User:Merovingian/archive-20

WTF?
You criticized me for something I did in February '07. Someone, in an article marked "Kitten" wrote that "Kittens are so fucking cute" (he wrote "fucking" about 500 times) and I erased it because it was in poor taste. Sue me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captron75 (talk • contribs)

It's all good, man.
Water under the proverbial bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captron75 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation
Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page
Merovingian - you could have tried talking to me, or you could at least have had the decency to put a block notice here, or you could have come up with a legitimate reason other than "please cool off" - cooling off is not allowed as a reason for a block. As it is, you have prevented me going to the talk page of the article to explain why the categorization should include "Cornish painters". I couldn't go to the IP talk page as they are on AOL and their address changes frequently. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah
Hi. I found your name at WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nupedia Open Content License
I have nominated Nupedia Open Content License, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nupedia Open Content License. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. → Aza Toth 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for spotting the obvious anti-UK edits made by user:Keizuko. Signsolid (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merovingian, you only vindicate the edit warring attitude of Signsolid here. The guy has been embroiled in various edit wars always revolving around the "grandeur" of the UK (UK GDP, UK military expenditures, and so on). Feel free not to believe me and ask other editors such as User:JdeJ and User:FFMG who have witnessed Signsolid's edit warring and dick contests. Here I made a good faith edit and I get reverted right away by this guy. The normal procedure on Wikipedia is not to revert edits that you disagree with (except if they are blatantly insulting or complete nonsense), but instead discuss them on the talk page. I don't understand why you prefered to vindicate this revert attitude rather than enforce Wikipedia policy of discussing first on talk page before reverting. Last but not least, concerning the article itself, I suggest you read the same article on the German-speaking and Francophone Wikipedias for a more neutral view of things. You'll see that the role of the UK is completely overblown in the en.wikipedia version. Keizuko (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean by edits revolving around the "grandeur" of the UK: . It's a typical case: reverting an article in complete disregard for the source upon which the article is based. Keizuko (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoping for you input on a minor dispute regarded the SSBM article
Hi I'm asking an administrator for his opinion on this matter. There is an on going debate on the Super Smash Bros. Melee article. The article is in reference to the inclusion of Ken in the legacy section.

Since Wikipedia is not a vote I feel that my arguments are vastly stronger than their arguments against his inclusion. I have brought evidence and precedence about his need to be included in the article, however it has been brushed off without citations. If you could please take a look that would be great. I will not feel offened if you disagree with me. I am just looking for an outside opinion in regards to this situation. If you could please leave a comment on that talk page that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks you. (The vandalism on this IP was not by me it is a shared IP). 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.:) 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

on me exiting the discussion
No offense taken! It just made me realize maybe I didn't need to be involved in the discussion. I think you all are on the right track, I'm gonna get back to other things. Thanks though! -Pete (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales/Marsden.
I was a bit bold, so if consensus is to revert that, I'm okay with it (I won't be around for a few hours). · AndonicO  Hail!  21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories for redirects
FYI, categories for redirects are prefectly acceptable for unique and well-known terms that would have value listed on their own. They are actually designed to show up in italics within the category so they are easily identified. See Redirect and Categorizing redirects. Thanks. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:The_Guestbook_Barnstar
Template:The_Guestbook_Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2X45.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:2X45.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. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 4 - April 2008
SriMesh | talk  03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page
Presumably, you believe that using a misleading summary and labeling an edit "minor" to direct users who seek our arts portal to a poorly written article is funny. In your mind, it's comical to hinder the efforts of people around the world (including those for whom Internet access is highly limited and/or expensive) to enrich themselves via our encyclopedia. Well, I hope that you also take pleasure in being blocked, because that's what will happen the next time that you commit vandalism. —David Levy 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a nice one, though :) Anthøny  17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only presume Levy's comment is made with the same level of gravity as the edit it addresses. --erachima formerly tjstrf 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I'm entirely serious. Believe it or not, some of us don't want Wikipedia to be perceived as a joke and do want to readers to be able to utilize it as an academic resource on any day of the year.  —David Levy 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And I suppose it's a couple hours too late in the month now to go creating Category:Wikipedian spoilsports? --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone who attempts to counter vandalism is a "spoilsport." —David Levy 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find one person who got confused and/or offended because of a changed link that was up for 11 minutes, feel free to block me. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Unless you commit additional vandalism, why would I do that?  Blocks aren't intended to be punitive.
 * And how can we possibly know how many readers (you know, the people for whom we're writing the encyclopedia) were affected by your prank? You do realize that most of them don't edit, right?
 * Obviously, people clicked on the link (otherwise, there would have been no point) and were taken to the wrong page (and thereby deprived of the information that they sought). How is this remotely amusing, and what makes you think that you had any right to do it?  —David Levy 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * David, you realize you're complaining about people being misled by a link on a page that, at the time the edit was made, was full to the brim with links that were specifically designed to humorously mislead people, right?
 * Now, either the average reader has the IQ of a pile of rocks, in which case we should be much more concerned about the waves of rumors of Ben Affleck's death we doubtless sent reverberating through the universe than the people who clicked the arts portal and ended up somewhere else, or the average reader realized that it was April Fool's from the myriad of other joke links on the page, in which case they would not be grievously confused by ending up at the wrong place from the arts portal link either.
 * I suppose it is possible you are equally opposed to all the other, sanctioned, jokes that were on the front page, in which case it isn't hypocritical of you to be complaining about this one, but in that case, see the spoilsport comment above. --erachima formerly tjstrf 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. All of the sanctioned main page content was 100% real. I personally would prefer that we go about business as usual, but I believe that the special content is an acceptable deterrent to the insertion of outright hoaxes (as has occurred in the past).
 * I also admire all of the hard work that people put into that material, and it's unfortunate that the intended effect ended up being tainted by the cheap nonsense that various sysops decided to throw in. Your argument that it's hypocritical of me to condone the sanctioned content and condemn the vandalism is analogous to claiming that it's hypocritical to laugh at a stand-up comic and not at a drunken heckler shouting "look at me!  I'm funny too!".
 * 2. You do realize that April Fools' Day isn't a worldwide observance, right?
 * 3. You're missing the point. I don't doubt that most of the people who clicked on that link realized that they'd fallen victim to a prank.  The problem is that this realization didn't bring them to the desired content, nor did it return the time and money wasted by people using slow dial-up connections that they pay for by the minute.  (Yes, this remains common in some parts of the world.)  And I can only wonder how many people, in light of this and other childish pranks, now trust Wikipedia less than they did on 31 March.  —David Levy 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ariel_Gazelle_crew.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ariel_Gazelle_crew.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aber Tafol
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aber Tafol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oo7565 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the reviewing administrator, I think the article is clearly notable--all villages are, so i removed the tag. But you really should try to add additional information, such as the geographic coordinates at least. DGG (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, looking through Google it seems that Aber Tafol is at least some sort of landmark in the U.K., but I am not able to verify anything else about this place, not even that it is in fact a hamlet, as the article describes it. While not all potential references on all subjects can be found on Google, this article has been here unsourced for more than two years, and therefore should be deleted soon if no references are added. Merovingian, where did you hear about this place? If you have no references to add yourself, can you at least point us in the right direction? 152.3.116.199 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Abercoed
A tag has been placed on Abercoed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 5 - May 2008
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Kehoe
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Kehoe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping
I have nominated Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? '' a s e nine  say what? '' 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of ﹔
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 12:16, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Across Two Oceans.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Across Two Oceans.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 6 - June 2008
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rapid Eye Entertainment
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rapid Eye Entertainment, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Swimsuit templates
As a leading editor at Marisa Miller you may have an interest in the debate at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 7 - July 2008
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)