User talk:Wknight94/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

How are NFL postseason summaries at ALL relevant?

I can understand having articles about teams, Super Bowls, and players, but postseason summaries frankly amount to fancruft. These articles will only draw POV and are not notable. 198.148.166.5 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Caitu, concerning "Gandharism"

Sorry if you see this as innappropriate editing of a page, but I would simply like to inform those who would like to know about "Gandharism". Seeing that Wikipedia IS a free encyclopedia, which allows users to contribute, I do not see why this is a problem. I would simply like to know why Gandharism is considered "inappropriate", as the page which I was previously working on was legitimate description of Gandharism, its teachings, and its history.

Thanks in advance, - Caitu~

David Wright

Don't worry about it; I was just extremely happy when it happened. Besides, looks like your a Mets fan too; gotta be happy, right?

Protect

I was just wondering if you could protect the GraalOnline article from being edited until the mediation case has finished (which will hopefully be in about 36 hours max). Killfest2 (Talk) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Statement in the GraalOnline debate

Requesting sources is very different from completely removing content because you do not feel it is fair. I agree that it may be a more valid arguement if there were sources, and I would be happy to find them. Sources are hard to come by on Graal as it is against the rules on the game to say anything negative against the game or its staff. Linking to the UGCC was my effort to offer alternative views and support the criticism. Proper citation would be good, I agree, but the point was never brought up or dealt with in the correct manner. --Warcaptain 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if you would like to read some sources on the issue, this would be a good place. Stephane (aka unixmad) is quick to call us using that as a source "advertising", but it's a group of players who are making such criticisms. Di4gram 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So at what point does alot of criticism from players of the game become original research? I don't understand how it is possible for any new knowledge to make its way into this article if a forum literally full of game players does not count as anything. If the players aren't qualified to make assessments on how they are treated, who is? Di4gram 05:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Starchy

Looks like all of our friends have been identified as socks of the North Carolina Vandal, whose socks number in the millions. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the North Carolina vandal. -- Fan-1967 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe not millions, but there are hundreds, several pages worth in that category. You're right, how sad. Fan-1967 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently a kid with nothing better to do. I'm tempted to violate Zorn's Law but we AFD'ed that one. Fan-1967 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Ruben Munoz

Despite your warning, User:warrenbaseball22 did create this article. I've put it up for a speedy deletion, but wanted to let you know anyway. Errabee 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Protect II

Can I get you to protect User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline, because I won't be accpeting any more statements, and I don't want a war of words to break out. Thanks. Killfest2 (Talk) 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image I uploaded

Do you know why the image of myself I uploaded for my talk page was deleted? I am not sure what the rules are, but I know I saw on several pages pictures of themselves. So I thought it was okay, but just trying to clarify.

Thanks! --Warcaptain 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting your help on the GraalOnline mediation

You can read the discussion on the User_talk:Daniel.Bryant "All this mediation for nothing" and you will see that in my point of view Daniel has gone out of the mediation process and is not neutral any more. He have allowed all the false critics to be put back on the main article after saying that the article should return to the old state and saying that no modification should be done without his approval. He have also made comment on our way to manage GraalOnline forums and GraalOnline as a game, this is not the goal of this mediation but to create a encyclopedia page about GraalOneline. Your comments on this mediation have helped a lot and you are a very experienced in wikipedia policy. We will really appreciate if you can help to enforce decision and help making the GraalOnline article follow wikipedia policy and rules. If you don't have time i will appreciate if you ask someone else to do it or help you. Graal unixmad 11:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not biased when I gave my mediation. You signed to accept the process outlined in the "Future procedure" section. Now you're complaining because you violated the policy of no personal attacks, defamation, as well as WikiCorp judgement that your actions were against community spirit, hence your ban. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant (Talk) 08:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

John E. Sweeney

Thanks. And I want to thank you for the work you did to add the references to the article, as well as the copyediting - it's the sort of thing that makes wikipedia articles more useful (and more vandal-proof, since references are a bit more daunting to deny usefullness of), but too often no one finds the time for. John Broughton 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

requested move

I followed the instructions as best I understood them. Instead of delisting it, would you list it properly so you know it will be done correctly?`--Chris 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (ps-there's really no need for a vote, there are two different organizations, and the one redirects to the namespace of the other, as the names are so similar.)

The Holiday

If you're going to move this, I thought I'd point out that The Holiday (film) hasn't been discussed as an option and might be better as there are numerous books with the name. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Jilin Broadcast&Television Tower
The Carol Burnett Show
Jason Isringhausen
Tris Speaker
Stephen Sommers
Michelle Langstone
WCWM
The Kids Will Have Their Say
Bridget Loves Bernie
Scott Gimple
Jim Edmonds
Medical Center (TV series)
Rhoda
Subgroups of the Han ethnicity
The NBC Saturday Night Movie
Eric Chavez
Love, American Style
Bill White (baseball)
The Bob Newhart Show
Cleanup
Vicki Zhao
Laverne & Shirley
American Bandstand
Merge
University of Science and Technology of China
The Inning
List of notable Calgarians
Add Sources
American League Championship Series
Alex Rodriguez
Baseball Tonight
Wikify
Jim Gentile
Dragon Tales
Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army
Expand
Sport in China
Washington Wizards
The Naked Vicar Show

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GraalOnline methods

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
I present you with this award for the magnificent display of methods in dealing with the GraalOnline incident. Where many failed, you triumphed by knowing what to say, when to say it, and most importantly, how to say it. Although the Wikimedia Foundation is now sorting it out, you did a lot to try and negate the situation, and without you this whole incident could have been a lot worse. Thank you! Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Auto-edit of user's talk pages

Please refrain from editing other user's talk pages automatically, even if they are empty. (This refers to your edit of my discussion page on 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC).) Thanks. --Philipp Kern 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means. What exactly are you complaining about? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a standard welcome message which folks use to welcome new users. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible, but it is signed with your name. --Philipp Kern 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know. I left a welcome message on your talk page ---- with my signature ---- to welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't understand the problem. Talk pages is how people leave messages to other people. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it seemed like an automatic edit. I was confused because that account is not that new that I need welcome messages. ;) --Philipp Kern 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Domestique

Sorry, I'm on wikibreak and didn't notice this earlier, but any chance you can review your decision on Talk:Cycling domestique? I created a dab page at Domestic to fulfill the wishes of the anonymous user and the comments by User:Vegaswikian seem to indicate that s/he didn't pay attention, as s/he calls for the creation of the article I wanted to be renamed. Even though there are other uses for domestique (it's French for domestic after all), I still don't see a compelling reason to not reserve the term for its most common use. (Wikitionary agrees) Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Bell (reporter)

I think the Don Bell (reporter) should be deleted. Did I do something wrong? It also seems to be a reason User:CFIF says I am a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, something it looks like he does when people do not agree with him. I made a request on the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation page that he gets looked at. Can you advise me further? José is Fluid 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your Elmer Wood Elementary vote

I'm not pro or anti school personally, but I felt compassion for little Elmer Wood Elementary's efforts to get a web site up, since Merced is made up largely of migrant farm workers and other poorly paid people. Mattisse 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Splash, CFIF and sockpuppets

I've asked another admin, and I'm going to ask you as well as you're involved here to have a look at Splash (talk • contribs) pile of indef blocks lately and all these accusations of sockpuppetry. They do not seem substantiated to me, and I've looked as some old evidence on spotteddog and cannot see the connection here.--Crossmr 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

About Sock Puppetry and Vandalism

I noticed that you stated in the Elmer Wood deletion article that I had done sockpuppetry and vandalism. I just want to say that I haven't done any of those things, the only article I have ever created is the article about Elmer Wood. If there was any sockpuppetry or vandalism going on, then it was probably my very mean big brother having some fun using my user name. I apologize for his actions, and I hope that you will not use them against the Elmer Wood Elementary School article.

                                                                        --Little Miss Cheerleader 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!


Northwestern (Disambiguation)

Please let me know what it means that there was "no consensus" on the request to have "Northwestern" redirect to "Northwestern University." Do you need 100 percent agreement to make renamed pages? I think there was more enthusiasm for the change rather than the current disambig page. Please let me know, I'm a newer Wikipedian so am trying to learn about the Wiki policies. Thanks. Robms927 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I do not dispute the decision, I was just looking for the explanation which you willing provided. Thanks again. Robms927 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


move request on Talk:Directory of Public Worship

Good call on the requested move. I logged in this morning to withdraw the move request, and found that you had beaten me to it. There seems to be some confusion in the instructions at the top of WP:Requested moves. I read it as saying that if you are blocked from moving (because new user) then you must submit a request first, and then initiate a discussion on the pages Talk page. It seems now I misread it, and it would have been fine to discuss my move idea on the talk page first . I wonder if the language is unclear and whether we should persuade an admin (like you!) who knows good practice well to take a glance over it and tidy it up. Meanwhile, my 'new user' block has run its course so I can move undisputed pages at my leisure. Thanks for your assistance and have a good weekend. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Graalonline article end of the story ;)

I think you will appreciate how the sysop has deleted the GraalOnline article just saying he has counted the number of vote, hundred of discussion and arguments for nothing... Someone taking 10 minutes to delete an article. Also Daniel Bryant has not finished with this article, he now want to be sure the article will not be recreated and is asking for WP:SALT... Well i am done with wikipedia, i was planning to help the French wikipedia but seeing how wikipedia is managed i will put my free time on something else. See ya. Stephane. Graal unixmad 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is sad, really. The Graal article could have easily been sourced without the un-sourced critisism section that was continually put there out of anger. Unixmad posted various sources that could have been used, and I am sure everything else could have been sourced also, or just removed until it could be sourced. I would hope that the wiki would reconsider before not allowing a Graalonline article. --Moon Goddess 14:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel.Bryant's RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA! I withdrew at (2/7/2) because I realised that I made a misjudged action by accepting the nomination so soon after a couple of edits which I whole-heartedly regret. I invite you to take the opportunity to read an explanation I gave for those diffs. In no way am I defending my actions, as I now realise they were wrong, but I still feel that if you understand the reasons I have given both with my withdrawal statement, as well as my RfA talk page, we may be able to travel the path of understanding. Daniel.Bryant

Buddhist philosophy: move request

The move was proposed by User:Vapour. So you should probably notify also that user. Thanks for the message anyways.--Klimov 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

Thanks for the heads-up. The content at Athletics was moved to Athletics (track and field) after a lengthy discussion. I will add a request at Wikipedia:Bot Request for a bot to change appropriate existing links to Athletics to Athletics (track and field). -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trunking (auto)

Would you believe 280,000 Google hits for Trunking + car? =) Ifnord 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Survive WP:AFD? Probably not now but if fleshed out a bit I think so. But, you have been a busy beaver. I can't imagine the sillyness you've seen, I had a good giggle at the guy desperate to have his Collopy article... Keep up the great work! Ifnord 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee Smith (baseball)

Thanks. =) I started to write the playing years article last Monday, but I couldn't get to it because I had an AP Bio assignment that I had to mail out by Friday (omg I typed 31 pages). But looks like you did a phenomenal job with the article and I must really thank you for this. If I had been the one who made the bulk of the article, I would have had so many numbers and stats involved that it would have been such a bore :-p.

Regarding the dates, I saw everyone did their references differently that I had, so I wanted to at least keep it universal so I added the 2006-08-19, but I didn't know I could do 2006-08-19. Thanks for telling me though! I'll keep that in mind.

--Nishkid64 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Judging from your part in the Graalonline dispute, and other things I have read,you will make a great, level headed admin (I know, I'm late). Darlene 10:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot my password on the other account, and did not put an email addy so I could get a new one, so I had to make a new account

I will check those links, thanks. Darlene 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Boston Massacre

Wknight94: Do not copy 2006 Boston Massacre in to talk pages or you will be blocked.

It's only fitting that a Mets fan should protect a Yankee-related article. 71.250.145.62 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM Priština -> Pristina

I would kindly ask you to reopen the RM proposal discussion, as quite a few active editors of Priština have not stated their position yet. This request is according to WP:Requested moves policy which states that, "The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." I believe this to be the case here. -- int19h 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: my point was that you cannot really have consensus when there is no quorum. So far we have had 4 votes, 3 out of those which actually count (i.e. are non-neutral), and all votes but mine were from users who did not participate in discussion on Talk:Priština before (and my participation was cursory at best). On the other hand, no word was heard yet from active editors such as User:ChrisO, User:PANONIAN, User:Ilir pz, User:Tonycdp, User:Mig11, User:Phildav76, User:Hipi Zhdripi and User:HolyRomanEmperor, to name a few. Admittingly it's strange that noone took part in the vote, seeing how the article name was a rather heated discussion topic not long ago... Either way, I think it's just a tad too early to say that consensus among the editors is clear, with so few votes, none of them being from the editors themselves. -- int19h 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it has been two weeks now, I think it is safe to assume that if anyone did not vote, they are not going to either. The consensus is pretty clear as well. I would not at all object to it being closed now - then we could proceed with editing the article itself to make it more consistent with regards to spelling decided upon. -- int19h 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Snakes on a Plane/temp

Moving a page creates a redirect from the original location to the destination. Redirects should not point from article space to user space. I have deleted the redirect page. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

fuck off with the welcome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

why you create a fucking page in my user area delete it now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry

ok i did not realise you did that. i thought you deleted it . i am sorry if i outraged u. if you have a paypal account i'll send some money to you as a sorry message—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

why did you just put your vandal counter up? put it down since i wasnt trying to "vandalise" it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

do you want me to send you some money because of my swearing? i can send it to ur paypal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .}l;.18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)_

you have made a clear threat to me on my user page. I'm giving you a warning. threatning me is breaking a clear policy on wikipedia. consider this your first and only warning. Harry887766 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK mate. can you be my friend on here then —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

ok it is best i do not speak to you anymore but dont ban me please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

Three home runs

Took seven minutes for me to create the page (MLB hitters with three home runs in one game), I hadn't even typed three names yet, and someone nominated it for deletion as useless trivia. I tried to route them to the golden sombrero discussion, but who knows whether anyone will pay attention. I'm not gonna bother typing 400+ players in here until we decide we actually want the list. Dakern74 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied the wikitext for the 4HR list as the starting point for my 3HR list. Guess I will have to go off and create another user page for now.
Speaking of which, I think you had critiqued my other new page on scorekeeping (User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping) as needing some citations. Most of it is personal experiences (mine and other scorekeepers I know or have talked to), but could be verified through the links at the bottom (or through the "how-to" in any team's program). But if there are specific "facts" or sections you think should have them, I've got no problem adding them. Just not sure exactly where. Thanks in advance if you have time. Dakern74 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. Take your time. There's also a discussion on the original baseball scorekeeping page about moving it to a WikiBook anyway since it's more of a "how-to" article than a true encyclopedia entry. Don't know how (if) that changes the WP:V standard. It would leave room for more examples or pictures or different ways that different people might do the same thing. I just went with the "generally accepted" non-controversial stuff. Dakern74 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Other than checking all the links for redirects (I think I got all the disambigs), I believe we have ourselves an article. 480 times it's happened, counting the playoffs. Per our earlier discussion, it might be time to merge the other two lists you found, MLB players who have hit 3 home runs over consecutive innings and MLB hitters with two or more 3-home run games in a season. The first one of these is named wrong to start with, since it's consecutive at-bats, not necessarily consecutive innings, and going by my MLB record book, is horribly incomplete. I haven't double-checked the second one, but at least it appears to be current. If there's anything you can think to add or change (esp. in the Trivia section), go nuts. -- dakern74 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone actually added the Cody Ross line earlier this week while I was still building it. Whoever it was, they decided to put under "notes" that the third one was actually a foul ball according to the TV replay. Cute, but not exactly verifiable. It still counts. I did notice the division title has not yet been added to the Mets' infobox, however. Thanks for the help. -- dakern74 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would have heard more about it if they had. Magic number was 3 on Wednesday, though, and then the Braves lost that doubleheader. Oh well, I figure two dozen people will be all over it the second it does happen. Cite is in place, btw. -- dakern74 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This is what I get for being too wrapped up in minor-league playoffs. I do seem to remember something about the Phillies being good this year. Some guy named Howard. :) Need to get down to Shea in the next couple weeks, I haven't been yet this year. -- dakern74 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up all the redirects. I'm concerned about some redlinks to some relatively recent players (and older ones for that matter), but who knows. Meantime, I added the merge tags on the other lists you found, if you'd like to weigh in. Since it was your idea to start with. See Talk:MLB_hitters_with_three_home_runs_in_one_game. Thx. -- dakern74 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff without a section

03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Yeah, thanks for that favor. My problem was that I created that page yesterday before I wrote the actual article, but when I came back to it I noticed that the publish date in the subtitle was wrong, and as far as I now (this is the first page I've written) I can't correct it through any "Edit" buttons, I had to have it deleted and remade. But anyways I finished that article and it's all up to read now...

-Dgfduck

Page moves

Hi. Regarding your move request for several articles to have spaces between the first and middle initial, where are people supposed to give their opinions about each one? Also, the S.M. Krishna one seems to be going to itself (S.M. Krishna → S.M. Krishna). Check out the steps for requesting a page move. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions, etc. As you can see, I've been moving dozens of pages to match the naming conventions regarding articles for persons with the name "X. Y. Lastname." All the ones that I requested were obstructed moves for which there would have been no discussion anyway. I've neither the time nor energy to keep up on consensus-building moving a bunch of improperly-titled articles that would have been moved without any discussion had it not been for an accident editing history. In other words, since there is already a standard, I didn't feel like consensus was necessary. Thanks for the heads-up on the S.M. Krishnan one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And yet a quick scan of this region of your talk page shows you've been catching a lot of flak for this approach lately and have even reverted yourself on one occasion. I also see some talk of WP:POINT violations and such. Hopefully some other admin will catch these when they come due because I'd be unlikely to move them without consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure If you make 1,000 edits, you'll make 1.) at least one mistake, and 2.) at least one person displeased with you. While I'm sure Duncan has his reasons, they've generally fallen on deaf ears, as no admin has contacted me, and there's apparently been no action on the administrator's noticeboard. If you don't want to move these pages, I've certainly no ill will toward you, but I'm saying that it's goofy to go through this process for something trivial and that should obviously be done. I'm busy trying to clean up some loose ends on Wikipedia, rather than discussing ad nauseum whether or not it's "S.M. Krishnan," when there is already a naming convention and a general standard applied. That kind of consensus-building is tiresome and stands in the way of people making useful edits to articles to increase information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
At least a quick notice on the talk page would be a good civil gesture for people that may have the page on their watchlists - but I'll leave it at that. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough That seems like a gesture of good will that's completely appropriate. I'll put them up tomorrow, most likely. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankie Schneider

Thank you for saving the Frankie Schneider article. He was a very notable driver. We had scheduled to write an article about him in WikiProject NASCAR, as he had a NEXTEL Cup win. He had an interesting career. I see you are from New York, so please expand his article if you know anything else about his career. Good Job! Royalbroil 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I'm an admin and was trolling around CAT:CSD. We find quite a few that are bad speedy deletion requests and this was one. Glad I could help! :) I'm originally from New York but I'm no longer there — and I don't know anything about Frankie Schneider anyway so I won't be of much use improving the article. Sorry... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure there are quite a few of his fans on wikipedia. The article was quite poor before I cleaned it up. I can see where someone speedied it. I didn't keep much from the original article. You can respond here if so inclined. Cheers! Royalbroil 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben & Jason

Just because they show up in a Google search doesn't make them notable. I am using the Wikipedia:Notability (music) for my {{prod}} because the {{db-bio}} doesn't apply if they make a claim to a major label. Please let me know if you think I've handled this correctly. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with Ben Parker (British singer/songwriter). - CobaltBlueTony 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian LeBlanc

Alan William White Article Hi thanks for the welcome. Alan was my father. I have a question that perhaps you could help me out with... Why can I not find that article any longer? Did I break a protocol? Thank you, Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bleblanc (talk • contribs) . Alan William White Article Thanks for the information. He may or may not meet the notability criterea. My opinion is that he is a very good example of "Americana". A combination of pre WWII upbringing and post Kennedy America. His ideals and childhood experiences holding him back from embracing the change into a technical society. Perhaps I should have made this more clear in the article. Perhaps a different forum would be more appropriate. Your call, thanks, Brian

Re: Rory Lewis

I am not too sure if this is how to respond to, or post, a message to you so please forgive me if I am unintentionally becoming the 7th person to pollute your site.

The reason the article is confusing is exactly why it is notable. Mathematicians and musicians do share domains of interest. However, musicians who have made $$ from music and achieved a level whereby they are in Rolling Stone Magazine and performing in front thousands at stadiums with Jerry Lee Lewis ... have never (to the best of my knowledge) ... also used knowledge gained in the aforementioned environment, applied it to the Music Information Retrieval and in the process created a novel methodology of music analysis to the extent that KDD, and MIR conferences are inviting him to talk and share a new way of using 1) Inverse fast fourier transforms, with MPEG-7 descriptors and 2)mega-databases to split sound. See the site

So yes, how does one catagorise the silliness of on-stage antics with the seriousness of splitting sound.

Oh yes: Splitting sound ??? ... you insert a CD of your choice into the machine and it 1) prints out exactly what each instrument was playing in music form and, burns a multiple CDs each bearing only what each instrument played. Innertron 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I hit save before I spell checked it and now I can't find it. This is MONDAY! Innertron 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to Talk:Rory Lewis. - CobaltBlueTony 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. I've gotten some headaches with these football clubs (do you apply the same standard as personal names?) With companies/people/etc. that insist on the official name being "X.Y. Lastname," then it makes sense to move it back or leave it as-is. As for the football clubs, this was a stupid move on my part: I only moved some of them before I had this crisis about whether or not they should obey the naming convention regarding people. Sigh. That was a stupid mistake of my own, and I'll move them back, for now... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: A. J. Allmendinger

Not to be tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't be opposed to making B. J's Wholesale club. Back to the point: I found the move to be innocuous and tidy, so I did it. Some pages I did not move, such as W.T. Cosgrave because there were about six editors there opposing the move. I like to think that we're making progress in standardization for initialed names slowly but surely. With that said, I have absolutely no problem if you want to move Allmendinger back to where it was. I'm not sensitive about the admin stuff I do, or the admin stuff that others do over mine (i.e., I don't wheel war). Part of the fun of wiki to me is that things can be done and undone as concensus shifts. So, if you'd like it back where it was, be bold and go right ahead! Thanks for messaging me about it. Teke(talk) 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Don Bell (reporter)

Hi. I nominated the Don Bell (reporter) article for speedy deletion because it does meeet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 or Wikipedia:Notability (people). I have now listed it for regular deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bell (reporter) (2nd nomination). RMP 2584 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In defense of myself

In defense of myself, I found the [[Don Bell (reporter) article when I hit "Random article" and felt that Don Bell (reporter) didn't meet the inclusion criteria. When it wasn't I tried the next thing, which was the nomination. After I added it, I noticed that it had been nominated before, so I followed the instructions to nominate it again. It appears that the first nomination was not a true discussion, as CFIF accused the nominator of being a sockpuppet. From what I read on CFIF's talk page, he has a history of doing this to other people in order to keep his articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone! Isn't the whole point of the exersise that if a user finds an article that doesn't meet the established standards, they can try to obtain a consensus by having it deleted? Is CFIF's goal on Wikipedia to make it an elite clique where his articles are never deleted or to just attack the newbies?

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Wknight94: On further consideration, I've blocked him. Just in case you miss the note on my talk page. -Splash - tk 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

 Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Baseball AID

I think you should delete your nominations till the aid is fully ready. I think we need to discuss all the rules before we start nominating articles. I've started discussion of the rules on the talk page. Kingjeff 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree with any of the rules I proposed? Kingjeff 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Seekraft posted this on my talk, but I think he meant it for you.

From Seekraft]. He explains his many edits that you had asked about. The explanation he makes gives me the impression this is OR. :) Dlohcierekim 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop

We are not testing the waters. In fact the foundation would rather we didn't. If you didn't notice there is an arb case going on for Splash for his unprotections. I have listed the reasons on my talk, please don't keep doing this, there is no consensus to uprotect. pschemp | talk

From the Rfa: "Semiprotection of these articles is essential to ensure that our readers are not subjected to useless or offensive content." pschemp | talk 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moving pages

Hey thanks; I see the ones that were fixed that I missed. Thanks for tidying up; I'm still getting the hang of the whole thing. Shimgray gave me a good tutorial on IRC a few days ago, such as what to put in the RM page edit summaries and such. Glad to be working with you, please let me know on further formalities if/when I miss them! Teke(talk) 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

I was minded to remove protection, but feedback from the involved editors (on both sides of an edit dispute) was that they considered this valuable and key to preventing an outbreak of the previous edit war. However, things may have settled a bit since they commented. A particular consideration is that Ignatieff is standing for Liberal leadership candidate and has already attracted politicised edits, which are likely to increase as the December leadership election approaches. I have been playing safe, as there have been very constructive discussions on the talk page, and I've been afraid of these being sabotaged by ill-meaning contributions. One of the previous problems was disruption from dynamic IPs. That's the situation, and I would welcome your advice on this as someone from an objective viewpoint. Tyrenius 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric's other poll

On your MfD for the City Naming Strawpoll, you haven't commented on Ericsaindon2's other poll (Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll) which is still ongoing. Since he is banned, who is in charge of it? And should it still be open until September 18, the date set by the poll? Tinlinkin 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar articles semiprotection

These are unfortunately a special case. You are probably not familiar with banned User:Gibraltarian. He was blocked by the Arbitration Committee last February. I dare to say it will not take him more than two days to hit back. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, quoting ChrisO (the enforcing admin for the previous semiprotection): "Gibraltarian is one of the most persistent vandals I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) - he's been vandalising Gibraltar-related pages and now user pages on at least a daily basis for the past seven months." Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only second what Asterion has said. Please check out the editing history of those pages. The guy is utterly obsessive - he's even been vandalising Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee lately [1]. He can't be blocked without blocking his entire ISP, unfortunately. The semiprotection may be inconvenient for some, but it's considerably more inconvenient to have to revert the page on an hourly basis for days on end, which is what we've had to do on some occasions. -- ChrisO 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But protecting a Talk page?! Surely occasional vandalism on a talk page can be controlled to an acceptable degree. The threshold of "acceptable degree" is far lower on a talk page than an article. The vandalism that was recently removed from Talk:Economy of Gibraltar had been sitting there for six weeks before anyone even noticed it! If vandalism sneaks in there and no one's watch list catches it, just delete it and any response to it. A couple vandalisms per day is not exactly George W. Bush level - it hasn't been touched since I unprotected more than 6 hours ago! And it's even more pointless to protect only a talk page and not the article itself. Try using User:VoABot II if the problem is that bad. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right regarding Economy of Gibraltar and its talk page. It has not been vandalised for a long time. Nonetheless, I would ask you to reconsider before lifting the semi-protection for other articles in the series, including Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, Algeciras, San Roque, Cádiz, and a long list (refer to template {{Gibraltarian}} for details). If you check the contributions history, you will realise we were not exagerating. Thanks and regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I will - if you'll consider at least opening up the talk pages of those articles. :) That just seems like a slap in new users' faces. "Can't edit the article, go to the talk page - woops! Can't edit here either, sorry!" —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the talk page situation is unusual, but when you consider that Gibraltarian forced the Spanish wiki to block an entire ISP for weeks because his persistance, you start seeing this as a small inconvenience in comparison. I do like your suggestion for using the bot but AFAIK it was not working properly for Gibraltarian edits somehow. Not really sure, I think ChrisO contacted VoiceOfAll about it a while back. Cheers, E Asterion u talking to me? 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My error, I thought that was the article rather than the talk page and that the vandalism was recent. Its an ongoing situation as the Spanish editors continue to taunt user:gibraltarian and attempt to enforce their Governments POV, he shouts and screams ineffectivly and on the strength of that they try and get the whole of Gibraltar banned and locked out so they can have their wicked way with truth and the pages. Why should wikipedia be different to Other sports.--Gibnews 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, "to taunt User:Gibraltarian"? You know perfectly well my only interactions with him in the past seven months have been to revert his edits, to restore section/articles blanked by him or to remove offensive edits he has left at many editors' pages (including ChrisO, VoA, Wookohitty and a very long etcetera). I am certainly not impressed. On the other hand, I disagree with generic ISP blocks and have mentioned this many times before. Regards (and apologies to WKnight94 for replying here but I do not take lightly this sort of comments), E Asterion u talking to me? 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves Rhodesian man

You recently removed the move tag for that page, I guess I was the only person interested in the page move. I still think it needs to be done. It would be a move over a redirect but the redirect has some history so I need an admin to help. Can you do that or should I go back to the Requested moves page? Again the requested move is old name Rhodesian Man to new name Homo rhodesiensis in order to make it consistent with all the other species pages (Rhodesian Man refers to a specific fossil while the page is about the species.) I am working on creating pages for several fossils and that info will eventually end up there. Thanks Nowimnthing 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disgaree about Raid (band)

I'm not sure where the article "asserts notability" for the band, but you're the admin. --Walter Görlitz 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam

Hi, It's on Google Books [2] Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should go through AfD - it's just one of thousands of similar type stories. I suppose apparently originating in the 13th century is its main claim to fame, but let the community decide whether it's worth keeping or not. The article is pretty much a direct translation of Migne's original, so I don't have anything to add tight now (if something occurs to me I'll put it in the article). Dlyons493 Talk 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Spotteddogs sock

Marilyn Fan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Already at AIV, but you'll probably block it quicker. —Whomp t/c 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Lynx - Edit war

Seems to be an edit war going on with an anonymous user who keeps removing the details and news link about the sale and move of the team to Allentown, Pa., in 2008. Myself and someone named User:PAWiki have both violated WP:3RR already this weekend. :) I left a message on the talk page for the IP address, but who knows. Just wondering if you could be of any help here. Thx. -- dakern74 (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi I noticed you speedied and article but not it's talk page? What's the use of leaving the talk page, discussion or no, if you're going to speedy the article? Gateman1997 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wkniqht94 ? Possible impersonation ?

I don't know if you already know, but there is a user Wkniqht94 who has recently registered, and has (i) uploaded an odd image and (ii) posted it onto Shangwen Fang following your post. Mr Stephen 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Chabot Copyright Violation

The article copied on the Anthony Chabot page is in the public domain. It was published in 1883 and the website explicitly says all materials are in the public domain. Is it OK to remove the copyright violation tag? Lagringa 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Improperly indexed categories

I've responded to your comments about this on my talk page. What I want to bring up here has to do with your actions.

Please refrain from making moves such as this one in which you do not fix the indexing sort key. The people working on the implementation of WP:RM ought to be well aware of the existence of this problem, and ought to take action when they make moves in response to these requests. Gene Nygaard 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WTVT news team & WTSP news team

WTVT news team & WTSP news team are following the mold of other such pages where non-notable people individually can be collected into a collective biography by the fact that they are part of a specific station's news team in which there is collective notablity, as opposed to lack of notability individually. See: WCAU-TV Anchors and Reporters for precident. Borox 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I saw it as meaning that the one who requested the move was moving the main article there and was going to make the other into a redirect. Michael 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

stormfront AfD removal

Hello, I noticed that you removed the AfD tag very quickly in view of the allegations. How did you make up your mind so fast? I provided links showing that there was a solicitation on the Stormfront forum and between users on their own talk pages. I've also reported them for sock/meat puppetry.

From your comment it seems you might not have noticed that the first section is from 2005. That was dispensed with. The new section starts below. I did not presume to delete the prior entry because there were no instructions to do that. How come it was deleted so quickly? Thank you, Stick to the Facts 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking a closer look - it seems you might have thought someone else started it and then changed his mind. I started it today - there was an older one from 2005. I definitely haven't changed my mind and I think the second part that was started by a 'banned' user was the one I added.

Can I put it back? Thank you, Stick to the Facts 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


OK thank you. :) Stick to the Facts 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Complicated AFD indeed. :) thanks for helping us out. I personally am not nominating it, but if Stick still wants to nomiate it, i'll commment on that nomination when it's made. --Alecmconroy 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

socks...

No problem, no offense taken. I am racking my brain, trying to figure out what I must be missing (and my brain is not working properly this last couple of days). Both are just users with which our project keeps seeming to hit brick walls, because they violate rules when they don't get their way. Being geographically next door to one another, and exhibiting the same ill behaviors, several of us noticed that it began to walk like a duck and quack like a duck... I'm just the guy who finally made the request. But I have no idea the part I'm leaving out that would be the Rosetta Stone and tie it all together, though I am most aware I am missing something. Sorry. :( Chris 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Leep

I'm confused. I see nothing in the article's history which indicates it was deleted, and I see nothing in the user you mention's history which shows that he edited the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. Sorry that I messed things up. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Reborox (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFCU for LostKnob

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry potter 7 title

Hello Nice to see that some new faces have recently become interested in commenting on the article. However, I am interested to know how you became involved with the page? It would seem that someone came along and changed the title without any discussion. Then someone started a debate about a different title. A number of people I have never seen comment on a Harry Potter page then opposed the proposed further move, and in just 7 days, you yourself closed the debate. This is quite extraordinary attention for a HP page.

No one has yet explained the grounds for changing the page from its original title. Can you explain why this was done? It was also done by someone who had never edited the page before and was pretty inexperienced. A justification was given, but not explained. Then (as you noticed) an anon deleted the debate. Also very strange. Why would anyone do this? Sounded like someone wanted to avoid discussion. While I do not think it likely that people would have opposed the page title change if it is satifactorily explained, this has still not been done. I do not see how any change of title can be discussed or considered to have been voted unless someone explains why it needed to be moved in the first place. Sandpiper 07:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, i tried to look up the definition of vandalism. it says: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". It then goes on at great length. Perhaps you would like to reconsider the comment you placed on my user page? Sandpiper 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh good, an easy question. Page moves can be done by anyone at anytime as long as they're within reason (i.e., don't rename Harry Potter 7 (book) to The new Harry Potter book that is going to be so cool!!! or Harry Potter 7 (book) on Wheels!!!!). For this, consult WP:BOLD. If someone wants to move an article to a title that is obstructed, they need to use WP:RM. For this, consult the first two or three sections of WP:RM. This is what Cafzal (talk • contribs) did. Several people logged votes and opinions and the result was an overwhelming (by comparison to other move requests) vote to not bother with the move. Rather than comment on the open move request, you kept asking why it was moved in the first place. The problem with getting persistent with that question at that point (as you are continuing to be now) is that you don't own the article. For this, consult WP:OWN. No one owes you an explanation as to why it was moved in the first place. You can politely ask and you can propose some other move but, if no answer is given, you should probably drop it. Anyway, back to the move request: Then I became involved. I'm an administrator. Administrators go through WP:RM and close out requests. This move request came up and I closed it out. That means it's closed. As in closed forever. Read the red text in {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}}, "Please do not modify it." That means do not modify it. Ever. You modified it. The first time, I re-closed it and tried to be firm in my edit summary. Then you modified it again. Then you got a nasty message on your talk page. I was being kind with that simple message - other admins would have put up one of the nasty red stop signs or even just blocked you outright. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. You're free to go to WP:RM and you're free to use WP:BOLD to move it somewhere else but the community has spoken pretty clearly on that particular move request. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. you are saying that someone had initiated a formal request to move the page, and that you as an admin who does that sort of thing, closed the debate according to established procedures and timetable? Right. That does explain why a number of new editors had suddenly decided to comment on an HP page.
This is the first time that I have become aware either that there is such a procedure, or that it had been initiated. All I saw was that a discussion was going on, on the page, about whether or not to move it. this followed someone having already moved the page without any comment except for a cryptic sugestion that the name violated rules. I may be wrong on that, because it appeared to have already been moved at least twice before this debate. Other strange things were happening, as you commented the debate had been deleted entirely the last time I saw the page before you closed it. Then, along comes yet another total stranger and decides to 'close' the debate. This does not happen. Discussions about alterations to these pages typically meanders on for weeks or months, frequently simply petering out. So, I saw my clear course as to find out what was happening, first by asking questions on the talk page, and then when no information had yet appeared, insisting that the debate continue. This seems to me entirely in accord with 'any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.', to approximately reverse the summary statement describing 'vandalism'.
Now, I have not had time to read all the pages of advice to admins on how they are supposed to warn people that they are breaking 'rules'. It is quite clear to me at least, that I was not aware I was interefering with your formal procedure to debate a name change. It is rather implict therefore, that I was certainly not warned about what was going on. I am a bit unclear also about what a 'stage 3' warning is. The description page would seem to imply that an admin is supposed first to issue a stage 1, then a stage 2..etc warnings.
As a responsible editor, it is my responsibility to find out what is happening when a bunch of total strangers turn up and start mucking about with a page title which has been perfectly happily sitting there for considerable time, for no apparent reason. I did this initially merely by asking a question on the page, to which none of the voters replied. This is not now surprising since the people concerned were simply 'voters', who had just dropped in to voice an opinion, and would not have understood why I was asking questions which to them seemed irrelevant, even if they came back and saw them. I did get a reply from t-dot, who is a regular contributor, but who I suspect was as bemused as me by what was going on. As it appeared to me, several total strangers staged a mock debate over changing the title. I did not recognise anyone as people who might normally sensibly consider a question such as the best name for an HP article. You are quite right that no one 'owns' an article, but nonethelless people generally form themselves into groups who 'look after' articles. I 'wrote' a good part of this one. None of the voters, or yourself' seem to me to fit this description. It is not hepfull to wiki if 'bands' of people wander about changing titles as they please.
It would seem there has been something of a misunderstanding of what was going on, and that all you were doing was following procedures. There would seem to be a fault in the system, as the nature of the debate is not apparent to anyone (like me) simply scrolling to the bottom of the talk page to look for new entries. Perhaps, as an admin, you could suggest doing something about that?
This is all the more disappointing, since I noticed on your RFA page that you stated that you would never find yourself in the situation where you were involved in a disagreement with an editor, where you had not followed all the correct procedures according to guidelines. As I said before, perhaps you would like to reconsider the comment you placed on my user page? Sandpiper 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I still have no view on the original name change, since I still havn't really found out who did it or why they thought it a good idea. My point was that arbitrarily closing a discussion on this is rather futile, when nothing has really been decided. However, it seems you and I were debating different things. Sandpiper 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction here is that you may be taking things a tad too seriously. It was a small faux pas on your part followed by a warning from me when the faux pas was repeated. Out of that, you've gone to the lengths of pulling up my WP:RFA and reading through the whole thing and even extracted information out (BTW I'm honestly not sure which comment you're referring to in there). All of that over an article which is probably going to be renamed two or three more times before a title is finally announced, after which it will be renamed four or five more times for a variety of peculiar reasons (probably having "...ON WHEELS!!!!" at the end for a short time). Really - it's not worth it. We should both be adding and fixing content here rather than continuing this. It sounds like you've been here much longer than me and you've never seen a WP:RM in action so you may want to research some of the processes here as well. I wish you luck in improving the article on the Harry Potter 7 book, regardless of the article's title! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have spent several hours trying to sort out what is going on here. finding your RFA is the least of the difficulties in trying to find out what was supposed to happen. This situation illustrates one of the problems with wiki, that the more people write rules about things, the more impossible it becomes to read them all, never mind follow them. I try not to read any more rules than I absolutely need to, because, as you say, it wastes a huge amount of time. If I need to move a page by debate, then I shall reluctantly find out how. Perhaps you might give some consideration to the difficulty which happened here, that someone stumbles into the middle of one of your formal debates, without any indication of what it is. The title doesn't help, really, unless you already know what it implies. I see that there is a notice at the top of the page, but I didn't even stop to read the guff there (quite a bit), never mind realise it related to the debate at the bottom.
You are also right, that people get very upset by small offenses. However....if you could see your way clear towards deleting the 'stop' note which you placed on my talk page? (but I promise not to delete the section again, now I know why it is there)
Oh, there is a little box to click to show that an edit is a miinor one. One reason i seldom use it, is that experience suggests there is no such thing as a minor edit, including spelling and punctuation. Sandpiper 20:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Your question to my RfA

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I have responded to the user question you added to my RfA page. Click here to see my response. Thanks! --Nishkid64 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, okay. I added a response to Question 9A now. Check the RfA page. --Nishkid64 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Yeah, I was thinking that's probably what other admins would make mistakes on. I guess if they refresh their memory by taking a look at the admin how-to-guide and the Wikipedia guidelines, such problems could be averted. --Nishkid64 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wknight94/Archive 4

I award you the Daniel.Bryant Blue Star of Thanks for for your constructive criticism at my editor review. Thanks for reminding me to work on my edit summaries (which was brought up at my RfA), and also about my attitude to conflict. I feel extremely humbled that you indicate that my progress since my last RfA, which you opposed on, has been positive. Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just out of curiosity: considering your vote at my last RfA, if I was to continue on as I am now (but with better edit summaries, hopefully :D) for another nine-or-so months, and got into no conflicts, would you oppose on those diffs from my RfA, or would twelve months be long enough? Anyways, thanks for the review, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Local TV people notability

I am sick and tired of all the nonsense about these local TV people's articles, the sockpuppet nonsense, and feuds and really want to finally get some sort of standard for who should stay and who should go. We really need some sort of threshold of notabilty here that can end all this crap. Where would I propose this? TV Newser 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can You Please Help Me?

Hey Buddy, My handle here is GamingScholar. I am fairly new to wikipedia, but have attempted to conduct myself with maturity, honesty, and respect for the facts while attempting to post a new encyclopedic article. However, my attempts to post this were rebuffed by a crazy administrator who speedily deleted my work over and over citing incorrect and different reasons each time, and now the name of the article if entirely locked up! I first attempted to politely contact him to discuss this and was ignored. My request to an informal mediation cabal recieved no reply. This is starting to give me a bad experience trying to use this site. If you can please help me, I'd be happy to provide you with more information. Thanks ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GamingScholar (talk • contribs) .

Reliable Source?

Dear Sir,

I just received your message asking for a reliable source to back up notability. First of all I want to make sure I am carrying out my correspondence with you in the right place. Am a right to open up a new subject for this? Or should I have edited my previous entry to your talk page and added the additional correspondence there? I was a little confused by your request for a reliable source. Do you mean my original intended article "Gabrielangel" needs more sources, or are you asking for sources to support my description of something else? Thanks, and I appreciate you contacting me and putting up with me. Wiki has a major learning curve, it is not very user friendly for beginners. -GamingScholoar, 9/22/06

-New Correspondence 10:19 PM PST, 9/22/06 Mr. White Knight, As for a reliable source, the most recent draft of the attempted article contains with itself links to Blizzard.com forums and Elitemaiden's Warcraft web page. These websites are origins of the information that I took and resummarized into my article. I believe that the Blizzard.com website is a significant and reliable source. It is run by a company now doing billion dollar revenues and has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. So s this a reliable source according to wiki policy? Perhaps I did not cite properly, is that the problem? Or is there a specific, unsupported contention in my article that I can edit and therefore require less reliable source citation?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/k/n/User_talk%7EWknight94_Archive_4_f469.html"