User talk:Only/Archive4

Archives
	1 2 3

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

You vandalised MY User Page!

Why did you remove the image of Bowser from MY User Page? You said something about copyright but if using the image is a violation of copyright, then why does it appear elsewhere on Wikipedia and if you have problems with anything on MY User Page then tell me rather than just ripping the section clean out! Bowsy 19:46 5 December 2006

Sorry, no, copyright things can not be used on user pages. Since Wikipedia only uses such things under fair use, it can only be used for particular purposes, i.e. to illustrate the thing in an article, not to decorate your user page. Metros 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you allow other Wikipedians to keep images on their pages? Surely ALL the images featured on Wikipedia are copyright. You don't rip off everyone's images so why pick on me? Bowsy 19:09 6 December 2006

not necessarily. It depends on the licensing for the images. Some are allowed to be used like that, others aren't. Yours is an example of one that isn't. Metros 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof that Nintendo see anything wrong with it being there? Bowsy 19:29 6 December 2006

Please look at WP:USER. It states:

Images on user pages
Please do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

It is assumed that any likeness of a character of nintendo can be used as fair-use, but not as a free use. Metros 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you assume. Oh, and why is the link you just made red? Are you making this up? Bowsy 19:27 7 December 2006

It was a redlink because it was a typo. Believe me, I have slightly more important things to do around here than to just make things up like that. Metros 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say on the image's licence agreement that it can't be used? Also, the policy you gave me stated that it was preferable that you replaced it with a link to the image. Any particular reason why you had to delete it instead? Bowsy 19:05, 8 December 2006

And where does it say on the image's license agreement that it CAN be used? The license says "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material[...]to illustrate the work or product being discussed". That means it can be used to show Bowser in articles about Bowser. "Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Your user page is part of the "other uses" category. Metros 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it may be, but you have no proof that it is copyright infringement Bowsy 15:36 10 December 2006

Even if it was not a copyright infringement, any drawings of Bowsers cannot be placed in the public domain or under a free license. That will still prevent you from using that photo on your userpage, due to Point 9 of our fair use policy. Since the photo is still off your page, I ask you to keep it that way. If you add it again, it will be removed again by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia User Page policy states that it is preferable that the person who removes an image from a User Page replaces it with a link to the image. Why has this not happened? Bowsy 09:13 11 December 2006

Look, in the amount of time you've spent here complaning about me removing ONE image for valid reasons, you could have replaced the link yourself 35 times, added it in different font colors each time, and still have plenty of time to focus on important things, like, you know, building the encyclopedia. Metros 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a valid reason if you have no proof that if Nintendo were to see my User Page with the image on it, they would think I was violating their copyright? Bowsy 09:10 12 December 2006

University of Mary Washington

Looks like our linkspammer is back and on the job at University of Mary Washington. --Takeel 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: I've added it to my Watchlist in case the linkspammer comes back. I'd suggest leaving a friendly warning on the spammer's Talkpage and then if it recurs (after you've repeatedly warned them), report them to WP:AIV and let Metros232 (since he is an admin) finish the job of blocking him/her. Thanks, --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but, it's really not that necessary now. The site was blacklisted, so any attempt to add the link to Wikipedia will not work. Metros 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my spam link?

Why did you remove the lala.com link from the rest of the External Links on the Death Cab for Cutie page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpx775 (talk • contribs)

Because all you are doing is putting these links into dozens of articles. The very textbook definition of spam. Metros 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you stopped removing me edits from the WIKI artist pages i post on. this website is supposed to allow all members to add any pertinent and accurate information to any page. I am simply linking to my website to offer another resource for web-surfers that would like to learn more about the particular artist. You should remove all external links if you wish to keep this information from music fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpx775 (talk • contribs)

1984 Ad

I am an expereinced user like you (not quite as expereinced) however, someone I know has changed my password and I am useing this account temprerily.

Please don't think I am some crazed new member, I am a crazed old member! :P

thanks

Useamac 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the????

What in the world did you do to my page????

And who changed it from "Bloodless Bullfighting" to "Bloodless bullfighting"?????

It's a title, therefore the "b" in Bullfighting should be capitalized.

Also, I said in my discussion page that I was not finished yet.

And the title specifically says "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting.. Portuguese Style! in California

yes, this practice is in California... duh!!!!! Why else would it be bloodless and why else would I separate it from the bullfighting section. You guys need to get a grip on your "need" to change things, when you have no idea what it is talking about.

I worked so hard putting it together... then you want to mess with it. You guys are amazing.... and ridiculous.

At least give me the opportunity to "complete" before you start attacking it.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Webmistress Diva 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With what I gather in the article, this is a style of bullfighting, therefore, it's not capitalized. If it were a brand, it'd be capitalized. So what is it? A brand or a style? Yes, the practice is in California...but it originated in Portugal. Therefore, it needs the globalized view. And welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit whenever they please. You're not the only one who has the right to edit it. Metros 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want it put back the way it was. There's a reason why things are the way they were. You took important stuff out. You don't know what this is, but yet you are moving text around as if you know. The least you could do is put a notation in the "talk page" and "ASK FIRST" before changing it. Discuss it FIRST.... it's like what you guys say.... that's the whole purpose of the "talk page". Otherwise, anyone could write these things and you'll never know if they're just talking out of their a--e-!

We're the experts in this.... leave it to us to write about. If it needs to be "wikified" or whatever it is ... .then do it "after" the article is complete!

Also, when you moved stuff around, you jacked-up the whole format. Things are not where they are suppose to be and it looks very DISORGANIZED!!!!!

And the title "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting .... Portuguese Style! in California" has to be there!!!!!!!!!! That's what defines this article, if that is not included in there, then people will be confused and think that we are talking about bullfighting in general.... and we are not!!!!!

And YES... it is a brand!

--Webmistress Diva 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... that's kind of lame, if you think about it. What type of documented facts is allowed to be edited? I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started. If anyone else has an input, then they need to put their suggestion inside the "talk page" area, and it will be discussed further. Because there are some points that people make that are incorrect.... and incorrectly placed and stated.

If you want to help me with the whole 'wiki' standard of how it should look and sound... then fine. But don't start moving stuff around as if you know better. --Webmistress Diva 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you didn't yell a lot, people would probably listen to you a lot more. As for the changes I put in...what stuff did I take up that needs to be in there? I moved stuff around as if I know what the hell a format of an article is, not because of knowledge of the subject. There is a format articles go in, which is what I tried to put it in. You don't put entire sentences in headings like you've been doing. You don't have a section that just analyzes everything that was already said. Etc.

I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started.

Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia. Metros 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not yelling. If I was, everything would be written in ALL CAPS. Secondly, if you guys would stop walking around as if you own the place, then maybe we would have more respect for your changes. You guys should practice what you preach. Your wiki policy/procedure advices people to "discuss" things in the "talk page" area. Well, I have done exactly that... and more. But you guys will just go in and change things around.... several times over. I think that you guys need to suggest it first and then implement. That's why I can relate to a LOT of people that are irritated on this site. I was very specific when I had made a notation in the "talk page" about how I was NOT done yet. There's more information that I have to include. Also, you removed the 'conclusion' area. The information in there has not been discussed in the other areas yet. And like I said, I was not finished.... I was getting to that section... but not today. So next time, if you don't want me or anyone else getting frustrated, kindly stop changing and removing stuff.... and all we ask is that you discuss it first.

I'll let you know when I'm done with the article.... and from there, you can critique it all you want.... BUT at least wait for all of the information to get in there.

Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia.

Maybe we should. --Webmistress Diva 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I should use the talk page to discuss changes that are being put in to bring this to proper style and to get this article to follow Wikipedia policies? Get real. Those edits are necessary and will continue. I do not need your permission to try to edit this article to something respectable in regards to style guides. Metros 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!!!

You have recieved the Big Boss award for aiding me. This is my special way of thanking those for their help. I am new to wikipedia and I will take all of the help that I can get!!! Thank you!! User: Big Boss 0 {{Big Boss Award}}

What am I doing wrong? My material is totally legit.

Hi. A WikiNewbie here. I don't understand why you pulled my newly edited, resubmitted piece regarding Cragar Industries, Inc. I read the suggestions on what to do to and think I have followed the rules. I am a representative of the company, but did all I could to keep it factual, not self-serving. There are no copyright violations anywhere, even with the photos used yesterday, which I did not post this time. Can you tell me what is needed for it to stick? Thanks! Autoworld 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is pulling the article basically directly from this site without asserting formally any claim to permission to use it. Take a look at the first few paragraphs of WP:CP this page. It explains how you can use copyrighted information. Hope that helps, Metros 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it backwards, they have legally borrowed the material from us. What am I supposed to do about that? Thanks. Autoworld 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, read the first paragraphs of WP:CP and act from there. It should give you an idea of how you can state that you own the copyright or permission to use that text or those images. Metros 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. The last time I posted it, you pulled it within 5 minutes, and warned me I'd be blocked. Can you please cut me some slack this time as I try to get it sorted. I assure you, I represent the actual company and we have usage rights to all this material. Thanks again. Autoworld 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted new, edited material. Again, the company I work for owns the copyright on what I wrote, and old b/w photos I have yet to post (waiting to see how this first effort goes). Is there something more I should do to prevent early misunderstandings on your part, which will result in deletion? I looked over the copyright info you suggested, but nothing jumps out at me as something I should be doing/adding. Please let me know before you just delete it. If you need a letter from a VP at the company, no problem. I can arrange that. Thanks and have a nice weekend. Autoworld 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

SeanMWA: What is the definition of a notable person? shouldn't a person with recognition at a state level considered to be a notable person? Your deletion of my article would be akin to you deleting an article about the Maine Womens championship basketball teams history. Is that not notable? Alot of independant wrestlers would and should be cut off of wikipedia by your standards, as they have only achieved state, or regional fame.

i feel you are a little quick to advocate deletion. no disscussion, warnings, advice, just cold deletion. even if you feel a lowly state level backyard wrestling fed is not notable it becomes notable if you were to include it in the context of backyard wrestling which was a cultural movement. just because it is not important to you, or it seems lowly does not mean that it is any less valuable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmwa (talk • contribs)

"Maine Wrestling Association" gets 0 Google hits. "Sean Little" + Maine gets 210 but I don't see many that also relate to wrestling. If these two things were notable, why isn't there any outside coverage of them? For our notability standards, see WP:ORG and WP:BIO. Metros 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seanmwa:ok, thank you.

Quiver (Lusitano horse) tagged with db-spam

This article was submitted by the horse's owner. I have tagged it for CSD. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that (I watchlisted it a few minutes ago). I'm going to leave it for another administrator to handle though so I don't get accused of bad faith deletions. Metros 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who else will post it here? Geez.... you are too much... petty is what you are! I had to include an article for Quiver to back up the image I uploaded of him, because the copyright states that it is used for that purpose.--Webmistress Diva 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No one else would post it here because it's not a notable horse. You had to make an article just so you can upload a photo? What?? Metros 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's not a "notable" horse? Does any person, place, or a thing have to die before it becomes ackowledgeable and worthy of writing?--Webmistress Diva 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hi my friend! How are you... I am back to Wikipedia to have some fun! Feel free to be "Asher Watchdog". Happy Holidays!

Asher Heimermann 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

On December 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Truxal, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions!! Nishkid 64 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Asher, Jr.

Asher, Jr., who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 07:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had already responded to it with a note to the reviewing admin a few hours before you left this message [1]. The block has now been reviewed by another admin. Metros 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting period

You have put in a request for this article, which is discussing a technical area of United Kingdom corporation tax, to be wikified. At present, there is just one link, namely to United Kingdom corporation tax (which, incidentally is a featured article). I'd be interested to know what items you believe should be linked to. I'm quite happy to add links if doing so is appropriate, but, largely because most words that could be wikified actually have a specific meaning in UK tax law that is not dealt with by the underlying articles on company or life assurance, I don't see any others that could usefully be linked to. If, however, you can point towards something I have missed, please do; otherwise I'd be grateful if you'd remove your notice. Kind regards jguk 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things like "transferor company" "Taxes Act" "Finance Act" etc. would be useful to add links to. I'll leave it up to your discretion as to how those things become linked as I don't know much at all about UK tax law. Metros 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article to link to on transferor company or Taxes Acts. "Transferor company" in the sense used in the article has a rather technical meaning, such that it is unlikely ever to have a Wikipedia article. "Taxes Acts" might be a useful article to have in the future, so I've linked that, and "Finance Act". As I don't believe anything else can usefully be linked, I've removed the message you added. As before, if you identify words that could still be linked, I'm happy to consider them. jguk 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barter

Thank you! Olivierchaussavoine 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen

I'ts my user page I can put stuff about me, so that my friends look at my upcoming albums, yes I am not a artist, but I record songs and put them on CD's and give them to my friends. My friends also wikipedia and they look at that page and see what's going on, I also make music vidoes and put those on CD's as well, so please, and I say this in a nice way, mind my stuff, thanks!!!! Alex Ray. Ramirez 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT. We're not a free webhost for you to talk about your albums for all your friends to see. Metros 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um

HOW CAN I DELETE MY WIKIPEDIA PROFILE, I DON'T WANT ANYMORE, YOU GUYS GOT ON MY NERVES, I AM JUST GOING TO STICK WITH MYSPACE,, IT'S WAY WAY WAY BETTER! User:Rrcoachella 17:22

Photo of Childress

What is the magic word you need to reinstall on the DAVID HATCHER CHILDRESS page a photo DAVID CHILDRESS gave me himself!?

I contributed -- as the person Childress has given permission to write his biography, by the way -- and I can't figure out why the photo was removed. Suggestion: try just a few words of explanation when you delete something.

Serapisia 08:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)SerapisiaSerapisia 08:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged for speedy deletion for {{db-noncom}} which means that you didn't upload it with a license that we allow on Wikipedia. You'll have to get Childress to email permission for use of the photo to permissions-en at wikipedia dot org. And the story you're telling me here is different from the way it was uploaded too, by the way. In the upload you said his wife gave you permission. Now you're saying it's him. Metros 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help, I'll do the correct tagging in the future :-) Cmw4117 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Past undeletion

Brothers Past on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brothers Past. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Milchama 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

You want a facelift? frummer 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any work you can do to it would be appreciated. Also, I don't know if you noticed the typo correction I made in your welcome123 template today (which I've used to welcome a few people). How many people do you think got that template with that minor typo on it at the rate you're going on? :) Keep up the good work and thanks for the offer! No rush on it, of course, and I don't except anything major, Metros 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Page

I have been creating stub biographys for comedians working in London and had just created one for a guy here called Joey Page, as there is an american of the same name I created an artical for each and turned the original into a disambig page, you've deleted all of them, why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Back ache (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Neither of the Joey Pages appear to be notable. This is the content of your article:

Joey Page is an alternative comedian living and performing in London.

Plus there was an infobox and an external link. Nothing there asserts notability. The other Joey Page is a "up and coming" actor/musician who hasn't done a notable thing yet. With both of those deleted, I deleted the Joey Page disambiguation page too. Metros 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page move

Thank you. Done. Talk:Chinese-Filipino#Requested_move and Wikipedia:Requested_moves#29_December_2006 { PMGOMEZ } 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude is there?

Well? Rugbyball 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How was a rude in my warning to you? Metros 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought..

I reverted as I thought someone had removed this message from user's talk page. Later, I realised and checked block log etc. I realised my mistake and removed the message myself with explanation. It could have been reverted by you earlier than me. swadhyayee 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing LEGITIMATE external links

Do you actually GO TO the links you remove before assuming they are spam? The "profile & photo" links I've been adding tonight are of an educational, enyclopedic nature and absolutely meet the requirements of Wikipedia. They link to a non-profit, well-regarded webpage which exists primarily to provide information about cities and neighborhoods from an urbanistic/architectural perspective. I literally cannot think of any sort of webpage more appropriate to externally link in the context that I did. Furthermore, a cursory glance at my history of edits on Wiki should indicate that I'm not interested in spamming.

The fact that I am adding links that point to different external pages to more than one Wiki article on the same evening does not mean the links I am adding are spam. User:jdmalouff

Yes, I did go to the site where I found the FAQ page which showed that the site is owned and operated by one J. Daniel Mauloff. Please read Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest and WP:COI. Especially pertinent is the line that says "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." This is why I removed the links, because you are in a clear position of conflict of interest. Metros 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you - without a conflict of interest - agree that the links are appropriate except that I added them myself? User:jdmalouff

I never said that. I went to the site to investigate, not to evaluate the content of the site. As I'm not an editor on any of those articles or any city articles I don't think I can evaluate the validity of your links. Metros 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. By whatever estimation you are capable of making, is there ANYTHING ELSE wrong with them?User:jdmalouff

I'm not sure, it warrants further investigation because I think it could add a bit in some cases and it might not in others so it'd probably have to be evaluated case-by-case. By the way, a Frederick page without a single photo or mention of Market Street? Come on! :) I highly recommend you get up to F-neck and take a look at the new construction on Carroll Creek too (not sure when your photos on the site are from, but they look different from the Creek now that most of the construction has finally finished). Metros 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For the record I think it's a ridiculous clause, considering IMAGES created by the editor are not only allowed, but highly encouraged. This is a clear case of arbitrary and inconsistent guidelines that Wiki would do well to clarify. People who live or work in particular place have an inherent conflict towards editing them as well, but are often the best sources of information. It seems to me the content should be the determining factor. As for Frederick, new photos would be beneficial (particularly the creekwalk, which is very nice now), but there are two shots of Market Street in the directory.User:jdmalouff

Yeah, it is an odd tight rope we walk. Like I've written a majority of the Hood College article. Is it conflict of interest for me since I'm a student there? Who knows.

And I see the photos of Market Street now. For some reason before the directory link was point to College Park photos. If you're interested, I have about 8-10 pics of the college and Baker Park in Frederick that I'd be willing to send you for the directory. Metros 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suppose. Send to help (at) beyonddc (dot) com and I will take a look. I do plan on taking a new set up there soon, but may wait until it warms up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdmalouff (talk • contribs) 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, I'm looking through your reverts and noticed you reverted more than just the links in at least one case. I edited Frederick's page a few days ago to note the Keys and Harry Grove Stadium, which you (presumably accidentally) reverted as well. I'm not going to change it back to avoid the perception of a revert war, but you might think about putting it back. Jdmalouff

(unindent)Thanks, definitely accidental. The rollback revert button reverts all consecutive edits by a user in that article. I didn't realize that you had the last 3 edits to the article, not just the last one. It's helpful when you have vandals who got on massive sprees to an article so you can get it all in one swift click, but it has its flaws as shown here. Metros 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Same problem w/ Gaithersburg, Maryland (regarding transportation & media). I think that's the only other instance.Jdmalouff

User:Rugbyball

User is back at it, I reported at WP:AIV only to be told this user's edits weren't obvious vandalism. Huh? User put all Hemmings Motor News pubs up for AfD at once (again, huh?) Tubezone 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's been inserting nonsense comments into AfD's I participated in. Tubezone 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Londo06

I added the {{wronglicense}} tag because the present license says that it is the uploader's work, however, in the summary, this is clearly not the case. Metros232 14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me in the right direction for the correct assertion of license. I have the express permission to use the club photos to post on wikipedia. I have been told that the copyright has been transferred to me, and as such I am allowed to use the pictures to depict the players of the club. I have sought and recieved this permission.

Can you give me the correct term or category under which the license falls. Londo06 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAnom

I have placed your good article nomination for White phosphorus (weapon) on hold. I have out lined a couple very minor changes to make on the talk page. Cheers! --Banana04131 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White phosphorus (weapon) is now a good article. --Banana04131 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi

Why do you care so much? (76.1.33.197 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Because I dislike vandalism. Especially from persistent users such as yourself who continuously vandalize for no good reason. So, to you, why do YOU care so much that you feel the need to say your school is led by Nazis? Metros 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not my school. if it was then i would be a nazi. I would like it if you did not call me a nazi. wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. (76.1.33.197 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And I would like it if you did not vandalize. Thanks, Metros 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you the Barnstar of Diligence for your fantastic investigaton and report at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Viva La France. You rooted out a vandalistic sockfarm, one that would have gone unnoticed, or at least unsolved, but for your report. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection work

You've done excellent dealing with "The Template Vandal". Keep your good admin work up! You're doing great so far! I know we've had our disagreements in the past, but it's a new year, so let's work together, shall we?? --SunStar Net^talk 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TalkImpact.com

a little quick on the trigger aren't we??? BrianRFSU 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your site has been in existence since January 1st according to your article. Did it gain that much notability in 2 days time? Metros 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Your sharp eyes on RC/CSD patrol were not unappreciated tonight - I had flagged Loldongs as vandalism after having spent longer than my sanity should have allowed with VandalFighter. Having seen that article disappear quickly after I got rid of that screen-hogging text was quite the nice reward for my efforts. Cheers! - skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HBC AIV helperbot

Thanks for stopping my bot. I was actually moments from stopping it myself, but you could not have known that. Simple logic error, I have added a catch that stops it if what it is about to write is blank. Will be more careful in the future. I have repaired and unblocked my bot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I made sure I double checked to make sure it really was blanking before I blocked it. It was just odd how perpetual it was. Gotta love when bots go head to head like your bot v. the antivandal bot :) Metros 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, both bots had good points, and both thought they were right, but my bot was wrong hehe. After each change I watch it for several actions to be sure it is working. It ran all last night fine, then I added a feature and ka-boom. People love this bot and keep asking for more features. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The really funny part is an IP user reported the bot to WP:AIV because of the blanking, and the bot was trying to remove itself from the list(because it was blocked) but of course could not(because it was blocked). hehe HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinaixa67

Just so you know, he doesn't speak English, but Spanish. I explained the situation to him, and he promised he would "try" to get better (if you can read Spanish, look a bit higher on the talk page). Patstuart^talk|edits 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the section...sorta :\ But I got the general gist of it with my Spanish knowledge (admittedly limited, but better than average). Any suggestions? Metros 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said one last thing to him; if he doesn't start providing them, I don't see a problem with a block. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity Chapter deletion(s)

I have attempted to address some of the (good) points you have brought up. (Not to say that other points are not good, but rather that I agree with your concerns—man, it's hard to show emphasis in text.) —Scouter Sig 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to discuss this before going completely nerdrage on you, but is the right thing to do to completely abolish all chapter rolls from all fraternity articles? The inter-linking between colleges and fraternities is completely relevant to the article... I don't know. I don't disagree with your citation of WW:NOT. I'm seeking some sort of alternative short of your... Spree.--Htmlism (talk · contr) 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption (based on your contributions history) is that you're concerned about Psi Upsilon, yes? Please see discussion at WP:AN#Fraternities and sororities for background on my "spree." Cases like your article are a little more borderline it's beginning to appear since there are not external links within the list that was on Psi Upsilon. I encourage you to put in your 2 cents there. Metros 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your removal of chapter links from the Tau Epsilon Phi page.

You quote [WP:EL] as a reason, and I disagree - a national fraternity is the sum of its chapters, so there is a 'direct' and 'symmetrical' link between the two.

You quote [WP:NOT] as a reason, and whereas I might agree they do not belong as a list of links, they do have a place in the article..

Because of this, I am restoring the chapter list. However, my restoration will not be in an "external link" form, which I hope addresses your WP:NOT issues. Timmccloud 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! Metros, were it any other fraternity, I might consider your suggestion of a single link to a chapter list. However, the link you referred to was not the national fraternity list of chapters (it belongs to one chapter who found a need for it), and our national fraternity isn't very "web savy" so there is no working list of chapters on the national website I can refer to from the article (there is a spot on the site, and it's been broken for 4 years). Also, if the chapter name is going to be listed, why can't it be a link? The link establishes the veracity of the information provided in the chapter list, there is no "extra" space being wasted on the rendered page, and any information that is chapter specific can be left out of the main page because the link allows external reference (I did put the "notes" area for minor information). I have read the articles you refer to in the WP:EL and WP:NOT and also other references you have placed above discussing the links to chapters, and I still disagree with them. A fraternity cannot exist without it's chapters. Also encyclopedic content must be supported with valid references - and a chapter's website should be considered a valid reference for it's own existence. I would go even further to disagree with removing the links because they are used as a list - wiki's by their very nature require public interest in keeping them updated, and apparently people want to list their own chapters. What better way to keep the list of fraternity chapters up to date than to allow people to post their own chapter's link, in order that it may be used as a reference for someone trying to find specific chapter information? As I stated above, I will agree with WP:NOT as far as having chapter websites defined as external links being incorrect. Chapters have a much more direct and symmetric relationship to the national fraternity than just being cited as an external link, they are the purpose the organization exists in the first place. Timmccloud 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But where does it stop? Suppose that someone felt that the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks should do the same thing and include the link for each of their chapters...there's over 2100 of 'em. We did the same thing at FBLA-PBL, a student organization that has chartered 15000+ chapters in secondary and post-secondary schools. We had a link for almost every state's chapter (and a few local chapters) at one point and reduced it to the 2 links of chapter directories we have now. I think that the link I provided would be an alright addition to the external links. I don't think that creating our own little directory is appropriate, however. Yes, we can mention where the chapters are, yes we can mention what "number" chapter they are, yes we can mention when they were founded, but I think links to individual chapters' websites is inappropriate per our guidelines. I invite you to add your 2 cents to our discussion at WP:AN#Fraternities and sororities. Thanks, Metros 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will, thanks. Not tonight though, the wife just called and requested my presence at home - she want's me to feed her dinner. Thanks for your suggestions and help. I will at the very least sleep on it, as you have raised some good points. I don't agree with the replacement link though - that is not an exhaustive list. Question - If I hosted my own list on my own private website and linked to that - would that be acceptable? BTW, I'm moving a copy of this discussion to the tep talk page, so it's not disjointed across your/my talk pages. Finally, Sorry for not signing the previous post - forgot :( Timmccloud 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Sigma Alpha Mu chapter list: I found a chapter roll at their website, but nothing with links to chapters' sites, so I didn't do anything to their article. By contrast, I have a) gone ahead and cleaned up the chapter list of Phi Kappa Theta and b) added an external link to the chapter map at the Phi Kap national website, so anybody wanted to get to a chapter's web page can go to that link, click on the chapter on the map, and then click on a link to the chapter page—so they're reachable, but not with a giant list clogging up the Wikipedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Invite

Hi there! Thought you might be interested in WikiProject Notability. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (5000+ articles), and we need your help! If you have a spare moment, please join and sort an article or tell your friends.

Diez2 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford

Are you an admin? Take a look at my contributions. I'm not going to allow someone to screw up the Ford article. And if you took time to read the talk page, there are past discussions on the death section. Two images for that section are not needed. I welcome your speedy reply. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first section I see pertaining to photos on the death section. It was a discussion, it was your statement. Then about 20 minutes ago there was this section from Eman1114 about the tomb photo which remains as just his comment right now and no discussion. So unless I'm missing something, can you point me to the discussion? And yes, I am an administrator. Metros 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have the correct discussion. That's all that is needed. If he felt his photo was worthy, he should have mentioned it on the talk page, correct? I've contacted another admin as well on this matter. I don't appreciate you warning me after all the hard work I've put into this article, and zero problems in the past. And do me a favor, as customary on Wikipedia, post your remarks on my talk page, not yours (or both if you wish). Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Wikipedia guideline I choose to keep all my conversations confined to my talk page. But getting back to the point, I warned you for 3RR because you have now reached 3RR. It doesn't matter what your standing is, what your history with the article is. It matters that you have reached 3 reverts on that article today. Metros 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. Did anything I say make sence, or are you family with the other user or something? No offense, but he could have posted his reasoning before adding his pic, could he have not? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but not every user reads the talk pages religiously to find edicts such as your own. If he was violating consensus, yeah, you might have a good case here. But he was violating something stated by you and you alone. He didn't need to add a reason for adding it. It is clear that his intention is to improve the article through adding the photo. So please, assume good faith a little and realize that was his intention, not to disrupt or vandalize the article. Metros 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHS page

Do you wanna tell me why that isnt a reliable source.??????Mgarnes2 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source because it's a blog. A blog which YOU maintain. Metros 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog, Blog? A corporate radio station conglomorate is a blog, Wow since when is a corporation a blog?. Copy reports from other media outlets where done only prior to a new managment. Now there is a news department which creates stories up, so the fact your calling it is a blog was completely without merit. Ranked one of the Top 14 online radio stations groups and it's not notable??? You need to do some homework. And do you stalk me or something because it seems like you know every little thing i do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgarnes2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just go away. You've been found out now and you're upset about it. I understand. Metros 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of my hat

Hey, thanks for your help with the recent vandalism that's seemed to come my way. It's much appreciated. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The first user you warned was on my watchlist for vandalism from about 3 hours ago and so your warning to them set it over the edge. Metros 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please HELP the article - Military of Myanmar

Hi, can you please help stopping people vandalising this particular article? It seems there are some users who are hell bent on including facts and information, which are purely "non-military" related and does not belong in the article in order to achieve and settle a few political scores. A General's personal wealth has very little to do with military or armed forces information. It is so hard to find any pure military related information regarding Myanmar military over the internet, and what small information that is avilable are often render useless for research purposes due to politically motivated vandalism. I would appericiate if there is something you can do to help. I am not a supporter of the regime or in favour of them, i simply want to contribute a purely military related article! Okkar

Try working it out on the talk page rather than making a revert war out of it. Thanks, Metros 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Metros, now that you have joined in, you will see that it is not myself but Okkar who has removed information without any agreement or consensus-I was placing material back that he chopped out. If you want to put this up for mediation, or help yourself, I am most amenable to that. He has not "tried working it out on the talk page", just makes demands and threats. I invite you to check that out for yourself. Chris 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joining in. I deleted several images from the article earlier today and added the maintenance tags. Then Okkar sent me this message now. I checked the history and saw you were both at 3 reverts, so I made the comment to work it out and warned you each. That's basically as far as my involvement will go, sorry. I don't like to get drawn into very many conflicts such as this one. Metros 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and dealt with, and I appreciate your evenhandedness. Chris 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I was having a problem with diffs and the explanation didn't make sense to me. This is the first I have had to do, what is the procedure? Chris 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to put the link within the brackets so click on the dif in the history of the page, copy for that particular dif, then paste it inside the brackets, then put a space, and put the time, then close the brackets. Remember, only one bracket on each side for these links because they're like external...only not. HOpe that helps, Metros 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mgarnes2

Sorry, hehe, I was complaining about overexaggerating, but I overexaggerated myself. XO Well, sorry 'bout that, my stress plus my anger just released itself out onto the page.

You were gonna block me for that post to his page, or were you kidding? 0_0 -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (T C E) 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your mom. but i sure acted like it........... do ur homework! :D :X -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (T C E) 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you for that edit, I'll let it slide...but I am a little concerned about the cat pornography on your user page...is that in-line with WP:USER standards? :) Metros 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat pornography? Does that even exist? I mean, unless they're shaved, yeah... HOW DARE YOU OFFEND MY CATS! LET THE MIGHT OF GOD CRASH THUNDER DOWN ON YOU! lol jk. Check out Mgarnes2's talk page again, I redid my post.

Oh yes, and I ask a question, how did Mgarnes2 lie to me exactly? Does it have to do with that Depot Hill Media article message I received way back? -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (T C E) 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User talk:DarknessLord#Add_Page. Nationalparks 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redoing your post, it's appreciated. At first I thought you were saying some of the things (like boring, jerky admins) to support him and be kind to him, but then I realized you meant it with that post and I'm like uhh...uh oh.

But yes, that's basically what I'm talking about. It's the thread on your page called Add Page. If you look at the Depot Hill Media deletion log, you can see it's been deleted twice already and there was an AFD on it (an AFD in which he participated).

He claimed to find this "notable news source" while "browasing some of the news articles on here" because some of the articles cited Depot Hill Media. In reality, he added those links in himself: Taco Bell, Mount Hood, James Brown, Clear Channel Communications, etc. (There's about 4 others I think). All of these he added himself. I think the Clear Channel edit is the most interesting because the link he posted (which is now deleted apparently from his site) WAS the Washington Post article he also linked to. He copied and pasted the WP article onto his blog/newsorama. **Amendment** Nope, actually, the Clear Channel link was moved on his website, you can see it here, it's the same as the Washington Post article he also linked. Note, he's apparently taking down a lot of the links that have been "discovered" here on Wikipedia, so they may or may not work for you.** Metros 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 69.160.118.105 vandalised again...

User talk:69.160.118.105 He vandalised the Modest Mouse page. I reverted the vandalism, but you can see how he vandalised it in the editing history for Modest Mouse. I guess he's blocked from editing now......? Arnesh 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Arnesh 09:32 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AsherAndMayorPerez.jpg

That photo was taken myself. Is that ok? There is NO copyright, I was taken myself. Asher Heimermann 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then tag it as {{pd-self}} or something of the like. The current tag implies that it's released but not necessarily by you. Tag it as pd-self and include a note saying that you took it and it'll be fine. Metros 04:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added that tag. Hopefuly, it will work. I had a few photos of Mayor Juan Perez and I thought I would add one. Asher Heimermann 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, how was the photo taken by yourself even though you're in it? And please don't add that photo to the article like you just did. Metros 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anymore... Asher Heimermann 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bowser, King of the Koopas

Has Bowser Koopa and his socks had their IP address blocked yet? If not, I'm planning on filing a check user request to have it blocked. Please let me know. Cheers, -- The Hyb rid 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa. Interesting to note though, I'm a little concerned...The Showster (talk · contribs) was blocked as a result of this. Well a few days ago, because of a note he got on his talk page regarding this, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) decided to unblock The Showster to give him a second chance. However, The Showster hasn't quite figured out how to properly post a request to have his auto-block listed. But I would imagine it's the same IP used by these vandals. So if he gets the autoblocked lifted on the IP...what then? Metros 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding every page they're thinking about vandalizing or have vandalized before to your Watchlist, so that if they were to vandalize again...the user (or Metros in this case)...should be able to revert the vandalism and leave a warning on their Talkpage. If either one of those two (or BKotK) has anything past a t4 on their Talkpage about vandalism, report them immediately to WP:AIV, but make sure that it was their final warning at the time they vandalized again. Have they been blanking pages, adding graffiti, or erasing warnings from their Talkpage? --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Metros,

You may already know this, but the person you are dealing with is [2]. Look in the deleted history for details. E-mail me should you need more info. He's been a very long-term problem. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I semi-protected it and then immediately backed it off (since I reverted it once, technically I'd be involved in the content dispute). The MONGO incident is instructive in this regard. Another uninvolved admin should do it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know much about the incedent or anything, but I wouldn't have minded if you overruled me. If you know more than me about something, feel free to overrule me, I'm not going to get mad or anything like that. I've semi-protected it in the meantime after several more requests. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ockenbock

Hello, Metros232

I am just congratulating you on the thorough investigation of the user: Ockenbock case. But I believe you missed one sock puppet. He is user: BBQ Teddy Bear, and on his page mentions that he is not a sock puppet of any of these users. However, his page is written in the style of Ockenbock. Also, the two users who only vandalize users in the Ockenbock ring vandalized BBQ Teddy Bear's page. Please have a look in to it. I personally added the suspected sockpuppet notice on his page. I also think you should have a look at the other suspected sock puppet, Leben4life. Thanks, --Toni.Cipriani 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BBQ Teddy Bear

I'm 100% fine with the block and your other actions. I agree about the Tony.Cipriani account, looks suspicious to me. Good work, Gwernol 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Made to Hot Cross Entry

I noticed today that you made changes to the Hot Cross (band) entry. You took off the band description and also possibly removed the cover images for the releases that I added a few days ago.

I am a member of the band, owner of the record label that released the records listed in the discogrpahy, and co-authored the band bio that was taken down.

Please contact me and let me know what I could have done to violate any copyrights and I will try to square them away with you.

Otherwise, can we revert the listing to the way it was prior to your edit?

Thanks Greg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdrudy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Go here and read the paragraph entitled "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia". That'll give you an idea of what you need to do, Metros 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simply MP

Obvious sockpuppet, can you please take care of it? I know this guy in real life and he has given me clues that he has created an alternate account on his Nintendo Wii.

Thanks, -- ~D-Lord (Sign!) (T C E) 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just what precisely would you like me to "take care of" in this case? Metros 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: frat AfD

I don't think changing or adding to my opinion will sway the delete count. If anything, if you as the nominator see a reason for the save, remove the nomination. Ronbo76 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for a way to save the article, rather, asking that you reexamine your position in light of the other AFD. Metros 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compute. Ronbo76

How so? One of your arguments to keep it is that other chapter articles exist within the frat. The other AFD is more than likely going to delete those articles. So if those two articles go, so goes part of your argument. Metros 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate this on the frat page, please. I have no further comments to add. Fini.Ronbo76

Sorry

Hi Metros232. I would like to say I'm sorry for being uncivil. I am just getting so frustrated and annoyrd and upset and stressed out at what Llama man has been doing. Do you have any tips on how I can tell I am not happy in a civil manner? Also, you said on my sockpuppetry case that I used a fair use image. I know this is true, but it was only my second day so how was I supposed to know? Henchman 2000 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:74.140.190.187

Good call. This guy also went through and vandalized my user and user talk in a couple other languages after I locked the talk page. Grand master ka 23:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

Sorry about the user: Iluvwiki0 thing. I left my computer to do something and someone (it was at a school) must have done that edit. I'm sorry for that, and will log off when I leave to make sure that something like that does not happen. Sorry for the inconvenience,

--Toni.Cipriani 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy

I cannot begin to describe the distaste with which you are dealing with these pages. Congratulations. You have one less Wikipedian. Pat 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Removed a Government Institution?

Why remove a page on the United states Patent and Trademarks Office's Training Academy? It is a US Government Institution. Add it to the USPTO wiki entry instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchrzan (talk • contribs)

I removed a sub-group of a government institution. A sub-group which you and your buddies are actively trying to write about because you think you guys are really awesome. If you can write a well-referenced section on the USPTO article about it, then go for it, but if you're just adding it to get your photos on there and a link to "the greatest group of patent examiners to come out of the PTA" (to quote yourself) then don't bother. Metros 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your post

He has been following all my posts and crtitiquing me. When I asked him nicely to stop because I did not want his advice, he continued. I wonder where he learned about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lund? It is the post below his and he joined in the debate. As an AfD nominator, I have never seen him on those pages. I apologize to you if you think troll is hard word but I have seen other mentors use it. Ronbo76 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how did you find out my post? He brought another user to my talkpage who commented on my post. Respectfully to you, if you read my talkpage, there have been others who are guiding me along that I trust for advice. I do not trust him and that is the basis for my request. I respectfully ask he honor my wishes. Ronbo76 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work as an Inspector General. His post on that debate and comment me about is borderline retaliation. Ronbo76 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Inspector General" of what? What is it even in retaliation too? Your needless AfD? John Reaves 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed to Metros232 - tonight I was performing cleanup on a number of my Watchpages. If you review John Reaves's contributions, you will find that he followed behind me and deleted almost every tag I placed on pages. I do admit that I got it wrong on two pages where the individuals were deceased. However, if I understand the Talkheader tag, it is one that can be placed on every page. Even his question above could be taken as an attack. You did not question me being an IG - he does. Are AfD needless? I do not propose one unless I feel certain that an article should be deleted. One of my incorrect tags on the talkpage was Iren Marik who is deceased. The example of where he removed a Talkheader tag is Louis Rose. I believe he is being a little bit overzealous with me. Your opinion? Ronbo76 06:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue with templates isn't whether or not the person is dead, it's if the talk page needs a header or has a lot of activity. You tagged four empty talk pages. Read {{talkheader}}, it explains its usage. My question could not be taken as an attack. How does it attack you? How is your previous status as an IG even relevant? Why do you refuse to talk to me directly? John Reaves 06:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaixa

Well, in Spanish, he's said that he's mad that you blocked him. "Look, smart-aleck, I just saw the figure on television... I wish you would stop calling me a liar when I've only put on the truth". Just so you know. Perhaps you'd like to respond; but I've told him enough to either find the figure online or not use it; the block is certainly justified. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help (and translation). It's not only the unsourced stuff but it's the fact we don't really need it. There's no benefit to the encyclopedia for him to put "TBA" for albums and that they'll be released "2007." It needs to be a lot more concrete than that and the sources are completely necessary. Thanks again for all the help, Metros 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was just noticing the one diff you placed on AN/I; and indeed, this one didn't look very bad. Maybe it would have been helpful to wait until he actually posted more faulty numbers; blocking him for this might be the equivalent of not letting him edit at all (there are plenty of artists with notices of upcoming albums ;)) -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandals

Yes, I've been using automatic reverts to quickly undo vandalism in articles, I should check more carefully next time. Thanks for the advice anyway :)--Rasillon 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

eehh....

You write on your user page that you want peolple to fix it. How can they do that, when yo only may view the text code, not change anything? hehe..--Secret agent with brown hat 15:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because established users can edit my page to fix it but IP addresses and new users (like you) can't since it's semi-protected. Metros 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent block

Hi, I was going through the edits of an IP, User:207.59.168.1, reported at WP:AIV. All the recent edits looked like bungled good-faith edits rather than vandalism. On List of Disney Channel Stars, this editor did blank the page, but it appears inadvertent, since the next edit was to replace the page with legitimate entries and even the alphabetical headers. When I tried to remove the IP from the list as a non-vandal, I saw you had already blocked it for a week. I wonder if you would reconsider this block in light of the fact that this IP editor is likely an inexperienced good faith contributor. Cheers! --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Yes, I see what you mean that it's probably an inexperienced user, however, things were getting totally screwed up through the user's edits. I'm going to lighten the block to 3 hours and post a {{welcome3}}. Hopefully the user will take the 3 hours of block time and read some of what's on there about how to edit, Metros 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty reasonable, since good-faith or not the edits were certainly disruptive. Thanks for your response! --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar

Thanks for the pointer, I have tried to engage with the users in talk page on Myanmar, however, somehow people have this entrached vision that Wikipedia is politically biased. I have warn them but it seems to be getting no where. What can i do? I am simply trying to tone down the article to a more neutral point of view rather than lean one side or the other. Also, you have asked me regarding the pictures I created, is there any particular reason behind it or was just a simple curiousity? If you would like help with creating logo and flags, I'll be happy to help, provided that it is not a whole lot of work. Okkar 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-secondary education in New Jersey

I like the idea. The list on the NJ article needs to go. Let me take a look at that over the next few hours and see what I can come up with by way of ideas, suggestions, an article, etc. Of note, NJ is the only state that had two colonial colleges. Right now I've been busy working on Athletics at Rutgers University. —ExplorerCDT 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started yesterday: Post-secondary education in New Jersey. —ExplorerCDT 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stump

Just to let you know, the vandalism got crazy there, so I had to protect the page from vandalism (and I even got edit conflicted when i was protecting lol). Also, I reverted back to your version from nearly a month ago (200+ revisions ago). It's been heavily hit with mass-vandalism, and it goes undetected when you're reverting. Double-check the history because you may be reverting to another bad version of the article. Thanks man. Nishkid 64 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I discovered during my RFA 2 months ago that of all the articles I've edited on Wikipedia, that one I've edited the most. And 99% of it is vandalism reverts. Thanks for the protection. Metros 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, heads up on the vandalism reverts yourself [3]. Booty beats huh? ;) I'm going to assume good faith on this one and believe that it just happened to be in the article when you reverted and that's not something I have to slap a {{test1}} on your user talk for. Thanks again, Metros 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Ockenbock sockpuppet?

I have reason to believe user: Teddy.Turner is a sockpuppet of user: Ockenbock, or at least user: BBQ Teddy Bear. Their user pages are formed similarly, and both have the phrase SATAN BIRDY incorporated. Also, they really have no positive edits and both have Teddy in their user names. As BBQ Teddy Bear is a suspected sockpuppet of user: Ockenbock, then I think that Teddy.Turner may be a sock puppet of Ockenbock. --Toni Cipriani 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page History

Can the history of a page be cleared? (I'm just asking since you sent me this: "I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Metros232 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)") Kornfan71 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Stewart page

Miley Stewart page- If you look up Miley Stewart on the search bar the last edit is from today! The amount of edits are way, way above 4! and....

On the fact of me signing as BarnStar Boy and SupaSoldier-BarnStar Boy is my other account (I use it when I give Barnstars-Nothing else) and SupaSoldier is my regular account.....I was logged on as BarnStar Boy but I wanted to make the request as SupaSoldier-Sorry-:^) BarnStar Boy 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the history log of the article. I see 4 edits overall. Metros 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Click on this link (Miley Stewart) and go to the History! BarnStar Boy 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see were the confusion is! The History log for the request I used sent you to a page that sends you to the link I just gave you! Sorry for the confusion! BarnStar Boy 21:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the page for the link I gave you Semi-Protected. BarnStar Boy 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Miley Stewart (Hannah Montana) page? In my opinion, there's not enough recent activity to justify a block there either. If you want a second admin to look at it, post it to WP:RFPP (correctly this time) or drop a note to User:Nishkid64 (he deals with a lot of protection requests). Metros 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]