User talk:Valoem/Archive2

Re: Shanghai Joe AFD

Valoem, please check Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 20. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (re Shanghai Joe's AFD)

It's going to WP:DRV, so ask me there, no point in duplicating things. Short answer, being mentioned it's verifiable, not notable. Proto::type 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox sports league

Hi there. I put singles back as an optional parameter on {{Infobox sports league}}. There's some wacky but well-worn syntax involved. Check it out. Cheers. Rolando 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect and Sprotect2

I saw this edit which you added {{sprotect}} after {{sprotect2}} was already on there. It's really unneeded to have both, so it should be one or the other :) Sprotect2 is mainly for long-term sprotected articles/talks/etc. where sprotect is better for short-term as the template is really ugly looking after a long time of being on there, see George W. Bush for a good example. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that little lock is tricky :) Thanks for using sprotect2 (only reason I say that is because I created the template :p) Cheers! semper fi — Moe 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen image

You said: "I tried to upload an image of Woody Allen Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg from Wikimedia Commons to Woody Allen, I'm not sure if I did it properly because when I viewed other Wikipedia pictures that reference wikicommons I do not see any text on the edit page. Also I can't find the template for: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below", I was wondering if you could tell me how to upload a picture from Wikicommons for an article? :)"

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this. However, my understanding is that you don't need to do this except for an article about to hit the front-page. The point of Wikicommons is to share such content amongst the various Wikipedia projects, so you should just be able to reference the image in the commons. --Yamla 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLG Thank you

I have completely backed up Team Final Boss, Team Carbon, and True Karma with references and will do more in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

MLG Categories

Electronic Sports Teams could just be any old team, but competitors compete at tournaments —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.4.150 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Because

Electronic sports teams and players have not met the wikipedia rules until recently —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Also

Think about the literal meaning of Electronic Sports teams, are you talking about NBA Live's Chicago Bulls team or your friends clan that has tournaments in his basement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Players

I guess I fall under an electronic sports player category as well, even though I don't compete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bank of America, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

MLG articles are up for deletion

Ignorant folks are listing MLG articles up for deletion because they refuse to understand the notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Looking for input

Hey there. Not too long ago, you were involved in the AfDs centering around Major League Gaming. I would appreciate some input as I believe there needs to be some sort of consensus on whether or not the notability of these players meets requirements for Wikipedia. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nakedweaponfilm.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your username

Hi. You should probably check out Wikipedia:Changing username; they will be able to help you. I can't do it myself, as I'm not a bureaucrat. Best of luck, and happy editing! --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and Rice

Thanks for the heads-up. I think a redirect to 53rd and 6th will suffice. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Questions regarding the ability to view deleted articles

I went ahead and looked at the deleted edits. Here are the references used in the deleted version. I hope they can help you.

<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.timeout.com/newyork/DetailsAr.do?file=features/168/168.feat.eat.txt.html | title=Raise a Glass to The Winners of The 1998 Eating & Drinking Awards | publisher=[[Time Out|Time Out New York]] | date=December 10-17, 1998}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://travel.independent.co.uk/americas/article321947.ece | title=New York: Fun in the city for the kids | date=October 23, 2005 | publisher=[[The Independent]]}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://events.nytimes.com/mem/nycreview.html?_r=1&res=9A04E0DE1639F935A15757C0A960958260&oref=login | title=Joe's Shanghai Restaurant Review | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 26, 1996 | author=Ruth Reich}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/joes-shanghai01/index.html | publisher=[[New York (magazine) | New York]] | accessdate=November 15, 2006 | title=Joe's Shanghai Restaurant Review}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | title=Best Food Writing 2003 | editor=Holly Hughes (ed.) | author=Calvin Trillin | publisher=Marlowe & Company | date=Oct 1, 2003 | ISBN=1569244405 | pages=207-8 | url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1569244405&id=MuTdaoC7Qo8C&vq=joe%27s+shanghai&dq=joe%27s+shanghai}}</ref>

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it later today. Kingturtle (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know -- I think that ability is limited to admins. Try asking on WP:AN. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

I didn't answer because I don't have an answer. I'm not sure if it's available to non-users or not. It wasn't at one time but now I have no idea. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Shanghai

I've restored the old versions. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

Please watch who you accuse of vandalizing a page, especially when you accuse me of being "sneaky" when I actually identified and explained why I deleted the information. The infobox is for the theatrical release of a film. If a film is released theatrically with different cuts (like Alien (film) was, then you would make not of the various run times of the film. ALL films are edited for time, and most films nowadays come with an "uncut" or "director's cut" version. That does not change the fact that when originally released there was only 1 run time. The various cuts (which do not even exist yet) are already mentioned later in the article, at their appropriate placement. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I'm fine with disagreement, but when I saw the comment about vandalism... Anyway, I completely understand about missing the comment in the history, because I accused another editor of accusing me of vandalism, because the two of you had vaguely similar names and they were near each other on the page history list. Again, there are no hard feelings, and I hope we can work together on pages in the future with less confusion :D. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delingha

This issue has been fixed. Need more information though.

Re: Opinion

I'd rather not comment on the discussion itself, since you've asked me to do so, however I'm open to answering any questions you have about the relevant policies and all. Note I'm not accusing you of canvassing; it doesn't look like you've gone on a posting spree, and your message isn't biased either way, but I'd still rather avoid posting in the discussion just to be on the safe side. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of any such sites at all, and don't think I'm familiar enough with it to be of much use. Thanks for the offer, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing re Airi & Meiri AfD

Issue has been addressed on DAJF's talk page. The admin above had been the question was in good faith, unbias, and not canvassing. Valoem ^talk 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TossGirl

Hi, Valoem. Here's that Dong-A Ilbo article that was a dead link.[1] I see right under the title "《‘여제(女帝)’ 서지수." "Empress Seo Ji-soo", so "Empress" must be sort of an official nickname for her in Korea. Haven't had time to do much searching, but I'll do more later. Hope it helps! Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Martin Andrews

He has been restored. I've added a couple of citations, but I really didn't want to steal your thunder, so i think I've left those you found for you to add.

Inbound links to the article are restored btw. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

What's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisAF (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, too. TravisAF (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's up to you to discuss it.

As I've stated, I'm simply following a consensus that was apparently decided on some time ago. It's good that you're opening a debate on it though; that's all I really want. If you a consensus can be reached to change it back, then knock yourselves out. You should probably post it a WP:COMIC, too, that's sort of the 'official' page for this. I'm just following what has been decided; if that decision changes, my actions will change to mirror it. I'm not being malicious or anything. HalfShadow 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Now that I look it over, it wasn't so much decided upon as 'one guy changed it and nobody argued the fact'. At least two of them were admins, though. I would have thought it would have been a bit more 'official' than that. Still, having a discussion couldn't hurt. As it is, I'll simply leave it as it is for now; the validity of the redirect seems open to interpretation (boldness aside). Sorry, I thought the discusion concerning the decision would have been a bit more serious. Or longer. Or (frankly) at all. HalfShadow 17:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Rollback

Hiya. I've added the rollback flag. Please remember to use it only for vandlaism. You can learn more at WP:RBK or feel free to ask me. Pedro : Chat 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen characters

I mentioned it on the WikiProject Comics talk page, and had support for the bold merge; you'll have to look through the archives for that. The characters would not have substantial articles on their own, and in such cases merges into a single article are preferred. There's very little secondary source information on the characters, aside from the possible exception of Rorschach, which is why his article was left separate. In fact, the characters article was somewhat of a test to see whether or not the characters even required pages separate from Watchmen, and currently both of the articles have the same information. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed in your talk page comments that you said that the merges meant we lost "a lot of citable material". Actually, no. I did extensive research on the series when rewriting Watchmen as part of its Featured Article Review back in October, and as a result what's contained in the Watchmen article and the companion Characters of Watchmen article is the sole extent of reliable factual information available on the characters. It may be hard to believe, but that's all there is that actually is available. What was done away with by the merging was the extensive and inapporpriate in-universe plot summary detail with no context, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fictional topics.WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD preceeded the merge by a number of months. 23:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you object to the merges then there are a couple of courses of action:

I left some thoughts on how to go about getting the sections to a point where they would have to be split off on Talk:Characters of Watchmen#what. However, as mentioned above there probably isn't much more to be added.
You could open this up for debate - the simplest thing would be to start a {{split}} discussion and see what the consensus is.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Cleanup on Poker articles

I think paragraphs are easier to read than dozens of one-sentence paragraphs, which is primarily why I merged them. It also makes the article not appear artificially long; some of the articles would need a couple of pages to print when one would do, for instance. They look messier when there are several one-sentence paragraphs. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball z

Hey there, I see you are trying to resplit the dragon ball's articles again. I already tried, but the freaking anime project won't do it. They think wikipedia revolves around them. And I know we have a lot of support, it's just that they are more consistant. What can we do? Ricardoread (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TBDevilRays2009

Generally, accusations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI, particularly if you want administrative action on them. I'd also point out that TBDevilRays2009 has never been directly blocked; he was caught in a checkuser block for unrelated vandalism. That said, I'll take a look at it, but I'd very much prefer you file a formal SPI report. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, MuZemike has already filed one. I'll make further responses about this there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu64

Deletion review has endorsed the deletion but I have placed the article in your user space at User:Valoem/Nemu64. Please feel free to work on the article in your userspace but it will need a fresh DRV before you can move it back to main space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Valoem/Nemu64

User:Valoem/Nemu64, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Nemu64 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Nemu64 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Buchman

I notice you are one of the editors on this article. I just added some text and refs to help reinforce his notability as a pro player. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thx I'll see if I can add some more information. Merry Xmas :) Valoem ^talk 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, enjoy the new year!-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Faulkner, American Vigilante

Valoem, I recently created a page for Gary Brooks Foster (bin Laden Hunter) that has been deleted by Marcus Qwertyus. The justification for deletion of the page was a debate over the validity of the entry. I noticed you were in favor of keeping the page. There were three votes to delete and four votes to keep. The debate seems to have swung in favor of keeping the page, yet it was still deleted by Qwertyus. I am new to Wikipedia and need your help. Is there anything I can do to get the page up? Why does Marcus Qwertyus feel the urge to delete pages on a whim and prevent the open exchange of information? Thank you, STEGASAURUS REX (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inception plot

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Looking at it now, it seems worse than I left it. Of course, I did leave it. I realizes I had to wash my hands of the entire thing. Amidst the calls to cut it down to about 800 words, despite the fact that the version that would do that ended up gutting the plot and leaving it incorrect, and other users blowing it up to ridiculous length, there wasn't much I cared to do anymore. I feel that some users were trying to make a comprehensive and brief version, but I didn't see anything happen while I was there, and I didn't think it was an argument I could make on my own. A word of advice, though, when dealing with the 800- word types: If constraining a movie plot results in the plot being grossly misrepresented, per WP:IGNORE, ignore the rule and go ahead with a reasonably longer plot for the betterment of the article (and Wikipedia as a whole). That's what I can give you. Good luck trying to fix the mess. :| Luminum (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could use a bit of trimming, if you want to go through it first. But either way, if you feel it should be moved, then do so. At least it's been on the talk page for weeks, haha. Everyone's had their chance to look at it. I won't push it, for sake of being accused of pushing my own version. I'll watch and if it needs support, I'll chime in. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the plot down and fixed a few things at User:Millahnna's sandbox: User:Millahnna/Sandbox//Inception_Plot#Story Luminum (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Phil Ivey. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Valoem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you looks at my edit history you will see that I am a long time user and that I have tried every options with the IP editor. I am find it disrepectful that I have been blocked. I am clearly acting in good faith

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but edit warring is edit warring. The edits were not obvious vandalism, but rather formatting changes. When some reverts your changes, you must discuss the issue with them, not undo their edit repeatedly. TN X Man 16:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Valoem ^talk 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Valoem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Actually I did discuss it with him. If you look at history of the account you can see that he reverted the formatting from a long standing version. Please see all edits prior to the edit by User:2005. He change the original format to a more convoluted version. I attempted to discuss his reversion which is visible on BOTH his talk page and the discussion page. On top of that I am an editor with a long history of edits yet you have given an unknown IP editor equal credit as me. Please explain why I am blocked. I reported his improper revertion, and asked for the page to be protected yet you have not assumed good faith.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is never the proper way to resolve a dispute. The only exception to WP:EDITWAR is reverting blatant vandalism. In the future consider requesting page protection and/or dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I should add that repeatedly mentioning that you are the more experienced user actually weakens your case. You should have known better. I see that you did actually request page protection, but you continued to edit war anyway. That makes this look even worse. And on top of that, you warned them for vandalism when in fact you were having a very mundane content dispute. I don't mean to go on about this but this is one of the lamest edit wars I have ever seen. It's a very minor difference in a section title, and now both of you are blocked because you couldn't stop warring over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did report everything, however it is vandalism because I specifically told him that his version is confusing. I told him if HE is to REVERT to please discuss and explain. When he refused to discuss the situation it became apperent that he was acting in bad faith. (and yet the page is not protected is there something wrong with my logic?) Valoem ^talk 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What he was doing was not vandalism, so there would be the flaw in your logic. Vandalism is editing done with the specific intent to harm Wikipedia, it's not just any edit that you personally don't like. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dandalos Poker Info Box

I noticed you added the poker info box for Nick the Greek. I was wondering why. It doesn't seem to add anything to the article and since he's deceased it never will (at least with the information currently in the info box template).Kanapapiki (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Prophet

Valoem, I don't think you have support for your extended summary. Please be kind enough to honor the sentiment expressed that your plot summary is too long and detailed. And again I thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to correct the incorrect name. Thanks for catching that and your interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Valoem for quoting the phrase "he walks with them to the bus stop, followed by a coterie of Arab protectors." in the talk page for the movie The Prophet. It cleared up what I came to the article to find out. I didnt know who those guys at the end of the movie were. 120.20.16.117 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Devil's Tree

Just so you know, the article was, and still is, on my watchlist (I acquiesced in the deletion because I really couldn't come up with any good arguments against it). At some point, it is possible, the Travel Channel may cover it in their pending special and it would then be notable enough to put back in mainspace. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. The article is already saved at User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree in your user space, which you are free to edit. When you add in more citations to that copy, then I will cut and paste and re-create it. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VG Chartz

Hi. With regard to your recent edit to Template:PlayStation 3/infobox, VG Chartz is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Consensus has been found that their figures are little better than educated guesses, that their methods are fairly tenuous and that their figures often do not agree with those from reliable sources. For more info, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake; I didn't notice the additional citation (sometimes the code just all blends together). Had I noticed it, I would have just removed the VG Chartz one as you said. My apologies. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hallo Berlin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hallo Berlin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallo Berlin(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Advice, please?. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Coffee's for closers

An article that you have been involved in editing, Coffee's for closers, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hi, please be careful not to confuse Sandbox and Wikipedia:Sandbox. You accidentally blanked the disambiguation page. KTC (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes sorry just realized that! Valoem ^talk 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khanhoo

Hi Valoem, I noticed you speak Chinese. I wonder if you could do me a favor by checking Khanhoo, which I started, and see if you can find references or any other information on the game that is still missing on the History section (terminology and evolution). User CCyber 5 helped me find some info on the subject last year, but unfortunately I missed the chance to have him reference the things he found about the game. I'll try to contact him again. I've been adding some info there today, with more for tomorrow, including some refs that I found today. You would have to look for info or refs in Chinese, not English. Everything else is ok there, but for a few missing things, prose and spelling here and there, only refs missing. Krenakarore ^TK 22:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply this afternoon. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Please see the subsection at Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#Sub-section: Coffee.27s for closers.

Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duplicate bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tactics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Physics template

You put it manually, such as here, while the article already is in a physics category. Would you consider automating that? Gryllida (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

navbox linking a disambiguation page...

...is a big no-no. [2] Please be more careful in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Cart

Done Bearian (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 53rd and 6th

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 53rd and 6th requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 53rd and 6th

Hi Valoem. I restored the deleted versions of Chicken and rice and Chicken and Rice but there was nothing for 53rd and 6th. (Maybe somebody else did it before I got your message?) Regards. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 08:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Halal Guys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yelp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tony Luke's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adam Richman

William Lee Bergstrom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Austin High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoagie Haven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elements (Princeton restaurant)

The article Elements (Princeton restaurant) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Only local coverage, in local media and the local section of the NYT. No evidence of regional or national significance, per WP:AUD.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed template article is meets WP standard for non-speedy, this would be an AfD if you disagree. Valoem ^talk 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this article does pass WP:AUD. NYT is regional, not local. Wine Spectator on the other hand is National. An AfD is not warranted in this case. Please advise. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elements (restaurant) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yelp

Stu Ungar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maxim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elements (restaurant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elements (restaurant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CSwiss

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CSwiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSwiss

Userfied article at: User:Valoem/CSwiss. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Food Barnstar
		Great work in improving the Chocolate covered cherry article with more sources and expansion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation

Hello, Valoem. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On proper way of things

My prod at the cherry article was proper - and so was your way of addressing it at [3]. I think you did an excellent job proving that the subject is notable by find good references. Unfortunately, as I noted in the AFD on the plumes/prunes, I am not seeing such good references there; what we have there is primary a bunch of recipes, and I believe it is customary not to see such articles as quality (reliable) sources. Perhaps you can find better ones? For the record, I tried doing a search for Polish languages refs for plums but all I see are more recipes and or product ads, not a single article about their history, cultural importance, or such :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I fully understand the AfD, it was difficult to find sources for plums in chocolate, however it was easier under the new title. Valoem ^talk 15:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

March 2014

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Your edits to [4], [5], [6] and [7] are all canvassing. Please don't pick individual editors to comment in AFDs. If you want wider participation you can ask wikiprojects or list in a specific area of interest deletion list - which in fact has already been done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While on the surface this appears to be canvassing, it was actually an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states:

AVN.com – A reliable source for adult industry news and movie reviews.
XBiz.com – Reliable source for adult industry news

I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem ^talk 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_28#Dieselpunk

Its almost 4 years since the DRV so its perfectly reasonable to ask for it to be reviewed again. I strongly advise you to avoid rehashing history because that is going to lose you support. The only issue is whether the sources you now have are new and whether they meet the GNG/RS.

I have suggested in the DRV discussion that you take the two best sources and discuss how they meet the GNG/RS. That's going to really focus everyone on the issue in play and avoid any unhelpful digressions into history. Over to you.

By the way I'm not stalking you. I have been a regular at DRV since 2007. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I believe all the sources are new and will follow up. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Hey, this is user Emperor Deathsaur. Thanks for catching my mistakes! Sorry about them, I'm still new to Wikipedia editing. Emperor Deathsaur (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cape Flats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

Passion gap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sexual

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandyan Dynasty

The source you added about the Indian scripts says nothing about the dynasty, so can't be used. The source you added for the end of the dynasty talks about it's mention by the Greeks, so we know it existed then and I've used that. We have guidelines for BC/BCE AD/CE at WP:ERA - please follow them. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, however the dates should be added and there should be additional sources which define the reign of the dynasty. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC

The Britannica says the Greeks mention it in the 4th c BCE, I haven't been able to find anything better. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you didn't add spammy pages

On unnotable subjects such as Yes Sir Boss (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss), then other people would not feel compelled to spend their time in an essentially unproductive manner fixing your mess? This was a stonewall speedy delete, any day of the week, so lecturing me that it is a bit like trying to teach your grandmother to suck rancid eggs - I can tell their rancid, please don't pretend that they're not. I'm not as stupid as you clearly think I am. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read up on WP:SPAM. I am correct when stating that the article does not fall into speedy criteria and is clearly not SPAM. Citations from BBC nullify that and you may want to read that AfD. Article was written as an advert by a possible COI editor. Those issues have been resolved. Besides your blatant attacks on my page, I don't see anything new here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when writing, Barney. This comes across as a little WP:BITE-y. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) - but it is also true. Why should Wikipedia editors have to deal with this rubbish? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not rubbish. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir Boss

I've replied on my talk page, and I've userfied the content at User:Valoem/Yes Sir Boss. The article's history is still intact as far as the redirect goes, but I think that it's just a little bit too soon for an entry. I've replied about the sources that you posted on my talk page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted warnings for both sections that you reported. If they still continue, you should probably bring this up at ANI or at dispute resolution. (Do dispute resolution first, though.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Shentu

Valoem, I've userfied the old history of Shentu as per your request at User:Valoem/Shentu. Regards. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deletion/Merge of the Horstmann Technique article

Hi! I appreciate your suggestion in the deletion discussion regarding The Horstmann Technique. I tried to enhance it by adding more sources and I also got some help on making it better. Unfortunately it was not enough despite a late call for a Merge with Alternative Therapies. Nonetheless I appreciate your comments and views. Thanks Matopotato (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks Matopotato (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect seems more appropriate per discussion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your NAC

Hi Valoem, I am not sure this was an appropriate AfD to close via NAC. An admin may have instead decided to relist, or close one way or the other, but as there had been rather significant participation, it is my opinion that discussion would have been best left to an administrator to close and act upon. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are requesting I reopen it, its not a problem. The article doesn't seem to have a controversial history, its was kept last time and I saw that the vote was 3 three and both sides had legitimate arguments so an admin would probably close it as no consensus as well. But if you are challenging the close and would like me to revert let me know and I'll take care of it! Thanks! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your close and relisted this discussion. Non admins should never close a no consensus anyway as its not a clear cut outcome, and, with respect, your recent contributions to DRVs and AFDs I have participated in suggests that your grip on reliable sourcing isn't strong enough for you to close deletion discussions. Please wait until your are much more experienced before trying any more NACs. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both DRVs were in my favor. It would be common courtesy to ask me to revert it as oppose to reverting yourself. I have seen multiple non-admin close to no consensus and merges especially in incidents were the outcome is clear. I have reverted the rest of the pages. I feel your comment is somewhat abrasive and would appreciate if you delete both this comment and the canvassing warning which was clearly not the case. I have been on Wikipedia as long as you, such comments are ill advised. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I see other users misuse NAC to non-consensus a discussion that clearly needs a relist then I will revert them too. Length of tenure does not equal comptance. If you think a discussion that has had no relists with a worthwhile active discussion of sources needs to be brought to an an early NC then you are clearly not ready to close any AFDs. Only 18 days ago you had no idea to to parse sources in a porn discussion & [we are 19 days later with your assessment of sources similarly wrong]. On the bright side I did close a DRV in your favour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, politely asking you to remove the statement above and the incorrect canvassing accusation. I was unhappy about it particularly since it falls under the section of appropriate notifications. If you felt my response to that canvassing accusation was not sufficient please advise in my errors. As an administrator there is a duty for you to response to warnings you delivery especially after its validity has been questioned. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help on a few AfDs is not neutral language and by any plain reading suggests that your intent was to get help in the AFDs rather then checking your understanding of sourcing. Choosing editors with an interest in pornography content is does have at the very least the appearance of Votestacking. My notification in response was precisely the action mandated in policy. I already said you can remove the template if you prefer. I'm not going to comment further on this. You can always ask at ANI if you think this is unfair but if you do consider this I suggest you put to one side your understanding of your intentions and instead consider what impression your actions would give someone else of your intentions. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. We are all human I have no issues with your trigger finger warning we all make mistakes. Despite appearances it was obvious at the time you did not know they were listed as the most active members of the porn project and your quick jump to conclusion is understandable. However, as an administrator you have a obligation to response to disagreements. As it stands I explained why they were called. They met:

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field

and fall under appropriate notifications. If you disagree, an explanation is warranted otherwise an apology is always accepted. Such accusations may be a violation of WP:Good Faith.

Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure I am allowed to close NCs:

AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination.

Your accusation of being inexperienced is a personal opinion based on no guidelines and can be interpreted by some as a personal attack. I am not so petty as to take this trivial dispute to ANI. A simple apology would suffice. I highly appreciate what you did for me with The Halal Guys DRV and ignored your initial lack of response to canvassing. But the comment on my talk page regarding NC closure is complete unnecessary and abrasive so the path I choose is up to you. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled useright granted

Further to our discussion on my talk page, I've add the autopatrolled useright to your account. As you suggested, if you know that the article you create (or transwiki) would qualify for a maintenance tag please add it yourself so that others can try and fix it. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaka Fattah Jr.

Please clarify, you said there is no lawsuit against Fattah Jr. The raid is in accordance with accusations against him. Have those allegations been dropped? If so it would be in your interest to add that information. Keep in mind Fattah is under investigation to write only about his lawsuit is bias. Source provided suggest he was being investigated for those reasons I accidentally linked the wrong source. I've added that source though. There should be no issues! Valoem talk contrib 02:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the response: There is no lawsuit against Chaka Fattah Jr by any federal government agency. The raid, which took place over two years ago, has resulted in no criminal or civil charges to date. The raid was on February 29, 2012, see multiple sources. I did not only write about the lawsuit, I wrote about the raid. See Chaka Fattah Jr. article, "On February 29, 2012 FBI and IRS agents seized records from Fattah's apartment at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton." Keep in mind that according to the Libel policy, negative information about living persons must be properly sourced. The articles you sourced with the specific allegations is referencing the article writers opinions about what the government is or was investigating. There are no articles in which a government official actually says what they were investigating. It is also incorrect you saying that Fattah Jr worked on fund raising for his father. There is no source that says that. Fattah Jr is suing the government. They have taken no action, in civil or criminal court, against him since the raid two years ago. See Wiki policy on undue weight. His lawsuit is recent, filed March 25, 2014. The raid was two years ago. His lawsuit has gotten a significant amount of media attention, which is obviously more recent. So it is more current information.71.230.108.152 (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fattah Jr. is not being investigated for fund mismanagement or missed loan payments. As most people would know, missing loan payment is not a crime.71.230.108.152 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this source says so [8]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says that someone said he missed loan payments. It doesn't say he is being investigated for that. It also does not say anything about fund mismanagement, since Fattah Jr. did not control any funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no sources that say he managed funds. The link you referenced does not say that. It says something about a check that was issued to Fattah Jr., it doesn't say he controlled any funds. It says David Shulick, who is pictured at the link controlled the school company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/UFOs

Per your request. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fuller one is here: User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article in your user space: UFO sightings in outer space

I fixed a spelling error in the article and made comments in the article's talk page.

This article is an example of the conflict between Meta:Inclusionism and Meta:Deletionism. The same Wikipedian who spearheaded the deletion of this article also went off on a campaign to delete articles from my user space. The articles deleted were highly technical (I am a computer scientist), but included as labels beings subject to skepticism. The articles deleted were not about beings subject to skepticism, much as the article Unix daemon uses the label of mythical daemons. It is incorrect to delete an article about a real, notable subject because it uses labels of beings that are mythical or subject to skepticism. Obankston (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I done multiple changes to the article I have found some additional citations as well. I think the AfD issues have been resolved. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at AfD

An article being at AfD is not a proscription from the article being edited. Please read the notice: "Feel free to edit the article, "

When an article is at AfD it is perfectly acceptable to continue to edit the article such as removing dross so that casual commentators can easily get to the heart of the discussion without being bamboozled into "there are lots of reliable source references about this topic" or forcing them to review content and sources that are clearly not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your voting keep and edit the article to improve it that fine, but if I feel the edit worsen the article I can revert. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Hotsuin

How did you get Keep from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamato Hotsuin when more people voted for a redirect due to the non-notability of the character? Even if the page was improved, the notability issues were not addressed. —KirtZ^Mail 19:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I may be inclined to re-nom at a future date. —KirtZ^Mail 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KirtZJ: I've already changed it to no consensus, as it was a better conclusion, you can revert if you disagree, additional seven sources were added. I explained my rationale, if there are outstanding issues, the discussion can be reopened, it has been opened for three weeks last response was 10 days ago so I made a judgement call that NC was inevitable and the discussion was somewhat dead, I thought closing it was appropriate with no bias against renomination. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Liberty GB

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For defending obscure topics from the crushing waves of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination). Even the supposed paranormal can pass muster. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inre: User:Robkall/OpEdNews

Due to the COI considerations of Kall's contributions, and the unlikeliness that he would publish something negative about himself, I have chosen to instead improve the article in mainspace, rather than one in his userspace. That said, THIS bears little resemblance to the one in his userspace. And, I have also been working on this BLP, Would you look in and advise? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I don't think OpEdNews needs any advising, it has passed the AfD with a solid keep and survived DRV so that speaks for itself. I'm a little more liberal when it comes to sources, but the second article looks good. This sources is good, this is good, this one is primary which can be used, just not to establish notability. Can we get a date of birth? I think it should survive the mainspace the only way to find out is to move it there. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the OpEdNews article and THIS have been going through some changes.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When one is a self-proclaimed "master" of social media, its hard to hide things.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

User:Valoem/UFO_sightings_in_Iraq

I userfied it, but it took a couple of steps, since I haven't eaten breakfast yet. :-) Bearian (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is now at User_talk:Valoem/UFO_sightings_in_Iraq; see also Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_2#UFO_sightings_duing_Iraq_War and Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_3#UFO_Sightings. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!, Article looks like it needs some serious work! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jens Kyllönen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Story (Mandy Chiang album)

You were involved in the Mandy Chiang article. I invite you to discuss the other from above. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealies

On the last one, I cut the unsourced assertion that she'd been in softcore/hardcore porn, given that the article's unsourced. If you can source it to something reliable, by all means, but it seems like her notability is all about bodybuilding (which is a less problematic thing to sit around unsourced. Wily D 08:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frequencies (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Fraser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Stapleton

Sigh, no the poker player is not more notable (neither is PRIMARYTOPIC - which is why I have disambiguated). Giant Snowman 13:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]