User talk:Xezbeth/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lewis Schaffer

Do you mind, please, explaining why you removed the link to http://www.chortle.co.uk/comics/comics.html?http&&&www.chortle.co.uk/comics/lschaffer.html from the Lewis Schaffer page when you recently edited that page, indicating that you had made a format edit? Matt Stan 13:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. Matt Stan 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: MOves

Thanks for the notice; I'll see what I can do to fix it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've submitted the pages on Care Bears and their first movie to peer review, so I'm asking you to look at both articles and tell me what can be done further to improve them. I am intent on making both of them featured articles very soon. Wish me luck! --Slgrandson 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Films

Hi. I understand why you removed the stub category from that redirect article and, indeed, most category memberships would be better being in Category:Apple Films. However, by removing the main category membership you effectively removed the main article from it's category! Redirects are allowed to contain categories by design. It's best for the Apple Films category to contain an article called Apple Films and not the redirect target Apple Corps, after all. I don't need a reply, I'm just dropping this note so you know I partially reverted and why and just in case you were under the impression that categorisation of redirect pages is bad (it's actually good, if the redirect is for a different subject covered by a parent article which is wide in scope). --kingboyk 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal (band) listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Animal (band), has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (band). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Mir 2

Wondering why you are reverting the truth that I write on this page? Just confused is all. I re edited it before I realised it was a revert. For evidence of what I write search on lomcn.co.uk it will all be there.

Sting

[edit] Happy Aniversary!

It is your first aniversary of becoming an administrator. Well done.

Indeed, well done!--Evadb 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Javed Malik

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an page, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my deepest apologies. I really thought i had selected the correct compare history buttons. I guess with all the normal vandalism cleanup I do, some things become knee-jerk and automatic. I will endeavor to take better care next time. Again, my apologies. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Barnstars

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For the fastest removal of vandalism I've witnessed! Sam Harrow 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scary Movie 5

Why did you deleted it? There will be a Scary Movie 5! So you better put it exactly how it was or I'll just report you. Cigammagicwizard 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking users

That lad who wished cancer on me on the Michael Jackson page - any chance you could block him?

Partly coz he's a little prick who's causing trouble, partly coz it's make me laugh.--Crestville 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some help required please

I created some articles on Assault on Precinct 13 (2005 film). You might want to help me expand them. --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Daughter (2004 film)

I wasn't sure if I should edit your user page, so I'd just like to tell you that I've moved First Daughter to First Daughter (2004 film). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about block

Hi. I see that (thank god) you have blocked the IP adress 212.219.22.4 but I wonder why you made the block temporary. I don't think it makes sense to unblock it before the college has been contacted and the situation has been adressed by them. Or is that simply standard policy? Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your quick answer. I suppose I cannot compare to other high schools but what you say makes perfect sense. Still, wouldn't it be simpler to just block it for prolonged periods to encourage constructive contributors to register? And are the high schools ever contacted in that respect? Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Elektra poster.JPG)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Elektra poster.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crash poster.JPG)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Crash poster.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

[edit] Alexandre Bischof (Bischoff)

Hi Xezbeth, a Google search sent me to the Wikipedia article on the electronic musician Alexandre Bischoff, but the link didn't find the article. In the deletion log at Wiki I found "19:25, 21 June 2006 Xezbeth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Alexandre Bischoff" (content was: '#REDIRECT Alexandre Bischof')", but I can't find either article. Any ideas what happened? Thanks Wikityke 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scary movie 5

Hi, I noticed you deleted scary movie 5, which is good. However the scary movie template is messed up because it has scary movie 5 in it. Can you fix it? I don't know how to fix it as I am still learning. Thank you. -ScotchMB 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the mass rollback! Really helped me out. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Your userpage links to "Levity", a disambiguation page. The intented distination is likely Levity (film). A cannot fix this. That's all. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martingale paradox

Thanks. In fact you could probably just close this, since AfD isn't necessary anymore. 192.75.48.150 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism recidivism

Hi. Vandalism from ip 150.101.174.182 (see [1]) may warrant a block again. Lycaon 13:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absorbing Man

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would prefer a blackened and unclear shot of character as opposed to the original cover that featured their first appearance. Better for new readers, yes? Also, the article was verbose and needed tidying up. I've added a list - with references - of nearly everything the character has become over the years. Again, very informative for a new reader.

Regards

Asgardian 08:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Got your message - many thanks. I'll apply some more headings and keep the wikilinks. In all honesty, I didn't see them. Still learning. I have also - as my recent history shows - being adding new links where it can help. The learning curve has been very steep but I'm getting there. Thank you for being understanding.

Regards

Asgardian 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)08:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Alexvincent2 / Arlington, Washington

Thanks for warning him. I've been doing a lot of that but am powerless to act, not being an admin. --Lukobe 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajiformes category

Hello Xezbeth, I noticed you have removed the category Rajiformes from a couple of ray articles. I have just spent some time sorting out the shark & ray categories in collaboration with others & the standard at present is both Family & Order (with sharks having a higher level of 'Sharks' too). I hope you understand. GrahamBould 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles containing one or more rants

I see that you have reverted my categorisation of the Anglophobia and Whore of Babylon articles. There are two issues here: why, and why without discussion? I would be grateful if you would explain your reasoning. Also, what do you know of the deletion of the category, without either discussion or due process? Countersubject 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my first question. I'll hold off further discussion until you've answered the other two. Countersubject 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still haven't answered my quite specific questions. Why did you revert without discussion, and what do you know of the category's deletion? And now a supplementary one: why have you now nominated for deletion without the courtesy of either discussing it with me first, or answering my questions about your actions to date? Countersubject 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this begins to sound like a conversation. Thanks. Please will you answer the outstanding question: why did you revert without discussion? You answer: Sigh, I don't need to discuss every edit I make, didn't even address the question, though it did raise concerns. I'm pressing the point because there's an important underlying issue. Summary deletion may be appropriate in some cases, but it should be used sparingly. Unless the category or article is a clear abuse of Wikipedia, it gives the impression at best of sloppiness and an absence of fairness, and at worst that the administrator may be using his or her priveliges to railroad through their own POV. I'm sure this isn't a worst case. However, matters aren't helped if the administrator repeatedly fails to answer reasonable questions about the deletion, and responds in a manner that could be intrepreted as patronising (sigh). And when we've put this matter to bed, we can move on to where we should have begun: a reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of the category itself. Countersubject 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've very sorry that you're not willing to discuss this matter. I believe your action and response raise important points of principle for Wikipedia. How do I take this further? Countersubject 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)