User talk:CalendarWatcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

What's CalendarWatcher? -- Jim Douglas 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos if CW has that many pages on his/her watchlist... -- Robocoder (t|c) 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] St. Sechnaill

Article on above to be written another day, so I don't understand why you deleted it. After all, it was'nt a red link. Is mise, Fergananim 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing content from Wikipedia

Please do not remove content from pages (such as May 14) unless you con give a valid explanation for why you did so. Generally, it is considered vandalism however I think that your edits are good faith and so I am not marking them as vandalism - just warning you that someone might. If you think something should be removed and you have a good reason, then do it but make sure you say why in your edit summary and on the article's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! - Blood red sandman 09:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you put Jeffree Star up for speedy deletion? You should put some explantion why in the discussion page at least. I know it's been deleted and recreated many times, and I know he is a controversial person, and would be considered a celebrity.--grejlen - talk 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done this before, and I want to know if there's another reason besides the policy for deleting the article all the time. Star is getting more well-known and he's working on a studio album under the MySpace/Interscope label. I hope this is not an act of censorship, and I'm not saying you or any other administrator who has deleted the article is censoring Wikipedia.--grejlen - talk 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
How doesn't it "meet the standards"? There's other information on Star (mainly interviews) besides MySpace if type his name on a search engine.--grejlen - talk 03:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Gee, sorry. I meant to put that on 1890. He's an Indian rebellion leader. Cruciable 02:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 27

I was all set to revert that change myself, but first I checked the NYTimes archive -- and it agrees with the edit. I'm going to reinstate something like what the editor said (a mob set fire to the train, it didn't just 'catch on fire'):

February 28, 2002 Fire Started on Train Carrying Hindu Activists Kills 58 By CELIA W. DUGGER

An angry Muslim mob Wednesday morning set fire to a train loaded with Hindu activists who are seeking to build a temple on the site of a demolished mosque, killing 58 people and raising anxiety that the attack would set off a spiral of religious violence.

More than a dozen children were among those burned to death as some in the mob, who had been stoning the coaches, set fire to the train, probably with gasoline from a nearby pump, after it pulled out of a station in the western state of Gujarat, officials and witnesses said.

The train was surrounded by these Muslims, said Raju Bhargava, the district superintendent of police. There was heavy stone pelting and a bogie was set on fire. The fire engulfed the whole bogie and spread so fast the people couldn't come out of the compartment.

-- Jim Douglas 06:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if there's any dispute about the source of the fire, we don't want to include it on the date page; I just changed it to:

-- Jim Douglas 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye on edits by User:Tokus (not vandalism, a text editor problem)

FYI, I just sent this note to User talk:Tokus:

I had to revert the edits you made to September 22, September 23, and September 24. Something about the way you edited them destroyed most of the language tags. Are you possibly using an external editor that doesn't understand non-European languages?

You might want to watch for similar problems. -- Jim Douglas 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] May 14

First, I've done some thinking and I have to agree about the lack of notability on the concert. Sorry. The accident, however, meets a non-official notability standard that almost all of us that moniter/contribute to agree on - A commercial airliner crashing with fatalities is considered noteable. On the issue of smugness, I can only apologise if I came across as smug and assure you it was not in the least my intention. Apologies if I apeared in a manner other than intended, and happy editing! - Blood red sandman 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion - November 15

Hello, just wanted to know why you deleted my addition on November 15 - the launch of the first Fairtrade label Max Havelaar in the Netherlands. The launch was quite significant, as it was the first time a labelled fairtrade product was introduced. Subsequently over 20 different initiatives of the same kind were replicated around the world and labelled Fairtrade sales now amount to over 1.1 billion euros a year. I think it's more noteworthy in the grand scheme of things than stuff like "1989 - Sachin Tendulkar makes his Test cricket debut playing for India against Pakistan" or "1999 - Neopets is founded".... Quebecois1983 20:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Al-Aqsa Intifada reference in September 28

I have no opinion on this edit; I'll just note that the article claims that the specific trigger of the Intifada is disputed. (See February 27, above, for a similarly disputed point.) -- Jim Douglas 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Its not whitewashing it to remove a reference to him, its clearing it of opinion, it would be just as easy for me to blame the failure of the latest round of negotiations at the time as to blame Sharon. Ucscottb4u 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think maybe instead of going back and forth on this repeatedly, we could agree to a alternative? How about "The Al-Aqsa Intifada begins. 4658 people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict"? That number is based on the article, it leaves out POV, and is more a substantive entry.Ucscottb4u 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't happy putting that number in. I dont think it advances my point of view at all, if anything it goes against it. and im honestly trying to keep point of view out. Give me a alternative, dont just insult me. Ucscottb4u 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, Get a grip, This isnt personal. I am honestly looking for an alternative to going back and forth. There must be a way we stop going back and forth with the reverts. I am not trying to whitewash or insert my point of view. I really just want to stop going back and forth. I put this alternative in "The Al-Aqsa Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, begins." it has the name of the conflict as each side sees it, it doesnt give a point of view. Calling it the Al-Aqsa Intifada, implies your suggestion that Sharons visit was the cause, Calling it the Oslo War, gives the Israeli side, where many believe it was a result of the concessions made in the Oslo Accords. Both sides represented, without highlighting one. if you disagree that this is a fair alternative, dont just erase it and put y our old line back, lets figure out some alternative. Please.Ucscottb4u 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. This ought to be easier to solve than the actual Israeli/Palestinian conflict; it's just a headline in an encyclopedia. Here are the basic facts as I understand them:
  1. Ariel Sharon did in fact visit the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000
  2. Palestinian uprisings and demonstrations started on September 29, 2000
  3. The October Uprising started soon thereafter.
Are we all agreed that the event that happened on September 28 was in fact Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? That visit is certainly significant to the timeline, regardless of whether it's the ultimate or penultimate trigger, or merely a pretext for violence that would have taken place anyway. Is there any objection to this phrasing?
It doesn't claim that the visit triggered the Intifada; it merely says that the visit took place on this date (which is the point of the date pages) and was a significant event in the timeline of the Intifada. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can accept that.Ucscottb4u 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as the fact of the visit -- the point of marking the event to begin with -- is left in. --CalendarWatcher 05:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I think we're done here. Thanks, guys. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot?

Are you a bot? Raja Lon Flattery 14:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I a bot? No.

Are you a vandal? How else to explain the nonsense you added? --CalendarWatcher 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? A vandal? No. There is an explanation for what you call "nonsense" but as I currently don't want to go into a debate I will refrain from expressing it. Raja Lon Flattery 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than the explanation being that you were conducting a test, I can't imagine a satisfactory explanation. Or perhaps you hoped no one would notice the nonsense? --CalendarWatcher 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I already said I don't want to go into a debate and your attempts at guessing are merely futile. Raja Lon Flattery 14:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So my vandal assumption is safe. Good to know. Note that future edits by this account will be watched closely. --CalendarWatcher 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC

"Note that future edits by this account will be watched closely" - What's that suppose to mean? Please reply here. Raja Lon Flattery 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what it says. You added nonsense and declared that you would not explain it. Therefore, your future edits will checked for nonsense. --CalendarWatcher 14:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC

Although I asked you to reply here to keep the discussion clear, you ignored my request. That's fine with me. But you issuing what you've issued on my talk page after we talked that out is irrelevant and questionable. Raja Lon Flattery 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


We talked nothing out and I agreed to nothing: any claim or suggestion otherwise is all in your head. My Talk Page is where my messages go, and your Talk Page is where your messages go: this is absolutely standard and is absolutely clear for discussions (your claim notwithstanding), as your acceptance of previous messages on your page indicate. In addition, my warning is entirely relevant, and your probable attempts to sanitise your Talk Page by attempting to redirect comments (or, failing that, to delete them entirely) will be, ultimately, fruitless. --CalendarWatcher 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me if I am vandal. I have said that since I do not want to start a debate I will refrain from expressing and explanation and I have also said your guesses about me being a vandal were futile. You said it was good to know and concluded saying that my contributions will be closely watched. Somewhat confused, I asked what that meant and instead you issued what you've issued on my talk page when there was already no need for it. Hence it was irrelevant. Raja Lon Flattery 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, you have refused to explain why you ignored my request until after I began to move discussions here. Raja Lon Flattery 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You also said my attempts to sanitise my talk page will ultimately be fruitless. Obviously you are not aware of the archiving procedure and I suggest you check it out before making any further erred statements. just a piece of advice. Raja Lon Flattery 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Refer to: User_talk:Raja_Lon_Flattery/archive1 and [1]. Refusing to add an Archive box to User_talk:Raja_Lon_Flattery means that those warnings have been effectively deleted -- they're not accessible to anyone casually looking at the page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Funny, I'm still waiting to tell me where does it say there should be a perm link on my talk page. I take it you could not find it. Raja Lon Flattery 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 1

I reviewed the external links earlier, and apparently the act became law on that date. (I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other, though). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me about that. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, it's the effective date of the law; it was passed by Congress some months prior. But really, it ought to be in the article before it's on a day-of-the-year page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, you suggested my edits were closely watched so I wanted make sure of that. Raja Lon Flattery 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trystan Yancy (March 14)

Obviously we have to revert items like that, but I never feel good about it. I found this news report. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 19

Hi CalendarWatcher. Can you please explain why you deleted the Father Ted fiction entries? There are many date/year entries in Wikipedia that refer to fictitious events so why delete these in particular? They had been there for a while purporting to be real events, which was wrong, so I moved them into their own section but I don't understand why you deleted them. Adxm 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Adxm, the general policy on those pages is "no fiction". (It's possible that some fictional dates have crept in; I haven't specifically noticed). Why don't you ask about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, Jim; I've added a new section on there. I see it's been mentioned a couple of times before but it doesn't look like it was discussed in depth much. Let's see what happens. Adxm 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insult

You're insulting me by calling my edits trivial and interesting only for anoraks. Don't be such a... you know what. Raja Lon Flattery 08:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I wasn't thinking about precisionist. Anyways, it doesn't matter. However, calling one's edits trivial and interesting only for anoraks as you did, denotes narrow thinking, disrespect and uncivil behaviour, all of which we ought to avoid and so ought you. Raja Lon Flattery 08:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"ludicrously detailed trivia added to an article only of interest to anoraks"

This is exactly what you said regarding my edits. That "article only of interest to anoraks" was created by me, I "ludicruosly" added that trivia and you know this very well. You could merely stated it was uninteresting in less offensive terms as I and not only me regard this article interesting not only for anoraks. Saying what you said shows disrespect and narrow thinking. Raja Lon Flattery 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless. The fact that the article is only of interest for anoraks is not a true statement but a personal opinion. The fact that I have created it is a true statement. The responsibility is yours to take for what you say or what you let people understand but, obviously, you are attempting to evade it and pass it to others so this is going nowhere. Do not bother to reply. I've removed the discussion and so I will do with any attempts to revive it. You insulted an editor and you're afraid to admit it. End of story. Raja Lon Flattery 10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I too have felt the cruel oppression of CalendarWatcher's insane war against proper wiki-content. He warned me. Kinghy 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 28==

Ok, you're both up to WP:3RR now. That's enough of the revert war for the moment...feel free to take it to Talk:September 28. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] melonfarming

Heh. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Lindsay Lohan from July 2

Why? Am I missing something here? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake...I was missing something. You were restoring the entry, not deleting it...never mind. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, totally my mistake. Your edit summary was fine; it didn't say 'del'. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1999

I could be missing something (God knows it happens), but Koavf's change looks correct to me. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Justin (Koavf) is diambiguating USA -> United States. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem. I saw that skinny rocks was vandalizing the page before me. Good luck in fighting vandals! --Nielswik(talk) 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may be right that it falls on the eleventh but...

It also falls on the nearest weekday of the weekend. Check the article yourself--64.121.1.55 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfonso Faustino

I noticed that you were nominating Alfonso Faustino for speedy deletion and I've changed it to an AFC nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfonso Faustino. --Sbluen 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1987 Reverts, 17th November

Sorry, didnt mean to revert yours back. Trying to do what you already did, just a bit too late. S-man64 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlayStation 3

Why can't the PS3 be added to the November 17 article when Sony's PlayStation 1 as well as Sega's Dreamcast consoles have been added to the September 9 article? If you're adamant about keeping those out, I revised the whole Do NOT line in the Nov. 17 article because saying that "videogame releases" can not be added only implies actual video games, not the consoles themselves. vDub 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 15

Hi CW, I was wondering why you deleted "1981 - Len Barker, American baseball pitcher, completes a perfect for the Cleveland Indians against the Toronto Blue Jays." I saw this edit too, and it is verifiable. Thanks for all of your work on keeping the calendar straight! Regards, Accurizer 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Houston's election

I thought we didn't typically include elections in date articles. How was this particular election especially notable? Rklawton 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State governors

If this were a U.S.-only date article, then I'd agree fully. It's not, though. And the U.S. has fifty states. Oddly enough, a couple of former state governors are rotting in jail even as I type. It's far too common, and it really lacks any sort of global significance. I certainly don't want to see this sort of detail for the multitude of provinces, cantons, or regions around the world. Rklawton 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of two Disney attraction openings?

The opening of Disney attractions on a date should not be included? --blm07 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Gloria Fuertes from 28 July birth listing

Is there a reason why you deleted Spanish poet Gloria Fuertes from the 28 July birth listing? Or is it just random (=vandalism)? Or maybe is she not important enough *for you*? (in case you actually did any research on her before deleting, which I doubt). Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but your deletion does seem vandalism to me. --RiseRover|talk 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did create a stub on Gloria Fuertes also last night (just a few words, a poet stub category and a link to the Spanish wikipedia) - which also has been deleted, to my astonishment. It's not even in "my contributions" page, so I don't know how to track it and see who deleted it. --RiseRover|talk 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Date Articles

As an active date article contributor/monitor, I thought you might be interested in weighing in on this discussion.[2] Rklawton 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 28

My opinion is that there are many people more important than a minor English footballer who deserve more to be on the list. Since my belief that the footballer should be removed is unpopular, I have given up on that idea. The only consistent conclusion therefore is to actually make the effort to add all the people I feel are more deserving of being on the list to the list. Average Earthman 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I conceded my position following your complaint (once you indicated that it was a considered opinion rather than just an automatic revert). I've not attempted to add every single person born on March 28th, just those I've come across so far that I think are of some merit (and in my personal opinion are more interesting than the footballer I deleted and you restored). I don't know if you're used to people you disagree with launching into an edit war, but I am actually trying to avoid one, even if I tend to be a bit begrudging in the edit comments (the porn stars and wrestlers comment wasn't aimed at you, just Wikipedia in general). And I hadn't finished adding people to the list, I ran out of time and stopped. Average Earthman 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the date project article, any person with a biographical article on Wikipedia is entitled to a birth/death entries in date articles. If this is not the case, please let me know, because I know of no other selection criteria. Rklawton 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 25

I don't understand why you reverted all my changes in the November 25 page. What's notable and what's not? For example: you deleted "Del Yocam was hired as Borland CEO and Chairman", but for 1994 it says: Sony founder Akio Morita announces he will be stepping down as CEO of the company. Besides, there IS an article on Del Yocam, and if he's notable, that date should be notable. You also deleted two marriages, but on November 28 there is this: In Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway pay a £40 bond for their marriage licence.

--Dpapic 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Relax, I don't want to disturb your important and creative work of removing spurious and nonsensical content from the 365 dates in our calendar. But in this world (changed upside down by Sony) there are people (like me) that need explanations. Now I have my explanation. We're all happy.

I'm working on adding births, deaths and events on the date pages, and I'd like to know what's notable and what isn't (at least for you, Officer CalendarWatcher). So, my common sense (the least common of all senses) tells me to look if there is another similar case. I was wondering: the marriage of Benjamin Franklin is notable? I don't know, let's look up if there is another marriage. And I found Shakespeare's. You don't need to tell me who Shakespeare is: do I need to tell you who Franklin is? Hope not.

Anyway, please, don't cease in your labor, because I will be working with dates and still don't know exactly what's notable and what isn't.

Thank you.

--Dpapic 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Because you deserve it

The Barnstar of Diligence
For ceaselessly and tirelessly removing spurious and nonsensical content from the 365 dates in our calendar, I award you this well earned (365 times over, and 366 on leap years!) barnstar. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I'm still a little uncertain why you're deleting these dates. They're clearly labelled in a Fiction section on each day - which although not included in every day - does occur throughout the year. Also much of the information has come from within Wikipedia. Fair enough, at the moment they're all Harry Potter related but the Fiction sections were there and I thought I'd expand them.

Does this mean you are going to go through and delete the fiction section for every day? Can you give me some further guidelines of what to include and what not to? There is a section for fictional timetables I know, but personally I thought it would be interesting to have these on the actual calendar. I feel you disagree.

You may be 'tired of seeing' information like this - but for other people it may be - at least - of interest to see it - or it could be important for them to have this information included. Personally it is the former, just out of interest. I like to see connections like this. Had you not deleted all my posts I would possibly have gone on to expand these fiction sections further - beyond Harry Potter (I just happened to start with this series). I feel it is a little unfair to discount information of this nature. True, the dates might be random - but they have been chosen and the connection is there. Why can the connections not be shown on Wikipedia? (This comes across as a rant - but it's not really. I'm just putting a side of an arguement across).

[edit] December 30

Casinos were legalized in Atlantic City by the New Jersey State Legislature in 1976, The first casino to open was Resorts International on May 26, 1978, The second casino to open was the Boardwalk Regency (It later became Caesars) on June 22, 1979 and finally the third casino the Park Place Casino/Hotel (Later became Bally's) opened on December 30, 1979. I hope this clarification help. Misterrick 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 8

In this edit you reverted my removal of a reference to the birth of a "Igor Enenberg". This person doesn't exist on Google, so either no one has written about him online (therefore, not notable), or else his name is spelled incorrectly. Richard W.M. Jones 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piped links

I did not attempt to "mischaracterise" the proposal. And note "proposal", not a guideline or a policy. Also if you look at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music standards there is no discussion of why there should be no piped links.

You also link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 46 which really is not very helpful as it would suggest that years should not be linked at all, which is not what you are doing with your reversions.

'most other the other "year in" articles use piped links' Try the years in science, other years in the United Kingdom , years in poetry, years in film etc etc. Not all but a lot of years in type articles use piped links.

And the other guidelines you link to are all music related, 1968 in the United Kingdom is not a music article.

So when it comes down to it, which makes navigation easier? Clearly we should only makes links that are relevant to the context, but as they are people who are born or died in a particular year in the UK, the corresponding year in the Uk is more relevant than the general year.

Tim! 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All the pages you quote are either proposed guidelines or irrelevant guidelines i.e. for music related articles so do not tell me to try harder. I have given you many examples where this practice is used so unless you wish to go through every single one and get them removed, I see no reason to not do so on UK pages. The fact that many UK pages do not yet exist is slowly being remedied so that is no argument against.
Yes I am aware of the meaning analogous. However, the Music and Album guideline which you have repeatedly quoted do not apply as we are not talking about music articles. All other pages you have quoted are not guidelines. Tim! 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tim! 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
EMD SD9
Playboy
Korey Stringer
Anders Celsius
Youth Day
David Clementi
Soviet Southern Front
Random access memory
Amadou Konte
Psi-Force
Brenda Howard
Mail transfer agent
Liberation Day
Byron De La Beckwith
Pope Innocent XIII
Richard Wollheim
Victor Jory
Sally Rand
Gervasio Antonio de Posadas
Cleanup
Alex Rodriguez
Diocese
East St. Louis, Illinois
Merge
Primary production
Lichen sclerosus
Seiryu
Add Sources
Bolshaya Belaya River
Monday
City of Angels (TV series)
Wikify
Centre International Des Études Françaises
Cedar Fire
Jerky Boys
Expand
Congo River
Ernst Werner von Siemens
Elias Canetti

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 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] filmmaker

You are absolutely right, for I had not seen your edit summary--once I belatedly saw it, I was about to revert it myself. Qy--presumably the entry at IMDB is also fraudulent?--it is often used here as authority. Might it be better to AfD to bring the fraud to people's attention? Thanks, 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/User_talk%7ECalendarWatcher_637e.html"