan or a cook, as what is notable to one demographic will usually be absoultely un-notable to another. I hope the author had not been chased away... but if he does not do so, I'll have a go at sourcing it myself. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stardoll

[edit]

(Just a copy of what I replied to under your posts)
Oooops, sorry! That article got busy quickly, thanks for your (mostly better due to being an admin) help! I've moved that notice now, thanks for pointing that out too.
Samuel Tarling (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Ping

[edit]
"Fox Fires on New Year's Eve at the Garment Nettle Tree at Ōji" by Hiroshige from One Hundred Famous Views of Edo (1857)

I have sent you an e-mail.

Tony Fox -- As it happens, these are difficult days for me, but my spirits were unexpectedly lifted when I saw the kitsune from Todai-ji on your userpage.

For you, I presume that the stone fox is only a statue, a likeness of a fox with a charming expression. For me this was a gift unsought, unexpected, and targeted in ways I hadn't grasped fully.

This digital image was uploaded by Fg2, who died unexpectedly in 2009. I was overwhelmed by death in the year past, and this kitsune somehow drew me back just the rest of the world moves into the future.

I saw "your" fox; and I suspected I knew where it came from. A tear formed.

With regret, I admit that I am stretched thin. My over-reaction, my renewed grief reveals more than I had cause to know -- and all due to this glance at a sly Japanese fox.

Please do not remove it from your userpage.

What can I tell you except that Fg2 was the best of those I met here. He was the one whose judgment and good opinion I most valued. Please believe me when I explain that -- unknowingly perhaps -- you enhance the quality and grace of your userpage by encompassing an inari which was uploaded by Fg2.

In the land of the spirits, the Hiroshige print depicts an aspect of a Japanese legend. At a very specific tree, the spirits of the trickster foxes (kitsune) of the area would gather once a year. Their torches lit the way at night. In this auspicious annual gathering, the foxes would learn about year ahead.

This Hiroshige print is timely; and I add a timely question with a ping. --Tenmei (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, and for the background on where this image came from - I had no idea who had uploaded it, to be honest. I selected it as I have an interest in Japanese legend, especially those of the kitsune; one of my goals is to one day visit an Inari shrine myself. I have not yet received an e-mail from you, though - is there someplace we can make offerings to the ether gods to get these things through faster? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and curiosity. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

Thanks!

[edit]

Whenever a cool head is needed in a situation like I just went through at ANI, yours is generally the one I see pop up in these matters. My perpetual thanks for your support and your suggestions. I deeply appreciate them. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I was born at the tail end of the hippie era, so apparently I picked up the whole "can't we all just get along?" vibe in utero. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

Caleb...

[edit]

...Has done it again, time to block this kid permanently. • GunMetal Angel 05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been beaten to it. Some people don't get it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like whoever that guy was is faster than a fox. Haha, just joking. • GunMetal Angel 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance user

[edit]

Hi Tony.. my attention was drawn to user Jame O'Sawyer on Freddie Mercury page, after he twice removed an excellent profile image Mike-Kerkhoven had uploaded of Mercury, and he used vandalism as his reason for revert????? This is a nuisance user Tony. You were on that page so if you could ensure this user Jame O'Sawyer desists with needless edits and unjustified claims. One more revert and thats the three strike rule. Thanks Tony. SamObertan (talk 00:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]



CHEYNE CAPITAL

[edit]

Sure but the reason i asked for your help is that the original article looks like pure advertising and one can not ignore the 6 references to the fact that Cheyne was at the centre of a controversy and SUB prime crisis etc...


--89.194.197.163 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is inappropriate. Read WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE for why. Mentioning the nationalities and religious practices of management is entirely inappropriate as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sure but you can not ignore the 6 references,, you can remove the nationality thought one can see this all over wikipedia, example Sol Kerzner page or Einstein page, etc....

as it is now the article is blatant advertising and misleading as this firm seems to be at the centre of the SUB Price crisis.

--89.194.197.163 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be incorporated into the article in a neutral manner. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Fox, please note the user logged in from 89.194.xxx.xxx (89.194.197.163, 89.194.135.110, 89.194.196.222) is attacking several financial organizations and top executives -i.e. Goldman Sachs, Cheyne Company, Henry Paulson, John J. Mack, Lloyd Blankfein amongst others; pointing out negative facts about these individuals/organisations with the only purpose of misleading the public opinion. He/She has written facts such as: 'The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a criminal enterprise that transformed into a new world order controlled bank holding company in 2009...' to list one of these examples. You can track down some other contributions here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.194.135.110 Let's keep Wikipedia clean from unbiased information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try and keep an eye on those, and get some other eyes on them as well. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

Fake Rant

[edit]

Thanks for explaining. I'm old enough to wonder if my brain had finally collapsed! Bielle (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

User:Stan Simmons

[edit]

Do you think we should take this to ANI? He deleted both yours and my notes on his talk page, which is well within his right but is an indicator to me that he wants to ignore our comments. I don't think an indef block is in order here but a topic ban may be. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Stan Simmons (contribs).... There is evidence that suggests the user could be a sock of User:Paul Harald Kaspar/Chadbryant.[3]--UnquestionableTruth-- 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely something odd here - the edits do look similar, and Chadbryant has a habit of popping in and out with socks. Might be worth a investigation. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was having some trouble with SPI formatting but Kuyabribri filled the request for investigation. It's pretty obvious there's something more to both accounts. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this user at ANI; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User removing content without explanation and against_consensus, making personal attacks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

[edit]

Hi there, I see you've just protected Felipe Massa from an IP vandal who was trying to perpetuate a death hoax. This is the same IP that has been wasting everyone's time with racist vandalism on various articles to do with Lewis Hamilton. I had a suspicion about this IP editor, and I asked a CheckUser admin to look at it for me, but he hasn't responded. Can you offer any advice? Here is the message I sent to the CheckUser admin:

Hi there, I'm not terribly familar with the CheckUser facility or how it works, but I have an issue which a CheckUser expert like you might be able to advise me on. Recently, there has been a considerable amount of racist IP editing on various articles against racing driver Lewis Hamilton. Mostly they consist of this kind of thing, this, the hoax "death" of another racing driver Felipe Massa here, user talk page vandalism here etc etc. IP addresses are many (I count 12 so far), and three have been subject to blocks - [4], [5] and [6] - the last two are still blocked. All the addresses emanate from Malaysia.
Today I noticed this edit [7] from User:Gokul009, a Malaysian editor who edits motor racing articles. He quickly undid his edit with an excuse, but I am wondering if this is the same user, who made his vandal edit without realising he was logged in. I am wary because I don't want to accuse someone of racism where it is unfounded, but I thought the matter serious enough that someone like you might want to check it out. Is there a way of finding out whether all these IP addresses and Gokul009 are the same person? Thanks for reading and I look forward to your reply. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I can't do a whole lot on that, but you might look towards another checkuser or put together a sock investigation - or maybe check with the clerks on the SPI page to see if they can help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I filed an SPI, hopefully I did it properly - thanks for your help :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

Message from Meredith_Hodges

[edit]

Hi Tony Fox -- Thanks for your response. I'm finding Wikipedia very difficult to navigate. I am not Meredith Hodges. I am however, doing this page for her. She is a mule and donkey trainer well known in her industry. Is it possible Wikipedia didn't save the page because it was too autobiographical? It's formatted similarly to Cesar Millan's. I will read your instructions once more and try to figure this out. (Meredith Hodges (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(Above was actually posted to User talk:Meredith Hodges, with a {{helpme}}; I moved it over here  Chzz  ►  19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

Tony, you may want to keep an eye on Chris Kanyon for vandalism--the Observer just reported he was found dead in his apartment from an apparent suicide overdose. (I hate starting my day with this sort of news...) rdfox 76 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=( Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]


Hello Tony Yes, Wikipedia has a definition of "short film." A prime thing re "video short" though is that enormously more people use video for productions than film. Even bigtime movies are now partly made with video, not film. Things we see on the I'net are video - 99% of what we see on YouTube is produced in video, not film. I mentioned before some stuff I'd written re "video short" - haven't sent it, but here it is. This will broaden perspective on present-day short videos:

• Video short

Video shorts are typically 3 to 15 minutes long, usually professionally or semi-professionally made. Video shorts commenced in the 1960s - many for business, education, documentaries, and TV news, also for video competitions. Video shorts are computer edited. Corporations produce video shorts to let people know about the essence of their products. Online businesses have started moving ahead with video shorts, not just with commercials but also for specific products and services. The shorts can also be promotional and educational.

There is a difference between video shorts and video clips. Scenes are usually shot better for video shorts than for video clips; clips are usually by amateurs. Cameras are often hand-held when shooting clips, making scenes bounce around; locations usually aren’t bouncing around though. For video shorts, skilled camera people often use a tripod with a dolly, or a Steadicam, to smoothly move the camcorder closer to subjects for steady images. On the other hand, people making video clips usually get closer or farther from what they’re shooting by “zooming” in and out rather than moving the camera closer to or farther from main subjects.

Corporations now produce video shorts for their websites. People usually prefer to watch videos about companies rather than just read about them. Of course, videos raise the number of people going to websites. TV stations, as well as national networks and websites, also produce video shorts for broadcast and for the Internet. Video shorts tend to be more serious than video clips. Also, carefully produced music videos are video shorts, not video clips.

A chief value of short videos (video shorts and video clips) is that people generally prefer not to watch long videos on the Internet. Shorts effectively convey essentials of products, services and happenings, etc. Long videos and movies, on the other hand, are typically watched on TV and DVDs. Video shorts on the I’net show issues, products, and happenings, also views of past, present and future. Video clips typically show brief events, occurrences and funny things. Both video shorts and video clips, being relatively short, often expand knowledge of things beyond text.

• Video clips - (Wikipedia now has this definition)

In comparison, “video clips” are often relatively amateurish. The term “video short” came out before “video clip.” A video clip is defined as “a short clip of video recording.” Clips sometimes show surprising events - unexpected happenings and consequences, but they are generally informal. Video clips are primarily viewed on the Internet.

Video shorts became common in the 1970s and were usually professionally made. Video clips took off in 2005, mostly on YouTube. Most of what’s on YouTube are clips made by amateurs. Some clips are portions of relatively long productions - short extracts from movies or television programs, often funny happenings and events. Video clips are generally “non-serious.” Most clips are made by amateurs - about 80% of what’s on YouTube are made by amateurs.

Very much look forward to your response on this. I think "video short" is unquestionably a real "category" that needs to be known/accepted/used. Thank you much.

Mike Cady CadyMike (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton vandalism

[edit]

I note you blocked an IP for 2 days for racist vandalism to the Lewis Hamilton article. Per my note at WP:AN, I'd say that 2 weeks would be a better block, given the clear warning that shows when editing the article. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That IP had no other edits prior to pulling on the white sheets and firing up the computer (you'd think it would be difficult to see the monitor through the hood). I figured 48 hours would be appropriate; if it shows that it's a dedicated IP by continuing on after the block ends, then yeah, longer blocks would be good. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but it might be of interest to you guys that all these vandal edits are by the same person - he just changes his IP. There was an SPI here - my bet is to just keep blocking the IPs without giving him any leeway. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's that same shmuck? Ugh. *headshakes* Not much to do but play whack-a-mole, apparently. Wonder if an abuse report would be useful. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]


Human Design

[edit]

Now improving the article here User:Mikemahalo/Human_Design

Thank you for your comment on the deletion review. I believe the proposed new article stub was and is fine by wikipedia guidelines, although borderline, it is on the right side of the border. The notability lurched onto the radar when Harper Collins decided to publish a book with this title, reference now added. There are multiple secondary sources, Pacha magazine obtained a world exclusive interview. Others exist, mostly in local press around the planet, as media coverage is suppressed by the Jovian Archive corporation and their lawyers. I believe that many people on all sides of the debate on Human Design are ready and willing to contribute to improving the article on wikipedia, it does not belong to Mike Mahalo as a topic, that is not a place to find it. It belongs in mainspace, what exactly is the problem beyond some minor fuss? Give it time, no rush, please rethink this admin decision.

Currently any search of wikipedia finds nothing - the topic itself has also been suppressed, this is heavy handed. Please reconsider in the spirit of what wikipedia is, what Human Design is, and how to best proceed in the interests of all who want to know more about this.


Finally WP:IMPERFECT--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cheyne Capital Management

[edit]

I have noticed that you moderated the Cheyne Capital Management back in February 2010, and I was wondering whether you could possibly intervene in yet another edit-warring on this article; and also could you remove the malicious information on the Marie Douglas entry posted by the same user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.194.36.214)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it, and have started a deletion discussion on the Douglas article as she is of suspect notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed the line

[edit]

Here --- block him. -- GunMetal Angel 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged, tagged, and hopefully educated. 72 hour block; keep me notified if after that he does it again. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, bro. • GunMetal Angel 04:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

Assist

[edit]

I think I may need some help; if you would, please assist upon helping with this because I'm not totally sure how to handle it all. He's been making non-encyclopedic additions to this article and then left me that message after I reverted the edits a few times. The message he left me explains it all, but like I said, I'm still not completely sure how to completely cope upon this situation. • GunMetal Angel 04:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think you want to ensure he knows that Wikipedia isn't for class projects, and that even if he's doing a class project he needs to remember that there are rules to follow. Point him towards RS, V and such and hopefully he'll get the idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this isn't too much to ask but... can you inform him? • GunMetal Angel 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it later. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. • GunMetal Angel 06:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

Still continues

[edit]

I suggest blocking him again. • GunMetal Angel 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think he deliberately made that edit today after I'd given him the warning last night. Ah well. Indefinite block it is. Keep an eye out on his favourite targets, I'm wondering if there's some sockpuppetry involved here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

helllo

[edit]

how long have you been a furry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.26.7 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A while. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like a few years? Or one year? or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.47.154 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a while. Why? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

Songfacts (2nd nomination)

[edit]

You might wanna take a look at this AFD. Gary King is trying to pass off ultra-trivial mentions as suitable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune at Fushimi

[edit]
A pair of foxes

I wonder if this kabuki performance here might have interested you?

  • Fushimi inari torii mae (Before the Torii Gate at the Inari Fox Shrine at Fushimi)—Act 2, Scene 1 of Yoshitune Sembon Zakura (Yoshitsune and the Thousand Cherry Trees).
  • Ebizo Ichikawa XI as kitsune in white -- streaming video here, 1:33 mins.

Just a thought? Following up a dim memory from a few months ago? --Tenmei (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for pointing that out! That's a very interesting performance - shame I'm on the wrong continent. *g* Tony Fox (arf!) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

Speedy deletion of The Order (AW)

[edit]

This article wasn't eligible for G4 deletion because it was originally speedied while an AFD was pending, for non-content reasons (created by banned user). I was about to mark it this way when you deleted it. It might be a G5 candidate, but that would ordinarily require an SPI or similar determination, since the creator is a new account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new account recreated, precisely, two pages that had been deleted before it showed up. The previous sock of User:Pickbothmanlol was blocked about 14 hours before this account was created. WP:DUCK is in play here. If you want to DRV it, have at, but it's obviously another sock. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no argument with that at all, but technically I think it should have been entered as G5 rather than G4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting we have that one. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: "Yeval" by C. W. Schultz. Can I put back up?

[edit]

Hello, how are you? You nominated this novel for deletion a few years ago, and I came across a list compiled by Utica Public Library in regards to its content and target audience, which was listed among many other novels that Wikipedia has articles for. [8] Since the actual library and website are notable, I’m not quite clear if this succeeds WP:NOTBOOK, so I thought I’d ask before taking the time to re-create the article. Many other people--who appear to be unfortunately non-notable by Wikipedia standards--have also commented on the content of the book and have given favorable reviews of the overall story and theme. I’m pretty anxious to get the article I helped create back on Wikipedia again, so please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you very much. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You're always welcome to recreate an article that's been deleted so long as it's well referenced. In the earlier case of this book, it was a self-published book by an unknown author with absolutely no coverage in outside sources. With that link, it's, well... a self-published book by an unknown author with one link to a rather bad list of books said to appeal to male readers. (So guys like violent, creepy books? Wow, who wrote that list? Yeesh.) A Google search still turns up no further references that could be considered reliable - there are some Wikipedia mirrors that seem to have caught some pages when there were references to the book included in them, a number of similar comments that look to be mirrored, but no independent reviews or anything that would make it stand up as a notable novel. Sorry to say it, but the chances of this one becoming notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia are very, very slim. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So, perhaps waiting for a review by a more notable site—say… The Observer—then it would be notable enough for inclusion, correct? Geeky Randy (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, reviews by major media outlets written by their staff would be reasonable refs. No offense, but for a self-pub book in print for a couple years now, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for mainstream reviews. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if author C. W. Schultz would get off his butt and publish another book, perhaps [i]Yeval[/i] will get some attention. That's kind of what I'm keeping my eyes out for. Geeky Randy (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

The pictures of Muhammad

[edit]

The pictures of Muhammad is like a war on sunni Muslims, and they have to be removed now. A Denmark newspaper published materials similar to those before, and waves of province and the opposition starts in all the Islamic world against Denmark. Please do not start something like that again. We have to remove them now. --Mazidan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No we do not. Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad. Jarkeld (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

Thank semi-spam

[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope to live up to your prediction. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

SPA for your attention...

[edit]

Hey, fuzzball, I think we've got an SPA here who's just here to promote a nonnotable internet radio show by posting external links to it in articles for anyone they've ever interviewed. Check out AdamFromWelland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (Came to my attention when he first added the links to Chris Kanyon, then *re*added them without a word after I removed them.) rdfox 76 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

First off I'm not sure if this is how you add a question, but I need to clear this up. The external links that I've added on all these pro-wrestler pages contain interviews and segments from the actual individual which includes pertinent information so why it got deleted I don't understand. Gerweck Wrestling has links all over other pro wrestling pages and they're much less notable in terms of traffic then Tha O Show. I am adding these links like I said because the interviews are from the said individuals so how is it not relevant information?

I would like to at the very least recover one external link per page that I've added because they do contain pertinent information. I can understand that the pages with 5 links would be deleted but I would like at least one link recovered for each page that I contributed too in the last 2 weeks.

AdamFromWelland, —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamFromWelland (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

User talk:Kquinn2 − Unblock Troll

[edit]
Resolved

Thanks for dealing with that. Am I able to close off the last template to declined, or should I leave that up to you, as the admin? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you've already done it. Good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

Nomination of Eastside Sun for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Eastside Sun, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Brianhe (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

Pingas listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pingas. Since you had some involvement with the Pingas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

moved

[edit]

DANG stupid new iPad 2 won't let me scroll (so would the first reader cut and paste this to the proper place at the bottom)

Please direct me to the discussion that deleted The Eastside Sun newspaper from Wikipedia. I read the article about the Wiki- battle but can't find the background !

Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.197.66 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They'll always begin with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" then the article title followed after that • GunMetal Angel 01:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

Mona Lisa

[edit]

Discussion bumped up, SPI filed. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Fox/archive4&oldid=1166515395"