User talk:CMBJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to drop me a line.   — C M B J   07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your Comment on the Episode Review Page

I moved your comment to the talk page, as it wasn't really a discussion on the KotH's notability. I invite you to comment there. If you feel that it should be on the actual review page, you may revert it, but I felt it was more a discussion on the process itself. Thanks. I  (said) (did) 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Hey CMBJ, I've seen your recent edits to the television episode article review project and I certainly understand how you feel. My pet project Futurama will likely come up for review in the next week or so and like you I feel the way the project has been handled so far has been less than stellar. That being said, I don't think they're targeting KOTH, it just happened to be one at the top of the list when they got started. Some episodes of other shows have already been reviewed if you look in the archive at the top (The Big O, Hannah Montana and Thats So Raven). If you check the discussion on the talk page the reason for bringing up the rest of the KOTH articles so soon was to go ahead and finish out one group before starting on another, not because it was any worse than any other show. I'd be happy to help you try to bring some episodes up to the guideline (once I've seen how the Futurama review goes) just let me know if I can help, I'd recommend starting with any that received more than the usual coverage in outside sources or received awards. Stardust8212 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey CMBJ, I just wanted to say that I happened to be the one that tagged the KOTH articles. I really wasn't just targeting KOTH, I just came upon one of the episodes at one point and tagged it, and since most have infoboxes that link to other episodes I normally would follow them and ended up tagging most. I did stop at some point since the review process wasn't working (though I did tag the rest later, but I'm not sure what's going on with the review right now so I'm not sure what will happen to those), so all of the KOTH episodes on there right now were what I tagged at the same time. At the time, all of the episodes from other series that had been tagged had their full episode lists tagged at the same time (see these and also Futurama I think), so I just followed for completeness. I think, if this whole review is what's going to be happening, then each series should be evaluated at the same time instead of people having to come back each day to say what they think of each new episode on there (the episodes should still be evaluated individually anyway that it is happening). I didn't only target KOTH, as I added the tag to one other (almost) full series of episodes before the tag was deleted. I just wanted to leave you this note to tell you what happened and that the review isn't really just targeting KOTH (like others are telling you also). Phydend 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you coming to let me know. It sounds like a legitimate coincidence, but the way that the reviews are being conducted seem to easily convey a misconception to those less familiar with the project. I had already previously dismissed my concerns about these articles, but it doesn't seem that I am the only one that felt wary; as there had been others opposed to merging/deleting them, and I even received two messages here on my talk page regarding the topic. I apologize for being a thorn in anyones side, but we must all do what we can to make Wikipedia the best place possible.   — C M B J   07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome. Seraphim Whipp 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.   — C M B J   09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Jim Neuhaus

An editor has nominated Jim Neuhaus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Neuhaus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Missing image Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CMBJ/Contribs

I just moved the above to your user space at User:CMBJ/Contribs - I guessed you intended it to go in your user space! – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that you had moved it almost immediately after.   — C M B J   18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:212.107.116.240

Hi, I looked over the contribs and do see vandalism appearing all over the place. However, the vandalism comes in too sporadically to consider giving this IP a block/soft block. Blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive. If this IP's vandalism starts come in more heavily consider warning them with the appropriate {{uw-vandalism1}}-{{uw-vandalism4}} series and reporting them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after a fourth warning is given. Usually we block IPs based on 4+ vandal edits in the past 48 hours or a rather heavy period of vandalism within the past week and up the durations of the blocks based on the IP's block log. Hope all this info answers some of your concerns :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to your question

The answer to all your admin requests is right here: [1]. Kind of obvious...but I guess you assumed to early. --haha169 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You answered. Good. --haha169 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that an admin had already restored the article's history. Thanks for pointing that out.   — C M B J   05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Sometimes, the easiest way just may lead to the answer. --haha169 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Hi, CMBJ. You deserve a barnstar. Axl (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Geography Barnstar
To CMBJ, for contributions to geographical location articles. Axl (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)