User talk:Corvus cornix/Archive 5

coven-the short film

Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)This is pagonistic,and an offence to my religion! if you disagree yo u are allowed to express your opinion as well (as long as its not abusive)Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)comment-futhermore I checked out the movie and there is nudity! unacceptable!!Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gayunicornleave your opinions on the deletion discussion page not my talk-thanks!Gayunicorn 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on assuming good faith...

When someone is saying something like "i hope you die, you stupid jew"[1], you don't really need to bother with assuming good faith. ;)

I replaced your light note with a block notice, since I'd already blocked that IP just prior to your leaving them the note. Next time, you could probably just take them straight to AIV (where hopefully nobody would balk at a lack of warnings). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.212.61.104

Hi there; seem to be having a little trouble with this guy; he's been vandalising Theft over the past five days, and I've reverted every time. He's now (as you will see) having a go at my Userpage. Not sure where to go with this one, as he's an anon IP block. Any ideas? --Rodhullandemu 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, well that is my own user page so i don't think it really matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.196.68 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matine

I went ahead and indef blocked Matine before I saw your most recent warning. He'd already been issued a 3 level and then a bv warning so I figured a block was appropriate as it was clearly a vandalism only acct and was ignoring the warnings. I replaced your last warning with the block notice, as they were in response to the same edit, just wanted to give you a heads up. Goodnightmush^Talk 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MunkySpunky

Probably 81.77.254.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), some random vandal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user claiming some legal authority

Hi Corvus cornix. Some time ago you asked me on my talk page to check up on the Swedish UNNET/UNOMBUD guy named Peter Lundgren. I have tried every now and then to call him but he never answers. And his parents have unlisted phone numbers so I can not reach them. So I will not bother about doing anything more. If he bothers Wikipedia again tell me. And then I will contact him by fax or letter or some other more direct means.

--David Göthberg 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Confederate Order of Battle

Hi! Please do not change the name of this article, as it is consistent with the naming convention we use for ALL Civil War orders of battle. Please see Category:American Civil War orders of battle and you note that we want the battle's name to show up first. Thanks for the inquiry! 8th Ohio Volunteers 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. By the way, feel free to visit WP:ACW for more information on Civil War naming conventions, biography and article guidelines, and suggested manual of style. 8th Ohio Volunteers 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montauk_We_Hope#Montauk_We_Hope

Hi there. Thank you for nominating this article. I have located evidence that this is not only not notable, but has verifiably false statements of fact. Another editor has written that it's a copyvio. See the AfD discussion and the article itself. Bearian 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets so many hits with keywords because somebody placed them out there. It's called spam. Bearian 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Qiubowiki

Both you and I are watching this user. Let's try and make sure we don't pound him with two warnings for each incident. Icestorm815 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you, I just wanted to make sure he didn't get warnings he shouldn't have, that's all. Oh well, its over anyways. :) Icestorm815 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven FAC

Hello! You had left a comment on the FAC page for "The Raven" - I made the citations you suggested, and thanks for pointing them out. I wondered if you wanted to take a second look? It's gotten lots of comments but very few votes! See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raven. --Midnightdreary 04:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy

Was being on the show fun, or nerve wracking. I have a friend that was on, and she said it was over in a flash. Did you upload the video to youtube? I should upload hers for her. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tme2nsb

I am aware of this, thanks for the reminder, though. I thought he/she was changing the words of other editors. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Keep up the good work! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dolhijn

you removed all my pages concerning the history ofr cinema because they do not comlpy ? They are spot on. I have the most comprehensive source of world cinema online, in ALL countries of the world. Those European-films.net links which are on almost all cinema pages dont comply. I think u are random in your choice of deletion. I even saw rottentomatoes.com, a totally commercial site on the USA page. I think you should explain to me why my pages, which are fully dedicated to the history of cinema in the respective countries are not compliant and those pages are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolhijn (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was mad for what the person did, and usually get mad when non valid info is added, i appologize --Yankeesrj12 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done please look and respond on what you think --Yankeesrj12 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I dont, and once again sorry :) --Yankeesrj12 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Coyetty

Just a heads up. I removed your {{nonsense}} tag on Joseph Coyetty, as there are several reliable sources that do give him as the inventor of modern toilet paper. (Is he notable? That's an entirely different question. *grin*) --Fabrictramp 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Coyetty and copyright

Please explain where the copyright violation was? I looked at both the article and the provided URL and there was no copyright violation. Are you quite sure you understand what copyright violation is? While the topic is the same they do not share any sentences in common. Please see here for guidance, in particular "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". I trust this is now clear. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my earlier comment and add that I haven't reverted to a copyright infringing version. My reversion didn't affect the text of the article at all and the supposed "copyright infringing" material has not been touched. I removed an inappropriate copyvio tag. Once again, if you think that removing a tag is reverting to copyright infringing material I ask if you actually know what a copyright violation is? Frankly, I find your attitude extremely hostile and I don't appreciate your threat to take the matter to WP:ANI. Rather than breach WP:3RR I will leave the tag in place but will be adding details of this conversation on the article talk page for the administrator's information. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds

Actually the season is over, he played his last game on Wednesday and since he hasn't announced his retirement, you assume free agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kskk2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Eddie McGee

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie McGee Just a question about your response. You said:

* Keep Will Kirby. His appearance on this season's Dr. 90210 makes him notable. Corvus cornix 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you think they all should be kept, or just Will Kirby? - Rjd0060 23:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more! It is very frustrating that the policy is very clear on notability, and people just seem to overlook it with reality players. I am trying though. Maybe it isn't worth it, because you say you have been through it a lot. - Rjd0060 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arp (techno artist)

Shouldn't the article that it's redirected to get deleted? And it should be db-bio or db-music, not db-ad. Corvus cornix 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I missed the redirect. Will fix it now. --Rodhullandemu 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

I've found that the "crap" on the talk page about various WP faults can offer new leads for possible additions to the article. I'm hesitant to pull comments out of the talk page that contain criticism of Wikipedia, even if the comments aren't tied closely to existing sections of the article. Of course, obvious vandalism or nonsense should be reverted, but otherwise I think we should be pretty lenient about including criticism of Wikipedia in the talk page of...Criticism of Wikipedia. Casey Abell 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Again, I don't mind criticism of Wikipedia appearing on the talk page of Criticism of Wikipedia. Such comments may offer valuable starting-points for additions to the article. No other editor previously removed the sections you took out, so there doesn't seem to have been consensus for your edits.

And if I might offer a little unsolicited advice, you might want to avoid unnecessarily aggressive language like "Do you see at the very top of the page..." on other users' talk pages. You're likely to be much more persuasive if you approach other users with a little humor and friendliness. Casey Abell 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just offering a little advice. As for the talk page issue, an example of what I'm talking about is this comment. While the comment does make a passing reference to a section of the article, it's mostly a general complaint about the quality of writing on Wikipedia. That comment got me looking for sources on the issue, and I dug up a quote (from Orlowski, but you can't always get fresh sources), which I added to the article. So sometimes general complaints about Wikipedia on the talk page can result in meaningful additions to the article. Casey Abell 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Cline

You are rude and inconsiderate. Saying FU is not kind words. I happen to be Leticia's bestfriend and she would like to promote her new magazine cover so please be kind and stop changing her picture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie ward (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tingri/Dinghri

Thanks so much for saving me from myself! I hope I have not done too much damage with my cut & paste jobs. I have now put a request for a move in as you suggested. Thanks again for picking up on it all so quickly. Will go back now and try to fix the Redirect pages I altered. Cheers, John Hill 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Parking

I have made changes to Social Parking. Please check it out. Perhaps you might change your mind about it. -IDNexpert —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDNexpert (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Buddahelps 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) sorry! but can you tidy up this debate, its a real mess and hard for people who may wish to vote on this ! I can't tell who is saying what, also many unconstructive comments there.Buddahelps 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rebel Image

Hi, I noticed that you recently removed the FU image of Jreb.jpg on Johnny Rebel (singer).

I had already satisfied another Wikipedian recently who noted that I had no fair use rationale, and I did so by adding a rational . . . and he seemed particularly struck by the mention in my rationale that Johnny Rebel was a pseudonym and that the real person who portrayed him avoided having his photograph taken in order to preserve his anonymity. Thus, the album covered seemed appropriate, since there is no known free image of Johnny Rebel that could be put in its place. Do you agree? If so, can we restore the image? Sincerely, --Skb8721 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for restoring the image. --Skb8721 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my response to the survey

Thank you for my suggestion about the survey at Wikipedia: Village Pump. I must say, I could see counter-arguments, and I am inclined to agree with you, let us just delete personal opinions on such articles, or else respond to them accordingly. I applaud your comments on the true purposes of "Discussion" pages. Thank you again for your comments. ACEOREVIVED 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help with that little spot of trouble there. Now, I wonder who got the password to MarIth and used it to vandalize? Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

You may want to keep your eye on this, he's getting more and more bizarre in his rants, even suggesting a lawsuit against Wikipedia and the Cabal. ThuranX 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

Why did you recommend deletion? And I cannot find any discussion page? Best, --Ludvikus 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apology to you. Neat work on your part. Found your setup for deletion discussion. Best to you, Wikipedian, --Ludvikus 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "remove" anything. I don't know what your talking about! --Ludvikus 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note of Appreciation

Thank you for your help in dealing with the vandalism to The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, and Andy Reid. I greatly appreciate your stepping in, as I couldn't revert them again without violating the 3RR limit. -- Davidkevin 01:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has done a great deal of work on The Green Hornet article and had to deal with repeated instances of this same act of vandalism since February of this year, I join Davidkevin in thanking you for your action. However, I feel obliged to point out that no less than five different IP numbers have been involved in this, yet not just the content but the style has remained consistent. Blocking this one IP may not be of much help. Ted Watson 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note received and understood. Thank you. Ted Watson 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I believe that you will be qualified to be an administrator. Would you accept the adminship nomination or not? NHRHS2010^Talk 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

RFA for the bot is flawed. Oppose votes deleted and people blocked for opposing. That is corruption to me. AS 001 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All hail king Jimbo. – Aillema 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Green Owl is an italian vandal-only user. You can see all its sockpuppets on it.wiki pages linked. In the category there are 145 clones of this user (and about hundred are uncertain). Its original name is Leopardo planante Leopardo.

sockpuppet on en.wiki:

see also:

it:Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Leopardo_planante_Leopardo (all sockpuppets on various wikimedia projects)
it:Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni sospetti di Leopardo planante Leopardo (sockpuppets on it.wiki)
it:Utente:Leopardo planante Leopardo (first page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.16.15 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me ? i've done what i've to do... That user is the worse vandal on it.wikipedia, it's a big risk for en. one. I've not to discuss with anyone, cause i don't know how. I gave you these linx, you can see or show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.16.15 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New accounts do not get franchise

Hello, I noticed this note: "I'm sorry, but new users do not get franchise on RFA's." [2]

Is your statement true? The RFA page states: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets." [3]

This states that they may be discounted, not deleted. Also - is the RFA really a vote, or is it a discussion to determine consensus?

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Baakari wilder

I disagree in a way. Notability is not apparent in that article, as there are no references or outside sources that assert that notability. Also, do you know for sure that it is legitimate? I do understand why you changed the tags. But since it is a copyvio it will probably be deleted anyways. - Rjd0060 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Like I said, I understand why you changed it, but the page is so horribly written, it would be better off deleted and recreated when there are sources, and other changes. If there is no verifiable sources listed included in the article, how can we be sure about anything? You understand what I mean? - Rjd0060 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is kind of hard to explain. I am glad I didn't need to continue to elaborate. A sidenote, good work here on everything that you contribute to. You name often pops up on numerous projects that I work on. - Rjd0060 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Stein

Ref your message to me - please assume good faith and don't template the regulars. I agree there was uncivil behaviour on behalf of an editor who appeared to be the actor. I happen to disagree that he is so unnotable that the article should be have been speedied. I fixed links (before the article was deleted) and I regard your message as gratuitously rude.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By templating, I mean using a standard (and this case inappropriate form) of words. The article had not been to AfD as far as I know - and certainly I did not know that. I did not add the article to anywhere (other than the dab page) and from there I disambiguated where the name had been incorrectly linked. Stein in fact meets in my view WP:Bio as having a significant role in a notable movie - the movie is part of a notable series and notable enough for a wikipedia article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify - AfD has a specific meaning in my view - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. While the article had been nominated for speedy deletion as a not-notable biography, it does, as I mentioned above, probably meet WP:Bio standards. The deleting admin in fact used citerion WP:CSD#G11 as his rationale - quite different. The point is that at the time I made my edits disambiguating the name the article had not been to AfD and nor had it been deleted.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that removing him from the cast list of that film isn't over the top - he is quite clearly there on the IMDB link! I did do some research to see if I could write an article on him - I can't in fact with the best will in the world! But I wouldn't remove him from the list.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean BUT - and it is a big BUT - focus on content and not the contributer. I am questioning myself why I am spending any time at all on this - I guess it is like doing crossword puzzles or Sudoku and the aim is to produce a better encyclopaedia entry than what was there before - the truth is out there ... I never watch horror movies! :-) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver) and will report the editor to WP:AIV - focussing on content is one thing - repeated breaches of WP:NPA is getting a bit boring. I am not sure that it is a good idea to semi-protect the article talk page that is the other focus of his attentions but could do so I suppose. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I noticed those too - I was going to include them in my WP:AIV report--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think AN/I is the best place for it - there is nothing to be done from AIV - I have no qualms about using my admin priveleges to block him or to semi-protect the school article so am not sure there is much more that can be done from the AIV forum. Others watching the movie talk page may help and hopefully they too will revert and block on sight. He may get bored but I did deal with another similar user - more than a year and ahladf later she still pops up with her obsession and insults - it wnt to arbcom and I guess that was useful for permission to block on sight, but .... --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably done pretty much simultaneously - there was databse lag earlier this morning I htink and it would work a bit like the undo command - the edits didn't apparently conflict - thye both show the time as 8:01 --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

There is a canvassing discussion here concerning this CfD nomination that you made. -- Jreferee t/c 03:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.

Reason for page no longer being blocked is because the block has expired. Spigot Map 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

expires 2007-10-07 reads 7th day of October in the year 2007. Spigot Map 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:72.68.180.204

Nope, not at all. A higher warning level would be more appropriate. Jauerback 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mooge Liban

Don't misunderstand me; I didn't mean to "accuse" you of American bias, I just noted the general danger of bias for African topics because sources are harder to find online and that it's reasonable to be a little bit more lenient about source quality because of that danger. — Coren ^(talk) 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens copyvios

Thanks for picking up the ball on the repeated copyvios from the Queens Borough Public Library's web sites. I had provided as explicit an explanation as possible to explain the issue about coping verbatim and that material must be in your own words, to no apparent avail. The sources are clearly useful, but not if cut and pasted into the articles. Thanks for following up on this one. Alansohn 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block should help focus on the issues explained in our collective messages. Alansohn 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Coon article

SuccessTech Shooting AfD

If you want to nominate this article for deletion, please make a (2nd nomination) AfD page, then copy and paste the two edits made to the original AfD into the second nomination page. Thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't violate the 3RR rule at all:

Create new page.
Add AfD template which links to second nomination AfD page. Note that this would not violate the 3RR because you are making a different edit. Or, if you are really concerned about it, you can ask another editor to add the AfD template for you. Or, you could just wait for Dumb Bot to fix your entry.

Hope that helps! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuccessTech Academy shooting

Would you be willing to let the matter go for the present moment, and possibly discuss it on the talk page? It's my experience that AfDs of recent events in the spotlights are much more trouble than they're worth. The precise phrase I've been using is "massive trainwrecks". I've also had a look of the relevant guideline in question, and it doesn't categorically forbid articles about things in the news, just reminds us to keep away from WP:BLP concerns (moot point here, shooter's dead) and forbids articles on routine news coverage - a very non-routine event making headline news on outlets across the States doesn't fall under that. That's my opinion, and from what I can tell, the general one. --Kizor 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I do believe that recently deceased people are covered under WP:BLP. We still have the same editorial responsibilities for any article, that doesn't change if the subject(s) we're writing about die the very next day. Burntsauce 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Then it's not moot, but I still don't see BLP problems. Incidentally, Corvus? If I come across as superior, hit me with a fish. --Kizor 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on ANI. If you disagree with an AFD, you DISCUSS. You don't revert it away. Wikipedia is full of bad behavior. Even admin don't like something so they revert it away. I wrote similar comments in support on ANI UTAFA 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RfA

Your post: Do you have the slightest idea as to what WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF mean? Or are you only concerned with the opinions of people who agree with you? Corvus cornix 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncivil for me to point something out. My comment in no way falls under personal attack, and as far as assuming good faith, I clarified my point, making it quite clear, and you reply "quoting me" as if I said my position is that some admins are bad and we should make it easier to create more bad admins. How is that productive? Should I assume good faith and believe that you really thought that is what I meant by "The more admins, the less work for each. ... were there a process in place that held admins accountable for their behavior and actions, not only would it encourage the promotion of more admins, it might curb that hateful attitudes of current admins"? I think not, because to assume that would be to assume that you're a moron, and I don't. I believe you said it to be a smartass. That's immature, and it's unproductive. Perhaps I should have said immature rather than ignorant. You knew what you were doing, so I suppose it wasn't an ignorant comment. So I apologize for calling your comment ignorant, but it was immature.

Speaking of personal attacks, I'm not only concerned with the opinions of people who agree with me. I'm interested in discussing the possibilities with people who are capable of holding a mature discussion without skewing other's comments that they don't agree with. So don't be a hypocrite. You're opposed to the idea. That's fine. But you replied to my comment, which, by the way, was not even in response to you, by skewing my words and purposefully misquoting me. It is blatantly obvious what my view is, and I'm discussing it without being a dick regarding other's views. If you'll notice, I'm not attacking anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm simply stating my opinions and clarifying when asked to do so. Lara❤Love 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Confusing

Navigating this thing is way confusing... I tried to post something and was in the wrong spot... can't it be easier to post?

Also I tried putting the template thing in buy the thing was deleted before I had a chance.. really you all should give more time to the noobs to figure out how to do stuff... and DUH... make it so you can't edit OTHER peoples stuff.. but thats just obvious! Manduck2k3 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

I didn't know that. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfuly Flagged I might add! (not vandalizing according to your own rules so if I get a flag for this i'm gonna be pissed!!)Manduck2k3 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To think I actually tried to help this guy. He had several warnings, and I gave him a final warning. He kept up, so I reported him to AIV, and he's blocked indefinitely. Some people! - Rjd0060 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Chinese Characters

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an English-Chinese dictionary. As well, it has a Chinese language section. Chinese characters have no place in an English language encyclopedia entry on Pandas, bamboo, or anything else and I will continue to remove any such characters I come across in Chinese or any other language where the inclusion of such serves no good educational purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Hammerfist (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing-Benn Deng

Hmm, seems borderline enough to me. I say remove the speedy tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of English-language sources seem to exist, but this does seem fringe. Should one of us take it to AfD or DRV instead? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Revel

The "Port Revel" page should not be deleted as Port Revel is the inventor of a unique concept that is still in use and widely accepted in the maritime industry. I am not trying to advert anything as we are the inventor of the special kind of training (back in 1967) and I believe this has encyclopedical value as such. However I confess few people have published on this subject.

Please note that there is no copyright problem because I am the author of the information provided on our web site: http://www.portrevel.com/anglais/htm/fr_01/fr_edito.htm. This is our own web site and I am the director of the training centre using this technology since 40 years.

I am not trying to publish new scientific knowledge, as this technology is based on the one century-old law of Froude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Froude). This technology is used since 40 years.

I worked on that page in order to improve. For this reason both my other pages "Manned model (Port Revel)" and "Similitude of manned models" may now be deleted.

Friendly

I am posting this article on the history of the Friendly Technologies company in relation to it's role in PPPoE broadband connectivity and TR-069 Connectivity. The company is listed on both of those Wikipedia pages and I am adding it as a stand-alone page so users can learn more about it in relation to the technology it helped develop and manufacture. I have been trying to make it a stricly fact based (non-advertorial) listing by using the same format that Broadcom has for it's Wikipedia page. If there is a specific item(s) that need to be changed or deleted so that this company listing can be added, please let me know and I would be happy to do so. Thank you

Captainslowness 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Captainslowness[reply]

Sorry for Julia Artcle

I apoligize for the Julai article, I was just showing her how wiki works. We were planning to delete the article when finished.But we see that you have already done that for us. Thankyou. Again I apoligize for the article. --Greenwood1010 13:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Wikipedia Users

I have removed the message I left here earlier and am sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused.--King of Nepal 12:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sac Bee

Lol that is the funniest thing I heard because I told the guy to refer to an admin. I think he got confused. I am an admin on the Encyclopedia Gamia but not wikipedia. --Cs california 09:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it here is the link lol--Cs california 09:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That explains everything.--Gp75motorsports 10:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT RickK returned!

No, it's not.--Gp75motorsports 10:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I apologize for that block. Seems to me though that he got his three warnings from the novices trying to block him. Or was that two?--Gp75motorsports 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Thankyou for your link about canvassing. I am sorry for any inconvenience my earlier post may have caused.--King of Nepal 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bălţi‎

Thank you for you interest in the article. I would very much appreaciate if you could help start a dialog there. :Dc76\^talk 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the better you don't have an oppinion already!!!

I do understand the issue that you could waste some time... But I would appreciate very much.

We need to start listing the issues, and agree on some version to stay in mean time as long as we discuss. I promiss to start tomorrow morning to list the issues (today is too late for me). But I would like the other "side" to also contribute to that. If you stay, I promiss to apply my outmost sense of readinece to accept other POVs during the dialog. My problem is, I really-really-really don't want an edit war. :Dc76\^talk 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable. Moldopodo and me could in meantime make the list.:Dc76\^talk 22:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have introduced the issues of contension, dividing them into the smallest pieces so as not to mix them. I have identified 27 issues. If you are interested, read a couple issues a day, check with the article, and with whatever else you want to check, and write your oppinion about every particular issue (for simple ones, 1 sentence should be enough, for complicated ones maybe, we can postpone and start separate discussions). In several days-one week we should be able to eliminate 15-20 issues, I hope. Again, if you are interested and have time. :Dc76\^talk 14:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrversial edits by Dc76

Corvus cornix, I just found your talk page. Please check my user page and the updated Bălţi talk page for identification of controversial edits made by User:Dc76 vandalising the Bălţi article. Thank you.

Moldopodo 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

N. M. Kelby

I think WP:SELFPUB clearly applies here. "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" --Slp1 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" She grew up in Florida and is working on the movie version of Whale Season along with Actor/Singer/Songwriter Dwight Yoakam.". One of the book reviews refer to her "native Florida" too.--Slp1 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you deleted the new reference I had added and mentioned in my edit summary when you did your revert. It is in there. I am would be very surprised if book reviews are not reliable sources for facts? Could you show me where this is in the guidelines/policies? Thanks --Slp1 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I see now what has happened: I didn't put the reference on a separate line, but it has been there all the time. Now clearly there. I am still surprised about your book review idea, and would love to know where this is written down. --Slp1 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed Thanks and Question

Dear Corvus,

First of all, thank you for reviewing my California Condor article and helping to promote it to FA status a few months ago. I know my thanks are a bit delayed, but better late than never! Second, I’ve currently got another New World Vulture article, King Vulture, up for FA status and was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it. I know that you are busy, but so far only three people have done so. Any comments and criticism on this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediResource

Dear Corvus,

I've posted on the company article's talk page as well my reasons for contesting its deletion. If you feel there should be more of something I need to add or some information I need to take off, please let me know. Thanks! (Reason is given below)

Reason:

According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations...

MediResource's Wikipedia entry has multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that establishes its notability. All content is attributable.

Thanks. MRI 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Much research has been done about Wikipedia's Content policies before the making of this company entry, and there are other companies who state their mission statement in a simple sentence. Their article is not being disputed. I will look for example articles and post it up in a bit. MRI 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ronald F. Maxwell

You claim to have started an RfC at Talk:Ronald F. Maxwell, but you haven't said what you want to discuss. Corvus cornix 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought I used the template correctly. I have attempted to correct the error. Please check.Pupluv 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Hoffman#Steve_Hoffman

As one of the few experienced editors that's responded to this AfD who commented on the available references, could you look again at the new references that have been found since your last comment (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references)? --Ronz 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal

I know, I didn't warn him either, but since you've warned him with a final warning, one more vandal edit and he will be blocked. Acalamari 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, he's already been blocked. That explains why he hasn't edited for 12 minutes. I actually thought he'd stopped because of the warning you gave him. Acalamari 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:72.199.140.217

I blocked him for 3 hours at 20:30 anyway. That should be enough time to let him forget about it. -- John Reaves 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Kass

Thank you for catching the rest of that, I had just stepped away and realized what it was reverted back to. Yet another argument for stable versions for biographies of living people. Burntsauce 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC/Ce conservative321...

here's his reply. I posted it there, hopefully admins will move with a swift response. ThuranX 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rozen Maiden image

Hi! The image can be used other places, but I don't want it deleted. Is the fair use rationale I presented in the article correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir aaron sama girl (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check again? Can I remove the tag if it is correct?Sir aaron sama girl 22:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hi. I am like you i think. I have started off badly on WP but now i have just realised there is no point in trying to vandalise this great project, so i think im gonna start making some constructive edits from now on. Any advice you can give me getting started with WP would be much appreciated. Thanks. --[[79.72.81.16 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Bishops

Warning! I tried to AfD a non-notable bishop once, about nine months back or so, and the end result was that he was kept. People kept saying that he had done notable things they just couldn't find out what. Good luck! --Bejnar 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Bishops

Thanks for the heads up on the Afds, most people don't notify the creater of the article when their article is up for nomination. I have added many more references to those three articles which I hope will satisfy your high demand of notability.. I also must disagree with your assuption that most Roman Catholic Bishops are not notable. Dioceses cover large areas and have large populations, additionally they are land owners and control vast sums of monies.. They should be as notable as any mayor of a large metropolitan city or as a Secretary of Treasury.. All Bishops in my book are notable. There 3 bishops are especially notable.. And I am carefully watching how these Afd's are going to turn out because I have been doing lots of articles of Bishops and don't want to be wasting my time again. Callelinea 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Notability someone else wrote there. Maybe you could just resind your nominations?Callelinea 05:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider withdrawing your nominations. Already, an administrator has asked for a Speedy Keep.I was hoping for a policy decision on that all Roman Catholic Bishops are notable. Callelinea 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you so much, but I changed my mind. Lets keep the three Afd's open, maybe a written guideline will be developed, so that others don't waste their times in the future. Callelinea 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Pulling a Pickles

OK. First, I wasn't talking about your edits as vandalism. I was talking about the IP edits. Secondly, It isn't an attack page. Not that it matters, as it is going to be deleted anyways, but who is the subject that that page is disparaging? Pickles? Does the article have a controversial tone? No. - Rjd0060 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is his name in this? - Rjd0060 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image titled "dpickles" and there is not link in the version I restore to to anybody. - Rjd0060 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Derek P. is the "vandalism" from the IP that I removed. - Rjd0060 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call YOU a vandal. I reverted the IP edits, along with yours, and stated I reverted vandalism and I stated that it wasnt an attack page. We all have opinions, however before you accuse people of calling you a vandal, get the facts straight please. - Rjd0060 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. I restored the page to a version that was 3 edits back. So doing that, reverted your edit, and two edits prior to yours which were from an IP. That IP is the user who added the link to Derek Pickles and that is what I was referring to as vandalism. - Rjd0060 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I see you have been nagged before, but didn't jump. So I'll nag you again. Will you accept a nom? Carlossuarez46 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering it; with anons soon to be allowed to create articles, we'll need more admins -especially good ones. :-) Carlossuarez46 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing links to User pages

Jimmy Wales has a link to his User page. Is there a standard you are following when removing them? Jidanni 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the historical section of Flag of Montenegro?

well, I didn't removed it actually, just zipped it. In that Historical section were civil flags, court flags, people's flags and for that kind of flags is used aritcle "list of X flags", while on article "flag of X" are State flags, Military , naval jack and Presidential (if exist) flag. OK, I will revert description of only state's flags. Cheers!Stefke 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Thanks for the note, but i am aware of the warning system. I was trying to catch all of it first, but as soon as i reverted he would put more up and everyone is edit conflicting with each other whilst trying to fix it!! Thanks for the note though. :) Woodym555 22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been known to happen. As it was, i conflicted with you when trying to add the warning to his/her page. I think they have stopped now and i have just gone back to an old edit of the page to clean all the vandalism up. I usually use the size of the page as the marker for whether i have cleaned it all up. Again, thanks for the note and thanks for reverting vandalism. :) Regards Woodym555 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Civility

I'm sorry about that. Its just this user "JJonathan" AKA: "71.190.64.69" keeps on making bogus accounts just to spam the forms. Almost all of the users talk pages has been blocked or not set up yet. I have sent the user something on one of their talk pages, and its either ignored or deleted couple days later.

I just want that user to stop spamming and making up phony accounts. Again, I do apologize for causing a commotion on the edit pages.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Attack?

Hi. Just wondering why you blanked Talk:Riley giles and claimed that is an attack? - Rjd0060 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however how is it considered a "personal attack" which you gave the warning for. I understand, per BLP why you removed it, but to warn the user for making a "personal attack"? Wasn't that a bit excessive? - Rjd0060 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanzee

Please, please, please. Pretty please. Please don't put that trivia tag on Humanzee. It took me forever to get a deeply interwoven set of science fiction references and original research pulled and sorted out of that article. When I tried to simply delete all of it, I accidentally started my first edit war. Let sleeping chimps lie.Kww 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the "pop culture" section that I would so dearly love to delete? Or for the edit controversies that happened the last time I tried to clean tales of lawnmowing warrior chimps out of the article?Kww 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through. While I hate pop culture sections, it does have decent sourcing (usually in the form of a wikilink to an article that supports the summary). How exactly do you propose that a reference to a novel be worked into the main text of a largely scientific article?Kww 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Sure, I could trudge through and find a review of each novel. You didn't put an "unreferenced" tag on the article, you put a "trivia" tag on it, asking for the contents of the section to be integrated. Pop culture sections, by their very nature, cannot be integrated. Deletion would be fine with me, but history shows that they just grow back. That's why there are "pop culture" sections in so many articles ... a place for the kiddies to play without messing up the rest of the article.Kww 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the AFD would be "merge with parent article". Then we'd be right back here. Sure you won't just let sleeping chimps lie and let me delete the tag?Kww 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I removed your listing by accident while removing the two shared IPs. I apologize for the removal. bibliomaniac 15 A straw poll on straw polls 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: civility

Fair enough. I guess I'm too tired to be wikiing right now... Algebraist 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HNTTMM

I've placed a {{hangon}} tag on HNTTMM after the article's current author requested time to improve the article. I say let's give him some time to do so, but keep an eye on the article and see if it really does improve or not. The page is almost entirely list-cruft and table-cruft, and the remaining material would not be nearly enough to justify a full article, so my guess is that it will likely be deleted again soon. But I say let's give the guy a chance to assert its notability and improve the content. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for comments like this one. But I gotta tell you: It's not worth it. Don't bother. It's true I never contributed all that much. And I really do have a lot of RL stuff to care about. So nevermind, please don't get yourself into trouble over this. 87.78.146.190 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-D 87.78.146.190 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markbass

Please do not become a sheep. You're not an admin. I'm trying to better the page so Stephen will not revert, but you're making things worse. I know you're a big shot Wikipedia editor, but can you not see the new citations? Is it that hard?

I honestly can't believe you. Please give Stephen a 3 revert warning. I have done NOTHING wrong and am trying to better the page.

Stop what you're doing, leave the page alone. Your assistance is not needed.

Thanks.

Edit. Just saw your message. There has been a citation added to Markbass that for fills the requirements. Done. Case closed. I'm putting the page back to its original form.

Alright go take a look at the Ampeg page, and explain how it is any different to the Markbass page. Go on? Do it.

That last link you gave me does not make sense. Oh, I checked out pages you have created. There are barely any citations on them, but no one has said anything...CORRUPT!!!

What part of "I ADDED A RELEVANT CITATION" doesn't make sense to you?

Thank you sir, you just proved your immaturity. Skater710 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Nat

See the discussion at User talk:Nat#Remberance Day or just click the image above. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a kind of tradition in Canada, at least my part of Canada, to begin handing out poppies few days before the actual day of remembrance, which is Nov 11. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Physics

I am sorry if my page has offended you in some way or does not follow the spirit of Wikipedia. It seems like a legitimate topic with news sources to back it up. I am new to Wikipedia and did not mean to offend anyone. Is there any way that I could edit it so that it can stay on? Or, do you think that the topic itself does not belong on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotilsky (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article. (1) I felt that while the PC World article doesn't provide much information, such recognition demontrates notablity almost like receiving an award -- it shows that he is recognized. (2) I don't have much information on Comixtalk, but it seems to have regularly scheduled "issues" with regular contributors, which to me indicates journalism. It has a separate blog section, but so do many recognized periodicals. There is a question of editorial review, but I have no information on that. I do believe that it is independent of the subject. --Kevin Murray 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I know you've been here less than a year, but you seem to be a pretty sound editor. Are you thinking of taking on the ol' mop and bucket? --Orange Mike 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot of worried discussion around the Wikiverse about the new policy re-permitting creation of new articles by IPs increasing the need for admins. It's your right to decline the suggestion, of course. Still, continue think about it; I suspect you'd be a good 'un. --Orange Mike 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Lang

Oh, thanks. Sorry. Didn't know that. I wasn't trying to vandalize anything.Kitty53 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude's dead

Robert Poulin is dead, he is the first shooter in a school massacre in Canada, which makes him significant, in addition there was a book written about him and the incident which is referenced in the article now. Chessy999 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No attack, he was the shooter, read the book that is referenced in the article. Thanks. Chessy999 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the article then post an AFD, if not then it stays and I will report any more #Redirects as vandalism. Chessy999 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Samra-Mathers

Hi - why wasn't I informed about this page's deletion nomination. As the article's creator and a regular contributor, I would have gladly taken some time out to make sure it fit the notability criteria if I'd been informed. Yeanold Viskersenn 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown (Football Team Owner)

An official biography can and will be used. As cited here - 'Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself.Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  * it is not contentious;
  * it is not unduly self-serving;
  * it does not involve claims about third parties;
  * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

- The controversy articles are completely fact with no opinions except from Mike Brown himself. Mr. Brown's organization is relevant to the subject's notability. If it was not relevant the title would not be Mike Brown (Football Team Owner).

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

- Stadium Deal: I have cited legal documents and have provided no opinion (except of the court). I provided the official complaint and court findings for this important event. This clears up any rumor on the true nature and finding from the Stadium Deal Controversy. His business dealings with Hamilton County and the subsequent disagreement with the county and Mr. Brown was resolved and the entire issue was resolved in this Legal Court Document.

- Official National Football League statistics (Ownership Time line) were provided because they are relevant to the Subject's notability. As the General Manager(GM), President, Owner of a professional sports organization, Mr. Brown has an effect on the statistics produced by the team on the field, as does Marvin Lewis and the GM or Owner of any team. No Opinion is in the statistics.

- The Loyalty Clause: Much has been written concerning this clause in the contracts. So much that Mr. Brown felt it necessary to write a guest editorial piece to explain why he invented the clause and how he came to the point. I included the article to explain the Subject's point of view to help explain this controversial issue in a logical manner. It may appear to be a bias for Mr. Brown, but his logical explanation of the loyalty clause is cause for inclusion in the Subject's page not censorship.

- The players legal troubles is relevant to the Mr. Brown's, Roger Goodell's, Marvin Lewis's, and Gene Upshaw's notability, as represented on their pages. Sports media wrote on the subject and is a notable event in his time as owner, GM, and President. The way he dealt with each situation is listed next to player. No opinion was presented. I presented the facts about the event as it has and will continue to unfold as each judgment is made in court.

- The Family Run Team article should be excluded until it is further developed and provides an explanation of the issue.

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution.

NO Original Research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view

You are making accusations of bias but you do not argue why you believe there is bias and where it is. You are not editing this article you are censoring the article.

Please look at the Barry Bonds article. No matter how you try to present the facts a controversial issue or event is just that controversial. His steroids controversy is on his page. It is something that has been notable and should be included not censored from his article. Also look at the Bill Clinton page. His numerous controversies have not been censored. The controversial topics listed have been reviewed and if they need to be edited further they should. You need to edit them and actually add the the article rather than censoring the article. You have provided nothing to the article. Don't be an editor if you are not willing to do research and provide substance to the articles on Wikipedia.

I do understand there has been a vandalism problem with the page but the last edit I have made was not bias and added substance to Mr. Brown's bio. Stop removing the entire page. Thus far the only problem anyone has with the page is one person who seems to disagree with the relevance of mentioning most notable element of Mr. Brown's life his team. Everything related to his management of the team has an effect on his notability. If being an owner, GM, and president had no relevance the hall of fame would not exist or remember owners and GMs. I have clearly shown each article on the page has met the standards set by wikipedia. Unless you have a substantial rebuttal to the facts presented I will consider this matter closed. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva717 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I didn't see your vote to delete all three. My bad. Dylan 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Kirby

Pshaw! That wasn't a personal attack. I'm merely trying to coach Green Kirby on how to be a more responsible and mature editor. A little "tough love", if you will. Do you know all the trouble that pesky kid has caused in the past with his incessant, irrelevant talk page posting? 216.166.78.9 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Ganatra and sources

I didn't read the interview at the Logo-linked site fully, but I'm going to say they know what they're talking about at least in that area, so yes, I'm fine with the re-add. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, I reverted his blanking because he is currently blocked. I have seen admins to the same thing. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example [4]. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what if they are blocked? I've seen plenty of admins revert blanking by blocked users. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sir Vandal of Jerkass

Done. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:COMMAND MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER.gif

Two images were merged together via photoshop, I do not own them. They are official devices of the US Navy. Neovu79 (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STCC

How is it non notable? I gave multiple third party resources that showed interviews as well as race review--LizardPariah (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more notable than the professional Formula SimRacing. Both are professional sim racing leagues. This isn't a small random insignificant private league.--LizardPariah (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter. As long as an article has multiple third party resources then it should stay on Wikipedia. That's the guideline for article creation--LizardPariah (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:24.99.164.117

Hi, User:24.99.164.117 only received one general note and then a final warning. There was not a full set of warnings present, i.e. {{Subst:uw-vand1}}, {{Subst:uw-vand2}}, {{Subst:uw-vand3}} --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody warns them with the set of templates shown above. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquorum_Auctioneers

You've marked this with a "consider for deletion" tag but not bothered to explain why on the article's Talk Page. Please do so. If you don't understand how to use the Talk Page, or why you should do so, then please find out before plastering wiki with unexplained tags and edits. Umptious (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem to expect people to do your work for you. You created the page, it's not up to other people to have to dig around the Internet to provide reliable sources, that's your job. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"

Ok: I'll explain this to you in a little more detail. Every claim in the article has a source. If you think that one of those sources isn't sufficient for the claim made, then use the Talk Page to say which claim - or source - and why. In the friendliest way: my "job" does NOT include reading your mind! Oh - and if you do edit in this way and people have to come back to you to explain how to do a better job (which they will) try to be civil. Rudeness won't make you any more influential, and will make the mistakes you will inevitably make all the more ego-bruising for you. So: let me what your actual concern is and we will talk about it. Umptious (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Pretty =D. Thanks!! Do you think it would be good to remove the bottom set of links (Other Useful links)? Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cillian Murphy

Please read the instructions at WP:FAR regarding minimum time between promotion and review; FAR is not dispute resolution and does not second guess WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are extenuating circumstances - the fair use images. How anybody approced this thing with those FU images without any critical commentary is beyong me. There is currently an edit war, which makes it not stable. How do I find the FA discussion, anyway? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider there are extenuating circumstances, the process for handling that is to discuss it at the talk page of FAR. Please do not continue disrupting WP:FAR; there is very long-standing precedent in this area, and I can assure the article is not likely to come to FAR unless you make a very good case at the FAR talk page, and stop edit warring. FAR does not second guess FAR, and is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to WP:FUR, but don't expect this to be over. The fair use images have to come off the article, or there is no need for fair use rationales for anything, since any screenshot can be used for any actor article, based on the claims for fair use in this article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with the article, so I'm not much worried about where you take it or whether it's over (that sounds sort of threatening, though). I am concerned if you don't read and follow the instructions at WP:FAR, because that creates extra work for me and a lot of other people. Please do not disrupt WP:FAR. FAR is not dispute resolution and FAR does not second guess WP:FAC. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to disrupt FAR, by an stretch of the imagination. I made a nomination, you removed it because it wasn't in the proper format, I followed the instructions to put it in the proper format and you removed it again saying it hadn't been long enough since the original discussion. So I've stopped using the FAR process. I don't generally follow that process, and the only reason I even know that the article is considered a featured article because of a mention on a Talk page. It floored me that an article with such an egregious problem of copyright violation had been made an FA, and so I though I would address it at what I thought was the proper forum. I've gone to the FAR talk page as you have suggested, and as I said, I've gone to FUR. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your intention, but it does seem like you might want to calm down about this. FAR (defeaturing an article) takes at least a month, and its goal is always to retain featured status where possible. In other words, by the time the article could be defeatured, any potential copyright issues could be better worked out elsewhere. I urge you to be patient and work through the issues, since FAR will not resolve your dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck working it out; you can always approach FAR in February if this can't be resolved, or you can approach the talk page about extenuating circumstances, but it is always best to try dispute resolution first, since FAR isn't part of DR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop edit warring over deleting images to this article. You are at 2RR for now [5][6], but you know or should know that this this is the subject of active discussion and hence, contentious reversion is not appropriate. You are participating in an image deletion review on this matter already where consensus is far from clear, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 19‎#Image:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg. In case you are not aware, there is an ongoing discussion on a policy talk page, here. Under the circumstances, to avoid disruption please do not remove these images again until and unless a consensus emerges to do so. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. Our comments on each other's talk pages were made at roughly the same time. Apparently we're in agreement to handle this through appropriate review process. So thanks for talking, not warring! Wikidemo (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Corvus, I hope thinks are calmer now. I understand your frustration, but by the time FAR takes action (a month minimum, usually six weeks), hopefully this will be resolved. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for coming across as brusque, Corvus; I do probably become impatient when I have to do the same chore (archiving and correcting FAR pages) more than once. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first time you removed the nomination, you had not told me anything yet. I only knew that it had been done because I looked at my contributions and saw that my edit to the page was not the last one, so I went to see what somebody had said, and saw that you had archived the discussion with a cryptic edit summary about not following procedure. So I went back to the nomination page and saw some instructions about putting a template on the article Talk page and then clicking on a link to create the nomination page, so I did that, and then, only after I had done what I thought was the correct process the second time, did you tell me that there was a rule about having to wait. Corvus cornix_talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you might have done is talked with me or come to the talk page at FAR before re-adding the FAR the second time <smile>. You see, when a FAR has to be removed, it takes me at least the following amount of work: 1) remove listing from WP:FAR, 2) remove template from article talk page, 3) move FAR page to archive, 4) clear the redirect on the new FAR page, 5) leave a message on the archived FAR, 6) notify everyone who was prematurely notified (this can be several). I left edit summaries all along, and by the time I finished, you had already re-added it. This means I get to do some of those pieces again. This is one reason why edit warring is usually avoided. If you had asked before re-adding, we might have resolved this sooner. Anyway, lessons learned; I hope once you all work this out, you can help out with more Fair Use reviews at FAC, because there are never enough people knowlegeable about images reviewing FACs. Peace, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to make sure everything is clear, in every edit summary I referred to the instructions at FAR, which say: "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." There has only been one exception in the year and a half I've been at FAR; that article grew to three times the article that was promoted within days of promotion, so it was felt that the author had circumvented the process and it was no longer the same article, but that article was only brought to FAR after we gave the editor a month to remedy the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were trying to do it right, don't worry anymore, OK? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary, the only thing I had to go on the first time, said moved to archive, please read instructions at WP:FAR. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My lesson learned, next time I will be sure to say Please read instructions at WP:FAR regarding minimum time between promotion and review. Will that do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great; good luck resolving everything (and don't lose sleep over it :-) I'm sorry again for any misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll post a summary at the talk page of FAC when it's resolved. I really hate trying to understand images, and I don't review for Fair Use because I Just Don't Get It. There used to be a couple of image people who checked every FAC, but I haven't seen that for a long time. We could also use help at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use overreach

"He was in the movie" is not critical commentary. Take it to WP:FUR. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, quoting critics from The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Village Voice and The New Yorker about his performances and discussing his processes in making the two films in question most certainly is critical commentary. And that's what's in the article for the two images you removed earlier today. Try reading the article first. --Melty girl (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Mikelee1.jpg

You think that calling somebody MC Penis isn't vandalism? Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, no, I read it as a school nickname. I think we agree this image doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, though. Gimmetrow 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sav Remzi

I thought you might want to have a look at this edit. King of the North East 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]