User talk:Metros/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please review my edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Metros232. It would be much appreciated.

Archive

Archives
December 2005-July 2006

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized.

Contents

[edit] Monmouth University

Thanks for catching the vandalism to Monmouth University. That one slipped right by me! —Twigboy 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I couldn't find a press release or anything about the new president or anything on the website, so that kinda gave it away. It appears that the "new president" is graduating in the class of 2008 from Monmouth, at least that's what Facebook leads me to believe. Metros232 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Anselm Berrigan ==

Metros232 @ 14:47, 30 July 2006 asks me on my User Talk page:

Can you please explain what you meant by this edit summary:

Revert to earlier version; look in the contributor's notes; the author himself seems to approve of this so-called "auto-biographical" version

Obviously someone would approve of their autobiography since...well...they wrote it. Please take a look at WP:AUTO to see why I had reverted it to the previous state. Writing about one's self in the manner that was done in that article is highly frowned upon on Wikipedia.

Ok, Ok, Metros232, go ahead and revert it back to your version again if you want. No hard feelings...you're point is well taken. CHAOS would reign if Wikipedia turned into "MySpace.com". Yes, I hear and understand where you're coming from.

I'll 'wikify' Anselm Berrigan's additions when I have time. I apologize up to a certain point.

HOWEVER, there is a reason why this article works. Revert to the earlier version. When I have some time, I may go through the EDIT LOG, and pull out Anselm Berrigan's remarks and attribute them to him in a separate heading...

If you take the time to go through my more than 500 contributions and articles (which would be kind of silly of you to do) then you'd have to admit that there could POSSIBLY be a legitimate reason why in this PARTICULAR article, I Christian Roess (my real name by the way) believes this particular article does not need fit the Wikipedia 'format'.

I went to Anselm Berrigan's reading of Zero-Star Hotel in September 2002...but I don't know him "personally" and we do not correspond. I don't have a personal agenda here. I just recognize and hear what Berrigan is doing here and the content works in this case...albeit with some clean-up

The version you erased Metro232 is more accurate and factual then you may want to believe and I don't have time right now to clarify my remarks. You aren't "uninformed" about anything really, nor am I accusing you of being "stupid"...but if you read Anselm Berrigan's poetry (and why should you?) then , whether you like his poetry or not, the 'format' of this particular article would be clearer to you...or at the very least more understandable.Christian Roess 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not the format in which the article was written, but rather the content due to the fact that it was written as an autobiography. You are more than welcome to use what Mr. Berrigan said in the article if you can find proper sources for what he provided. For now, I've reverted back to its previous state. Metros232 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rubber Bandits

Hi Metros232,

In regard to Rubber Bandits copyright violation, I am the holder of the copyright and have given permission for the text to be used from my website; http://www.rubberbandits.com/history.html. The person who put this up contacted me and I went to review it and it was just fine. I will check back here to see if there is anything else I need to do.

Thanks

This can be found at WP:CP:
Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to:
  • Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication.
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.
This should help you. Metros232 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

METROS232: I have UPDATED THE PAGE by Rewritting it to not violate COPYRIGHT. WILL YOU REVIEW and DO you have the Ability to Approve?


[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your explanation of the delete review process. jawesq 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Can I ask though, why did you bring Wikiquote discussion into the AN/I board? [1]. I don't see how their action there is relevant at all. Metros232 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DABs for Texas Rangers

I started on this and then realized that you were also working on it, so I'm standing down. Next time, please note it on the task page. Thanks --Brian G 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you want to finish it. I only just got into it, so you've done more work on it so far than I have. I'm going to sign off for the night now anyways, so just let me know what you decide and I'll see your response tomorrow. --Brian G 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll work on it then. I got a bunch accomplished on The Sunday Times and need to change it up for a bit before I go crazy :) Metros232 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Draft fixes

Thanks for fixing the disambiguation links. I try to catch those, but I guess I missed a few.--Ellipsis22 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DUDE STOP EDITING MY PAGE SYW!!! =

YO STOP EDITING THE PAGE SYW AS YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT IT!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemundocl (talk • contribs)

  • Dude stop adding a page we deleted long ago for advertising and for being a non-notable wrestling group. Metros232 17:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the first ever vandalism on my User Page. I guess I must have finally warned the right user to attract some attention, lol. Thanks again. --Brian G 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer

It was a selected paste of corporate watch report, not complete. (I felt it was too long. You may think it was too long at the length I posted it? I think it's fair--there really is *that much* controversy about Bayer.) Corporate watch report also appears to have no copyright (I checked.) They may encourage reproduction/generous policy of fair use, esp. as it is a compilation of refs, not original research. I have sent them a message asking for explicit permission to excerpt, nonetheless.

Thanks, Cindery 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is official permission from site/I will be adding the info back, as I am correct that it is not a copyright violation:

<olaf@corporatewatch.org> to me

Hi <blank>, I was one of the people who helped write the Bayer profile. As far as adding it to wikipedia thats fine by us, all of our work is anti copyright for not for profit use. However the profile is quite old (published in early 2003 and accurate then but not updated since) and I know the company has changed quite a lot since then (in terms of its structure and business areas, rather than its behavior). Might be worth simplifying the profile ( I remember it being very long and sprawling) and updating it where necessary. Most of the information on corporate crimes came from Coordination Gegen Bayer Gefahren in Germany www.cbgnetwork.org and its probably worth checking back to their website to look for updates. Any questions drop me a line Cheers Olaf

Olaf Bayer (any similarity between my surname and a certain German life sciences company is purely coincidental) Researcher Corporate Watch www.corporatewatch.org 01865 791391 olaf@corporatewatch.org

[edit] William Collinson Sawyer

Ah yes, bishop of something else. Hm.. Actually, yeah that does convince me. Apparently someone was writing up bios for all the "famous" alums of Abingdon, including this guy. If that's the only reason he was listed, there probably isn't any deeper importance. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutgers University

What do you think so far of my intentions for reorganizing the Rutgers University article? Suggestions? —ExplorerCDT 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously a lot to be said about Rutgers in terms of history since it's been around for centuries. You mentioned earlier that you were concerned that the history section would possibly trump (in terms of size). All of what you had can still be said though. I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to create a History of Rutgers University article. Then the section within the main article can be reduced to the main points with a "See main article: History of Rutgers University" type message. I think that everything needs to be said somewhere because it's definitely great material, but I wonder if that would be a better way to approach it. I know a few other colleges have something similar like University of Michigan and Cornell University so it wouldn't be without precedent. What do you think? Metros232 22:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's one thing I am initially hesitant to do because I like things in one place, but increasingly I'm open to the idea. Oddly, when I was looking at the Cornell article today, I had a similar thought that something like that may be necessary. Because it's such a drastic step, we would have to have a straw poll on it. Given the restructure I started putting together this week, I think we might end up having to seed off the new "Academics" section to be Academics at Rutgers University ;-). The chief issue though would be: How do we reduce the history currently there down to main points in order to make this worthwhile? Other questions: Could things be made more concise to render it smaller, but with the same content and effect? If a new History of Rutgers University article were to be written, for me to jump on board wholeheartedly, first I would have to see the draft of what the history main points would be reduced to on the main article at Rutgers University. Right now, the history section is about 150% the size of the history section at Princeton University (and I'm using Princeton as a gauge for comparison often, since it's our oldest rival), and probably won't grow any larger than say a paragraph more...perhaps we might just as well leave it as is. Needless to say, I'm open to the idea. —ExplorerCDT 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Another consideration, is right now the Rutgers University article is only 33Kb, while above that 32Kb guideline, it isn't as large as other comparable articles (for instance, Harvard: 57Kb, Yale: 60Kb, Princeton: 50Kb, UPenn: 48Kb, UChicago: 52Kb, Cornell (one of the influences): 76Kb, UMichigan: 44Kb, UVA: 42Kb, Columbia: 60Kb, UMaryland: 33Kb, NYU: 61Kb). I don't think we've gotten to the point where it is imperative to cut down the article. Would you agree? —ExplorerCDT 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right now we're below a limit, but I'm just kind of looking ahead because there's still a lot of information to be added to the article in the other areas. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on adding student life? I think the The Daily Targum, especially, needs mention as the oldest college student newspaper (I know we have the seperate article on it, but I think that it and the whole set of student publications deserve mention).
Also, I'm wondering if there's a way to briefly explain the relation of the schools of New Brunswick/Piscataway. To an outsider, it might seem like they're seperate schools and if you go to Cook, you're always at Cook. But it probably deserves mention in possibly the Organization section that there exists the InterCampus Bus system and that students can have classes throughout the different schools. And I was going to suggest we explain what each school is for since just saying Cook College is vague to an outsider...but the task force is taking care of that for us :) Metros232 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree on both points Student Life/Targum and on explaining the various campus and intra-campus relationships. Especially since the distinct identities of the "residential colleges" are being demolished with the new centralized "Rutgers College of Arts and Sciences" in 2007. I didn't know, however, whether Student Life would be appropriate as a new section or whether it would fit in under "About the University" But, might as well make it its own section. As to the history thing, let's see how large of an article it becomes when we get close to a finished product. If we get to be large enough to surpass Yale and Columbia at 60 Kb, I'd be open to it and would likely agree, but if we get obscene like the size of Cornell's article at 76Kb, I'll agree without reservation to a new History of Rutgers University article. I'm hoping, when all is said and done, we be equal or less than the 50Kb that Princeton takes up. As to mentioning other publications, with regard to "External Links"...What do you think about organizing the external links like Yale has on their article? —ExplorerCDT 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think organizing the Student Life section in a manner similar or comparable to that on the Dartmouth College article (and affiliated articles) would be highly desireable. —ExplorerCDT 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They found a way

RE. I Found a way, here's even more of a laugh for you. I feel you deserve to know. ;) I think my favourite is the poo. At least the new version says what it is. There isn't actually a SPEEDY category that applies. Tyrenius 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

  • 20:13, 8 July 2006 Jaranda (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (lyrics)
  • 13:45, 5 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (closing prod)
  • 02:04, 17 December 2005 NicholasTurnbull (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (speedy del, insufficient context/incoherent content. content was: '{{delete}}"I found a way" Is the theme from the TV series "Drake and Josh" (starring Drake Bell and Josh Peck) which is about 2 step brother...')
  • 02:21, 29 November 2005 Phroziac (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (Wikipedia is not a collection of poems.)
  • 20:22, 8 November 2005 Brookie (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (content was: 'ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffgggggg...' (and the only contributor was '68.239.90.166'))
  • 19:53, 4 November 2005 GregAsche (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (content was: 'u smell of poo' (and the only contributor was '84.64.8.45'))
  • 00:37, 2 November 2005 Wayward (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (CSD: A1, content was: '{{empty}}I never thought that it would be simple an I found a way I found a waaaay if you open up your eyes you'll see whats inside its goning to tak...')
  • 13:12, 30 October 2005 Angela (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (content was: 'hahahh gay face yeh sagsfdhshfsds allow it' (and the only contributor was '195.93.21.97'))
  • 02:25, 29 September 2005 Thunderbrand (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "I Found a Way" (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}i love so munch')

[edit] Templates

OK, I was testing new template designs, I'm not sure I like the current design. Thanks for your advice, it was very helpful. What should I do with my template designs?? --TheM62Manchester 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, very helpful! --TheM62Manchester 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My Userpage

I am curious to know why you have the audacity to tell me how to format my userpage, instead of focusing on yours and your business? Your post has been graciously deleted. Bearly541 23:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see user page policy which says that "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community" (emphasis mine). I didn't tell you how to format your user page, I just asked why you felt it's appropriate to contain such stats on your user page. Metros232 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Because it is my page, and I can do whatever I want to do with it. Other users have banned users and posted them on their page, why don't you harrass them? Besides, don't you have other things to do than to harass users who are improving the community? If you continue to ask questions like that and put them on my user page, I will continue to delete them and contact Wikipedia.Bearly541 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bearly541

Hi, Just as I got your message, I was researching the user page policy that I see you already cited. It looks to me like Bearly541 needs a gentle reminder of CIVIL, AGF, and a few other policies. In reviewing his contributions, I see he's deleted user contributions without much of an explanation. Granted, some of them were questionable, but I would have started with a {{fact}} citation first. It's 2 am in my time zone, so I will probably just let this cool off overnight then go back to Bearly in the morning with a few comments. Brian 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Somewhere, once upon a time, in a universe far away, I read a guideline or policy about not deleting content from your user or user talk page but archiving it instead. At this wee hour of the morning (2:30 am here - but hey, I started as a programmer so I'm used to it) I can't find it. Bearly had a penchant for deleting content from his user talk page. It's all there in the history, of course, but I believe he's not following policy - or at least guideline. If you can point me to the policy or guideline that would be helpful - I'd like to mention it to Bearly. BTW, it looks like you're doing nice work here. Thanks. Brian 00:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball
BTW, I also just felt like saying Thanks - so : Image:WikiThanks.png (I actually looked for a barnstar for you but didn't find one that felt quite right, so I hope the Thanks sunflower is sufficient). Brian 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball
Thanks for the thanks and the compliments on my work. The policy you're looking for is this WP:TALK#Etiquette. It doesn't really apply as much in this situation since the user isn't removing warnings but rather is doing what the second paragraph says to avoid: deleting conversations without replying as it can be considered rude and uncivil. Metros232 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I see. Well, I just achieved a new milestone. I've been accused of vandalism by Bearly! This is getting a little surreal...Brian 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

[edit] Vandalizing Talk Pages

If you keep Vandalizing my talk page, then I will be reporting you to Admin. I have the right to delete material on my talk page which is irrelevant. Bearly541 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for telling you to STFU, but I reported you to AIV for repeatedly vandalizing my talk page. Cheers. Bearly541 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your apology and AIV is defintely not the appropriate place for this as I didn't actually vandalize. Metros232 01:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Bearly, neither Metro nor I did any vandalizing. I just checked at AIV and I don't see your report...If you did make a report could you provide one of us with the link? Thanks, Brian 01:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball
Bearly, never mind. I see from the AIV history that Metro responded and Admin Samir noted that AIV was not the forum for this discussion. Thanks, Brian 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

[edit] vandalism by Metros232

why are you interested in MY talk page, MY user page -- and then EVERY page i have contributed to. -- Artlondon 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

please leave my talk page alone. spend your time on something useful please. Artlondon 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDALISM to actually see what vandalism is. I'm not obsessed with work, I stumbled upon it through the suspected copyright violation page beause it was tagged as such. I then went to see if any of your other work was also copyright violation because some users just create mass amounts of articles using copyright text they find. I did not vandalize your talk page, but rather, tried to help you out in establishing an archive. If you look at my talk page, you'll see that I have an archive in the top right corner which I created rather than simply blanking my talk page. Metros232 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
but can you please refer to the talk page of node.london before marking it as such. Artlondon 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I did read it and see nothing there that suggests that the article text is licenses under GFDL or another fair use license. Simply saying that you're a member of the group doesn't give you a right to use the text. I am a member of FBLA-PBL but I don't have a right to copy and paste www.fbla-pbl.org and say its okay to use it in the article because I'm a member. Metros232 14:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your actions

Hey -- you asked me to have a look. I think the users in question were clearly unclear on Wikipedia policies, but you have to remember that newbies often are. In the case of Bearly541, I would have handled things slightly differently; I would have left him alone about the userpage after the first deleted comment, and the second time merely mentioned that his User talk page is for communicating with him, and that's kind of difficult to do when his response is to delete messages he receives instead of replying to them. Also, I would have left him a {{welcome}} message, since apparently he never had one. As for Artlondon, this user really doesn't understand copyrights. A lot of people don't, it's somewhat confusing. However, I don't see anything wrong in what you've been doing there. I wouldn't worry yourself over this one much, the user is adamant that Node.london isn't a copy, or copyright doesn't apply, or something, but is just plain wrong, and consensus doesn't apply to WP:C so Artlondon was going to run into trouble sooner or later. Mangojuicetalk 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Metros/Archive2, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Police Explorers Post

Plymouth Police Explorers is a real post. Post 905. http://www.mnleexplorer.org/featured.htm We're right there. Why would you think we're not a real post? Do you even know any thing about law enforcement exploring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kob0724 (talk • contribs)

As I explained on the article's talk page, no one is arguing your chapter doesn't exist. The question is whether it is notable or not. Metros232 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beerly541

The edit I made to Beerly's user talk page was not vandalism. Your removing legitimate entries on another user's talk page however, is. 69.193.185.196 05:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that comment you made there was most certainly vandalism and a personal attack as well. Metros232 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome category

Good point, I hadn't noticed that. The category doesn't seem to be of any use for the encyclopaedia proper or administratively, so I'd say it was inappropriate. Do you want to discuss this with PEAR and see if this can be cleared up? --pgk(talk) 19:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Welcomed by PEAR category

I agree with you, the category serves no purpose. It was a bit stupid for me to make it, but I didn't really think much about it. I'll remove it from my welcome template and clear everything from the category.

Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks for being more polite then some of the other administrators I've come into contact with.

--PEAR 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jeffery Jordan

Well, between those two things, it seemed it was at least claiming he is of some importance, which is enough to not be speedy deleted. Whether he is actually notable or not would be the decision of the prod/afd. It's borderline, I guess, but there's also a chance some may want to merge info with his father's article. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very good!

Just want to say good work, you reverted a test vandalism edit in less than a minute! The test edit was the current events box edit. --84.64.42.43 12:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LM Radio

I am not happy that you changed my page without consulting me first. If you had read my bio you would have seen that I am the author of the lmradio.org website and the owner of the copyright. I can therefore post my own work as I please.

Please will you restore it right away.

thank you cggt

Being as this is a wiki, anyone has the right to change anything at any time without having to consult somebody. Please read this section here and follow its guidelines before adding the text back:
Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to:
  • Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication.
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We simply cannot rely on what people put in their biographies as proof so we must go through a process of verifying copyright like this. Hope this clears things up for you, Metros232 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutgers

Does it look good so far? I'll try to learn the citation methods at the end, after my mind cools down. But if you're up to saving me the grief, please do so. :P —ExplorerCDT 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the tagging that I so haven't figured out yet. Quick Q. Do you think that the Rutgers University article (when finished) would be a good article (or even a featured article) candidate? —ExplorerCDT 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shahram Azar

I am checking the copyvio and this article and I'm not convinced it is a clear case. The site is a blog, and I can't tell what date it is from, but the article here as been around since April. I'm not sure that the blogger didn't copy their post from Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the copyvio tag unless we can find more information. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British

I actually reverted the page to the way it was before it was recently stripped of all useful information and turned into a dull disambig page. Jooler 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SoaP

I'm going to sit on it for a few more minutes, I will block anyone that contunies to edit war. Yanksox 20:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Metros232, you've been a greet guy!

The whole reason I changed my name was to avoid being associated with being a female because you get treated so much worse here as such.

I have finally realized that trying to do the right thing is pointless here.

So I am out of here. No more from me. You needn't trouble yourself anymore about me. Good evening and good night. Mattisse(talk) 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Meyer

You tagged my article on Daniel Meyer for copyright violation. I am the author of the article and the web site. I allow commercial reuse of text and images from my site. I did not have the notice on the talk page so I understand the copyvio tag.

I have added my copyright release information to my talk page and to my contributions.

The problem is that the Wikipedia copyright violation process appears to be backed up for weeks. I wonder if you can do something to speed up the process for this article.

I noticed your contributions to the Hood College page appear to be lifted from this web site: http://www.hood.edu/welcome/glance.cfm You should add a note to the talk page before someone tags Hood College for a copyright violation.

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia

SWTPC6800 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for going out of your way and taking the time to reveal my sex on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents entry.

The reason I changed my name was that females get abused here. So goodbye. I will not be using this name again. And I will not ask for a new name because there will always be people like you who will trace it back and gratuitously use it against me.

It was great while it lasted. Not being known as a female is definately better! Mattisse(talk) 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for revealing your identity, I'm just one of those people who doesn't like seeing the wrong pronouns used to refer to people (I'm an English major, so that falls under my realm of "anal about grammar"). Sorry, it wasn't my intention to get you to leave. Metros232 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that comment. Metros232 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Hill High School (West Virginia)

Well spotted - I have listed this as Copyvio so that the history will get cleaned out and I have put the stub on the Temp page so that your hard work will not get lost. BlueValour 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll warning on Talk:Lucozade

I put this notice up as the page had trolls writing patent nonsense on it before it got deleted. Hope this helps. --TheM62Manchester 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) As for the Allan Wilson MSP page, it may get trolling, like George W. Bush's page. --TheM62Manchester 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point now. Thanks for the advice! --TheM62Manchester 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll warning on Talk:Allan Wilson (Scottish politician)

I was about to add a note to this page regarding a pending edit when I noticed the "troll warning". I do not agree with the logic of User TheM62Manchester in adding the troll notice on this page. Any page can be the subject of trolling but they do not contain the message. The appearance of the message is suggestive of some violation taking place or about to take place and is misleading, un-constructive and potentially damaging to the public image of MSP Allan Wilson.

I would therefore ask that the message be removed for all the above reasons. Thank you for your consideration. (responses to my talk page please)

Allan Wilson MSP 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy tags

Apologies for posting controversial tags on Talk:Danity Kane, but I had a reason for it:

  • Pop star/celeb articles are subject to POV re-writes frequently.

Anyhow, I'll avoid it... it's unconstructive. --TheM62Manchester 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRODs vs AFDs

Hey Metros232! Just thought I would recommend to you that that you be more agressive when recommending articles for deletion. I don't waste my time with a Proposed Deletion. I just go straight to AFD and let the community take more immediate action. Trust me. It works better. Happy Editing! --Targetter (Lock On) 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I use PROD on non-controversial articles, such as the one you decided to put to AfD. AfDs are backlogged so why add something to it when it's so obvious that it should be deleted? I don't really see why we need to take "more immediate action" through AfD. Think about it...PRODs are deleted after 5 days if uncontested...AfDs are closed after at least 5 days of discussion. How does that speed it up? Also, why is there a rush? What is SO terrible about this article that it needs to be wiped out a day earlier (if at all earlier)? Metros232 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I apologize. I wasn't aware that I stepped way out of process by taking this action. --Targetter (Lock On) 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikification updates

I update it because it's just, um, interesting. And it's more fun than waiting to see if anyone's decided to get Rafael Maroto sometime this century—I really wish I had better Spanish. My expressive Spanish is practically nil and my receptive Spanish is mostly good for scientific articles where the terminology is basically just spelled funny (suffice it to say that I took French, and the two are very similar).

Anyway, updating it piecemeal is just easier. I don't like screwing up and there's fewer tabs open. I'd do more wikification myself except that I, um, don't have a lot of the kind of creativity where you're that much good at restating other people's ideas. Which is why most of my wikification consists of bolding the title (if possible), eliminating unnecessary subject headers (i.e., those placed at the top), adding external links. I've pretty much given up on dividing things up into sections. --Rmky87 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit to Frederick, Maryland

Could you explain why you feel my edit was nonsense? --freddulany

The person you are adding isn't a notable resident/native of Frederick. The person isn't notable at all. "Duke Howe" + Antwerp gets exactly zero hits on Google. His "claim to fame" appears to be as part of a micronation which isn't notable. The other notability claim is that he is 13 generations after George Calvert...I'm sure that George Calvert has thousands of descendants at this point, they're not notable just for being descendents of him. Metros232 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.

Fred Dulany

[edit] Re: Edit summaries?

Metros232, I was angry with the headlines at one point (Platte Canyon High School shooting, Dawson College shooting), and then couldn't stop laughing at certain running gags (D'oh!) I heard, and tried to use a creative way to explain my edit. I apologize if this offends you, but I'm just trying to express how I feel at the point of the edit summaries. I get creative whenever I delete a vandalistic edit as well, in case you didn't notice. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoDDS wikification

FYI, I tagged Department of Defense Dependents Schools for wikification because it's one big blob of text. It would look better if it had a few subheadings or something, even though it's a short article.

Thanks RainbowCrane | Talk 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the wikify tag to {{sections}} in that case. Thanks, Metros232 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, cool, I wasn't aware of that specific wikification tag. I'll keep it in mind for the future. RainbowCrane | Talk 03:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Message from Bond Extreme

I noticed you gave a message to me for a copyright violation of changing an image. Well that image was mine, and I could of done anything I wanted with it. Now I found out it is against the rules that I put that on there... However could of I said This image is mine and only Royal Honor Ministries, and Wikipedia can only use it, and only my wikipedia account? The reason why I changed it was because someone else took my image and put it on their page. I was going to report the person this morning.... Now I worked on that article that was deleted for hours. I want to get this straightened up. So if you can straighten this out, and give me the copyright back to the image and out my article back up that will be great. Thankyou and God Bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond Extreme (talk • contribs)

I haven't taken away the copyright on your image. In fact, I didn't leave you a message for copyright violation. I gave you a message letting you know that your image is being considered for deletion. It is being considered because GFDL requires that anyone can use your contributions, not just whoever you select.
Your article was deleted for failing notability standards. It was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7. This means it was an article about an organization, group, or website that didn't show its significance or importance. Since your website was formed, when, mid-2006 you said in the article? I'd suspect that there's not much notability to show for it. Metros232 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Reply

Ok. I see. Though doesn't it seem wrong for another person to take our logo and put in on their page for something else? But anyway so I am reading that my article doesn't seem important enough to be on wikipedia? We think it is important. I am not here to advertise it, but to state what the purpose of the site is, and what to do on it. So this means I can't out the article back up? If that is true though I think that is just weird... Peter Bond Extreme 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No one else was using your image. You "hijacked" their image. Someone had uploaded in April of a logo for their website (a website about Tim Burton). You uploaded an image of the same name which you, in essence, pasted over by putting your image there. No one "stole" your image or whatever you claim occurred. You just copied over what someone was already using for something else.
And no, you cannot put the article put up until you can prove notability for it. Just because you think it is important doesn't mean that it is by Wikipedia standards. I think my family is pretty important, but I can't write an article about my Mom and Dad just because I feel they are important. Metros232 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't know I copied over someones picture. However this is getting to out of hand. I'll see what I can do other than talking here.

Edit: Ok then. About the importance part of you talking about your parents. If you say that then why are the members of Wikipedia allowed to put up our own article? We are considered important I hope... If we are allowed to do that then we have a right to put any article up we want.


Peter Bond Extreme

You're mistaken here. Our user pages are not articles. They are in seperate space from the actual encyclopedia. Metros232 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)