User talk:WebHamster/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

VANDALISM???

Since the Jessie Coleman article was no longer up for deletion, I took down the info I HAD PUT on the talk back page to prove her importance. All that info was now on the actual article for the whole world to see since I HAD MOVED IT THERE. I felt I could remove the stuff THAT I HAD PUT UP from the talk page to clean it up and start it off looking presentable. I would never remove what other people comment but since I put it up I could take it down. You should ask a person why something was done before throwing the VANDALISM verdict down on them.Xscapefilms 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True, the guy misses terms and tags wildly. Logical Defense (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Cheers

You defended me well, thank you. Dyslexicbudgie 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Savoretti?

What can we do to the page to make it accseptable? Bobo6balde66 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the page seems fine but it will get better Bobo6balde66 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


In regards to your comment on my page

Well, it's not your userpage. ;) I'll do whatever I want to with it, and no one who actually chooses to call himself WebHamster can change my mind. I'll keep the servo.hatred prototype article wherever I feel is convenient, not wherever you tell me to. (Aquaspace 04:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC))-Aquaspace

OK

  • im still getting use to wikipedia but tell me why isnt he important enough,im still not sure how to sign your name if i didnt do it i meant toPoint93 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Aussie rules team but that is composed of gaelic players but its a different sport,he was on the runner up team in th ulster finalPoint93 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the first page was about a different person and the other person probably only deleted it becauser of that,actually the only thing higher in gaelic football is the allstar team and it is only 15 players a year,how do i do the hangon tag???Point93 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • how do i sort it out??Point93 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I will put the text back onto wikipedia but edit it so it is my own version and if you still have a problem tell me what it is,if you don't know what I'm talking about its Magheracloone.Point93 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So i cant even use half the textPoint93 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I made my own version so now its not copyvio,really i should be thanking you for helping me make a good pagePoint93 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • i cant give you a barnstar how can i??Point93 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you,i'll know for the future,are you an admin?Point93 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If the page hasn't been edited in several days will it get deleted?Point93 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have a bebo??Point93 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon Secure AV

Hi there, i feel Moon secure Av should have a presence as Clam and commercial antiviruses do, also there are 2 articles linking to it, what can i do to make it acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinger1986 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I authored and edited the Henry L. Stimson Center page. Beyond the encyclopedic tone what else should I have in there as it will not be promotional? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskybear (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Henry L. Stimson Center

I declined your speedy request on that one and sent it to Afd. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

George Rhoads

Hello, I saw a sculpture of this man at Discoevery Science Center in Santa Ana, CA, and wanted to know more about him. I found his website, but wanted some more objective information and searched wikipedia. When there was nothing on him I added the article as new wishing that someone could add more.

At his site it says: Besides painting, Rhoads has spent the last 30 years designing rolling ball machines and wind sculptures for public and private places. “They embody almost every basic element of machinery, combined in a bewildering variety of ways. There is a level of genius behind inventing complex mechanisms; that's what George has,” says James Seawright, technological artist and director of the Visual Art program at Princeton University. His sculptures can be found in airports and hospitals throughout USA and also in Japan, Israel, Korea and Mexico according to his website. I don't know if this makes him famous enough. Staffel 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I owe you an apology...

Part of me is feeling a bit guilty over starting this whole matter - I've set loose an entire pack of rabid door-to-door evangelical missionaries, and whatever damage they do is arguably on my head. I find it ironic how much effort they are wasting preaching in the AfD discussion - can you imagine what could happen if they would put all that energy into actually trying to understand the guidelines and fix the article to meet them. - Pacula 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did mean the above to be mostly tounge-in-cheek - sorry for not making that clearer. :) Seeing our 'friend' respond to your comments by once again trying to sell you one of Sarno's books brought to mind something very much along the lines of a borderline-nut-job street preacher chasing people around trying to shove tracts and pamphlets into their hands..... - Pacula 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, this time serious - did you ever take a look at our friend's contribution history? I don't see anything there that isn't related to Dr. Sarno. I'm not at all sure if that's unacceptable behaviour, but it certainly lends weight to the idea that this is all about trying to promote him and peddle his work. - Pacula 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

re: lists

Not sure if you've ever added the List of classical guitarists article to your watchlist but it would be great if you did. The list... particularly the 'contemporary' players is in need of some work. I began a bit of cleanup on it earlier today. It's protected... I can't actually edit THE list... BUT... I went through the first 12-15 entries to see just exactly what kind of articles were supporting their inclusion on the list and lo and behold I found a half dozen "X is a classical guitarist"... period!... That was all the content they had :D . I tagged them all as Speedy Deletes. They are all slowly being cleaned up. Some admins are too polite though. They delete the article... but instead of deleting the nn entry from the List of classical guitarists... they just remove the brackets. I prodded some of the ones that weren't obvious speedy deletes. There are many more still to be reviewed. I was just hoping... if you weren't too busy... you could take a quick look at it. Another set of eyes chipping into "the cleansing" would be most appreciated. It'd be great if Inxs Girl came back! Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.225.235 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Portable building-- what do we do next?

I am posing this question to you and a few other editors because I know you are an experienced editor and I have seen you in the AfD discussions. This is the first time I have had a RfC (Request for Comment) regarding an edit dispute. I have opposed the inclusion of webpage links an inclusion of what I think is commercial information regarding a manufacturer called "Portakabin, Ltd." in the article Portable building, because there is no citation to any reliable source to support the assertions made or justify its inclusion while its competitors' links and references have been deleted. The editor wishing to include the information has filed a Request for Comment at Talk:Portable building.

The problem we have is that he and I are still the only ones discussing and commenting. Everything is nice and cordial. It is the model example of handling an edit dispute... except that I don't know what else we can do to acquire a consensus opinion. How do we get others to render an opinion? No one is coming to our party and we made some very nice tea and lovely little biscuits. It has been a couple of days already. What do we do? Thanks for any help and guidance.OfficeGirl 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad, just sad....

Thought you should have a look at this comment here, specifically the one posted by 'stanfr' timestamped '09/13/2007 : 01:46:42'. :/ - Pacula 12:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lansing Bennett

I am surprised that the AFD is still undecided though it there are still 40 left undecided. Perhaps it is because it is not a clear cut decision.

When the decision is finally made, please do not have any hard feelings. Your ideas are enlightening and will only help me write better articles. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Drummers

Hi WebHamster. Regarding my edits, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Avoid self references and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As a general point, please don't simply revert formatting or style edits because you don't understand them - consider contacting the editor if something is not clear. Thanks! Deiz talk 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. ?uestlove was moved to the alternative Questlove to maintain the integrity of the section headers. If you want to add a section header which will cover people whose names begin with punctuation marks, go right ahead. On reflection, he should probably be included under his real name with the psudonymn noted. Lines such as "This is a list of X on Wikipedia" and "Do not add redlinks to this page" are self references. Those should be pretty obvious if you compare the diffs. No brainfarts here. Deiz talk 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Abd al-Bari Atwan and EA

I would welcome your point of view about the issues that you are currently experiencing with the Abd al-Bari Atwan article. I am concerned that we at EA may not have received an entirely fair portrayal from Annalasim because we currently have only one side's viewpoint. Please comment at Editor Assistance or alternatively, contact me on my talk page. Adrian M. H. 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly, WebHamster. It makes pretty much confirms what I had suspected. Adrian M. H. 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Free Bible students

This is very important for the readers of Wikipedia. There are many Free Bible students in other countries that will find this very importent. Please help me while my english is not so good.- Thanks! --Bibelforscher 20:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

lil help?

um how do u do all that interests, location stuff on your user page? sorry im a bit of a noob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejessemancan (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rebelution

Hello, in response to your deletion tags on the article "The Rebelution," I need to know what needs to be sourced before I can source it. The article will be expanded, but I simply do not see a need for sourcing. The only negatable part of the article is when I claim that 1800 people attended the Indy conference, and I can remove that if it is necessary.

Thanks! TheCoolestDude 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • According to that page you gave me, Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. So all I have to do to achieve notability is provide independant sources verifying that the scope of activities is national. It shall be done.

Thanks! TheCoolestDude 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Is that better until I have the time to really expand the page? TheCoolestDude 01:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help! TheCoolestDude 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Del Palmer

I've re-created Del Palmer, which you recently AfD'd. I'm sorry I missed the AfD discussion, but I think the new page satisfies the issues raised there. See the Talk page for explanation. Bondegezou 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Declined speedy delete on Bodham FC

Just letting you know I have declined the request to speedy delete this article, as the notability bar (playing in a professional league), is at least ventured at. If you wish, you can take this article to Articles for Deletion. SirFozzie 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hi. I recently wrote a page for a drummer named Marc Slutsky. It has been deleted and redirected to his old band Splender. You were involved in the decision for this.

I've read the discussion but do not understand the reasoning. There are SEVERAL other drummers on this site who have pages and they are not as well known as Mr. Slutsky.

For example, on the Splender page, (the one he is REDIRECTED to) there is a link the Gin Blossoms. On their page, a member of their band, also a drummer, has a link to his OWN page. This drummer, Chris McCann, has 2 sentences on his page...

"Chris McCann was the original drummer for the alternative rock band Gin Blossoms when the group was formed in 1987, He was replaced by Dan Henzerling the next year, before the release of the group's first album."

He was replaced! How could this drummer be listed and Mr. Slutsky gets a deletion notice? I had links up to his current activity...He now plays with Alexa Ray Joel (Billy Joel's daughter) who ALSO has a page on Wikipedia.

Mr. Slutsky has also toured with Gaven DeGraw.

Please help me understand why he is not worthy of at least 2 sentences on your site.

Thank You.

Allison abkagan@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abkagan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Please do not make satyrical comments o the subjects of articles up for AfD. Regardless of the merits of the articles, it does not contribute to objective discussion. DGG (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, personal attacks such as this are unacceptable per Wikipedia policy. See WP:NPA. Reswobslc 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

I am letting you know that I have commented on our recent exchanges at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WebHamster. Reswobslc 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Faith Cokoy Speedy

Okay, thanks for letting me know. -- Tckma 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

james purnell

It seems you have deleted the article sean parker-perry (well done) although it seems some wiki vandals are now trying to incorporate this artiocle into the james purnell page. could you revert edits by gayboy_ds and co2junky ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: James Purnell the user 83.104.50.161 is no other than Sean Parker-Perry who is a PA to Purnell and Longdendale councillor. His edits are not neutral and part of a political whitewash, check out his previous edits! --Gayboy-ds 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Mark Kermode

If you had actually checked you would have noticed I fixed a link on the Mark Kermode page rather than vandalizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.205.233 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Can Change

I have been sick recently and I think the medications did something to my head. Well, I feel better today, and I realized my comments were very, how shall I say, off-topic. I joke around a lot in real life, but I realize that some of my jokes don't translate online very well. When I'm serious, I'm serious, but when I am joking, take everything with a grain of salt. LCP's comments made me realize that I left the totally wrong impression. I am quite mellow and conservative and don't go running around hooking up with everyone. Anyway, in the end it really doesn't mean anything online anyhow. It was fun joking with you a bit. Joshuajohanson 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag on Brown Brigade

Hello, and thanks for helping find and tagging A7 articles for speedy deletion. I removed your speedy tag from Brown Brigade because the text claims it was the subject of an article in Rolling Stone, which qualifies as a claim to notability. Please be careful when using criterion A7, as it is sometimes overused. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EAR

Hello, I was reading WP:EAR and you said something about "outing" other Wikipedians being frowned on. Do you know of any guidelines/essays that talk about this subject? I want to know more. Thanks in advance. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


October 2007

Please stop marking my articles for speedy deletion on articles that I created myself before I even finish typing a couple of sentences, as you did with {{#if:Theo Obrastoff|. How about giving it - oh I don't know - at least 3 minutes before you decide it should be deleted? Solkaige 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Death of Marilyn Monroe

Thank you for your help in preventing this article from become even worse of a joke. But the gossip-column contingent isn't giving up so quickly....

Please don't bother to reply to me, but you might keep your eye on the article. My latest move: to self-revert, so that the crap stays in. (Not that I'd mind in the slightest if somebody were to remove it. Just 3RR and all that; although I really don't see how this should apply to the crap-removal side.) -- Hoary 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oodleplex

While I agree that the subject is silly, this same article topic has been created and subsequently deleted at least three times in the last two years. I would argue that that supports the idea that it is of use. Moreover, it's small, it's cute, and it's harmless. Furthermore, it *is* sourced -- it is from Terry Pratchett's novel "Thief of Time" as was noted in the article body itself. It is not spam, nor is it self-serving, nor is it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJustice (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed (from the automatically-generated comment on my usertalk page) that you deleted it under the guideline of "patent nonsense", which it clearly was not (per the definition on the guideline page itself).

The Hamsters

Last I checked, you didn't create The Hamsters article. It looks unimportant and not worthy of an article as far as I can tell. I've never even heard of them. Removing the speedy deletion tag is considered vandalism. Solkaige 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop the attitude

What is it with you? You got some personal beef or chip on your shoulder? Every single thing you've said to me has been snotty. Add to that nominating my article for "speedy deletion" before it was even started makes me think somethings wrong.

You have remained civil and polite while insulting me and my articles continuously... and while trying to get the deleted before they're started? How about letting someone else give me pointers? Solkaige 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've now given you pointers, Solkaige, on your talk page. -- Hoary 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Valley Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Valley Museum. Since you tagged this for speedy-deletion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigleaguer and Nishidani

It was inappropriate to post that, perhaps, on Beinin's page. As an editor defending the integrity of Beinin's page from several recent attacks, I had great difficulty in following the repeated changes in blocked text from unsigned sources, and indeed asked for intervention. I found it necessary, foreseeing that official action might be taken, to identify the game being played. Whether I have been sucked into something beyond my personal power to understand, I do not know. I am deeply surprised that my attempt to defend the page, and document the intense manipulation of it, and associated talk pages, from confusing elisions, reversions, should be taken as being on a par with the very new editor who has now joined Wikipedia. I stand by my record as a serious editor. If I have done something technically improper, please avert me on my page. I am not an expert on Wiki rules. My interest is only in getting good quality texts up, and keeping them that way. Regards Nishidani 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

G Marcus Cole

Hi there, I think this scholar is notable. Can you reconsider the prod? Bearian 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Article : Flimboe

I removed the speedy you placed on this article as I just moved it to the authors userpage instead. Hope you don't mind. ARendedWinter 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste our time or you will be blocked

How many of these speedy delete pages did you bother to read? Are you 10 years old or just a troll trying to waste our time? Or maybe your speedy of a disambig due to lack of content was an uncharacteristic mistake? (We all make mistakes). Please don't help Wikipedia if deleting short pages is your idea of helping. WAS 4.250 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I agree, the marci bowers page i created was up for speedy deletion 20 mins after i madeit and collecting research together, give us a chance, we cant create great wikis at the click of the fingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marci Bowers Helper (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just make your wiki page when Hamster is asleep. :) He can't stop everyone. School of fish method mate! School of fish! He just lvoes the power cause he has a comptuer and thinks himself a gatekeeper of knowledge. He doesn't even read through half the articles he marks for speedy deletion. People like this give Wikipedia a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.179.10 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL

I just had to come tell you I am laughing at your comment on User talk:Manduck2k3. What a ________ this guy is. (I'll let you fill in that blank...you know WP:NPA. Could be a good thing in that blank! - Rjd0060 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Woops did Rjd0060 say something? I asked you not to post on my talk, you didn't listen... Just have to rerun my IP randomizer and I will talk with YOU later!" . Round 2 coming soon? -Rjd0060 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

speedy a7

Speedy for lack of notability applies only to real people, not characters in books or films. Please re-read WP:CSD A7. If you doubt notability, often the bestt hing is to propose a merge, or if you think it hopeless, use prod or afd. DGG (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Shall we dance?

Sorry about the edit conflicts! lol. I've been working on the article for FisherQueen, and to help out MBH who is quite new and not familiar with things, I was unaware someone else was helping out too. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Hums the Blue Danube Waltz music*~ I've replied (♪ 1, 2, 3 ♪♫) on my talk (♫ 1, 2, 3 ♪) page! (step, ♫ 1, 2, 3 ♫). Ariel♥Gold 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting him, I wasn't sure what to do, so luckily you stepped in. Oh and I've learned a new word for the day; pique! A nice small word, yet after looking it up, encompasses quite a bit. Phgao 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref fix up too! Phgao 03:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Don's

I deeply resent having been called a vandal over a page I created and which I believe I the right to blank as the only editor. Had I known that (a) I would have gotten clobbered by an AfD before it was even done, (b) I would have insults leveled at me and (c) something I banged out in less than ten minutes as a low-importance side note in Riverside County history would have caused such histrionics among so many editors, I would never have bothered to write this. --PMDrive1061 05:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I've restored my pages. I am still deeply stung by your comment, but I want no further misunderstandings. I've put in far too many hours on this site to go out like some stupid teen on a real vandalism spree. I've seen the good work you've done on new page patrolling regarding real vandalism. --PMDrive1061 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are changing two aspects here; insults as you call them would never have been leveled if you did not act in the way you did; and thus they were a consequence of your actions and came after them. Phgao 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Wassup Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could u help me out ?
By the way, i dont mean my signature as a personal attack, but u fell for it didn't you lol, you gotta say it's pretty good
Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So can you help me out ? Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, with editing Wikipedia ? Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 23:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So, can u help me out ? Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, can you help me or not ?, because i think your being a little rude by not answering me Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Left u Idiot !!! 23:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia can go straight to fucking hell!!!! how the fuck is the karaoke kings inappropriate!?!?!?!?!?!?! its a fucking low key group currently making a documentary just you're too up your fucking american arse to care just because they aren't MTV-worthy! FUCK YOU ALL YOU WILL BE FUCKING SORRY AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE NOBHEADS BOMBING YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY CUZ YOU'RE FUCKING IGNORANT CUNTS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozzage (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian Bunkering

Are you sure it's a speedy? It appears relativley notable to me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, isn't this more of an AFD? And please be more careful than to put messages my userpage, please. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

asserting for A7

Any plausible assertion is enough to pass speedy. for Frank Ritter, he is asserted to have published widely;perhaps not widely enough to pass the bar for actual notability, but that has to be tested at PROD or AFD. For Email limited, another admin thought that asserting significant international business operations was sufficient to pass speedy, & I agree; a third admin though Scandinavian Bunkering also asserting some notability a global provider of oil for industry, and again I agree; might possibly be, 72nd largest Swedish company. Please don;t overuse speedy. All of these were clear assertions. DGG (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC) You may still not have it right, per WP:CSD, ANY assertion is enough. Asserting an impt. role in anything at all is sufficient to pass speedy--there is a difference between speedy and afd. If you think the assertion is insufficient, use afd or prod. If 72nd in Sweden isnt enough, afd is the place to say so & test it. DGG (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

It's good to know that there are folks out there who appreciate the gadflies amongst us! I appreciated the support at that VERY WP:LAME AnI. Regards,K. Scott Bailey 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to try to explain yourself more fully?

I saw you comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. But I don't understand it.

I'd really appreciate it if you could explain your comment.

Could you explain what a "blp accident" is? Could you explain why the possibility of a "blp accident" is ground for deletion?

Every article is open to a vandal coming along and adding "Joe Blow is a big baby", or reasonable equivalent. I've reverted dozens of instances when a vandal has done this one of the articles on my watchlist.

Every article about a person is open to a more clever vandal inserting unsubstantiated vandalism -- vandalism that isn't obviously vandalism. I've reverted my share of those kinds of vandalism too.

So, why should the possibility of a "blp accident", whatever that is, represent any more of a problem than the possibility a clever vandal might do their work on an article?

Thanks in advance!

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

I saw you chose to blank Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda.

I saw you called on the authority of WP:BOLD for this action.

Maybe I am missing something, but I always thought WP:BOLD was intended to encourage newbies to take their first steps in contributing to the wikipedia -- not to encourage experienced wikipedians to ignore consensus or wikipolicies?

So, what am I missing? Geo Swan 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your most recent reply on my talk page. Thanks for the effort that you put into that reply.
No, sorry, your explanation isn't really helpful. I can only guess what you mean when you say "...what you seem to be missing is a wider, less parochial perspective."
If what you mean is that you think I am insensitive to the captive's situation, you couldn't be more wrong. The wikipedia's rules are clear. My personal feelings about the captive's situation should not colour my contributions. I get a limited amount of criticism that my contributions are tainted with a biased POV -- about equally split between those who regard me as too "pro-Bush" policy and those who regard me "anti-American". I have contributed over 15,000 edits related to the war on terror.
As I pointed out to User:Lawrence Cohen, the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth" Truth is a very subjective metric. As is, IMO, "notability". Verifiability is a metric that is much less open to interpretation.
IMO Lawrence has been completely unable to cite specific policy passages that back up his assertion that using these DoD allegations violates any policies. If you agree with him so strongly are you able to cite the specific passages to back up this interpretation?
FWIW the DoD battled, for years, to suppress the same information you and Lawrence want to suppress. And they used a very similar justification. They said they were withholding the information in order to protect the captive's privacy. US District Court judge Jed Rakoff over-ruled the DoD and issued a court order that they had to reveal the captives's identity, and the transcripts from their Tribunals by 6pm March 3rd, 2006.
I've read well over half of the 12,000 or so pages of documents the DoD has released over the last 18 months. I am in absolutley no doubt that every increase in open-ness and transparency about the captive's condition, the nature of the interrogations, the nature of their Tribunals, the nature of the allegations against them, has been in their interests.
There are a small number of the lawyers who volunteered to aid the captives in their habeas corpus who traveled all the way to Afghanistan, to interview their clients' families and neighbours. This was extremely dangerous. And my hat is off to them.
In every case those lawyers got emails form the DoD telling them that their clients had been quietly released. Is this a sign that the DoD knows they can't possibily justify detaining many/most of the captives? That is the kind of personal interpretation that can't be allowed to influence what gets put into any articles. But presenting the uninterpreted information, which is what I think I did in this article, is, I believe, completely in compliance with all policies.
It seemed to me that Lawrence was initially justifying his objection out of a true concern for the captive's welfare. When I wrote to him, as I have written to you, as if he and I both shared a concern for the captive's welfare, he came clean, and stated he thought the DoD was doing a good job. Pretty shocking.
I read all the justifications you offered last night. And I continue to wonder which exact policy clauses you are calling upon.
I hope you will do me the courtesy of either explaining your reasoning more fully, or explaining what aspect of my reasoning you have found unconvincing.
Yours for a civil wikipedia Geo Swan 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages and harassment

It is longstanding policy that bothering someone on their talk page after being asked to stop constitutes harassment. Abusers are routinely blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up for me

I appreciated the support. It's difficult to fight admins who can simply freeze your userpage, block you, and then freeze your talkpage when you try to stand up for yourself. I will never understand the need some people feel to police people's userpages, edit summaries, and other such trivialities. It contributes nothing to the project, and is in fact, highly counterproductive, as it distracts (and even blocks in pathetic cases like today) good editors from their work. Thank you again for supporting me, when you certainly did not have to do so.K. Scott Bailey 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at an article I created?

I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article I just wrote regarding Tom Dula. It's not too long, so if you get a chance to take a peek at it, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind! That's why I asked you to take a look: I knew it needed some help. Thanks for the work you did on it! K. Scott Bailey 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks again

thanks for the info box on marci's page Marci Bowers Helper 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamsters

Hi mate, hope you don't mind I have added a bit to the Hamsters WP entry about the drummer singing back up and the MB&D tour - maybe it waffles a bit about their ribbing each other about the singles... Great work on a great band mate! Don't let the doubters put you off. I have seen The Hamsters loads of time and wish I had picked up on them earlier in their career. One of the best bands on the planet me and my mates think... my kids like them too! PS I wonder if we could include something about Slim's guitars? Royzee 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pankhurst Centre

Thanks for taking those photographs. I have provisionally put Image:Pankhurst Centre 1.jpg on the main page but will leave a note on the talk page to see if anyone else has an opinion. Pit-yacker 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Marc Ramsbottom

There seems to be a certain user who keeps on reverting edits made to Marc Ramsbottom and removing controversies. A lock is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.220 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Award!

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit
I hereby award you the very first Greater Manchester WikiProject Barnstar of Merit, for your majestic, effortless and and otherwise outstanding contributions to the WikiProject, including mainpage and ad design! May it be the first of many such awards! Keep it up! Jza84 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Edit Conflict

Hi WebHamster:

Thanks. I think maybe there are timing issues with the servers. I'm guessing the history and the actual pages are on different servers.

No harm done.

Cheers, Wanderer57 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi WebHamster, How do you make a template? please reply Point93 19:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I've responded to the template you left me. To save time, I'll copy my response here as well:

Um, I didn't create that article myself. Please look a little more closely at the article's history, and then at the CSD template itself, which says "[if] you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". I intend to fix the article, I removed the notice. --Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, WP:TEMPLAR. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Home (Nightclub)

I removed the speedy-delete tag from this article because I think it's made several assertions of notability. If you still decide to request deletion, I'd suggest you PROD it. Joyous! | Talk 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Belle-Vue--main-entrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Belle-Vue--main-entrance.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Drake Circus

I see the article on drake circushas yet again been vandalised by you as you removed the list of the larger occupiers of Drake Circus on the basis that 'WP is not a phone book'. To remove all the shop names on this page yet keep them in on the shopping mall page - what possible justification is there for excluding occupier names in one article and including them in another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.171.203 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly convention dictates that you leave messages at the bottom of a user's talk page. Secondly there was no vandalism. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. You've actually answered your own question. The fact that the details are already in one article means that they have no need to be in the other. Likewise a list of shops is more appropriate for the article about the shopping centre and less appropriate for a general article about the area. I suggest you check out similar articles and I'll be amazed if any of them contain lists similar to the one on Drake Circus. Either way it isn't vandalism much as you may think so. If you still consider it to be vandalism then I suggest that you report it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, just be aware that reports without strong evidence are not taken seriously. ---- WebHamster 13:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason you gave to justify your vandalism was 'WP is not a phone book'. In case you had failed to observe the article did not list any telephone numbers moreover it referred to a university and a musuem which most reasonably intelligent people would assume has more to do within the academic research of an encyclopedia than a promo for selling spuds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Stirring stuff -- I think, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think this person's first language might be, Hamster? -- Hoary 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The one practised by Stanley Unwin I'm guessing. It doesn't bode well for the teaching standards of UK educational establishments though. ---- WebHamster 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bella

No problem. Tiring of the incessant whining on the Circus pages yet? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have. The pest has just now woken up and posted another little piece of trollery; let's completely ignore it, shall we? -- Hoary 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Too late. I saw his misspelled comment before your message I'm afraid and answered it. Actually he did ask a (sort of) justified question, so li'l ol' helpful me felt duty bound to answer it :) ---- WebHamster 12:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
His questions so often look justified. That's one of his very few skills. (Spelling certainly isn't among the others.) ¶ Wozzis? You wiped out a newly inserted reference and, thanks to the limits on WP's grotesquely horrible templates, split a perfectly good note into two notes. And why not mention that the outfit calls the place drakecircus? Puzzling. -- Hoary 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup I noticed the deletion, there was an edit conflict and I didn't notice, when I replaced the existing refs I ended up nuking the new one. I've replaced it now. As regards the what they call themselves, well actually they don't. That was just a comment referring to what is purely a design element of the logo. "Drake Circus Shopping Centre" is how they refer to themselves all over their website. The comment seemed extraneous and was borderline POV/Synth. Yeah, I know about splitting the two refs into 2, but standards are standards etc <g>, actually it's neater and easier to read now (at least the article is, the code is dire!!) ---- WebHamster 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Newsletter - November 2007

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/December 2007


Rudget Contributions 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Re: Article up for speedy deletion!

Hello! I realise completely why you have put my article up for deletion, I can assure you that its not a test! and that I do in fact use the sandbox :-)

It is linked (as in associated) to the following pages, which I just added:

Sorry You've Slightly Confusseled me there! It says that for a wikiproject that you can create them in a subpage of the wikiproject, is it in the right place :-s Cheers PhilB 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) (and thanks for the feedback!)
Ah thank you, it was a stupid school boy error! {hits self over head} PhilB 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


deletion of Warhawk Air Museum

You deleted a page I started because "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.". I believe that the Warhawk Air Museum is important enough to be on wikipedia. I have little information on it because I just started it, and was planing on doing more work on it today. I even marked it as a stub in the mean time. There are other pages like Discovery_Center_of_Idaho are stubs and have little information. So why did you delete it? The Warhawk Air Museum is very important in Idaho. We make it to the news every time we have an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0ny (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dahl deletions

In regards to Steve Dahl, remove the Christmas format mention. It hasn't happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.122.7 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but that's why we have edit summaries, so we'll know what you're thinking. --CliffC 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gary Forrester

I seriously doubt anything that schlocky and maudlin is copyrighted. --David Shankbone 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That Drake Circus article

Hi! Thanks for your (extensive!) input to Drake Circus and its AfD, which I think ends tomorrow. I've yet to !vote and I'm unsure how to proceed. I see from your edit history that you have rather more experience of AfDs than me, so I was wondering if you think I should bite the bullet and replace the article with my draft rewrite, or try to draw the closing admin's attention to it - I guess the latter. I also noted that you (unusually) made no comment about my rewrite - was that because you think I've made a faux pas, or what? Happy to hear any thoughts. Smalljim 11:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Belay that. I've had a better idea and am offering a compromise to him. Could you let us see what we can work out together, please? And am I right that as the instigator you could withdraw the AfD if you wished? Smalljim 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear I will be commenting on it later, time's a little tight at the moment and you deserve more than a few seconds of my time. ---- WebHamster 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by this comment

"senior consultant on gerontology for Guinness World Records". Senior to whom and to how many? 1) Like it or not some of your charges are notable, you are not. 2) You have a raging case of the COIs so please recuse yourself and let us get on with it. You are doing yourself (and WP) more harm than good with your responses. All you are effectively doing is reiterating the same arguments. What is it they say about a possible definition of madness? "When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over and then expects the end result to be different". Please see WP:TEND in relation to this discussion. ---- WebHamster 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Edison took 99 tries to invent the lightbulb. Frankly, I don't see what your problem is. Suggesting that I am 'mad' is a personal attack. You are also wrong about COI, as can be seen that I am also defending other articles that were not about me.

Actually, it is people like YOU who are doing Wikipedia more harm than good. Minor-league guitarist or drummer in D-list teen band? 'Notable.' World's leading expert in a scientific field? Not notable. Is it any wonder that the primary article on Wikipedia today concerns World Wrestling Entertainment? What Wikipedia has become is the encyclopedia of the under-30 masses, which have gobs of gratuitous articles about themselves, but when it comes to something that might smack of education, not notable.

The bottom line is: your scorched-Earth mentality will hurt the education of the young people in the long run, that's who the real losers will be.Ryoung122 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For such an intelligent guy you do need things spelled out don't you? You can't see what my problem is as I don't have one. I have no interest in your defence of articles not about you, my comments are related to the afd and its associated article. Your CoI is totally apparent given the way you are behaving in the afd. The madness comment is relative to what you are doing, not to your sanity level, i.e. how can you expect a different result when you keep doing the same thing over and over.
'Notability'. Well herein lies the problem. You are applying your own definition to it rather than the laid down definition. Notability in music is different to notability in academia or in the media etc. Quite simply, based on the WP criteria laid down for your relevant fields, you are not notable. As such I've voted and commented accordingly. If you don't like it, well all I can say is tough, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and that's the way WP works. As I said in the AfD you should recuse yourself as you can't see this objectively which has been demonstrated by the disruption you are causing.
I hardly think my kid's education is going to suffer by the omission of an article about you. ---- WebHamster 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi WebHamster. For the past few days I've been trying to get a stylized signature to work, similar to yours. The signature itself works fine but I can't get it to do a time/date mark afterwards. How do you make your signature do it? Cheers. - Galloglass 11:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake Circus CSD

Wow, "unilaterally overridden an AfD". You seem to have a lot of emotion invested in not having this article. I simply came upon the creation of the article while watching recent changes and, being suspicious of such a well-developed article being newly created, investigated and saw it was a recreation of the AfD and I nominated it as a CSD [1]. When the user tagged hangon, I told her it would help for her to show that the article differed in such a way to meet the concerns of the AfD [2].

I noticed that she later added several sections and reliable references which I checked and substantiated the claims that the area has long been known as Drake Circus, which appeared to me to be the sticking point for the delete voters, including you who said there was a reliance on postal addresses and non-independent websites. Many hours later, the CSD tag was still on and, since I was the nominator and I, personally, was satisfied that enough changes had been made to meet the stated concerns of the AfD, I withdrew the nomination.

I, clearly, did not and cannot "override" the AfD. Your comments that "people like me" unilaterally turn the AfD process on its head is alarmingly not Wikipedia:Etiquette and neither is your impugning User:Nicole50dc's motives. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did nominate the article for CSD minutes after it re-creation. User:Nicole50dc even complained as such on the article talk page. I did not withdraw the nomination until, I believe, about 8 hours later so the re-creation was not at the same time as my edit comment. I don't care one way or the other about the article or the creator's motivations. If a verifiable, NPOV article can be made that satisfies the AfD delete-voters objections, than I see no reason not to accept it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunny Lowry

Bloody hell Hammy - you're quick off the mark! I did the edit, checked the reference again, realised my mistake, went back to undo it before anyone noticed and you'd got there first! Are you following me? Richerman 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added her to the Longsight page, give me two mins and I'll put that one right before you get there Richerman 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, got there before you showed me up again. I hadn't heard of her before and I was googling for notable residents of Longsight (who are a bit thin on the ground) when I found your article. The Longsight article could do with some improvement though......... Richerman 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Marc Collins-Rector

Why did you delete this? This article is not "controversial in tone and unsourced" - it is a statement of two facts, both of which can be sourced multiple times, and this article contains a direct link to a government registry of sex offenders. This is a canonical source that cannot be legitimately disputed. This person is notable, and has been covered by numerous printed publications for the past ten years.Meehawl 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the reasoning for speedy deletion of ICEcore software

I made the ICEcore (software) article as factual as I could. Why is it being deleted? There are numerous software products listed on Wikipedia why do you delete some and not others?Emcconne 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 ?

What is that ? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness

Perhaps it might be a good idea to re-review what the definition of "sock puppet" means? A sock puppet can only be an account created to disguise the user. There is no policy that says that anonymous editors may not contribute to xFD. They might not get listened to, but this is not sock-puppetry. That's a personal attack. Another good reason I'm leaving. Wikipedia sure ain't what it was. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack my ass. It's an more like example of the truth hurting. You disguised yourself by not admitting who you were, plain and simple. ---- WebHamster 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I never disguised myself. I said who I am openly. You are attacking me, and that's not very pleasant. If you have any respect for WP:AGF, then please stop doing this. Incidently, your comments on "wasting CPU cycles" must be some of the most bizarre claims I've come across in some time. Please, if this is such a massive issue, I think you had better go and file a bug report. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You only said who you were after you were outed, not before. Using CPU cycles is not a bug, why would you think it was? I think you should take the advice others have given you. You seem to be approaching meltdown and Wikipedia is not worth it. Take a couple of days off, get drunk, get laid, get tanned and get chilled. ---- WebHamster 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think that I needed to. Nobody "outed" me. If there was concern that I was acting as a sockpuppet, then I was always contactable on my talk IP page. I could have been asked directly. But that never happened. Welcome the wonderful world of WP:AGF. You are right though, Wikipedia isn't worth it, though this makes me sad as I felt at one time that it was.
Incidently, if using a few CPU cycles is not a big deal, why are you making it one? You are the one who pointed this out, not others. Dude, it was you who wrote that "How about the, perhaps more important, number of CPU cycles used (wasted?) to continually resize a page full of (unimportant?) images?" !!! I'm not misquoting you, this is what you said verbatim! - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course you were outed, you even complained about it. Someone, I can't remember who, even went to the trouble of removing the tags that outed you. As for the CPU cycles, you are confusing "not a big deal" with "bug report". Using CPU cycles is/can be a big deal when the place is already suffering from lag. I'm not reporting it because it isn't a bug, not because it's not a big deal. I take it IT isn't your speciality? ---- WebHamster 12:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, for the last time, you didn't out anyone. I didn't like the fact that tags were added to an anonymous editor's comments with no CheckUser confirming this. Imagine if it was someone else? And the IP address will be cycled soon, and get another Optus Internet anonymous editor that isn't me. See the problem? If you don't, guess some people can't be helped.
IT is actually my strong point. This lag you talk about... I rarely experience it. When I do, it's not normally an issue with "CPU cycles". Again, however, you are the one who raised "CPU cycles". But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I do wish you all the best in your "IT Consultant" future, incidently. Try going to a web server admin or DBA with a complaint about lag, do absolutely no diagnosis of the core issue and then blame it on "CPU lag". I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one - before and after you left. /me chuckles. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
When you've finished chuckling you really ought to try reading things with a clearer head (you must have taken my first piece of advice), and/or take an optician's advice. When you do you will see that nowhere have I said that it was me that outed you. Likewise, re-read what I wrote about lag and cpu cycles. As you are an Aussie and the text may appear upside down to you I'll remind you "Let's face it there are enough problems with lag already without adding to it however minor it may be". ---- WebHamster 12:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stone Gods

Er - why did you tag this as speedy? Notability is asserted - 3 ex The Darkness members plus a WP:RS in the form of Classic Rock Magazine's website as a ref. Exxolon (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Also - I'm not sure it's appropiate to mark tagging an article for speedy deletion as a 'minor' edit - destruction of an article is about as far from 'minor' as you can get. Care to explain? Exxolon (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. If you'll notice from the edit summary I use twinkle to tag for CSD. Maybe someone changed the template. Either way I don't mark CSD notices as minor. ---- WebHamster 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, ok - I can see the discussion you've started on the twinkle talk page regarding this. You still haven't answered the first question though - why did you tag the article for speedy deletion in the first place? Exxolon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Not got a clue, I've been to bed since then. ---- WebHamster 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan/New articles

I explained why on the talk page this article looks short, yet shouldn't be deleted. It is awaiting a robot to run and then the robot fills in the page of Saskatchewan related new articles, if I coded the rule set well for the robot, here's crossing my fingers, as.... if it works, it shall help the wikiproject, and newsletter and portal immensely. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand, I guess I thought this page should end up being an article, how do I set up the creation of where the robot enters the result in wiki space if I don't create an article to receive input? What is the difference between article space and wiki space? SriMesh | talk 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we are at mixed up communications. I have contributed and edited many articles, templates, and projects, and portals, so methinks I have an idea somewhat of how the general WP works. I am now making the wikiproject, newsletter and portal more streamlined and better structured. SriMesh | talk 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldham FA

Thanks for the barnstar! I've had 3 in the last 24 hours and can't believe it!... makes it all worth while. and I really appreciate the support!... So, Greater Manchester is looking a bit ropey eh!?..... -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jay W. Hood

Just a heads up to your notification for speedy deletion. I've added a discussion topic on the talk page that gives my reasoning for why I created the page. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lonnie Mack

Thank you WebHamster for your help in making my article a much better effort. I haven't replied to you until now, because I did not know how. In fact, while drafting most of the article, I did not even know that I should create a username and then log in. I probably would not have even tried to write the article, except that LM is a dear friend and no one else had done it. I am afraid things won't geet much better, as I am a total computer moron, which is why your help has been such a godsend. Slp512 (Steven Paine, Moorpark, CA, USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube junk deletion

Thank you for this. What a strange edit it was that you reverted. (Even if it had worked, I'd never have seen the video as I'm careful not to install Flash in any browser I use, and thereby spare myself a lot of irritating advertising.) Should I be interested in the kind of the video? I think not. But aren't WP editors bizarre? -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll unreservedly agree with you about editor bizarreness :) As for the video, it was a promo video of Christina Aguilera - Genie in a Bottle. Though why that would be a relevant addition to your user page is beyond me!. You must have pissed off someone I suppose, though I suspect that user was someone's sockpuppet; two contribs, a grammar correction and an attempted vandalism. Ah well, "there's nowt so queer as folk". --WebHamster 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know Christina thingummy but I suppose she's better looking than the obvious suspects, e.g. goa-- er, no, I'd better not give nitwits new ideas. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Variable IP address

Hi there, I saw your comments on that javascript spam on AN/I and wondered if you had similar expertise on IP addresses. Several editors have been blocked recently from editing homeopathy, so I'm becoming leery of single-use IP accounts commenting on the talk page. A very strange one appeared recently where each edit to the same set of posts came from a different IP that traced to a different geographical location. The accounts are 70.107.246.88, 69.22.247.46 and 74.73.139.192. What possible explanations are there for this? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The first thought that came to mind was that these IPs were being used as open proxies (incorrectly setup webserver software or software gateways/routers such as WinGate are the usual culprits) but I just checked them and they aren't currently open, but that doesn't mean to say that they weren't at the time of the edits. On the other hand it could actually be 3 different, but communicating, editors with a single agenda. My money's on the latter. True crackers are few and far between even with the proliferation of the "script kiddie" so I'd hazard a guess that to do the former would be beyond the expertise of these editors. --WebHamster 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No they're certainly the same person, they stated "Even without this source I think what I suggested ( look above again ) could be used since it gives the least possibility of introducing bias as you said." diff from the 69.22.247.46 account to refer to edits made by the 70.107.246.88 account. Is there any way this can happen as a normal part of web access? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, all the IPs belong to different ISPs so even if they were dynamic they wouldn't be drawn from the same pot so to speak. Geo-location is notoriously inaccurate so can't be used to narrow down a specific area. The IPs look to be used on standard cable/broadband accounts so if they are indeed the same person there's only two ways this can happen. Either the use of an open proxy on all three IPs or the user is physically using 3 different computers (maybe at a friend's or some public access point like a library or cyber cafe). Mind you another possibility just occurred to me. He could be hijacking some unsecured wireless connections and piggy-backing someone else's internet connection. --WebHamster 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Very strange. Well, thanks for your help. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Removal of Dead Again (Type O Negative album) image

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Type O Negative. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

Your bias about removing the most recent Type O Negative album from their main band page could also be applied to hundreds of band pages across all of Wikipedia. Requesting a perfect template to draw this out for you is quite unnecessary. Please use common sense on the website. Thank you. Logical Defense (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:WAX to put your comments into context. --WebHamster 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. However, WP:WAX does not apply in specific to the image controversy we are having. The information is appreciated, regardless. Logical Defense (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It does indeed relate to your arguments of other articles/images... e.g. The Doors. In the meanwhile you will probably benefit from a perusal of WP:NONFREE, noting, specifically, the comments about "minimal use". --WebHamster 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Minimal as opposed to excessive, the latter of which is highly untrue in context to our situation. But thanks anyway. Logical Defense (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally you should note that I did not remove the Bloody Kisses image from the article as that has a minimal justification, whereas the Dead Again image does nothing for the article beyond eye candy. That's why it was removed. That is against fair-use policy. --WebHamster 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming, for the sake of debate, that you're correct: what's wrong with a little eye candy? It's one, single image. Not excessive, and not taking up too much space. It's seems (for lack of better term) an anal thing to complain about. Logical Defense (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with eye candy, I never said there was. The problem is copyright licensing and fair-use policy. "Excessive", in the WP context, means that any use other than for a specific purpose is excessive. For example, the Dead Again album cover use on the actual album article page is a reasonable use due to the article being directly relevant. Whereas on the main band page it does not have a specific use, it doesn't actually increase the encyclopaedic value of the minor mention of the album in the paragraph near it. This is why decorative use of album covers in the discography lists of band's pages is a no-no, it's purely decorative and cannot be legally described as a fair-use. If it can't be argued to be fair-use then that puts the Wikimedia Foundation at risk of copyright infringement. --WebHamster 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is - even though I still think the album cover is fine there - this is the first time you actually tried to clearly explain why exactly you were embarking on this little quest. Took some prying but here you are. Logical Defense (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How much time do you spend online?

Just innocently asking how much time you spend on this website. Granted I'm on for probably an hour a day, and at any random hour at that, you certainly seem to be active at any given moment I'm here. It's quite ... impressive. Logical Defense (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really relevant but I work on the computer and online, I edit on WP whilst doing other things. So yes I am accessing WP for up to 12 hours per day, off and on. --WebHamster 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it not relevent to? Logical Defense (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous conversations. --WebHamster 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I never said it was. Interesting. Logical Defense (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD Tagging with Twinkle

I've replied you your question here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

...Don't know if you are monitoring it but I've replied again.- Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have been watching your edits on Belle Vue Zoo and you are doing terrific work there. I can't wait to see the result when you are finished. Have you seen WikiProject Zoo? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lonnie Mack

Many thanks to WebHamster for his formatting contributions to the Lonnie Mack article. I've ordered a biography of Dueane Allman, as I'm told it has a good quote which I might want to add. Other than that, the article is pretty much in its final form.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA Troubles

Hello WebHamster! :) I recognise you have tried to stop the situation developing here. However, could you please refrain from posting? I have also sent the same message to Pedro. Thank you. Regards, — Rudget contributions 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On the assumption that this is about my RfA, and that you may not have seen my reply to you on my talk page, I just wanted to say thanks. I offered to help, my offer was rejected, so as you say "fuck 'em!!!" :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I'm trying to get Jeeny to calm down right now. Seeing other users taunting her on the administrators noticeboard - users who have been here for five days in fact - will not help her calm down. Please reverse your revert. Picaroon (t) 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I realised what I'd done straight away and reverted my revert. What prompted my revert was that you'd also removed Haemo's comments too. I only saw the taunts afterwards. --WebHamster 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, no harm done. Haemo's comment was just the {{resolved}} notice - should I strike those out instead of remove them from now on? Picaroon (t) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Leon Youngblood

By the way I did some additional research, this artist has hit #1 on the pop and rap chart on Music Nation a contest sponsored by Epic records, Z100 radio station and Power 105, there are some pictures of it on www.hiphopfreemusic.com If that is not enough evidence that this cat has a sparkle worth noting, than I don't know what is. I hope you people read those articles so that you can see that I am not lying or making this up.--Answer8 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi everybody, I did some more research, it seems that this artist was hit 29,956 on myspace video page for the "It's All Good" video you can see it here in this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8452103961738582641&q=leon+youngboy&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Than was hit 25,642 on the google video page here's the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6850053621882346245&q=leon+youngboy&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

I think this artist is really stirring some grounds I hope every one will give him a chance to right fully shine. --Answer8 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Well I guess you gentleman need to refer to these articles from these major newspaper, It's what drew me to this artist and It fulfills the requirement of wikepedia rules, if a newspaper is not trustworthy it's saying your doctor's note is no good for being absent from work, thanks for strighten me out there, I was going astray. Take a look at the Hoy newspaper article dated January 13,2006 page 30

Take a look at the Chinese World Journal dated November 29, 2005 page E3 Take a look at El Diario article dated May 11 2005 page34 Take a look at The Sino American Times dated Dec. 16, 2005--Answer8 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for giving me a chance to do this in the right way, here is one of the articles:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/HOY_FRI_P30_copy_1.pdf--Answer8 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I submitted proof from a well known and reputable newspaper Hoy which is also own by Newsday, the article which is open to public domain which you can even get in your local library, dated January 13th 2006, which shows that what I wrote is the truth and nothing but the truth, they now want to erase my evidence, can somebody tell me what kind of bias and prejudice is going on over here. I know the guys is Asian but to go so far and stoop down to the levels of erasing evidence just so a article can not be written is beyond the American way.--Answer8 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

--Answer8 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

so now that I have the proof that what I was saying was not a lie, you now want to erase my proof from Hoy newspaper. Nice way to try to win the argument by cheating like that.--Answer8 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mo Foster

Hi WebHamster, I see you're involved in this article. It's comprehensive and none the worse for that, indeed really interesting, but there are a few minor issues with the tone (a few too many peacock terms and informal style issues) and content (mainly trivia, sourcing of a few claims and current / nn events). Would be great if you had time to take a look and tell me what you think. Cheers, Deiz talk 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've seen your edit. I've reverted a section of the text you deleted, but the rest I concur with your assessment of peacock terms etc. The majority of the article was written whilst I was new to article writing and I've been distracted with other articles in the meanwhile. I'll do my best to hunt down the citations needed. I thought I'd got the majority already. The problem with the Uni seminars is that they were reported on the relevant pages on the Uni's website, but now they've been deleted and I can't find if there are any archives. I'll see what I can come up with though. I notice you put a tone tag on, which is fair enough I suppose, but it refers to discussing what's needed on the talk page. You haven't added anything to the talk page that will give me a direction to go in. Any pointers as to what is needed will be much appreciated. --WebHamster 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For your fine work in editing "the lists"

The Guitar Barnstar 
For all the excellent work you do behind the scenes in keeping the "players" lists clean and neat. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Youngboy redux

Now that I submitted proof from a well known and reputable newspaper Hoy which is also own by Newsday, the article which is open to public domain which you can even get in your local library, dated January 13th 2006, which shows that what I wrote is the truth and nothing but the truth, they now want to erase my evidence, can somebody tell me what kind of bias and prejudice is going on over here. I know the guys is Asian but to go so far and stoop down to the levels of erasing evidence just so a article can not be written is beyond the American way.--Answer8 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What you and your friends are doing are taking evidence that was requested from the scene of a crime and disposing it. You are no different that anyone that tampers with the evidence.--Answer8 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I submitted proof from a well known and reputable newspaper Hoy which is also own by Newsday, the article which is open to public domain which you can even get in your local library, dated January 13th 2006, which shows that what I wrote is the truth and nothing but the truth, they now want to erase my evidence, can somebody tell me what kind of bias and prejudice is going on over here. I know the guys is Asian but to go so far and stoop down to the levels of erasing evidence just so a article can not be written is beyond the American way.--Answer8 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Get over it. Your article was deleted, your copyright infringement was deleted. Case closed. --WebHamster 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


--Answer8 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with She Who Photographs (talk · contribs). I appreciate it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

University Radio Essex

Hi; Just thought that there should be a discussion on the notability of University Radio Essex, so I've started one at Talk:University Radio Essex#Notability -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template of Krypto: The Superdog

Hello, Why is the template for Krypto: the Superdog a candidate for deletion? I have the copyright information on the image's page and change any wording on the template itself so there should be no reason for its deletion.

Thanks

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the template as the image. User boxes are for use in User space. The image is a copyrighted image with a fair-use rationale. Fair use images are not allowed in user space, only in article space. Additionally even if it was allowed to be in userspace there would have to be a fair use rationale for each and every use of the image, i.e. anyone and everyone who chose to use your template. --WebHamster 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what do I have to do to use this image on a user template! If it can be used in an article, then why do I have to give a rationale to put in a user template.

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

.....sorry it does not make sense to me, then what can I put in it? there is really no other image I can use in the template but that one. Do you have any ideas?

--Wolfdog1 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of images in Miss Masque article

Hi, wanted to know if there is any way to not delete the images in this article that you've tagged for speedy delete. Do you need further explanation on the usage, smaller image, what? I'd really like to keep those images, because they do help explain the changes to that character over time. Thanks! Konczewski 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but there was another image that was speedily deleted that I'm pretty sure had the appropriate justifications. It was Image:Terra obscura v2 4.jpg. Any way to restore that image? Konczewski 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Final request for help on Mack Article

Hi WebHamster. I've now added the remaining material under sections 1.3 (at the end) and 1.6. I'm a barely computer-literate codger, and would appreciate it if you'd go back in and turn the parenthetical source references in those two sections into footnotes, as you have so ably done in the past. In addition, the boldfaced source references ("Guitar Player") in the first two boxed quotes in sec. 1.6 could be reduced to footnots (leaving only the names of the fpersons quoted). finally, there is a parenthetical reference to Pinell's article at the end of the second paragraph in sec. 1.6 that could be reduced to a footnote. With your accomplishment of these changes, I think the article is done.

Slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous?

Is it a principled act to lift content from a users page while simultaneously campaigning for the deletion of that page? Didn't think so. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange

Quite odd how one day you are desperate to remove soapboxing from userspace and the next day will edit war to leave it in. What is reason for such inconsistancy? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should look up the definition of soapboxing. There's a whole lot of difference between one userbox and a whole page spouting right wing rhetoric. Likewise there's a whole lot of difference between deleting items off another person's userpage and nominating it at MFD. I've not deleted anything from your pages. Likewise I'm not disrupting the place to make a WP:POINT. It seems to me that you are well on your way to being blocked/banned. Incidentally, when has not liking rap music ever been racist? --WebHamster 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the USA flag on fire will eventually be eradicated from wikipedia with your help or without it. Same goes for the picture representing Old Glory upside down, perfect examples of soapboxing. As for your blanket statement hating on rap/hip hop; not only does it show you have not an ounce of rythym or flava, it shows you are not willing to hear a song on its merits and are willing to dismiss it an entire genre primarily because you are scared of it's creators. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It just shows that you're being a dick and spouting bollocks. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to my other musical likes. --WebHamster 20:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

email

I tried to send but you don't have an email addy listed. So I'll have to say it here. I think ultimately community consensus will be the judge of PresterJohn, and in my view, however correct he thinks he is, this ping-pong between you two could be regarded as unseemly, particularly the exchange immediately above. I wouldn't want you to risk your own dignity here. verb. sap. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I'm the sort of person who calls things as they see them. His chain of logic was either that of someone with a low intelligence or that of someone being a dick. PJ doesn't strike me as someone with an extremely low IQ (regardless of his atrocious spelling) so this only left the WP:DICK theory. This supposition then led me to believe that as I'm someone who has declared their interest in black music, i.e. the blues, what he must be spouting is WP:BOLLOCKS. Occam's razor wins it every time for me :) --WebHamster 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Let him bury himself, I say. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Suits me. :) --WebHamster 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

I saw your response on WP:AN/I. Thank you. Would you mind chirping in over at Talk:Universal Life Church? I'm feeling ill tonight, so I'm really not up to handling Subgen. Thank you. GJ 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel like my request for help at WP:AN/I is being ignored. GJ (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

web hamster

could you look at my other enteries? --Reable (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Contesting speedy

Hi, I'm contesting the speedy deletion tag at Leland Mitchell. He was a pro basketball player in a league generally considered equal to the NBA. Could you give me a day or two to find sources? Thanks. (I didn't start the article; I just stumbled upon it.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marci Bowers

Hi WebHamster, regarding your reversion of the above article, my revision abides by the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity: "A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life". I'd appreciate it if you would restore my version, as it does not matter what gender a person was at the time, per the manual of style, they are referred to as the gender they currently associate with. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding, and quick response! Ariel♥Gold 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No probs, when I'm wrong I'm wrong :) --WebHamster 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help re: Lonnie Mack

Hello WebHamster!

I've added a lead-in section and have eliminated redundant highlighting. Substantively, the article is now finished but still needs a little a little help in matters of form. I'd appreciate it if you would accomplish these: (1) In the new lead-in section, there is a reference to a footnote that needs to go into proper form. (2) In the section regarding the significance of Mack's early guitar solos, I added a new name, Tinsley Ellis, in the fourth para., and the reference needs to be reduced to a footnote. (3) In the section on Mack's "Transition" period, the second through fifth paragraphs need to be run together into one paragraph. However, when I try to do it, it messes up a footnote. (4) In the section on Mack's comeback during the 1980s, you will see a paragraph beginning with the words "Mack and Vaughan became". Within that paragraph is a parenthetical reference which needs to be reduced to a footnote.

With those changes, all the artricle needs, per your recent advice, are some more graphics. I'll try to find some appropriate items for this, but won't be able to get back to it soon due to an unforseen family emergency. If you could make the other changes noted above in the interim, that would be great. Many thanks.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ads?

Hello again WebHamster, I hope all is well.

I was wondering if.... and it's a big if.... you'd consider producing a Wikipedia Ad for WP:UKGEO like you did (very nicely!) for WP:GM?

I did make a formal request at WikiAds, and got it accepted, but the user has since declared they are no longer making ads. Terrible I know. Would you be willing? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for taking on board the request! The original ad request (which includes the same some rough ideas for text and images) was here. I was thinking something like "Want to help develop articles on your local area? - From the Shetlands to Scilly, -break- Snowdon to London -break- ? to ? -break- WikiPedia UK Geography needs you"
Was this what you had in mind? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's bloody fantastic!!!! It's nothing like I expected, but really really great! I would be more than happy to use it! I can't see how you could improve upon this! Brilliant! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey I was happy with it before! It's a flawless piece of wizardry! I have a BA in Art and Design (which encompassed Graphic Design) and still have no idea how it works! It's got the go ahead from me! Thanks ever so much! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamsters

Have questioned, on the Hamsters talk page, why you removed the real names of all three band members (Andy Billups was there, but I added Alan Parish and Barry Martin). (I also corrected the spelling of Kursaal Flyers - I'm a fan not a vandal)

The names are in articles on the Hamsters web site, and, on articles reprinted in their album Pet Sounds - 10 Years of Rodent Rock (if you have good eyesight) but given that you created the Pet Sounds page, I'm sure you already know that.

I realise there has been some trouble on the Hamsters page, so did not just revert the names, in case there is a good reason ???

I believe any encyclopedia should inform, not obfuscate the truth. Stage names have a long standing tradition, but real names are also important - for example, I'm sure you wouldn't remove Don Van Vliet from Captain Beefheart's entry?

  Arjayay (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Scoobydoo10.JPEG

Hello, can you help me find the tag that says it is a ScreenShot from the TV? I gave the source, description and a Copyright but I can't find the tag.

Thanks

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion

Seriously, what the heck are you doing? Mouse is back 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:What am I doing?

Heh, I was talking about you adding a hate box, but then I saw that's from the 4th. Mah bad, perhaps. But really, why were you doing that? Mouse is back 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • sigh* Now you've just convinced me more that it's a hate box. Mouse is back 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lonnie Mack-Strike Like Lightning.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lonnie Mack-Strike Like Lightning.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

All by Myself

Hi, WebHamster why have you rv my edits in All by Myself article? You know, the fact that Marcus22 asked you first, doesn't mean he's the good guy and I'm the bad one. I have left this message in the discussion page:

""All by Myself" is a beautiful 70's song by Eric Carmen. In 1996 it was covered by Celine Dion and included on her very successful 30 million selling album Falling into You. The song itself was also released as a single and became a worldwide hit. It's Dion's signature song and one of her most powerful vocal performances (Grammy Awards of 1997 for example). Many artists recorded this song but none of them was so successful as Dion's recording.

Above are just few reasons why Celine Dion section should be included in this article. If you want to extend the Eric Carmen section, please do so. However, the lack of informations about Carmen's release shouldn't cause the removal of Dion's section.

Vandalism is a strong word. Please use it carefully. I'm editing Wikipedia for some time and taking it very seriously.

I'm reverting your edits and starting a discussion here." Max24 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)"

Hello

hello, I replied on the discussion page at all by myself. Please see. And I know I am way too longwinded but I do have a point I'm trying to make. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know you are long-winded and yes I know you were making a point. That does not mean that I have to either agree with it or follow it. --WebHamster 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean you had to agree with it or follow it. Of course. Just because someone has a point to make doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it..it's just I worry my long rambling style often prompts people to wonder if I have a main point x_X . I replied again with a link to the discussion page on the wikiproject songs page. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another list

If you have time... User:Funeral and myself have been sifting through the List of harmonicists article. It was littered with spam links and nn's. We have turfed most of that stuff now. I am just going through and seeing that the links actually go to musicians (I found one that went to a boxer and another that went to a screenwriter) I am not being too scrutinous that the musician is notable for playing the harmonica(that may come later). For now it's just to rm the "non-musician" links and dabs links etc. I don't want to introduce a "who's notable" arguement because that may taken as personal opinion. Someone might come along and say "Why are Huey Lewis and Mick Jagger listed there?"... Truth be told Huey Lewis is very respected for his harmonica skills and I've read several articles that claim Mick Jagger may be one of the best harp players to come out of England in the Rock era. For now it's just a much more streamlined list then it was before. I could count the number of embedded spam links that it had. At least half the entries maybe more were just nn spamlinks. If you don't mind adding yet another list to your watchlist... could you keep an eye on this one. So far no whiney cry-baby inclusionists have tried to undo the cleanup. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Thanks. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Almeida

Thanks for your help. I was trying to make a 3rd nomination for AfD but I didn't how. I left a message at WP:AN/I but no one ever responded, can you believe it?!.

I didn't know an article could be PRODded after 2 AfDs, but live and learn, eh. I expanded my reasoning at Almeida's talk page. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:All By Myself again

Hi. I don't want to bore you with a "be civil" type message, but sentiments like "I haven't seen so much BS written in one place in quite a while" and "it's not as if there aren't already any number of Dion pages created for every time she farts" could have been worded better (or omitted entirely) if the goal is to resolve this dispute. The same applies to calling Dion's cover "quite bad"; if you say you're neutral and this has no bearing on your argument, then I believe you, but in that case it's just aggravated the other side needlessly. I've proposed a compromise on the talk page. See what you think. – Steel 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I call 'em as I see 'em. The "BS" comments were directed at the attempts to make it sound that WP:SONGS contained directives that it patently didn't. I could have always used "lies" as an alternative. I though BS was more accurate. --WebHamster 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough, WP:SPADE and all, but hopefully you see the point I was making. Incidentally, I've just noticed that you're from Lancashire - Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 3 might interest you. – Steel 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not a munch sorta guy. Too much of an isolationist :) --WebHamster 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

CHRIS FRANGOU article

Why would you consider the article on bass virtuoso Chris Frangou a hoax?? It is absolutely extraordinary that you and a few other moderators do not know about this person AND his bands... me and many other users oppose their deletion... please comment on the talk pages of these articles and explain your actions...

thankyou

- Bob Freeman--Chris funk bass (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The hoax is on how notable he is, not on whether he exists. Now as his entries have been deleted it's all rather moot. --WebHamster 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Article about The Curve (shopping mall)

Why are you deleting my article, The Curve (shopping mall) that I created. It is totally not fake and it is a real shopping mall. - Tee Meng 9:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing, if you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, Tee Meng (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Winnie Mariama Forewa

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Winnie Mariama Forewa. The reason is:

the beauty queen of any country is significant, although not necessarily notable

If you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating speedy deletion postings

Please don't do that. If an admin takes down a speedy notice, you should just accept that the article has been reviewed. William H. Osborne is CEO of a large company, and that should be treated as an assertion of notability. You can take it to AfD if you must. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist

I'm not gonna post this on the debate page because it's unnecessarily inflammatory, but I thought you'd enjoy it. I thought of it when the subject of "natives" and "Americans" came up:

This user supports the US troops in the lands of dark-skinned people.

--MQDuck (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. The depressing thisg is that there are editors here who wouldn't see anything wrong in it :( --WebHamster 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I'd dearly love to include it in one of the userbox lists but, after all this, it would be an incredibly thing to do.
Anyway, it seems to me that a consensus is being reached on the issue. It's been about 19 hours since The Other Side made an argument. I don't think it's my place to suggest the discussion be closed - and it would probably be smart if you're not the one to close it - but at what point is a consensus considered to be reached? If we can make that happen soon, how do we do it?
(Oh, and I thought your "oil in Texas" comment was brilliant. It works in at least two ways. British humor - sorry, humour (rhymes with "hour" (sounds like "how're"?)?)?) --MQDuck 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr..

Did you see why this was removed? Do you honestly think we're better off with it than without it? Friday (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, nevermind. Good call. Friday (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Please withdraw it yourself, now . This is not helpful--in fact, from your point of view, it might be seen as counterproductive.DGG (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got no chance of me withdrawing it. Unless of course the Iraq resistance one is kept, in which case maintaining non-bias demands I withdraw it. But not until then. It's only one day. Meanwhile are you telling me that the MfD is against the rules or inappropriate? --WebHamster 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i closed it to avoid confusion. Wait until the other MfD is closed, one way or the other. Don't you see that WP:POINT is relevant, and is going to risk losing sympathy for your position? Personally, even then, perhaps you can find some even more militaristic box to start with. Email me for further explanation if you like. DGG (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading on a related MfD that even if WP:POINT is relevant it doesn't detract from the fact that it is also a valid reason. WP:POINT doesn't cancel that reason out. As regards my own personal position I'd rather keep that to myself as I don't want my own POV to interfere, but I have no problem with it going either way. If one goes they both go (and others) if one stays the other stays (and others). If one stays and one goes then I shall kick up holy hell (within the rules of course). --WebHamster 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I've changed the format somewhat, to look more like threaded discussions, instead of the "endorse/oppose summaries" format. You're welcome to refactor your comments. Thanks- Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

EngPlacesKey

Thanks for the new SVG files. I was beginning to think nobody else cared about any of the articles that use the EngPlacesKey template. JonH (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to take this away from the MfD.

"Go lecture someone else" -- Was that really necessary? We on Wikipedia tend to correct each other when in violation of policy. You asked someone a ridiculously unfaithful and incivil question. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "don't make assumptions". It means you definitely SHOULD ASSUME -- and assume GOOD faith, at that. So when you ask someone if they have an ulterior motive in making a comment, you are in violation of WP:AGF, because you are failing to make the assumption of good faith. I hope this makes things clearer. And telling me not to lecture you doesn't do anything, because again, there are no policemen on Wikipedia, so we each do our part to keep each other under control. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, lecturing. I don't appreciate it and I shall remind you of it every time you do it. Now, it's about time we get onto YOU assuming good faith. You immediately assumed bad faith when I asked the question. There's nothing worse than being lectured by a hypocrite. I told you why I ask, you assumed bad faith on that too. Now I'd appreciate it if you took your piousness and shove it where the monkey shoves his nuts. It's not wanted, it's not welcome and it's not necessary. I've been on WP long enough to know what is an isn't right, I've been on the planet long enough to know what is and isn't right. At this late juncture I don't need you to come along and arrogantly explain it to me. --WebHamster 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Telling someone to shove things anywhere is hardly fostering an attitude of collaboration. Please try to be more civil in your comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's additional orifice space available for your lecture too. --WebHamster 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WebHamster, regarding the Wikiquette item about you, the aggregate of evidence so far seems to be that yes, you are being persistently uncivil. If you are banned or blocked for incivility your purposes defending the truth as you see it will not be served. If you think you are being unfairly singled out or that the evidence is misleading somehow, please respond at the wikiquette item. Otherwise, please reconsider the utility of an angry tone. As to lecturing, it's wiki policy that we inform newcomers of policy violations before acting on those violations. The culture here tends towards patience, so even people with long histories of getting banned and blocked, and are hardly newcomers, get those lectures too. On the whole it's better than summary banishment; at least you get a chance to reply. Pete St.John (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am neither new here nor have a long history of being blocked, in fact I've never been blocked. But to be perfectly frank I'd rather be blocked than lectured by a thin-skinned, holier-than-thou prissy who just got his ass kicked in a debate. I know the rules, I don't need anyone to patronise me and lecture me about them. As for persistent, well someone has a low threshold if that is classed as persistent. Likewise I notice the diffs quoted on ANI and various other places. I also noticed the BS that went with them. I have no intention of joining in the Wikiquette debate. I fthey want to block me then they'll block me. That's the only thing that will come out of that RfC. If a drummer from New York wants to feel that he's got one over on me and had the last laugh then let him, it's of no concern to me. I am what I am and that's how I intend to be. I rather doubt it'll end up in a community ban, the worst they can do is block. So I take some time off, big deal. I'd rather take the block than cow-tow to some pillock who doesn't like losing. Please also note that I don't take the first shot, I only respond in certain ways to certain stimulus. --WebHamster 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I'm not concerned at all about your ability to defend yourself verbally. And certainly your language is by my standards merely colorful and ascerbic; but I advocate varying our vocabulary for context: for example, your uppercut may be deadly but unsuitable when boxing a jockey. Incidentally, I had meant "new" and "blocked many times" to bracket a long range of experience levels; I hadn't meant to judge your own, I haven't looked at your contrib hist, and visiting the discussion of the userbox in question looks as fun as shoving the gorilla's coconuts in the spider-monkey's orifice. However, if you'd care to link the specific source of the conflict in this case, I'd go look. Pete St.John (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the guy from Adam, my only experience of him was at the recent Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist discussion. The funny thing is that he has such self-importance he appears to believe that all my shots were aimed at him. They weren't, most were general and the really obvious ones were at really obvious targets. Mr Hooyah-"I'm gonna be a marine" for one. Frankly I don't give a flying frisbee what is said about me or because of me. I believe in WP:SPADE both because of upbringing and because of hardwiring. As for the not assuming good faith. Yes he's right I don't. Anybody who automatically and unquestioningly assumes good faith is too naive to breath air. Accordingly I ask and then base my good or bad faith on the answer. It's much simpler and accurate (for people like me) that way. Incidentally there were also accusations that I was throwing my POV around. Well now that discussion is closed I can admit that I don't believe in Iraqis showing resistance, but I do believe in MQDuck's right to say that it's his belief in a userbox. This is why I get royally pissed at narrow-minded idiots who can only see their own views as important. --WebHamster 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to err on the side of freedom of speech too; however, there are cases that are too difficult for me. For example, since some Wiki servers are in the U.S. (or the U.K. for that matter), advocating armed resistance in Iraq could, hypothetically, be construed in a court as treason. Which if it happened would very much sidetrack the humor value in the discussion. So I would consider the matter a tricky legal one (RL law), and would consider flame-baiting to detract from determining a possibly urgent result. Also, a kid who wants to be a Marine-- or Royal Marine-- is facing the imminent possibility of dying violently, so I'd have a measure of sympathy for his (over-)reaction. Of course you are right about Assuming Good Faith; I myself interpret the Policy to mean not that we actually believe they have good faith (which would be credulous) but to act as if, temporarily. Pete St.John (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That was the point, the UBX wasn't advocating armed resistance. It was advocating resistance. Armed resistance is only one of many ways to resist an occupying force. Accordingly it didn't breach any world laws or wiki rules. In fact it's inherent in international and human rights laws that it is a citizen's right to oppose occupation of his country by another country. It's still debatable whether or not the Iraq war is legal anyway. Regardless, my comments on that discussion were primarily about the userbox. My responses to "blind patriotism" are part of the record and were in response to others' POV remarks. I didn't start it, I damn well tried to finish it though. I'm just sick to death of the systemic bias pervading WP, most of it is right-wing US-centric and occasionally it gets to me. The discussion did just that. As far as I'm concerned it's now over and I haven't commented on it anywhere else (apart from a statement and a question on the resulting userbox RfC), but apparently Equazcion (talk · contribs) doesn't want to let it lie, presumably as he didn't get his own way and wasn't spoken to with the deference he thought he should have been. In my world respect is earned, not given. All he earned was my disrespect and I spoke accordingly. That disrespect is increasing after seeing his Uriah Heep impression on ANI and WQA. The upshot is that I have no interest in what he has to say about me and I certainly have no intention of wasting my time responding to him on it. If people can't figure out what he's doing then that's up to them. The people who can figure it out don't need my help so all in all it's pointless. --WebHamster 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

break

My mistake; I had mistaken the frequent references to "incursion" for the wording the userbox ("resistance"). But let's consider the following, which I've unindented:

I looked at the discussion page and got this far:

<from the discussion page in question> The keepers want to keep it because they agree with it, so that wouldn't be great rationale either. I think people are mistaking this as a battle of views, but it really isn't. At least not for me. I can't possibly condone a userbox that supports the intentional killing of American troops. But that doesn't mean that if someone made a similar complaint about any number of the pro-US userboxes that I wouldn't also support a delete. I would probably disagree with the insinuated meaning, but I would be fine getting rid of them if they mean something "bad" to someone else. Basically, just because this box gets deleted (and it will), doesn't mean you can't nominate these other boxes for deletion that you say justify this one's existence. So to borrow the words of Misza, if your argument is that othercrapexists, then feel free to deletetheothercrap too. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:49, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's not a question of WP:WAX, it's a question of bias. For some reason it's perfectly okay to have a pro-American soldier in Iraq userbox which is to all intents and purposes (based on your criteria above) supporting the killing of Iraqis, but surprise surprise it's seemingly not okay the other way round. So the crux of the matter is if you delete one side then you have to delete the other. Nah, fuck it, let's just delete all userboxes and then there's no argument is there? But back in the real world the genie's already been let out of the bottle. Now it's damage limitation, but you cannot have one rule for one and then another rule for another. And just to give some perspective just how many Iraqi's have been killed in their own country compared to US & UK soldiers in some bugger else's? --WebHamster 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. --WebHamster 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you'd care to clarify your point then I'd be willing to try and understand it, but I'm getting tired of these comments. Either participate constructively in the discussion or kindly leave it to those who are willing to do so. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
What tires you is of no concern to me. My comments and my participation are not mutually exclusive. It's an exceedingly easy point to grasp which is why I presumed you being obtuse...

<cut>

The answer you gave, contrasting putatively acceptable vs putatively unacceptable userboxes, effectively asks what wiki policy distinguishes them (you claim, none, right?). My sense is that Equazcion's failure to get the point is disengenuous; do you need to be more specific in your point, or does Equazcion need to be more specific in his criticism? What doesn't he understand about it? There is an eristic rhetorical device, much loved by wikilegalists, to simply ignore or fail to understand your point. However, your rejoinder, the sarcasm "doesn't surprise" then "you being obtuse" doesn't show them up. For example, you could restate your point to be more wikilegalistic, e.g.:

What wiki policy allows <this> but not <that>? I claim that these userboxes are indistinguishable in terms of wikipolicy.

Then if they still don't get your point (or pretend not to), you don't have to label them as obtuse, because they plainly are. But as the discussion stood at this point, it's not certain to me that Equazcion is merely stupid (which I doubt anyway) or even that he is being deliberately obtuse; maybe just your expression of the point is not so clearly worded (I'm not sure myself that I've reworded it fairly) and maybe he got exasperated quickly by your language.

My sense, up to the point I read, is that you were unnecessarily exacerbating the heat/light ratio with sharp language. Not all of your opponents seemed all that stupid to me. Personally, I think too many expect too much from CIVIL, but I support the goal. Pete St.John (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I tend to think in black and white (or logical vs non-logical if you will) so I communicate in black and white too. I use the words that I find most efficient. Most of the time I find words that simultaneously communicate what I'm saying, what I'm thinking and what I'm feeling. Tact is not part of my coding, it never has been and I rather doubt it ever will be. I say what needs (from my perspective) saying. I'm a great believer in "don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer". Likewise if someone like whatsisname wants to take part in a discussion and then chooses to be disingenuous, which was exactly what I thought and was why I responded in such a way, then he should be prepared to have the cowcake passed back to him without any air-freshener. I've honed my debating skills with 15 years of Usenet experience so I've learned from the best <g>. To me uncivil only counts if it's undeserved. He deserved what he got so in my eyes it was not uncivil. The upshot being if no-one shoots at me then I don't shoot back. --WebHamster 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to chime in here on a couple things. The statement to which I responded with "I have no idea what your point is," was a statement that I genuinely did not understand. I'm not the type of person to give a flip general answer just to make it more difficult for the other person to respond. I just really didn't get it. I added one more pre-comment to the pasted discussion above, so take a look there. The user responded by first denouncing my biased attitude, when I had just said I was willing to delete userboxes of the opposite POV as well. He actually backed up the bias argument by pointing out my willingness to delete all userboxes on both sides, which didn't make any sense to me. Then he says again "you can not have one rule for one and another rule for the other", which is what I already conceded to in saying get rid of all of them. He then said something about how many Iraqis were killed vs US troops, which I just ignored altogether. I didn't understand the statement then and I don't understand it now, and maybe that's my fault somehow, but the point is that my claim of confusion was most genuine, and I wasn't going to post a paragraph like this explaining why during an MfD.
    • Also, to answer WebHamster's concern that I'm doing this just because I didn't "get my way": I filed the WQA because I was about to endure another heavy discussion that he was now also participating in (the RfC, as opposed to the MfD), and wanted to prevent further flareups. I found his comments disruptive at the MfD and was seeking to prevent such behavior at RfC, so at the first sign of it I gathered up evidence and filed my report. This was a preventative measure, not a reprisal.
    • One more thing: WebHamster's defenses here seem to be a denouncement of policy. Civility doesn't just count sometimes, when you feel like it, or only when you think it's deserved. It counts all the time, along with assuming good faith and no personal attacks. If this weren't true, then "he started it" would be a valid argument, and Wikipedia would fall into a pit of childish despair. If you choose to make up your own stipulations for these policies, that doesn't defend your actions at all, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your defenses seem to stem from the viewpoint that real-world morality is all that matters, even here, despite the fact that we have extra rules governing what goes on within this site. So you either don't understand how Wikipedia works or you openly have no respect for Wikipedia's rules. It seems to be the latter, but if it's the former, please let someone know so that things can be clarified for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:31, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • There you go again with the lectures. Patronising me is not the way to make inroads. From what I've seen so far of your behaviour just strengthens the Uriah Heep image I have of you. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. I've survived this long on Wikipedia without your help I'm sure I'll manage without any more of it. Meanwhile I'll give YOU some advice. Don't confuse uncivil with discourteous. Based on the diffs of me you presented then you have no idea whatsover what incivility truly means. If you keep baiting me like this then I promise you that you will find out. Now I suggest you go back to your own little pie-in-the-sky land that has a lovely rosy tint and I'll stay in my part of the world where real-life occurs everyday. You aren't making things better, and I know damn well you are waiting for me to blow up at you to justify your thin-skinned complaint. Now toddle off to your WQA and have another moan to the big boys about how the nasty little hamster wouldn't be nice to you. --WebHamster 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've given my opinion of this "spat in a userbox" on the WQA. I'm only posting here in an attempt to persuade you not to allow yourself to get sucked into anything that might make matters worse, whatever the provocation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't read it as I have no interest in what they have to say, but whatever you said I'm sure it involved common-sense. so thanks for taking the time and trouble to both join in and to let me know. It's appreciated. --WebHamster 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion notification

Hey there! I greatly appreciate the notification you left of the speedy deletion of Music Theatre International. Just wanted to let you know that sometimes it's a good idea to not template the regulars. I really couldn't care less, but there are other users who might devour you for a template on their talk page Image:Smile.png. Happy editing! --omtay38 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, will ya?

Just a friendly note; don't get too excited, as here. It's prolly not constructive. -- Kendrick7talk 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to second this. I know how much it sucks having to bite your tongue constantly, but have learned over time that you will win friends and get concessions in arguments if you are polite and help foster a collegial nature. east.718 at 05:53, January 22, 2008

Hello

I like the work you do here. That's all! 24.229.203.46 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism materialism

Can you tell me what is going on here ... I just start work on this topic and within seconds, it is besieged with tags and AfD nominations from folks that show no specialism in the subject, no commitment to discussion or cooperation.
Can ask openly, Have I done something to flag myself up somewhere or peed the wrong person off this morning? -- Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think this is anything personal? It's all part of the function of new page patrolling. --WebHamster 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, to slap a deletion and heavy "POV" etc tag on a topic one really ought to know something about the subject. I have made plenty of new pages but never had one hit in seconds before. I makes me think that I must have gotten myself flag up on some admin list somewhere.
Part of being a "new page patroller" is also "be nice" ... and allow contributors to breath.
May I humbly ask, do you know anythying about the topics involved? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to know anything about the topics involved, I just need to know Wikipedia rules about such things. The thing you need to know is that any article has to meet those rules right from the starting gate. In my opinion your article doesn't, but I don't deem my opinion to be the final arbiter which is why I put it up for AfD so that the community consensus (including your goodself) can decide. It also gives you 5 days in which you can make (or not make) the article compliant. --WebHamster 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please .... cool it down a bit. GO read the policy about new page patrolling under "be nice".
I was just busy responding to the contributor that slapped the tags. I clearly stated that I was here, working on the topic and why I removed them.
if you don't know anything about the subject, at least go do a quick google or check the user's track record for citations? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one overheating. I replaced the tags you removed as they hadn't been addressed. You do not remove tags until the problems they highlight have been fixed. They aren't there just for you, they are there to inform ANY editor with an interest of the inadequacies of the article. As for not biting the newbie, which is what I think you are referring to, then no I haven't bitten you. I've done what needed doing and I've explained what and why. Not biting the newbie does not mean ignore what's obviously an article not suitable for WP. --WebHamster 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I told you friend, I am working on it. The History is evidence of that. If you get off my back, it will be done quicker. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary remove the tags when they have been addressed not the other way round. Referencing an article does not entail merely putting the References header in place. May I suggest you read up on creating articles and the way things are done here before you commit any more faux pas that will end up getting you hot under the collar. There are ways these things are done on WP and unfortunately one of the available ways does not depend on whether it meets with your laundry itinerary or not. Sorry. --WebHamster 07:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I know you don't want to hear this from me, but I have to tell you that you're already way over 3RR at Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism. I don't want to get into a whole big thing about it though so thats the last you'll hear from me on this. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:21, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

And I know you don't want to hear this but I haven't reverted anything, other than your attempt. I've added legitimate tags that haven't been addressed. I've added them, I haven't reverted to a previous version that contained them. This is starting to look like a case of wiki-stalking, so either butt out or I start gathering evidence. --WebHamster 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that you and User:Lucyintheskywithdada are both in violation of WP:3RR. Reverting edits which remove tags are not one of the exceptions to 3RR. As you have already stated your concerns with the in the request for deletion I suggest that you step back and allow the deletion process to take its course - which includes Lucyintheskywithdada having the opportunity to attempt to improve the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To be guilty of 3RR I would have to revert would I not? I haven't reverted, I've only added; legitimately I may add. In any case the point is moot as there have been references added, though I'm not sure what sections they refer to, so I won't be re-adding the tags. That's all that was needed. Equazcion did not make the situation any better, and to be frank he's starting to piss me off with his stalking ever since some recent discussions and his WQA against me went nowhere. --WebHamster 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be quite frank, as soon as I have the time and inclination, I will work out how and where to flag up your recent conduct as it is quite unacceptable and counter productive to the spirit of the Wikipedia. Especially for someone taking upon themselves an administrative role. If you are an admin, or are working towards becoming an admin, you will have lost my vote as well.
If you have been up all night, it is probably time to take a break from the wiki. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free. But to clarify I am not an admin and I haven't the slightest interest in being, likewise I don't have the slightest interest on what you do or don't think of me personally. May I suggest that you read on up the rules first to actually figure out what I did wrong before you go making complaints. Given that you also received a £RR warning I'd say that one was cancelled out. Now as for adding tags to articles, well I'm sorry to say that isn't against the rules and is part and parcel of wikignoming, whereas removing tags without addressing their content is considered by many to be a form of vandalism. But please don't let that put you off, if you think I've broken the rules then go for it, a good place to start will be WP:ANI. Have fun. --WebHamster 08:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You flagged topic 9 minutes after it was created whilst a contributor drew your attention that they were working on it.

Please, if you wish to read up on the policy;

Before nominating an AfD from, here [3];

  • Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  • Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
  • Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
  • Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation.
  • Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted.
  • Familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:N, and WP:NOT.
  • Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

You have a responsibility to the greater community of the Wikipedia to use community and courtesy in the first place. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a responsibility to anything. I nominated it for AfD because prods are a waste of time and there was no appropriate CSD criteria, also experience led me to believe that the article you are writing is the sort of article that ultimately ends up deleted anyway. Now as I said, if you want to complain then do so. I would far prefer you do that than you filling up my talk page with copy & pasted stuff that I already know. Likewise I don't appreciate being lectured by someone who barely knows the rules herself. --WebHamster 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)