Hi. Since you're helping with the Rough Collie problem, I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at the Edito*Magica one regarding some episode lists and his removing content from articles. Others tried talking to him, he ignored. I came in at the request of another editor because I work in the TV Project and have experience with episode lists (including two featureds). I tried to talk to Edito as well, but he is refusing to stop and it was him who "taught" Mike that lovely "sneaky vandalism" phrase. I filed an ANI, but so far no one has looked at it and he is continuing to disrupt articles despite at least four editors now telling him that his desired format is incorrect. Collectonian (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about "Sneaky Vandalism" I have removed it! Mike0001 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was one user who vandalized the Tigon article, 207.165.43.10, and you previously stated that this user would be blocked from editting if he vandalized again. I took the liberty of correctign the vandalizing, but I thought you might want the honors of blocking this user since you already gave him a warning. (Btw, good job on the article on the battle of the plains of Abraham.) Thanks, --Rod333 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
007 Spy Cards
Hi Tony Fox. I didn't no the search terms meant for readers to try
and make it better.
Heh, sorry about that, I must have been blocking right while you were issuing a final warning. Maybe a bit premature on my part, but I just had a tough time imagining anything good coming from that account. Nice work at AIV, by the way. Peace, delldottalk 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very laudable, nothing wrong with a little caution. I'm usually more conservative than that, this was a bit of an unusual one for me, but I doubt we'll miss out on much :-P See you around. delldottalk 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
Proposed page for deletion due to it just being a poor list of facts and links. Please take a look at when you get a chance, user is being difficult. -UWMSports (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the content and formatting discussion to Talk:Norman Bettison, and tagged the article correspondingly. No way is that "official version" neutral. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD
Please see the above link because I have filed a request for arbitration against User:UtherSRG. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maxwell Show with WMMS (FM). He does not work with others while editing. I have added a few other helpful tags to other pages of his that have been deleted quickly too. -UWMSports (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey, no problem. I'll tell him to scram. -UWMSports (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Mexico
Hi Tony Fox, I just got your message about deleting content from that page. The thing is, I've never been to that page prior to you notifying me. Is it possible that you have the incorrect user? I rarely edit things, at most it would be a typo or perhaps some additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.25.17 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Tony Fox, remember the fun we had with this page a while back? Seriously, though, that infernal Keri Nowling (talk·contribs) is at it again, this time editing under the IPs of 71.244.249.128 (talk) and 71.244.234.106 (talk), changing Raye's date of birth back to the wrong one despite many warnings. I don't think that RPP would be right, since it's only one user, and I already tried AN/I without anyone even touching my case. Therefore, I figured I'd ask someone with a mop for help. What do you suggest here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are all so dead set on portraying Meijer as anti gay, and you refuse to allow an objective view of the facts. You leave me no choice but to notify Meijer's legal department for litigation on this matter. Slanting your articles and not including true facts really makes your site suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ta5172 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, this makes me almost wish I had a mop, just so I could banninate over
WP:LEGAL. Ah, well, I'll just ask someone else to handle it. Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My RfA
Thanks. We've got a fox for an admin now; about time we added an otter (or several) to the mix too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antique cuckhoo clock
I don't suppose anything can be done about his continuing to insult me on his talk page? If Tim is notable, heck, I'll write the article myself as I plan to take Meerkat Manor to featured topic, but thus far, I haven't seen that he is. I've asked for clarification on whether being an FRS automatically confers notability or not, but its aggravating seeing the continual run of insults from some guy who admits to having ignored the CSD tag instructions because he felt I was being "that stupid." Collectonian (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His block has been lifted and he has returned by leaving this on my talk page[2] and this on another users page [3] (who I was not rude too, but defended against enthusiastic fans who didn't believe she was Caroline Hawkins and who I took the necessary steps to confirm). *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for de-vandalizing my user page. Much appreciated! Cheers, —Noah 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
You've made it to my highly coveted [citation needed] quotes page! Consider this a high honor as so very few have achieved making me laugh hysterically. Something you've said somewhere recently has warranted inclusion.[unreliable source?] Cheers to you Tony Fox. Nice work![neutrality is disputed] To see which of your posts, in all its glorious wittiness, saved eternally (unless you delete it) for posterity, made it to "the list", click here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dunno about your system when you're nominating something for deletion, but I always run a Google and Google News search before I nominate, especially for CSD..." That's exactly what I do, but so many times I (apparently) end up missing things in my Google searches -- or somehow I end up missing an assertation of notability even after reading an article five times. As for trying to promote something to GA, I've been trying... but it's really (bad word) hard, especially when nobody else wants to even touch the articles you've put so much work into (see Diamond Rio, Collin Raye, etc.). I don't think I have GA-class writing in me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided more sources via magazine articles to back up my claims of Notability regarding the wikipedia entry, if this is still insufficient, please tell me and I will adjust the wiki accordingly. --Aridnyk89 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
I appreciate your words of advice, and they will not go unheeded. I will continue to acquire sources to back up my claims, and I appreciate the time you've spent. I have been told by another admin about the problems in the past with the Doctor Steel wikipedia entries, and I can assure you I have no intention of vandalism, or advertisement regarding these two subjects.
If its not too much to ask, I would like to request that the
Dr. Steel article be un-protected, so i can create a re-direct page to direct users to Doctor Steel, as its an alternate spelling of his name.--Aridnyk89 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ronzie block
I went to Steve's page to ask why on earth he hadn't blocked Ronzie (I'm the one who reported him), and then saw your response there. Thanks, and thanks for blocking the account. Channel ® 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC guidelines. Since you've dealt with musical articles before, I figured you might be of help again. Please tell me what I can do with this stubborn, incivil user who insists on "owning" their articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact remains that TenPoundHammer is not contributing anything to the Wikipedia community by his deletions of materiel. His statement that he is 'consolodating' rings very hollow when I don't see any consolidations by him. Indeed, if you review his talk pages you'll find that I am not the only Wikipedia writer which he has upset, so this is not a single isolated incident. I understand the need for editors here, however an editor is one that reviews materiel and enhances it, not willy nilly liking or not liking it and tossing the work of others into the trash can, as it appears he has done routinely to myself and others. I cleaned up his mess two months ago, and hopefully he will find himself another place in the sandbox to do whatever he wants to do, and leaves relevant material alone. The edits he made the other day have been reversed and as the policy states, if you don't like others savaging your contributions then don't contribute. I've been writing professionaly longer than TenPoundHammer has existed on this earth, so I can excuse some of his arrogance to being so young. As I remmber when I was 21 and no one could tell me I was wrong about anything. However at this point the force has been restored and there is no disturbance being caused by him any longer Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to you, if you look at my account you'll see that I've authored or co-authored about 1,000 wikipedia articles, and made over 20,000 edits. I'm quite accustomed to having others make changes to and enhance what I wrote. I don't consider them "my articles", although I contribute my knowledge to many of them. With regards to TenPoundHammer, I've yet to see any of his 'contributions', other than to delete articles. Perhaps if he did his consolidations and enhance articles - FIRST - then perhaps his statements may carry some validity. However given the fact that he has been less than factual in his statements to me in the past, and his use of profanity when it was totally uncalled for in the past, I find his claims of me being uncivil to him laughable. As he said to me, if I don't wish to have what I wrote edited, then I shouldn't contribute here. He should consider his own words and respect others when they change his writings as well. Now, with regards to this article in question, "Send A Message To My Heart", it seems that TenPoundHammer has made changes to the article after I restored it. I presume then that he is finished with his editing, and with that I consider this matter closed, and quite frankly, have no wish to have a dialoge with him. He can go about his buisness as I intend to go about mine, and hopefully have no more dealings with him, as for some strange reason, I haven't had any problems with any of the other editors in Wikipedia... Warmest regards and take care in all you do Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His accusation of swearing is inaccurate. I said "freaking" once and that was it. And no, I'm not done -- I still wish for the less-notable singles to be merged to the albums in question, not deleted. And I already tried to enhance the articles as he said; I searched for sources on most of these songs and found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, how many "freakings" must I have to put up with by this obnioxious individual? And how many mistatements in trying to justify his actions must be toloratd ? And also, with respect, his opinion does not follow any established guidelines in Wikipedia. Opinons are just that, and his editing, in my view, consitutes vandalism by him eliminating information which it seems no one else in the Wikipedia community finds to be objectionable. If his opinion changes, why is that valid justification for the deletion of information he is making? Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if I don't agree with this person's opinion, as a fellow Wikipedian, I have the right to revert those chagnes, as I fully intend to do if I don't agree with them. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this statement ".... And I already tried to enhance the articles as he said; I searched for sources on most of these songs and found nothing...." is simply a justification for his... actions.. There is no attempt on his part, to do any enhancement. Also, as you've stated he works in the area of article deletion extensively, perhaps you may wish to consider moving him to another area where he can perform work without upsetting a large number of individuals. If he would explain his actions and attempt to work with other authors to address the issues he is attempting to in a manner that does not upset others, perhaps he wouldn't find so many people upset with him. However, he seems to be incapable of doing that, as the many upset indivuduals on his talk page can attest to. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many upset individuals do you count? I only count one other user who had a little bit of a fight with me over Trace Adkins .... but I quickly resolved that one because it was much smaller and easier to deal with. There are many other users who have no problems with my edits whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is a good one! Songs absolutely should be standalone researchable articles. Songs are often recorded by multiple artists, are often on multiple albums, and should NOT be redirected to one artist's album. To redirect a song article to one artist’s album basically deletes all the vitals on the song (writers, other recordings, awards, and related links). Why should a hit song (certainly any charted song) be permanently tied within to one artist, when the artist's article can clearly link to the song, broadening the benefits of research? Also, the focus on what is a "notable" song and what is not "notable" should not be for one Wikipedian to decide IF the song was a chart hit in any of the major trade magazines. One particular Wikipedian (one known for massive amounts of "deletion issues") seems to have his own subjective scale of measuring what is notable, what is a hit, what articles deserve to be redirected, etc. I say let the articles (songs and artists) always remain valuable independent sources and benefit from the existence of each...LINK THEM. Songs in many cases are bigger than the artist. Most song redirects that I have seen are deserving of protest.Wikibones (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is happening again. I have asked TenPoundHammer before to STOP destroying song articles. Here we go again. Within the last 24 hours, TenPoundHammer has again made the misguided and subjectivly independent decision that articles on two highly recognizable hit singles by the artists George Jones and Sammy Kershaw deserve to be destroyed and merged into TenPoundHammer's own articles on the artists. This is extremely questionable that TenPoundHammer continues to destroy song articles for the enhancement of his own artist articles. STOP. I have chosen to not make a quest out of reversing TenPoundHammer's mistakes, but when TenPoundHammer's mistakes effect song articles I have created, I am not going to standby, and I urge others to do the same.Wikibones (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback
I've been working on the stub for
Broadcast Journalism. I'd appreciate any feedback you have as well as any suggestions for further expansion on the article. Tmac9986 (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Palmer-Ridge
Hi, I noticed that you blocked the user and I thought you should know that the using of his talk page to create a page for a fictional wrestler is extremely similar to
talk ·contribs). You can find a list of some of the user talk pages Palmer-Ridge edited that makes me suspect they are socks of his here. -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
message
Hello Tony,
You may have guessed that I am new to Wikipedia. Please note that I never had the intention of, as you put it, vandalising Wikipedia. The changes that I made are correct and can be supported by articles published in the Maltese media. Some are in English and others are in Maltese. It seems to me that people like John Dalli or those who contribute about him are only contributing the positive things. I contributed both positive and negative. Where the contributed negative points can only be verified with Maltese newspaper articles I am prepared to provide a translation. You should note that in the discussion tab I challenged John Dalli or his contributors to start legal proceedings should they wish to do so.
I guess that you are in the USA. If that is the case I am sure that you have never followed Maltese politics and the political corruption that has existed for many years. So much so that Transparency International downgraded Malta to the level of Lagos and other countries in that group.
I am also prepared to provide affidavits to verify my contributions. As in the case of r past politicians that had a questionable past the whole truth should be contributed to Wikipedia, otherwise there is no point in providing this service.
As you seem to be the judge and jury on this dispute I hope that you will do your research well and be impartial in the process. Do not be intimidated by the fact that John Dalli is a Maltese Government Minister. I look forward to a favourable result if not I intend to dispute it.
Signed
Hotblackice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.96.63 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be a good idea to move Wynonna Judd back to just Wynonna, seeing as she's most commonly referred to as just Wynonna? I've taken up this issue on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found some pretty conclusive evidence: All of her chart singles are credited as just Wynonna, from the first week for "She Is His Only Need" onward. She's also credited as just Wynonna on allofheralbums. Therefore, I feel that "only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym,...)" (per
Nope - was too busy with my block-hammer to wield the protection, erm, chisel...I've got them in my contribs, though, so can see that there's been no activity on any of them so far...would the autoblock on one account have caught the others? Not hugely clear on how these things work...GBT/C 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the socks has since blanked (but nothing else) its talk page (User talk:UdunGood) so I've protected it and tagged it. GBT/C 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject VancouverMembers List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 282008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdwtalk 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
message
Hey again. If it's helpful in creating a stub for an entry on Stardoll, I found the following links that I think demonstrate notability: TechCrunch, NY Times Mag, New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Wall Street Journal, Houston Chronicle. Some other notable facts about Stardoll: they are backed by venture capital firms Index Ventures and Sequoia Capital who have invested in other leading web 2.0 sites like Skype, Last.fm, Skype and Apple, Google, Paypal, respectively. Also, CNET awarded them a Webware 100 award last year in the entertainment category: CNET. And Alexa measures them within the top 1000 sites: Alexa. Just a few things here--happy to find more supporting materials if they're helpful. Thanks!
Hey there, just got your note about the page. Sorry it took a month to look over! Think it's quite balanced and seems all accurate. Thanks for taking the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisolipsist (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff T. Kane AFD
Hey, there's something wrong with the template on the article page. It doesn't link to the AFD page, it's redlinked. I can't figure out what's wrong with it though. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony...thank you for your attention to the two "here" and "here" issues that TenPoundHammer refers to above. With regard to my choice of the word "destructive", TenPoundHammer's complete redirect of a HIT song article into an album article totally obliterates the song article and the researchable data within that article (the writers, links to artists who have recorded it, cummulative chart data related to the song, awards the song has won, links to websites about the song, links to references, etc). Such actions by TenPoundHammer can hardly be called "collaborative editing", and cause extreme loss of researchable data. If the word "destructive" doesn't apply, I'm not sure what else to call it. It certainly isn't "collaboratve editing" when ONE person subjectively decides what is notable, ONE person subjectively decides what articles contain reasonable references, ONE person subjectively decides to delete others' work on chart HIT song articles by redirecting them to his own articles on artists. These kinds of unilateral, wildly independent decisions on deletions must be stopped. Wikibones (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesssss... come to the dark side, and together we shall rule this Wiki... ...
ahem*
I'm glad to help, Hammer. You're a solid editor already - if I can help with sorting anything out for you, just let me know. =) Tony Fox(arf!) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Bill Engvall, "I snotted Coke out my nose." Anyway, I've noticed that on
WP:BOLDly merge/redirect the content of the lower peaking songs' articles, and maybe ask for the redirects to be protected? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a boldly collusive proposal TenPoundHammer. The discussion of song re-directs is for the enhancement of policy so that policy is not abused, and when you propose to another Wikipedian something like you have suggested above, it is highly questionable. I don't think anyone on Wikipedia has ever proposed that song re-directs should be abolished. Re-directs should be more carefully used and applied in cases where the song article in question is clearly one with unverified sources, where the song is clearly not a hit, etc. So, before you enjoin with statements like "come to the dark side, and together we shall rule this Wiki", try to understand that the discussion of song re-directs is a healthy one, the discussion is not without consideration to varied situations where you can make less subjective decisions. The discussion needs time to come to constructive conclusions. I wouldn't advise plotting anything that shortens the time needed to discuss all this.Wikibones (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it can get any more conclusive than "there are no sources about the song(s) in question". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases, you are applying objective evaluation, rather than subjective evaluation, and rightfully so. My argument has never been to stop you from making song re-directs in general. My argument has only been to try to get you to be more careful with re-directs, ones that you have sometimes applied to HIT song articles, articles that DO contain verifiable sources, and articles that HAVE reasonable content. You haven't always kept to reasonable standards, and seem especially reckless in cases where you have applied these song article re-directs into larger articles (on artists) that you have written or are contributing to. Perhaps this is the best place to just ask you to just know that song articles can be valuable resources, leading researchers to vast amounts of other information. All I ask is that you don't always unsheath your sword everytime you see a song article.Wikibones (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must reference something you said above....Quote: "What do you think we should do with the articles? Should I WP:BOLDly merge/redirect the content of the lower peaking songs' articles, and maybe ask for the redirects to be protected?" What you have suggested here is that YOU shall decide what is a "lower peaking" song (what is a lower peaking song?), then have your decision (in the form of a Re-direct) PROTECTED. This is abusive use of the system TPH. With all the negative commentary concerning your deletion issues and redirects, your decisions should absolutely not be PROTECTED. Protection is used more against vandalism. Something seems askew with your thinking here, especially now that you are taking this behind the scenes approach to gain support. If you really want to ad credibility to your editing, allow the discussion to continue, don't assume that ALL song articles are created by unqualified people, and control your subjective thinking. This is all a good discussion, but will only benefit from a concensus of opinions.Wikibones (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming that what TPH is doing or proposing is abusive. IT IS NOT ABUSIVE. If you look at the discussion at
WT:MUSIC and the comments of everyone but you and Bwmoll3 at the above talk page, the redirects are supported for those songs that are not likely to ever grow. Nobody but you and Bwmoll3 are saying that what TPH is doing is abusive or disruptive. Please stop claiming such. At present, the indication is that those songs with no reliable sources and no likely expectation to expand out of stub status should be merged and redirected. I agree that there's no need to protect the redirects, however. Tony Fox(arf!) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you think I should do then? If I redirect them, either Bwmoll3 or Wikibones is gonna call me a vandal and undo the redirects, and then the chain will keep going. Maybe if I ask politely that the redirects not be undone unless the editor actually creates a decent, well-sourced article on the individual songs in question (this also applies to Politics, Religion and Her, and a couple other songs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best route. One would hope that as a consensus develops indicating that the current phrasing of WP:MUSIC's section on songs is the appropriate guideline to apply, the editors would turn their efforts to developing a well-sourced article. That's really what we should be doing here in any case - finding sources and expanding where possible, and where not possible, doing something to ensure the subject is covered in some way (in this case by redirecting to the album and including what information is applicable) so we've at least got it covered. Tony Fox(arf!) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you think I should draw the line? I have a feeling that 99% of the Top 20 hits will probably contain at least one source. Also, you can probably help me merge some of the content if you want, and remove redirecting links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if it's top 20 and there's at least one source discussing it, it's probably okay. Anything outside the top 20 is probably getting just a bit iffy. What I might do is do some additional Googling and see if you can find other sources for those marginal ones - if it's easy to pull another source, then do that and leave the article. You might want to bring this up at
WT:MUSIC as well, see what the thoughts there are... I'd be happy to help out (though I really should be doing other things right now, and will be through the day, probably). Tony Fox(arf!) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
Done. I kept all the Top 20s and a couple near-misses. I also kept the Vince Gill duet because I found a source for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting case where a song article needs to be standalone, not only because it was a hit, but because it relates to more than one artist. To re-direct the song into one artist or the other wouldn't be right.Wikibones (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It was a Top Ten for two different artists, so it's very likely to have been the subject of multiple reliable sources. A #47 from 1992, however, is very unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.
This guy is really getting on my nerves. Check out the checkuser case - it looks like Palmer-Bears got missed in the checkuser. I'll maybe ask Thatcher to take another look with that one... yeesh. Get a Tripod page or something... Tony Fox(arf!) 01:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that those dates were all over the damn place... in a case like that, I guess the best route to go is to follow the majority, but your compromise with the ref note works as well. Tony Fox(arf!) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment with specific points on the article's talk page about what wikification and cleanup you would like to see, because I'm not seeing major problems. Obviously is could be improved to make it GA/FA, but I don't think the prose is horrible. The refimprove is obvious. Royalbroil 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prof.Carlos Nemer
Dear Tony.
This is not what seems,
to me.
The article was on line for more than 3 years,
why this so much worry now?
Wikipedia has no owner, as far as I understood.
The attitude of mr Orange is as if the hole system belonged to him.
As an extreme authoritarianism example he deleted an article of a person from the third world without leting it express its relevance.
every value of western civilization was completely and unscrupulously overrun by this strange character dressed in orange suit.
What´s the reason for that ?
I can´t figure out.
Mr Nemer studied for 31 years of his life.
He deserves his place and given enopugh time
I will insert the so much needed justification.
Best regards,
I say leave the article on the air to show the world there is somebody
up to the first world.
Carlos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colatina (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying my comment on ANI
My point was I was not trying to sound snotty so I refrained from making the joke. I hope that came through - I have no intent of being disrespectful towards you in any way. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High Tech Redneck
I redirected
High Tech Redneck, the album. Note, however, that both the album and song title have a hyphen in them (even though the album's page is mistakenly spelled without a hyphen). Can you please move the non-hyphenated album page to the correct hyphenated title for me? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So you're asking for the article on the album to be moved to the spot where the redirect from the song is? I *may* be able to put that together, but I'll have to see... I'm on the road right now and don't know how much time I'll have to fiddle with it before Friday... Tony Fox(arf!) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been looking at this and I'm not entirely sure I can manage it without screwing everything up. I'm going to call for another admin to take a look and help out, and hopefully let me know the best way to manage it. I'm still kind of new at this stuff, y'know? =P Tony Fox(arf!) 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i just noticed that the above user has likely created a sock/meatpuppet (Exact same vandalizing text) called User:Blezzy to resume his vandalism. As this sock has been indef blocked, its perhaps appropriate to do so on the main account, since its a persistent vandal? Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where??? I haven't bothered you since. I am purposely staying clear of contact with you. I've only weighed in on AfDs pertaining to pages I have interest in. If you are involved in those so be it, but I haven't gone after your work. Just because some of them didn't go your way doesn't give you the right to go after me.-UWMSports (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not an excuse to not follow the agreement you made. --
Okay, having had the chance to look at this, UWMSports, I *did* ask you and SlipperyPete411 (your roommate, as you stated previously) to avoid "voting" on the same topics, to avoid the potential accusations of sockpuppetry that were lodged in the past. You both "voted" on the
meatpuppetry raised that could end up in one or both of you being blocked. As for the AFD itself, it looks like the decision would have been made with or without one of the two opinions. Tony Fox(arf!) 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Please Josh, don't act like the victim here just because a page you created got merged. I also defended you recently on your
Drake page. I'm trying to be fair. And I have followed my agreement. Pete posted after I did. I can't control if my roommate crosses my path once in 4 months! I will tell him to go do his own thing again, but if we ever happen to vote on the same issue again just combine our votes. Or I will make a comment in the discussion not to count one of our votes. Again, I have acknowledged from the beginning I know Pete. Therefore there is no puppertry going on here. -UWMSports (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not acting like a victim. I am just pointing out that a rule was broken at all. Furthermore, I did appreciate your defending me on the Drake Bulldogs article. It is also good to know what since UWM is done with classes today, this should not be an issue again until August.--
SportsMaster (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't we all just get along? Yeesh. I've asked them all to avoid a) editing with one another, and b) editing the same articles as you. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could also add in C. Avoid nominating my articles for deletion that would be appreciated. The only thing he has contributed to wikipedia has been to nominate my articles for deletion (see
SportsMaster (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Then you need to stop reporting me just because I disagree with your opinions in a AfDs. You need to understand Wikipedia is owned by everyone. You're articles are not yours alone. You have, understandably, major conflict of interests about your work. I was only trying to help before and for the most part I've stayed out of your work these last few months. I felt the
Yahoo! Fantasy Sports page needed to be merged or deleted when it was brought up again by a DIFFERENT USER! The only article I've nominated of yours in the last 4 months is Robert E. Hawkins (photographer). Anyone can see why I brought that there, as in fact most people have voted for delete. However, I've also defended you a couple times too. I'm being fair! Also, I do not know FancyMustard. I would admit if I did as I did with SlipperyPete. Again, I apologize for that, I have instructed him to go away otherwise we both face penalties. -UWMSports (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
I've closed the DRV as allowing recreation based on your draft. Would you like me to move the relevant revisions from your sandbox, or would you rather recreate it by copying and pasting the content? WjBscribe 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waterloo Hawks
Please take note of the consensus that was come to. [5]. Yet
SportsMaster (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
May I ask why the all-time roster is already on the
request for comment. I'd personally agree with the merge; I don't see the value of having a long list of mostly red links. Tony Fox(arf!) 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
SportsMaster has been reverting my merger edits. I put a Merger proposal tag up. If you could give the opinion you gave here that would be great. I will honor whatever decision comes from this merger discussion, and I hope Master does as well. Discuss here
I have no problem with the merger, except that you (GoHuskies9904) did NOT merge it, as a massive amount of the information was not merged into the article.--
SportsMaster (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What are you talking about? Look at what I initally merged the first time. Everything is there except for the lead paragraph which would be redundant to merge over since its already written!!! It's called a selective merge! --
Thanks for notifying Nationalism. One thing though, having a
single-purpose account isn't a valid reason for blocking, as it sounds like you might be implying there. Being disruptive (as with trolling), however, is. -kotra (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
exactly how do I make a meter that shows how angry or stressed I am?
Please tell me (go to my user page) one more thing how do I make userboxes?--Spittlespat (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Attacks
I meant every word I've said, but in the interst of keeping the peace, I edited it. Still it doesn't stop the poo throwers from antagonizing the rest of us, if no one stands up to them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zippy again
I'm on my way out the door but I thought I'd pass along this: [8] for your continued ...um, lulz? :)
I wrote an explanation on the talk page. I should have explained it better, sorry for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol..... I just noticed that the link to your talk page is "arf!".... and the "fox" on your name... :) and then I saw the userbox :) Well, I removed the link. I was convinced that ED had organized at least one of those protests, so I thought that there was a stronger link there. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yeah, when there are
conflicts of interest it's always best to let other people decide the removal :) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
edits
I done 12 edits so far! (thank you for your friendly messages!:) How many edits should I have before June 14th 20 edits or 30 edits or etc.?--Spittlespat (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright on publications
Thank you Tony for the information. I'm new to all this since I just got involved with WikipediA on April 19, and now working with the creator of the Article, also a WikipediA Administrator, to make it the page with most hits in the history of this site. The Plains of Abraham are mentioned in the Discussion section of the article.
I wish to dispute your speedy deletion of the article on the band The Muggs. The band is notable, and I was planning to add information to the article today. Bradroenfeldt (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When The Muggs begins putting out albums they may be notable? Although they have not been signed by a major label as of yet, they have released two very good CDs on their own. I have both of them, and play their music on my KZUM radio show, as well as my Live365 radio station.Bradroenfeldt (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kipling wrote a ghost story titled "The Recrudescence of Imray." I've long considered the word apt to describe the reappearance of a blocked user in a different guise. Deor (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
check it out!
I finaaly starting to make my userpage look cool you can check it any time you want since I will be updating it! How should I earn my first barnstar?--Spittlespat (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clamp information?
Hi,
Just wondering if your friends were able to help with the Clamp (manga artists) information. ^_^ thanks again for the help. I haven't heard from the IP in question so I'll probably be putting the "all-female" part back by the end of the week. Dasmarinas71 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary Jaydon
There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.
While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/
Also, the following was taken directly from
WP:N#MUSIC
:
Criteria for composers and lyricists
For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:
The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.
([12]) also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.
Sorry if my message is against Wiki policy? I only messaged people that had commented on my article? I hadn't gone out looking for fans? I just wanted to point out new information to those that had already been a part of a discussion related to my article? Is that indeed against policy?
I consider his message to me to be such spam, and as such, request the block you warned him he would recieve. thank you,. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't sent another message since I got notice not to.
Yes, I am doing as Uther did with his mate Rlendog and game the system by using my mates. This behaviour seems to go without consequence so I am doing it.
By the way, I have more than 100 friends on my msn list so Uther or anyone else wishing to use false pretenses will break the 3RR before I do. I did not want to do this I but my hand has been forced. If editors and admins actually listen to me an aknowledge the points I make which show why marsupial lion should redirect to Marsupial Lion, then this can be done in the correct manner. I am here to improve wikipedia and am only making improvements, Uther is being unproductive.
Hi Tony, I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I have with another user. User:JPG-GR. I feel this editor is putting personal attack warnings on pages without merit. For example, he recently put a threatening personal attack warning on my talk page [13], which had no merit. After I tried explaining to him why he had no merit, I get attacked in reply [14].
What I have come to notice is that this editor is attempting to act like an administrator and believes he has the authority to meddle with every single edit other editors do. The example above was me removing a page from my user page that was defunct and he automatically jumped on me. Same with the ongoing war with another user
User:Radiolbx
. Not that its any of my business, since he is a different editor, but he is new to Wikipedia and unlike you or I, may not understand policies yet. It took me several months to understand a lot about Wikipedia. I sincerely feel that JPG-GR is attacking radio and assuming he knows the rules, which may or may not be true.
Both of us are human editors, radio and I. We certainly make mistakes just like everyone else. What I don't like is being attacked and put down for no reason, and having my edits torn apart. I would appreciate some intervention on this matter. If this is the wrong place for this complaint, please direct me to the proper avenue, thanks! --Milonica (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking through this dispute the other day, and it hurt my brain. I'm tied up for the rest of the day, but may be able to take a look at it later; in the meantime, you may want to get some other views at
I appreciate the response. I have applied for assistance at that page. Thanks again! I am looking forward to this being resolved. Milonica (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony you are a good editor, but a couple weeks ago you deleted my daughter Christina Dietz. Your reason was that she did not meet the musician notability requirments. In fact she does meet those requirements, and references to her qualifications were in her article. She has had no less than 3 Feature articles in recognized newspapers 1. Orange County Register 2006, Colorado Springs Gazette 2008, and Tri Lakes Tribune 2008. She has been featured on morning Television FOX TV Colorado Springs, 2008, Colorado Music Buzz magazine 2008, and has played many venues as well as the busking you recognized. As you noted in your deletion, she performed as a busker at the DPUBS in Denver this year, but only after her listed and PAID performance at the festival.
Her music is self published on iTunes, true! But she has sold over 4,500 albums in 2 years on iTunes. Her CD was reviewed by Colorado Music Buzz after she played several Denver venues, but she to this day does not work with the magazine, pay the magazine, or pitch the magazine. My dear daughter may only be 18, but she is notable. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carldietz (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Destination Void (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Destination void (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a chart ref. Let me take a look at my Metal Discography when I get home and see if they have an entry. Chubbles (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the full text of the entry from Martin C. Strong, The Great Metal Discography, 2nd edition, MOJO Books (Glasgow), 2001, p. 603. My comments are in brackets.
"Formed:Toronto, Canada...1975 as Slamm before opting for the Warrior moniker and finally Whitewolf [sic], the line-up being crystallised around Don Wilk, Cam McLeod, Rick Nelson (not that one!), Les Schwartz, and Loris Bolzon. After years of scrambling around on the local circuit, this hungry pack of classy pomp-rockers were eventually snapped up by 'R.C.A.', releasing their debut set, 'Standing Alone', in late '84. A favourite among AOR buffs, the record nevertheless failed to sink its teeth into the charts. [by which he means the US Top 100; he does not list chart positions in the 100-200 range.] The appropriately named 'Endangered Species' (1986) marked the end of the group's recording career, Whitewolf subsequently returning to their collective lair."
Don Wilk - vocals, keyboards / Cam McLeod - guitar / Rick Nelson - guitar / Les Schwartz - bass / Loris Bolzon - drums
[A full discography follows, four entries: the two LPs and two 12" singles. I can list those if you want.]
I will try to make sure that my comments do not target specific users. However, I request that you accept that there are many differing viewpoints on Furry sexuality and the definition of a Furry. In addition to have a furry tag, you also have one for neutrality. I hope you will respect the views of non-Furries, however twisted and insane they may seem to you. Thank you. --Nationalism (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of Stanley Coren
As I posted on
conflict of interest. Thanks, Briantresp (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Based on the post by Masem, I think we're all in agreement that both articles need revising to add citations necessary to meet the appropriate notability guidelines. Thanks, Briantresp (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the Coren article, and I think it will clearly hold up at AfD--I made some suggestions there to improve it further, such as finding book reviews. thanks for your help. Can't see that your involvement represents in any way a conflict of interest. DGG (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stardoll
Thank you for informing me of the reason this article (see Heading) was deleted in its majority. I understand the need for proper referencing and will try to link to external sources the next time I edit a page.
Tony, you were considerate enough to explain copyright to me when newspaper scans with a not free/fair use tag were removed from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier Trusting your integrity, I stopped disputing their deletion. The article on me was created two years ago by a Wiki Administrator I met once on a job for an NDP candidate during the last general election driving workers around planting election signs. I don't talk much about my three attempts for elective office as an Independent. Most people just aren't interested so it was natural to share my experience with them. One of them took it upon himself to research my talk and confirmed it by the article. He also posted these images I'm believing with the confidence and experience of an Adm. They were removed from the article by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn Going to his page he states he is strongly atheist and I wondered how he could have a NPOV editing a page on someone who is just as strongly a theist? He actually wrote in the discussion the images made the subject look good. How can other users post an opinion on these disputed images if they can't see them?
Reaching out to more experienced people for help, those people effectively decimated the article to boring dullness. I placed it in the Discussion with an general appeal to other editors for suggestions to make the article more encyclopedic and verifiable in accordance with this in Wiki policy:Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article. Believing I am literate, I read those words to say I can post the removed material for revision and discussion. They say no. I would like to know what you think? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I read the talk page properly about putting the removed article for suggestions and improvements in the Talk? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this answer "It's not a good idea to paste old versions of articles onto the talk page" does not answer a question requiring only yes or no. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the direct answer. Respectfully, I don't agree and will work to build consensus. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also got an e-mail from the user, apparently they're part of a Lynn Anderson fan site, and are threatening to "see that Lynn Anderson is properly treated" on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good friends with raving fanb... er, enthusiastic fans - I should be able to sort things out reasonably. =) Tony Fox(arf!) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn Anderson
Great! I hope that there will be some type of consequence for this user.
Hi Tony. Thank you for your comments on my user page. Question: is there an address at which I can contact you personally, or should I just lay it all out on this page? Thanks!Mikiesmonkey (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at his comments here. I've already warned him for attacking me, but he's probably just going to undo my warning. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You called it. I left an expanded note - can I suggest that with experienced editors, you avoid using templated messages? I think it's a better idea to express the concerns a little more in-depth when it comes to someone who's been around a while, rather than just using the template. Tony Fox(arf!) 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at this too. He's threatening to re-create the page the instant it gets deleted. I know I'll never get through to him but I'm still trying. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've had a problem at Warren Kinsella and I see on the article stats sheet that you've done a little editing there. There's a content dispute revolving around a possible BLP issue, so if you feel up to it, would you mind chiming in on Talk:Warren Kinsella? Thanks. Okiefromoklaquestions? 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting the ball rolling with sensible suggestions. I've been trying to get editors to discuss this latest dispute, so as long as there are no obvious BLP issues that require immediate intervention, I'll let the article's editors work things out and unprotect accordingly. Thanks again. Okiefromoklaquestions? 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open water swimming
Hi there. Thanks for offering to mediate for this page. The admin with whom I have a dispute has decided to remove himself from the watchlist of this page. I would like to start expanding it, but given the history, I would prefer it if an admin were to at least check out the changes I make. In particular and for a start, I would like to change the definition of open water swimming to the definition given in the quote from the official of the amateur swimming association. (See the talk page). I would then like to start expanding the article. Also note in the talk page that I would like to add (back in, it seems) a bibliography. I would appreciate comment on that as well. Ross-c (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check out my userpage and sign my guestbook? Message me and tell me what you think! =P--Spittlespat (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When will I ever get my first barnstar?
So far I have done alot of edits helped captian elmo with his userpage and is later going to help shade57 with his userpage could you help me find his userpage I can't find him it's probably that he hasn't made one yet!--Spittlespat (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally 200 edits
Do I get my novice adward now?--Spittlespat (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old-school, some of it, sure. I'm more a pop-punk/alternative kind of guy with some leanings towards acoustic folk, screamo, metal, Japanese, electronic... ... um... I like music. Tony Fox(arf!) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Fox, You Are Mistaken
The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators. I hope this will be the last time I ever have to have this type of discussion with youKevin j (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again Mr Fox, You Are Mistaken
The mainstream media motto is an advertisement. There has been bad reports now-and-then on news outlets here in America, and the website uses this motto to present themselves as completely reliable.You live off of Canadian-centered news reports, and you need to know that individual nations intend to base their reports off of events in their own country Because of this news policy, it's harder for a foreigner like yourself to be fed around-the-clock knowledge about events in a different country; just like it is harder for me to do the same with events in Canada.Do you really also think they would jeopardize their business by saying it was unreliable?Get better knowledge of the facts.Kevin j (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I have majored. Sorry if my comments offended you. I also watch CNN too, but that still does not have anything to do with your comments about Capital Hill Blues. CNN claims they're the most trusted name in news, and that's only an advertisement. From watching CNN, I can honestly say I don't think either Jack Cafferty or Wolf Blitzer are honest 100% of the time. Still, that doesn't discredit CNN as a reliable resource.Kevin j (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the editor of Capital Hill Blue was only being more honest when they stated that notice, and used it as an advertisement. I've watched every news network for quite some time, and I can honestly say are just as at fault as Capital Hill Blue but are still very reliable. They don't admit their mistakes (such as the bias hype CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC have given Obama in their news coverage throughout this election), because they would lose profits if they did. The Capital Hill Blue only covers unmentioned stories, and it's not a tabloid newsprint, like The National Enquirer, at all.Kevin j (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks.
Try to find my secret page! It's on my userpage!--Spittlespat (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the Relisting
When you are relisting something at XfD, you must type the relist template as {{subst:relist|~~~~}}. This signs it (instead of having it end "Thanks, ~~~~"). It also prevents the text added to the discussion from changing if the template is ever edited. If in the future you want to use a template but aren't 100% sure how, if you go to the template page (eg.
Thank you. I didn't realize it had gone funny on me there. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis well. One more thing I've noticed while doing non-admin closures at AfD, though: you must either comment out or remove the debate's transclusion at AfD, or it will appear in the list at
WP:OAFD. If there isn't documentation on how to relist stuff, I should make some, because I've made those same errors in the past. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
Hi, please let me know what is the correct place to report edits like [15][16] - editor adding unsourced POV statements - thanks! --windyhead (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I appreciate the assistance with the block today. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That user has also sent me an email through wiki. Hopefully the block stops that as well. (and thank you for blocking that)
...and he/she is gone again. Hopefully for the last time. Cheers. :) sinneed (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: So...
I'm sure he won't. Still, it's more fun to leave a reason like that instead of "
CSD G3
- Vandalism". Gets the point across better too.
Einsteindonut
Saxphonemn's edits typically are poorly written in English and Einstein's are pretty good. Do you have IP evidence that they are same. It doesn't seem to me that they are the same. I am not defending his edits, but this looks wrong to me. Sposer (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Thanks for posting instructions about how to make an RfC on my talk page. Strangely, by the time i took your advice and got well unerway, i found out that
(A) OrderinChaos had alread decided to create an RfC for me, using my research, with the stated idea that the more experienced Madman woud actually file it -- and,
(B) unexpectedly, hrafn suddenly announced that he was "retiring" from Wikipedia. (See his user page for the bitter details.)
So, that's that. I do not know who hrafn was, but i think that being the subject of a MEDCAB request, a Wikiquette Alert, an AN/I report, and a prospective RfC all in one week influenced the decision to retire this persona. Anonymity being what it is, i suspect that the human being behind the name will log in tomorrow as someone fresh and new. All i ask is that he, she, or it play nicely. Again, thank you for your help.
Hi, Tony. Thanks for the calming words. Please see my response on the above's webpage. Look forward to your further advice. Yours.Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I have the rest of the article back, please? I am still working on it
Shanghainese (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Tarot
Hi, my name is UnderDarkSkys and I'm new here, and I saw that your an admin and I'm a little confused. On the Tarot (band)
page I was wondering arn't the songs "Pyre of the Gods", and "Ashes to the stars" singles I mean they have music vids? Please respond quick. -- UnderDarkSkys (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beamy
Hi Tony, this word beamy is a true word, what is your problem with not having it published? it is a nautical term, it really needs to be put on wikipedia. thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcam (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tilting at windmills
I noticed this comment you made:
"Patience and civility be damned, this is, to me, bloody disgusting. With that comment, Kurt states that two editors who have a myriad of contributions - WBOSITG has four FAs!, for pete's sake, and MBisanz is a long-time contributor! - are "lazily deleting the hard work of others because you can't be bothered to do anything positive for the encyclopedia." That's one of the more condescending and rude comments I've read in a long time towards two excellent editors, and does nothing but continue Kurt's record of
tilting at windmills." - Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking minor points to talk pages, because that page is too long now. Did you know we have an essay on this at WP:WINDMILL? I agree that Kurt's approach was unhelpful, but it would only be tilting at windmills, I think, if the article was hopeless and needed deletion. In fact, the AfD seems to have concluded that the person is notable and the article has been kept. What windmills were being tilted at here? If you mean the AfD system, Kurt is not alone in that. Sure, his attitude is unhelpful, and even without his comment, the article would have been kept, but I can't help thinking that there is a small voice in some poeple's minds going oh, he was right about that article. I also note that WBOSITG didn't change his !vote. Maybe because it was closed early and there was no opportunity to do so, but that does look a bit strange now, and it does look like MBisanz and WBOSITG didn't find the sources that Nsk92 and DGG did. Of course, I realise that they just weren't looking in the right places. Also note how Majorly makes a completely unneeded and inflammatory comment. Did that need to be dropped into the AfD after Nsk92 had already said something? No-one seems to have called Majorly out on that. Feels like double standards to me. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: Workhorse Custom Chassis
Hi Tony--
Thanks for your note regarding the Workhorse Custom Chassis Wikipedia article. Yes, they are a client of our company's and we understand your reasoning for deletion. I appreciate that you placed all of the content into the Sandbox instead of completely deleting it--that would have been a lot of work to retype! I have been working on cleaning this up, taking all of the marketspeak out, but just hadn't gotten to that part of the editing yet. I probably should have just left what had been up there and wrote out the new stuff beforehand and then posted it once I cleaned it up. So, I will work on this and repost. Our company has no idea who even wrote the original article; we realized it was not very good writing and mostly out-of-date. We're trying to adhere to Wikipedia's standards, but myself being new to the Wide Wide World of Wiki, it's been a slow, learning process. I'm getting better at it, though!
I do have a question about the Sandbox. The content that you pasted in there will be automatically deleted at some point, right? In order to keep it in there as I work on it, do I need to go in and edit it once a day or so?
Also, the part of your post to my user page regarding my user name...not sure I understand what you mean. Is it that since my user name is my company's name I cannot use it as a user name? If so, how do I go about changing it (or completely deleting it and re-registering under a new user name)?
There are a million other questions I have, but I'll get to those at some other point in time. Any help you can give me would be great. Thanks!
Hi Tony, I appreciate your explanation about commercial writing style on the i-vu entry and will look at a re-write as there are several independent sources for the product at this point. My main question/concern is that there are many other company and product write ups that are blatant adverts and are currently posted. Eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Scientific Not sure how this would be allowed and my submission wasn't. Coryhanosh (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Matt Lee(musician) I posted a bunch of credits that are viable in comparison to others out here that don't add up. Please contact me after you have actually reviewed my refs. Thanks, D.Schneider(76.94.25.192 (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you're talking about the edits you made at
reliable sources that state unequivocally that Matt Lee has received critical attention on his own merit, then perhaps there could be an article, but the one at that page does not meet our standards in my opinion. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
Thanks for the note, I kind of expected that, although I was rather miffed that the article creator had actually the gall to re-create the article less than 24 hours after it was deleted at AfD. Guess I should not have removed it from my watchlist. The article still has no proper sources, apart from some blogs and self-sources, but I think it'd be wasting my time to take it to AfD again. Cheers. --Crusio (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD courtesy blanking?
Hi Tony, an AfD that you'd closed was courtesy blanked last week (see
WP:CBLANK. Sorry to bother you with this, but I attempted to contact the user who did the blanking that day, but still haven't heard anything. Sorry to bug you with something small like this, but I just don't see the logic behind that blanking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply! I'll leave well enough alone- I just wasn't sure whether it merited a revert or further discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen VarmaRequest for editing
Dear Mr.Tony,
I am thankful for efforts you took to edit my page Jayen Varma. I had to do a lot of editing because, I am still unaware as to how editing can be made. I have lots of Blogs in net , thats right. But I find only few are reliable. I consider Wikipedia as one of the most reputed ones. I agreed to delete my page only when Wikipedia was reluctunt to accept my post. But I wish to inform you that my World Record is very much Official as the Registry of official World Records which does it with Record Holders Republic is a competent Authority. The reliable link which I can give you is there. Thats http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 .
Also I am a member of the Guinness Community as a World Record Holder. If you still have doubt you can delete my name from Wikipedia. Now it seems to be confusing for others when so much of notice are there on top of my World Record Information.
I am not to edit it again since, I am still ignorant about editing. May be I can delete all my writings from Wikipedia tomorrow. Let time prove everything.
Once again I thank you for all the help.
Regards
Jayen Varma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen Varma, a reminder Request
I request you to please look in to the above request of mine since my page Jayen Varma looks confusing for others with many deletion notices, even though I hold an Ofiicial World Record. I hope you will look in to it and make necessary edits and if it is doubtful again, I have no objection in removal of even my account. With due respect, Jayen Varma
Reply Jayen varma
Based on your suggestion, I have posted the following lines on the discussion page Jayen Varma. I thank you very much for the help you have given me. I am to delete my page and account from here since its really hurting.
For Discussion..Production of Proof
Hi, There is no bigger proof other than Registry of Official World Records and Record Holders Republic: Link http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 . If this is not acceptable, let it be deleted from this page. But no one can delete the World Record untill someone else breaks it. Its really hurting to see the page filled with many deletion notices seeking proof, eventhough there is an Official link. If it can not be accepted as a proof, I can not help it and I myself shall delete it from this page and I shall remove my account as well. Let time prove everything. Regards Jayen Varma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Last request for a Correction before deletion of my page by myself
Hi Mr.Tony, Im sorry for the above reply. Was a bit emotional. Anyway,from the link I have produced [17] it may be clear that I have a World Record with Registry of Official World Records USA&UK and Record Holders Republic,UK. In this context I request that the page may be re-written as below or with all necessary changes:-.
Jayen Varma
Registry of Official World Records,USA&UK and Record Holders Republic,UK in May 2008 declared Jayen Varma from
Bass Guitar
as the "Fastest Percussive Bassist".
He plays bass guitar in the same way that the
percussion instruments tabla and mridangam are played. He learned mridangam from Parassala Ravi, retired Principal of the Government Music College in Kerala, India
I got reply with a meaning that, the page can not be fully accepted. Hence, I do not want to go deep in to the said subject. But I believe in Truth. Today is the Birth day of Mahatma Gandhi, who fought for truth. Truth is bigger than anything else.I do not want to go ahead with this with my pages filled with notices. So let it be deleted. Let Time proves everything.. Thanks and Regards JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment! Bearian (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited as per rules
Thanks for the reply by WP editors in the page Jayen Varma. I wish to inform you that I created World Record with Registry of Official World Records {Record Holders Republic} and not with Guinness World Records. I had applied to both RHR and GWR. But my record was annonced first by RHR. So I had to cancel my Guinness attempt. GWR and RHR are very reputed Authorities. Guinness is not the sole World Record Authirity in the World. Now If anybody wants to make a world record in the same criteria with Guinness or whatever , he has to play more than 36 notes per second, because I created 36 notes with Registry of Official World Records and Record Holders Republic. That was why I requested to Change it like the present edit. This is a Fact which is varifiable with http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 . If this can not be accepted and WP believes that Guinness is the sole World Record Authority in the World, my page may kindly be deleted. I am really glad that I had a very good discussion here with really learned persons like you all.
Pl feel free to see the present edit. Now its varifiable. Its varifiable that I made a World Record with Registry of Official World Record and Record Holders Republic http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484. This link page is for World Records only. Pl feel free to look in to it with a view that Guinness is not the sole authority to announce World Records.
Look, the discussion about the article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayen Varma, not on individual talk pages. If you have new evidence to provide, do it there. I'm still of the viewpoint that the organizations you're registered with are not notable enough to be used as reliable sources, as are the editors who have opined in the discussion. Tony Fox(arf!) 03:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFC Bates method article
I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason.
The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please do not remove tags
Proper discussion must be observed before removing tags. This is not the first time the
If RATM's only form of activism involves their dicks hanging out then they should not be considered activist.As I said before this picture violates the laws of the USA but it also damages the eyes of children who view this.So either put a age-restriction filter on or remove this pornographic images off this site.People who check out this page want to check out their fav band not see a group of men naked.Kids that come to this site are not warned nor does it have a age-restriction filter so its illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReCreate08 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What The
You just deleted my page before I even had the chance to finish it. I hit save in a rush because i needed to walk away from the computer. I appreciate all the time you may put in monitoring wiki, but you don't have to act like some totalitarian dictator and remove people's content before they have a chance to open the discussion to defend it. I was in the mist of posting the "talk about it" bit when I saw you deleted the entire page. Idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofywiki (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sock?
Your comment in the talk or Orlady was erased by a new user 4 minutes after the account was created. --Maniadis (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
award
Do you think I'm worthy of an award?--Spittlespat!ǀT ♦ C ♦ S 00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agent Ribbons
Broken link on
CAKE (band) now. Agent Ribbons are more popular than bands listed in same article (with working links) and have received more awards. Their page was not finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limabeanofthecentury (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
Tony first of all understand that Wiki is very confusing for someone as new to editing it as I am, it is not an instinctive system like the ones I am used to using. I am doing my best to get it right here. It seems strange to me to sell this site as a place where it can be edited by anyone and then as soon as a newcomer arrives, they are treated with a heavy hand. One thing I have noticed is the difference in grammar between Canadian English (language) and British English (language), I have Canadian friends and family members, the puns and jokes about this are an ongoing and humorous conversation topic amongst us. With all seriousness I do not know which nation began Wiki but as it is a global institution whose ethic is to be editable by all its users, interesting questions are posed as to the superiority of editing in UK, American or Canadian English (language). If the policy is that one nation's grammar supercedes all others, it becomes segregationalist as users will have to learn a new syntax, which takes years of experience, something that use of sites such as this are part of our ongoing cultural melange.
You removed my comments for the stated reason that I had not cited sources. Can you be more specific as to which exact sentences require sourcing? As a generalisation I referred to several masonic groups within the text, these groups traditions are oral and I am not at liberty to mention names of any of my mentors.
The sources for Nyarlahotep are that in the Call of Cthulhu are mentioned 3 locations where the entity lives on earth. I have so far travelled to 2 of these locations in pursuit of information relating to Cthulhu, a quest which was fruitful. I do not understand how I can cite sources when the source is my own experiences with this thing, when the source is a word in another language the explanation of which makes the thesis comprehensive to the scholar. The source is 'ancient egyptian language' which I have been studying all my life.
Would citing 'egyptian temple heiroglyphs' and 'anonymous teachers of language' and 'lifelong study into subject' be considered as relevant and factual enough sources to please you? verification of this research comes only by following the same lines of inquiry, which are of course what the Cthulhu mythos is all about!
Often there is no single source for much of the information I hold in this subject, it exists in my own head which is why I seek to use wiki to share it with other people.
If there are other issues you have with my teaching then please raise them with me. I endeavor to play by the rules so far as editing wiki goes although my interest is primarily in sharing information with people.
I have to ask a question of you, have you actually read the Cthulhu mythos yourself? Perhaps if you understood the subject matter better you would identify what is being referred to. I do not mean this as an insult, I am not trying to insult you in any way. My purpose is clarity.
I will redraft my entries at some future point when I have time and resubmit them. It has been an experience getting to know you and how this site works. Thanks for your time in teaching me to be a better editor.
I have seen that have warned user IP 91.150.25.72 in the past and would like your opinion on his recend change on Haider's page. Please let me know, when you consider it wrong doing and how often you allow this user to make this useless changes to the article.
And yes, I will avoid him from now on. I do have issues with some of his conduct and will seek out others to help me, since me and him now have a bit of a history. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 05:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this. He doesn't stop. Now he's threatening some kind of ill conceived plot. As an administrator, I ask that you take sanction this user for clearly stating his intent to troll and harass me. The stupidity of the whole situation is if had discussed before reverting me so quickly each and every time, this whole situation could have been averted. He assumed bad faith from the very beginning as his edit history shows. Laval (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you notice, the very tone and use of language is patronising and condescending on his part. I don't appreciate that at all and all it does is inflame my temper and make it difficult for me to want to continue editing here as part of a civil community. Laval (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "I will avoid him from now on" isn't clear? I resent being referred to as a troll and someone who harasses other editors. My history on Wikipedia clearly shows otherwise. This is unbelieveable. I can't even make a comment on another editor's talk page without Laval piping in quesitoning my motives and actions? Anyway, I'm done with this tonight. freshacconci talktalk 05:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Please don't respond further. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discover (Why The Love Hurts)
This article does not assert notability, the artist being notable does not assert notability for the song. "A separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This currently does not exist. The only proper information is the title of the song, this is not enough to warrant an article and is a
WP:CRYSTAL violation. This is a proper candidate for speedy deletion. --Griever89 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Okays thanks, I've done so. It's here, thanks for the advice. --Griever89 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Brownstone (band)
Man, I really hope I'm doing this right. I consider myself to be pretty good with computers and technology in general and I've had a hell of a time figuring out wikipedia.
Anyway, I'm writing because a page I created (Mr. Brownstone (band)) was deleted for lack of "notability".
Its speedy deletion should not be upheld. The page is justified under criteria 6 of WP:MU. The band is fronted by a member of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, a very popular band worldwide with their own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clap_Your_Hands_Say_Yeah
Please let me know how the Mr. Brownstone page can go back up and if there's anything I can do to help. Also, if there is any question of the bands "notability" they are playing on David Letterman next week and every band that appears on that show has a wikipedia page.
Thank you very much for your help and understanding.
I see the ban request at the the Admin noticeboard is complete and it indicates an checkuser is to be done but I am confused as to who will initiate the CU. I can't find a CU in progress yet and hope you will initiate it. Thanks, Ariconte (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother to revert the Masada one as it doesn't make much difference to the article. Ariconte (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I entirely agree that it is time he was stopped, so I have blocked him to save you the angst that he would no doubt kick up if it were you who blocked him. I hope this is acceptable to you, I guess so since whatever some people might think there is no satisfaction in blocking someone who is obviously intelligent and not just a vandal or spammer. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question about, how do I edit the Diamond page, when it is protected?
G'Day Tony,
Got your welcome message, tks
I spotted an obvious error on the Diamond page, but because it's a feature article, I'm apparently
barred from making changes.
How do I resolve this problem?
Regards,
Goldpan (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)goldpan[reply]
G'Day Tony,
I have added my initial comments to the discussion page of the Diamond Feature Article.
Regards,
Goldpan (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)goldpan[reply]
Hello and thank you for cleaning out the trash, as it were. LovesMacs (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Knight thread
I don't know how to message or anything. I'd just like to say this Dark Knight fight is completely insane. I don't know how it was turned so that I am the bad guy in it. I made a listing on the talk page to generate talking, and then this guy comes in, tells me it's impossible, that I'm completely wrong, and to not bother trying to mess with his page. So eventually, I get fed up, tell him what I think of him, and leave, and he doesn't even have the guts to leave it up without throwing a hissy fit. I was following the rules. I didn't edit the page randomly, I went to the talk. He's the one you should have an issue with. The talk page is supposed to be about discussion, not "GET OUT"'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I wanted to add something extremely important to the plot summary, whereas the plot summary was currently a lie and not what had happened. Go ahead and tell me whatever you want, but nothing will change the fact that the current plot summary is not accurate. I don't understand how any of you can be telling me I am wrong. I said what was wrong, and a possibly direction to fix it. Is this not the point of Wikipedia's Talk Pages? Of course what I wrote is not 100% ready to slide right into the article with no arguments. I never once said that. But I can't imagine why I am being told I'm wrong for wanting to change it. Do you think it adds too much to the plot summary, despite that plot summary being wrong? It is a long movie, and a short summary, you can expect things to be wrong. And, in my opinion, long complex movies receive a longer summary. I watched Rumble in the Bronx the other day. It's plot summary is a paragraph, and that may even be too long. It's not a plot-heavy movie. This is. I would think that means that if part of the summary is wrong or not clear, it should be fixed.
And as for THEMES, why do you and him both assume I would put themes somewhere in the middle of the plot summary and THEN leave it citationless? What is this insanity? So I wanted to put a themes section into the movie, and so I said some things WITHOUT citing someone else? I never demanded to put them into the article. I never threatened the lives of innocent children if I did not have my person words placed into the article and gold given in tribute to me. I being turned into some kind of monster here!! I don't want to put the analysis of the plot in the plot summary. And I don't see why no one can believe the themes I mentioned without a source. If I make a website and put my words on it, do they become credible then? Can we discuss things WITHOUT citations on the talk page? Can we discuss them and THEN find citations? Why am I instantly wrong? I never wanted to publish my thesis paper on The Dark Knight on wikipedia. My thought process was that the Talk page would be full of rational people with an interest in the movie would would see that I suggested adding themes to the page, see the themes I mentioned, and then comment on what I wrote. Perhaps they too saw it. Maybe someone read a paper on it. Maybe someone would care enough about the quality of the page to find appropriate sources - I personally would have no idea where to find a "credible" source on the themes of a movie. They're not very deep themes. The theme that Two-Face flips a coin because it's fair is basically written on a notepad and handed out to the members of the audience, yet it is still a vital fact that any encyclopedia entry on the movie should include. So why can't Wikipedia?
Nothing is making sense. Wrong information is accepted in place of a short summary. Themes must come from an outside source, and any discussion of themes is strictly prohibited without sources. I don't understand. Care to explain?
Hi there. You blocked this account as the result of an SSP case against PhenomenalKev and it looks like it was blocked indefinitely, but it seems to be editing his talkpage again with a fantasy wrestling promotion. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to bring this up. ANI? AIV? Hazardous Matt 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected and protected. Tony Fox(arf!) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SJSJ Notability
Thank you for your thoughtful and complete response. I think I can address the concerns. I will make the changes and then loop back to check with you.
SJSJR2D2 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to follow your advice and tighten up the content about the Seattle Journal for Social Justice per the notability guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on how I can make this article better. It is at User:SJSJR2D2/Sandbox. Thanks again for your help, and the best for the new year.SJSJR2D2 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
SJSJ Feedback
Saw your note and would like to ask, could you look at the category of Law Journal, and pick one that you think does a good job. I looked at several and I cannot see the differences (although I get the earlier problems and I am not talking about those). THanks.SJSJR2D2 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tony appreciate your help and patience with this. I look forward to hearing from the people you referenced. I won't bother you again until I have talked with them and met with their approval. Have a good new year. SJSJR2D2 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question on referencing the same external article multiple times
In revising the article on expansin, I use in-line citations to reference the same external article in a couple different places. The result is that same citation shows up multiple times in the reference list. Is there are clean way to avoid this stylistic ugliness?
Aquilegia007 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
RE: Mississippi River Valley CBL
I was curious about getting my page put back up. I am the owner of the league and am looking to get word out to more people about it. All of the info was taken directly from my website. Is it possible to get it put back up or is there a certain ammount of editing that needs to be done so that I can have my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrvcbl (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Company names
Regarding your comment on the Editor Assistance/Requests page.
WP:UN states Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended. It's hard to see how that can be interpreted as company names are against policy per se. Its the use of a company name for promotional purposes that is against policy. SpinningSpark 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, and an account named User:Oxford Children's Books that is working on pages dedicated to the authors which it publishes, wants to write more of them, and wants to add the company URL to related pages would fall into my definition of "promotional." Other admins appear to agree, as it was blocked. Tony Fox(arf!) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
Oh, sorry. You see, the problem with that "poll" is that you have Philadelphians who were against the merge and the rest of the world, like Jeremy who is from Massachusetts, for the merge. As I commented on Jermey's user section, having used the Random Page feature I know there is a lot of garbage on Wikipedia. The hoagie article is certainly informative and that little, horribly edited, blurb in the submarine article did not do justice. There are a lot of people who want to know what a hoagie is. There is a huge difference between a a subway sandwich and a hoagie. Philadelphians know this. Sometimes you can abstract things, but this is not one of those cases. Whatever needs to be done to convince the Wikigeeks (+ term)... probably I will need to find some wikigeek who is a Philadelphian in order to get this settled because us who rarely spend our time in the wikiworld have little power... Dan (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Wikipedia used to have more freedom. Now it has a tight grip on articles, unfortunately. Rules and regulations aside, this is all rather silly. Maybe wikipedia should keep statistics to find out if the readers of the articles find it informative, redundant, useless, etc. Making a judgment from a handful of people that "care" doesn't seem to do justice. Dan (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Delivered at 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
The above article has been re-created yet again, allbeit under a slightly different title. It is still written in an unencyclopedic tone, I cannot verify if it is still a copywright infringement as the link on the author's talk page is now dead. If it is deleted may I suggest salting? Best, --DFS454 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
Trying to post my first "New Entry" and would like to upload an image or two, but can't seem to be able to. The beginnings of it are on my user page - don't know who else to ask - thanks! Jollygreeng (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help?
Hello tony. I would like help for creating an article based around the forum that is located at http://www.programers.co.nr/ . Could you please help me? Bobwrits (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at
notability --DFS454 (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
After the protection that you put up on the Punk rock article came down, persistent vandalism continued. On Feb. 19 I posted on the talk page a message opening a discussion about getting the article an indefinite semiprotect. One person, DCGeist, agreed, commenting about how it is difficult to find an IP edit that isn't vandalism, and that was the only response. Since silence means consensus, and you put up the last protect, could put up this one? kingdom2 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion Aya kitchens
Hi Tony,
A page I have created for Aya kitchens has recently been flagged for deletion and I have reviewed comments and discussions regarding content and reasoning for the flagging. I am an interior design student who came across this company while researching for environmentally friendly products in the industry and was impressed by the green program in place. As the environment is important to all of us, I felt it was appropriate to post such information. I would appreciate any assistance and editing suggestions to keep this page in good standing.
Please let me know if you can help.
With much thanks,
Nehctik (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred M. Levin
Thanks for your explanation on the deletion. It makes sense to me even though it went against my wishes. Mwalla (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
Hi. You deleted this page as copyvio just as I took the copyvio tag off - the author has explained on my talk page that he, and the other web-site, have both taken the text from a book old enough to be public-domain. Could you please undelete it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Hi - I saw your comment on Jimbo's talk page, and don't want to needlessly clutter it up. Just to let you know, the Obama article does mention and link to Reverend Wright - the link was in the footnote at the time of Klein's piece, something he did not mention, and it is now in the main article. The article also links to Tony Rezko and by one count includes 10-15 other "negative" things about Obama (though I question whether grouping BLP facts into positive and negative is a legitimate way of classifying information) - his past drug use, etc. Other things such as the Bill Ayers flap and the conspiracy theories about his being a non-citizen are not mentioned in the article but have their own articles and are available via the templates on the page, plus the category and wikiproject hierarchies. We have 150-230 articles on Obama-related subjects, and if you consider that each has 4-5 sections we certainly have over 1,000 things to say about Obama. Though each comes with multiple reliable sources, that is far more than we can treat in a 10,000 word article. But all of this stuff is readily accessible from the Obama article thanks to the templates (most or all of the articles are on the templates), category system, and other navigational aids. One can always quibble the fine points but it's a rather scurrilous charge that Wikipedia liberals have formed a cabal to censor the truth about Obama. You have to put that in context of the anti-Obama provocateurs who make the same of all mainstream media sources. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the Obama article did NOT include any mention or link to Wright except in a footnote until after Klein's story broke, and it was a fight to get it added even then. Wikidemo tried to claim that somehow it "slipped" into a footnote. There is no mention that Rezko was one of Obama's largest fundraisers. There's no mention of other controversial associations, controversial comments or any controveries generally for example the attempted appointment of tax cheats. There's also no criticism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your viewpoint; I disagree, but in the spirit of wanting to not wind myself up, I'm not going to make any further comments on this issue. I have better things to do and all this is doing now is pissing me off. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. It will probably work for a little while, but as soon as she thinks no one is paying attention she'll start doing it again. Its been going on for years. She hates Randy Richards more than her own life and she'll do anything and say anything to have his name wiped from the face of the earth. She's been doing the same cyberstalking on other Wikis: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Randy_RichardsMalakai Joe (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea who I am. Be careful Randy. Please prove this woman exists, like Spellbinder you cannot. You hide behind lies and my edits are gentle. You think Wiki is a place to air your side of all problems, to self promote, to accuse falsely people who are not even enemies. I know you thirst for acclaim but you have yet to earn it. You started this with the lie about me after I had created a review. I bought the book from you in good faith and made clear my intent to review it. As I posted my thoughts on the NG board there was no problem till I gave you a C rating. Then I was an ex-girl friend who had this ax to grind. My name is Ken Moscardini, I am 47, marred and a gamer for over 30 years. After you lied I decided I needed to keep an eye on you, I see you for who you are. A very small man who has hurt other people and has no regard to the pain and trouble you have caused. Why would WIKI want you. If anyone touches your sacred article you scream foul, falsely accuse people of all manor of things, do all you can to obscure the truth about you, that your not that special. If you must know I pity you for the monster you have become, nor can I respect you for the man you think you are. Quode (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect timing. The state rests its case, your honor. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you still remember me....--Spittlespat 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help, I need an opinion from an uninvolved neutral wiki-editor on a subject
Help, I need an opinion from an uninvolved neutral wiki-editor on a subject
Hello, if you have a few minutes to help a fellow editor out, I wanted to take a moment of your time to get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with a wikipedia editor. if you visit the page on "Homeowners Association", and look at the discussion, the dissent is about a link I placed on the page to the website "Homeowners Association Websites Central." A certain editor "Wangi" not only believes that I have no right to place the link in the external links section, but further has accused me of starting bogus accounts as new users simply to add this link. I figure if I get some well known wikipedians to look at the situation, the link, and add their opinion to the debate, then at least I will know that the crazy accusations of user fraud will stop.
Boy, who would have thought this would be such a hassle. Anyway the url for the link in question is
http://www.athomenet.com/homenew/homeowners-association-websites-central.asp , and you can see the long history by looking at the history log on the homeowners association page....
Please, whatever your opinion may be, place it in the discussion area page in the topic of external links of Homeowners association central, and if you think the content is helpful, please add or undo wangi's deletion of the page. I will respect whatever your opinion is.
Thank you:
69.15.97.162 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue as far as it being a possible violation, is the fact that it is a page within a website run by a company that markets products which include hoa websites? In other words, if its URL was, www.homeownersassociationcentral.com, and it was not contained on a website that sold hoa websites, then it would not be considered advertising? I want to clearly understand the guidlines here (or at least what the majority reaches as a concensus on how they should be applied). Are we saying any page regardless of the information on it, that links to a sales website page, is contained within a website, or is sponsored by a page that sells a product, should be subject stricken from Wikipedia as an external link? And thank you for your input alsoEdenrage (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Edenrage (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I did notice a link at the bottom labeled "hoa websites" that leads to a company marketing page. the other links are to what appear to be non-salesy sites...
So if this link were not there, does the page meet the guidelines as you see it?
thanks againEdenrage (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, no. The piece that link goes to is a marketing piece; it's subtle, as I said, but it's marketing. I know these things, I write them all the time. It doesn't say outright that "you should buy this," it says "this is why you should do this, it's a great benefit to do it just like this, and if you do make sure you look for this, this and this - and oh by the way, this company, which happens to be hosting this page, does all this." At least that's my read. Tony Fox(arf!) 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I conceded the fact it should not have been linked to on the other pages. Forgive me if I'm a little naive to how these things should be applied.
However, I do think ( and I have to believe that others may agree) that if the page is cleaned up and stripped of any association with any company that sells websites (including but not limited to Athomenet) that it is a good resource. I haven't argued for my other links (such as to CAI) becuase noone has challenged their insertion.
So essentially what I am saying to you, is this same information, devoid of any link to any page that sells HOA websites of any kind, should adhere to Wikipedias link policies correct? I don't know if the company will make that change, but I can certainly suggest it to them. I will probably always be associated with a lot of companies in the hoa industry, but that does not mean I own them...I just own a lot of info (and links to info). Edenrage (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting feedback on Open source notability and rewritten TurnKey Linux article
Hi Tony. A month ago we had a pretty heated debate about open source notability in general and the TurnKey Linux article in particular. Unfortunately that discussion was on the wrong venue (DRV) and there was too much emotion involved, so it degenerated into an exercise in butt-heading rather than any meaningful discussion.
I've now come to realize I share the blame for how things turned out. Anyhow, I took a break from Wikipedia after that for a while to calm down and get a little perspective and now that I'm back I would like to first apologize if I offended you in any way the last time around and also invite you to participate in a discussion we're having on
User:Abd/Open Source notability
.
Also, I've rewritten the proposed article at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, added reliable sources and opened an RfC requesting comments on how to improve the article and establish consensus regarding it's notability (or lack of). See the talk page for details. You might want to weigh in on that as well.
Hello Tony. Since I did an update to the header of
WP:COIN#Questionable external links to athomenet.com, I moved the article link in your first sentence to line up all the article links. See if it's OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
Can you salt these two plz? They're both related to a stupid meme on YouTube and have been speedied at least five times each. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of us got Penish at about the same time, actually. If that didn't kill it, I don't know what will! Tony Fox(arf!) 17:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that speedy and AfD cannot overlap, yet I've tagged countless AFD articles with speedy tags and they've usually gone down without trouble. This one is a blatant hoax, as nothing outside Wikipedia turns up for this guy and the chart positions are bogus. What's your take? I say shoot it on sight, but I'm getting a lot of friction here, and would like a second opinion from an uninvolved party. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's been sitting around since May of LAST YEAR?! The hell with that. It's gone. Tony Fox(arf!) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI "And anyone who uses 'U' for "you" makes me grind my teeth painfully". You sound like a man who, like me, needs the {{User:UBX/1337-0}} userbox. Regards, TonywaltonTalk 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think my version would have more to do with blunt instruments than that one, but it works nonetheless. Added! Tony Fox(arf!) 00:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.
Your welcome.
Userbox
I've made my own userbox, but I can't make it a short simple code like most people do. Could you give me some advice? Kausill (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou anyway, yes I've looked there and it's hard to understand. I can make it, just not compress the code length? I'll find somebody who has made a userbox to help. Kausill (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
— 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009