User talk:Viridae/Archive2

Archives Template
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 2:25/06/2006-26/07/2006 3:26/07/2006-24/08/2006 4:24/08/2006-12/01/2007 5:12/01/2007-14/07/2007 6:14/07/2007-14/02/2008 7:14/02/2008-06/06/2009

added references

I have added references to validate the information is worhty enough to have a place on Wikipedia. Please let me know if this is acceptable as I really feel this is information useful to many people. thanks Gastric bypass diet - user:Supplements

Thanks Viridae I understand and will abide by your request I will also redo the article as requested.

Can I take the delete off or does that need to be you? User:Supplements

Although I havent had a propper look at yet yet, it seems you have imporved the article so I won't nominate it for deletion. However can you have a lo9ok at these resources and edit the article appropriately. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, WP:MOS. Please also note that if ant any time I think the article is just there to sell your product/promote your webpage, I will be nominating it for deletion. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

haha

i think that my article becoming a part of the deleted articles with freaky titles is an honour. thankyou for this privilege. love ya XOX --Giordano xx 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

wow

ur so fast at replying my goodness. sorry i didnt actually know you could sign. actually, i dont know how to sign! ohh i think i found it --Giordano xx 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC) is that it? um... or are we just supposed to write like "from giordanoxx"?? well my actul name is emma so here from emma XOX

ok wait one last thing

well for whenever u get bak from studying-are u like an admin? how old are u? lol hey do u know who put this on my page?? --->"Ad from google: Join the ancient order of the two headed turtle aka procrastinator's society today and recieve a free wagging coupon." coz im preeetty sure its not actually an ad from google. lol haha xox emma --Giordano xx 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Links

Can you please explain why you removed links, that I believe added value to the articles? Ansett 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From the .tk article, because your page (and yes I know it is yours) is one of thousands of .tk pages, there is no need for it to be there. Furthermore, I don't see why the article needed an aexample - and even if it did, that is spam. From the airline page, you listed an unofficial "fansite" about a defunct airline. If you want to put a link in - do it for one of the major world airlines like BA, Singapore Air or similar. Viridae 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and aren't the spam warnings clear enough for you? Viridae 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with {{helpme}}

Thanks for your congratulations :) I'm glad you decided to help out - you can either watch CAT:HELP, or you can join the IRC channel at irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-bootcamp, where a bot reports new {{helpme}}s almost instantaneously. And yes, take whatever you want from my pages :) Cheers, Tangotango 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame :( I hope you can still help out in other ways, though! - Tangotango 13:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

haha

haha yeh i go to abbotsleigh - the SRC ppl wrote the article on abbotsleigh and someone edited saying that 'two of the headmistresses are related' when infact they are not and i was just being stupid by demandin to know who changed it but yeh. yeh im in yr 11, im 17. wait if ur not like an admin how did u know that the person who wrote the 'google ad' on my page used telstra internet? are u like a nerd? jk! kinda.. haha nah and why did u tag my page for deletion??? lol hahahaha but its ok it was a pretty lame article ne way cya xox emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano xx (talk • contribs)

Karen Denne

I didn't copy any of the text. I did get some of the information from the broadfoundation but it was general information like about how she was a reporter for the L.A. Times and she received her bachelors from USC. That's not some kind of unique copyrighted material right. I tried to put a link to the Broad Foundation. That was probably the Problem. Is it alright if I just post the info that I didn't get from that site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Medleysoul (talk • contribs) .

lol thats crazy how do u find out all their info? do u stalk people? jks jks. but seriously, do u know how to hack into your friends msns? not that you ever would of course. haha, but i dont get it, like why do u go round wiki looking for random articles to delete? do u just enjoy it? haha coolness XOX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano xx (talk • contribs)

~well she played a big role in the Enron Fiasco. medleysoul 07:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

page blanking

I crossposted this from my page. Doc Tropics 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page - again. He has been warned a number of times about page blanking. I'm afraid next time it happens, a note will have to be left on WP:AN - I would prefer to have dealt with it nicely, but it just happens time and again. :S ViridaeTalk 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I was leaving a message for him and had an edit conflict with you. I didn't realize he had done it before so I let your message stand alone because you were firmer with him. Maybe you could answer a question for me on a related topic: I noticed a user who continually blanks his Talkpage, which has the effect of hiding the various warnings he's been issued multiple times. Is there either policy or guideline relating to that? --Doc Tropics 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes removing warnings from talk pages is considered vandalism. If they keep doing it, I would suggest reporting it to an admin. Viridae^Talk 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your sig on AfD discussions (where we seem to hold similar views) and at the village pump. Maybe you've noticed comments from Captain Kook (not his real name). He was told several times on his Talkpage by Killer Chihuahua not to blank the warnings, but he blanked KC's comments as well. While his antics are entertaining he seems to be disrupting a segment of the community. <sigh> Can't we all just write a dictionary people? --Doc Tropics 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I utterly agree with the "write a dictionary" sentiments. I would suggest reporting Captain Kook on the Administrators noticeboard or to Killer Chihuahua himself. (now I think about it, the latter might be the best option). Viridae^Talk 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I meant encyclopedia of course; sometimes I type faster than I think. BTW - I paged through some of your contribs real quick and I really admire the work you've been doing here. Have a great day :) --Doc Tropics 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Viridae^Talk 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW - No need to bring Captain Kook to anyone's attention anymore. He recently called himself to the attention of our legal counsel Brad Patrick with an...interesting...message titled "Hi Brad". I find myself harboring some sadly non-wiki sentiments probably best not elaborated on here :) --Doc Tropics

What on earth? Seriously, what the hell is that about! Sounds like he has lost it. I now know who you are talking about by the way - I had never seen him user the signature Captain Kook, but I have seen IMHO around. Viridae^Talk 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he started in the Half-life article and he's been posting to almost every column in The Village Pump recently. I have to admit that tagging him as Captain Kook was my idea of a joke, but probably poor wikiquette. I try to be a good boy but sometimes...it's just hard. I've made a point of never, ever engaging him or responding to his comments because I don't think I could do it without turning into a troll. Sometimes when I need a break from more serious editing I follow his recent contribs just for a chuckle :) --Doc Tropics 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image link

you're welcome. It took me a while to work out that you need to put a colon in front of image/category/foreignlanguage links in order not to "activate" them, but rather make them linkable. Wikipedia is a learning experience. Agathoclea 14:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You earned this :)

An award to acknowledge your extensive and detailed grasp of the utterly irrelevant  :) --Doc Tropics 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to my Userpage. I was going to send you a Smiley as recognition of your hard work, but instead you've earned this cookie with extra chocolate chips! BTW - I didn't recognize your quote, but I'm still laughing about it! --Doc Tropics 14:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has tagged your quote yet, but we'll give it a little more time. The cookie looks good on your Userpage :) --Doc Tropics 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Credibility Crisis

Hi again. There is an essay about WP's credibility issues being written here. I wanted to invite you to review it if you have the time and interest. If you'd care to leave any comments on the Talkpage I'd be very interested in your opinions. --Doc Tropics 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping into the discussion. Your point was well made and needs some serious thought; I think it really goes to the heart of the issues we're trying to address. --Doc Tropics 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

He seems to have stopped.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete templates

All the criteria for speedy deletion seem to have code templates, as in template:db-a3, template:db-g7, etc. These are the only ones that don't: {{db-i8}}, {{db-c2}}, {{db-c3}}, {{db-p1}}, {{db-p2}}. I also didn't see any templates for these criteria. 138.89.18.4 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley of the West

An editor has expressed concern that Berkeley of the West may not be neutral. Please do not remove the template without addressing those concerns.Viridae^Talk 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The editor didn't give any reason why, other than suggesting that NPOV was somehow obvious. It's not obvious to me. Looking at the subjects of his previous edits, the only thing obvious to me is that he is Mormon, and my guess is that he was offended by the inclusion of the term. I suppose he will call it NPOV until if and whenever the article gets deleted. Understood it is a term Mormons may not like to hear, but that doesn't make it NPOV any more than the article on hell isn't NPOV for not talking about heaven. Perhaps you can assist me in understanding how this article is not NPOV. Reswobslc 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe sentances like The term's underlying suggestion is that if the folks at BYU who claim academic freedom is not an issue can't even properly reference the location of their own school on a map, that they must be too sheltered to be in a sufficiently well-informed position to make that sort of claim. are overly critical of the students. I also think the use of presumably in this sentence is designed to be derogatory: while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.. See WP:AWW. Viridae^Talk 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP:CRIT saying being critical is not allowed, otherwise we wouldn't have pages like Microsloth to criticize Microsoft, or a nigger page, or the terms described on this page and this page and this page and this page. All of these reference terms that are undoubtedly critical of the groups they refer to. When someone makes a big public mistake (and publishing a prominent obvious error in a newspaper is a textbook example), they're going to merit legitimate criticism, whether they're a BYU student, a Microsoft employee, a Presidential advisor, or whoever they might be. Just because a page about criticism (or a critical term) contains criticism, doesn't make it NPOV! If you look at BYU's entry, you'll see that academic freedom at BYU is an ongoing sore spot there, all the way up to the level of the AAUP, and not some little jab one guy took at the University writing a biased Wikipedia article to laugh at the mistakes of three of its students. Further, I am not sure I agree that the second statement you mention (the while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.) is intended as an attempt at WP:AWW, rather it is simply a logical one, like presumably your chair is not on fire because you're still sitting in it., but a word means something different to everyone and acknowledge that many will agree with you on that point and not me and that's reason enough to be concerned about it. Reswobslc 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My view on that second sentance was that it was a fairly disparraging way of putting it. I am considering editing it to say something along the lines of "However the university has many students enrolled, indicating that the freedom given is acceptable for those that attend.". I believe that imparts more neutrality than the current sentence. Viridae^Talk 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made have removed my misgivings over the neutrality of the article. The NPOV template has been removed. Thanks for being a worthwhile editor to work with. Viridae^Talk 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks likewise Reswobslc 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi

It was probably a sock of one of the Persian or Turkish editors who always appear to be conflicting with him. In some of the Persian pages there is always talk of a Zionist conspiracy to turn WP into a Zionist propaganda machine. Khoikhoi's alerted me to the existence of off-site Persian forums where there seem to be quite a few people who are angry with him.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Caught me too fast

You removed the {{citation needed}} template from the article saying refer to the talk page but I cannot see where you mean. Can you point me in the right direction. Viridae^Talk 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You caught me too fast on the Male Pregnancy page - I was still typing my Discussion response. Check it out now. Queerwiki 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Viridae^Talk 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks for the welcome !

Thanks for the welcome Viridae ! I've been adding things to the sea star article and was registered under my IP address. Perhaps I will try to create new articles relating to the Echinoderms, as it is noticeably lacking if compared with other invertebrate-related articles, especially insects.

Best Regards, Pentapod 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sonny Perdue

The primary issue with the Sonny Perdue page is the amount of editorializing that has been found.

The first piece that tipped things off was the mention of local control involving schools, in paragraph 4 (I believe). Specifically of note was the statement that Perdue was not getting in the way of the legislature involving extra paperwork for homosexual clubs. I wouldn't have thought it serious, but the language that was used seemed to be very editorial in nature.

The second issue that I was going to bring up was the issue of cleanup involving the article. It seems to look more messy. Being as I have had issues trying to clean up such pages, I would have figured to put up a "clean up banner" would have helped.

Anyhow, since everything has been resolved, I have no need to worry about it. Thank you for taking the time to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.194.94 (talk • contribs)

Verifiable

Your comments in AfD are incorrect. How you personally interpret policy is your choice. I prefer to read the words and follow the policy as written. You wrote: "And it is your job as someone listing an article for deletion, to actually do a bit of background research to make sure that it warrants deletion under one of the wikipedia policies. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" It is not my job. That is the job of the author. And if an author does not provide any sources of information then it makes that quite impossible and by definition original research. I haven't any personal prejuidice against any topic or content whatsoever. All articles must be compliant, however. You perhaps are a contributor. I on the other hand mainly do cleanup of the WP:BACKLOG. I see no reason for you to be upset at me at all. If an article can stand on its own, then what does it matter to you? Thanks. Ste4k 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. AfD does not need to be filled with articles that do not have a hope in hell of being deleted. You do not list it for deletion just because it does not cite sources - just because it currently doesn't cite sources (very common with an article that size) doesn't mean it can't. Unfortunately the vast majority of articles on wikipedia do not cite any or sufficient sources - that doesn't mean that need need to be deleted they just need work. I understand that WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." but a cursory glance at AfD will show you that for a deletion to pass, the article must be unverifiable not unverified - this is why I stated that the onus was on you, the person nominating for deletion, to do a quick search to see if you could turn up any significant results, saving everyone elses time. If you do, I was not stating that you should fill in the gaps and provide the references for the material, but that you should tag the article as needing sources and leave it for another editor to fill in the gaps. Contributing to the massive amount of AfDs a day by nominating superfluous deletions will not endear you to any of the editors who reguarly vote on AfDs.

As I mentioned, any article that lists only itself as a primary reference and hasn't any secondary references is useless. Per the idea that I would know what would or would not pass AfD, I find that pretty hypocritical. After all, if it were possible to be known in advance what will or will not be deleted, then we would have a pretty good set of policies and criteria to follow, wouldn't we? Basically you are suggesting that the current set of policies is insufficient. A cursory glance is not what I apply when I read the documentation which states that there are differences between primary and secondary sources and it should be obvious why those rules are included WP:RS.

On the subject of WP:OR. To quote the policy in a nutshell Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.. At no point was any of that article original research. Original reasearch is not unverified but verifiable claims. Lastly I am not upset at you, I was just pointing out that you were listing articles for deletion without doing some quick research to determine wether they warranted deletion or not. Viridae^Talk 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do quite a bit of research, probably more than you might think. And you should also keep in mind that we should be looking at the encyclopedia articles from the OUTSIDE rather than the inside. My son, for example, will use citations from this very site for his homework. Is the encyclopedia just a facade?

P.S. I call your attention to the {{unreferenced}} template. It is for articles like that that we have that templaate and others like it. In future, if you find something lacking sources could please tag it with that or similar rather than taking it to AfD. Viridae^Talk 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have only been here, going on three weeks now, and my experience in such matters is first the template is assigned, and later the person that "owns" the article gets upset because of aesthetic reasons, or simply doesn't understand the purpose, that follows with an edit war, or simply realizing it was a waste of time to even heed the call to look at the article in the first place. I don't believe that you have been uncivil in any way, but I have made quite a study of the documentation for various reasons. I am also not saying "I am right", but on the matters of policy, you are incorrect to say that one person's interpretation of those is any better or worse than anothers. I can tell you this, for certain, I do trust the policies, and stick to them like glue, and I have seen a very large diversity in opinions about them and how they are used. Nothing wrong with that. Ste4k 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unaware you were a new editor. For the most part sticking to the policies is the right way to go (Unless you consistently stick to the break all rules policy (which i currently can't find a shortcut to) - which will annoy most people). However as you get more experience with AfD you will notice that and article that is verifiable but not verified (and not about a ridiculous subject) will pass the AfD. Thus taking articles that fit those parameters just chokes up AfD and leaves you with editors that are irritated that it was listed for deletion in the first place. I hope you enjoy editing, any questions don't hesitate to ask. Viridae^Talk 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, all forgiven, and no matter anyhow. :) The policies you were hoping to refer to are WP:BB and WP:IAR. :) I appreciate you noting on my talk page that you replied. But again, I think I need to refer you to something, and maybe that will allow you to understand where I am coming from better. Please see my very first AfD nomination. It just closed a couple days ago. Link. At that time, I was under the impression that the nominator needed to convince each person in the debate that had a contrary notion. Think about that for a little bit, okay? Thanks! Ste4k 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with that link? Maybe that its not up to the nominator to convince everyone - they will generally convince themselves either way? The way it ussually happens is that the nominator provides suitible reasons for deletion and everyone else determines the articles merits on the information given and any information they can glean from some quick research. Thats why I said it is pointless nominating verifiable articles - wether or not they are verified. I may have got you wrong though...? Viridae^Talk 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By performing that research that you suggest, rather than reading the article stand alone as if it were the first article you've read, we are performing original research if we make assumptions on the data collected which it never actually says. Consider that if the page itself were to say "she is extremely popular, and she gets 200000 hits on Google." Then we could use Google as a basis for criteria. You see? Google does not say anything about popularity, nor notability, etc. I recently had a "bout" with a "owner" of a group of pages. By actually reading the citations on the page, I could see that the person or persons who owned the page were basically lying. This was even to the extent that they had a trademarked brand name that they insist on using as an acronym. It also included reversing the actual logical meaning of various facts, i.e. Instead of Jack gave Jill a flower, they had written Jill gave Jack a flower. Assuming good faith I asked questions, was ignored, harrassed, and even during the AfD's votes were even changed by these people, my words were changed in my nomination as well. It's still around and being cleaned up. In the interim of all of that, I have been accused of being in one or another faction, having bad faith, etc., and everyone would rather turn their heads (except a few) and not want to see matters like this resolved (yes they are tedious and boring, too). I believe the term is "smoke and mirrors", and this was what was keeping Next Door Nikki around. But no matter how you slice it, if the article doesn't even mention Google, Google cannot be used as a reputible secondary source on the behalf of the article for it's author. Does that make sense to you? Ste4k 00:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense - at least the second part. Google is never really used as a reputable source in an article, but the number of unique and relevant google hits can be (and is) used as an argument for keep or delete (although I don't entirely agree with that as the sole reason for keep or delete in most cases). By wikipedia's definition of original research though, doing a google search to find already published results to determine wether an article is possibly verifiable or notable isn't original research. Original reasearch is looking out my window and seeing that all the birds out there are black - and then coming to wikipedia and writing an article that says that all birds in melbourne at 10:54 AM on a monday are black. The research is not verified and not independantly published - therefore original. Sorry about your trouble with the NDN article, I too have run into some very possesive editors at times. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is NDN? Let's take that no research a little deeper... you might see my point. Suppose an article has only primary sources. And let's say that the article's topic is Jack and Jill going up the hill. The J&J web site says, they went up the hill to milk the cow. I decide that the article should be nominated on grounds that it has insufficient secondary resources (zero in this case). Someone challenges that and says keep because they go out onto the web themselves and find an artible about J&J, even though the article doesn't mention why J&J went up the hill. They have just committed original research, because, they are themselves attesting to the fact that the rest of the article is verifiable by the secondary source that they found. You see? It happens all the time if you watch closely. And I am not speaking of people that are simply deliberately wanting to see an article stay, but people whom actually don't see the difference; and they end believing that their own research into the matter, i.e. read/writing between the lines, justifies what the article does NOT say and then base on the fact that it should, could, or would say. By the way, Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of draft beer, as everyone knows. :) Ste4k 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • NDN = Next Door Nikki. I do see where you are coming from regarding the orginal research. But if you look at WP:OR it states that original research is (to paraphrase) when someone has come up with something new and it is not independantly published/reviewed/verified - it is totally new. Its not the use of that as sources. The policy "No original research" says that those shouldn't be used as sources/references. However using them does not itself constitute original research but does violate the no original research policy. Viridae^Talk 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point you are missing is this. It doesn't matter what the resource states, as long as it is a reputible resource. What matters is that the article says what the resource says. Anything else is original research. Okay so far? So, now consider for a moment an article that only has a single resource. Anything that is said in the article that isn't said by the resource is OR. When voting in AfD, people very frequently see articles that haven't any resources at all. They then go out and find a reputible resource that speaks about the topic. But the part you seem to be misunderstanding here, is that they then assign the idea of notability to the resource they just found in AfD discussions. And there still isn't anything in the new article that matches anything that the original author said. Do you see now? Original research has to do with making sure that what is reported in the article is the same as the resources it relies on. Verifiability has to do with making sure that the resources are reputible. They are two different things that work together. Ste4k 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae here. If I can add sources to an article so that it does not fall under "original research", then I would do that instead of nominating it for deletion. Similarly if someone else was unable to improve an article beyond OR status, but I am able, I would do so (or say how to do so), and recommend "keep". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-03 09:35Z

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson for a better understanding of original research, the comments after the first Keep vote you might find interesting. Thanks. :) Ste4k 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

your removal of the skate punk afd

Your removal of the skate punk afd nomination constitutes vandalism. I assure you that I meant to nominate the article so it was not an accidental nomination so also please do not use purposefully misleading edit summaries. I have re-added the nom to the listings page, please do not remove it again. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) portions struck out by me, see below Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse you but you had incorrectly listed the artice. You had neither tagged the article for deletion (step one in the nomination) nor created the subpage (step 2). I removed the nomination from that page because that was the only part of the nom you had completed and it was therefore incorrectly nominated - a malformed AfD. Before you go accusing people of vandalism I suggest you assume good faith and look at why it may have occured - especially in a case such as this. I ask you to strike out or remove your comment from my talk page. I really don't care either way wether you reslist it or not, but if you do so, please follow the criteria set out in WP:AFD. Viridae^Talk 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there may have been a mixup here, you probably saw it before I finished the nom (thus redlinked) and removed it or after the nom but only a cached version, please check and you will see that I have completed the nom. I apologize for not assuming good faith and at the time of your post I was just about to actually about to change my phrasing since I realized that I wasn't assuming good faith. I apologize if the mixup was my fault but as you will now see it is all properly nominated. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

improper AfD

You didnt complete the AfD properly - now done. ViridaeTalk 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the improper AfD on the El-Gouna article. It was my first time. I'm new. What did I do wrong, by the way?

--Loopy1313 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the procedure at WP:AFD I think you listed it on the afd page (step 3) before creating the subpage (step 2) if you do it in order, it works correctly. Viridae^Talk 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Help

You responded to an editor requesting help. However, he was informing you of facts that are not correct. Now he removes my comment on this.[1] Evidently this is unusual behaviour.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I was just responding to a help request and do not want to get involved in an edit war. I suggest you politely and calmly talk to that editor about it on their talk page. Viridae^Talk 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The post was only to inform you that your comment was based upon insufficient information. How that would lead you to believe I wanted to involve you is not clear to me. Thank you.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that because you were involving me in it by updating me on the situation when I had very little to do with it (I wasn't even given your name as the editor he was talking about) that you were looking for support for your position. If this is incorrect I apologise. If you need any help, feel free to ask. Viridae^Talk 08:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Last one there is a rotten egg

... first one has to eat it :) -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Xterm Article

Hi, I was wondering why you nominated the Xterm Pest Management article for deletion? Azselendor 00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the article has the notability required for a corporation as set down in WP:CORP. WP:AFD is a chance for you to argue why the company is notable enough to be included. Viridae^Talk 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda of unfair to recommend and article for deletion before I even have a chance to finish writing it and research the company. Azselendor 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Research or not - I am not listing it for the quality of the information in the article, but the notability of the company itself (see WP:CORP). Viridae^Talk 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not because of the quality, it's because you think the company is too new to be notable. I disagree, I feel I'm not being giveb enough time to finish the article and provide all the information about the company in question, including information from consumer watchdog groups, the state of florida's department of agriculture, and indepdent publications Azselendor 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I suggest arguing that point in the AfD. Viridae^Talk 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Sign post

Thank you for notifying me, I apologize for forgetting to sign my post, but it was good of you to notify me, cheers —M inun ^Spiderman 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Feces

Very well. i just don't know how to use the sandbox, though. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my recent RfA! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps

Hey, I noticed your comments about Goosebumps articles at the village pump. I've moved the list of books within the article to a new article (List of Goosebumps books) in the hope that the articles for individual books may be merged into the list.JianLi 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

City Limits

Meh, let the guy feel happy. I've put a {{for2}} on Credit card to placate him. I figure it won't do any harm and can be removed if/when the article goes bye bye. I just want him to stop pinging me on IRC with his {{helpme}}s. :)—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check out this. You can also use IRC the same way I asked chickinpotato11 to using the web-based client. I've already been contacted multiple times on my talk page.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RRG!!!

oh, you think you had me fooled thinking that i was thinking you were helping me but you weren't helping me and you have just been exposed but i will not stop bothering you and your stupid pall WAvegetable until you actually do some helping! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chikinpotato11 (talk • contribs) 08:11, July 23, 2006 (UTC)

ok-chikinpotato11

why did you and WAvegi- whatever say all those things? i can't believe you! i though you would help me...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chikinpotato11 (talk • contribs) .

I moved your article, it still exists - as stated on your talk page. I also pointed out that the article was probobly going to be deleted judging by the current status of the AfD. Viridae^Talk 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I am not using AOL, it's a cable modem connection. I did try refreshing a few times and I did see the IP address change: 64.233.173.80 and 64.233.173.81. At the moment I am blocked about 50% of the time, but refreshing eventually lets me in. Strange. I'll use {{unblock}} in future if necessary and I'll take a look at WP:AOLA to see if anything there relates to my situation. Thanks for your help. CoolGuy 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One more question: where can I find the log of autoblocks. (Just so I can see for myself which IP ranges are listed.) CoolGuy 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is found at Special:Ipblocklist. Or click on your user contributions, then block log, then IP block list. Viridae^Talk 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gene Therapy revert

My fu must be better than your's. ;)

It just happened to come up on the top of my recent list and it happens to be a particularly close topic to my graduate research. Better luck next time? :) ju66l3r 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Is there a reason that you are moving spoiler warnings away from spoilers and to the top of plot sections? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the plot section and thought the plot contained enough spoilers to justify placing the warning at the top of that section. Viridae^Talk 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the twist ending, what else spoils the movie? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I felt that giving away the entire plot was a spoiler in itself. This view seems to be supported by other editors judging by the edit history of the page.[2] Viridae^Talk 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you review the emerging consensus at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC, with special attention paid to the "remove spoiler tags" section, and consider reverting yourself to a version that includes a spoiler warning only for plot details that actualy spoil the movie, as opposed to informing the reader about it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. The emerging concencus is to keep the spoiler warnings in their current state. In addition you have totally removed the spoiler warnings twice and moved them twice - in opposition of four other users including myself who have placed or moved the spoiler warnings. Viridae^Talk 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the article in question, only you have reverted the spoiler warning from the place towards the bottom of the plot section (by the spoiler). Please review the page in totality - there is very little agreement with tagging every plot detail everywhere with a spoiler warning. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The plot outline in the article gives away the ENTIRE plot in some detail. That qualifies a spoiling the movie in my book. Viridae^Talk 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion and will abide by whatever decision comes from that process. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Forget

Don not forget about the guess my name contest. I has only 30 hours left. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)