User talk:Blu Aardvark/Archive 1

Hi
I was wondering if you could help me, I'm very new to this site, but have been creating pages about Blondie and their albums/singles. I've noticed peoples comments and was wondering if you could tell me how to put a info box on to The Hunter page and onto the Blondie debut album page. Would be greatly appriciated. scaryspice

G.R.O.S.S.
I was watching that gross article too and I noticed the person who delted it is the person who entered it. Maybee sit back and watch what they do with it. --Bedel23 01:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Butterfly Messiah
The formal procedure for suspected copyvios is here: Copyright_problems. But I think that's overkill, as it means taking the whole page down. If the poster doesn't own it, such a large quoted chunk is definitely copyvio; but even if if he/she does, it's still against the guideline Don't include copies of primary sources, and the style sure isn't encyclopedic. Tearlach 09:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Much appreciated. --Blu Aardvark 09:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
You're welcome (in the other sense of welcome) for the welcome. -- Essjay ·  Talk 00:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

rfc - dreamguy
actually he did ask about the missing sun myth page, being moved, and everyone else on that talk page said not to, hence he violated policey. Gabrielsimon 12:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for fixing the formatting error on my Airbag (song) edit. I've been a wiki fan for a while but haven't done any serious edits. But, I'm learning fast. Thanks again!

Speedies.
Thanks a lot for all the speedy tagging I've seen you do the past few days. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I rather enjoy RC patrol. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Clay Aiken
FYI, I just made a proposal on the talk page that I think gets at some comments you made earlier, that the OC group helps bolster the "gay speculation" paragraph. It's on the talk page, but I'll reproduce it here in case you haven't seen it. If you have a minute, I'd appreciate your thoughts. ''I thought on this a bit last night, and if what folks are unhappy with is having Openly Clay listed in the external links because its fan base isn't large enough compared with the top, say, two or three, how about then just listing it in the text? It seems to me that it could be naturally incorporated into the paragraph on gay speculation. Something like: Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, and indeed there exists a group of fans who enjoy discussing the rumor (link). However he has denied such suggestions and in fact good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus when he appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. It's in proper context, isn't "in your face" about the group, but ensures that it's mentioned and linkable somewhere. What do you think? '' &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Airline pilot
Oops!! I thought it wasn't copyrighted. I planned to modify the text asap to make sure anyway... Now I will first have to modify it on my computer and then put it back. It's very useful information and I found it difficult to rewrite it totally. I will take a look at it as soon as I got time. Thanks for pointing it out to me... -- Mario R 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh BTW: can you tell me if it's easy to find out quickly if something is copyrighted or not (you figured it out pretty fast!)? Of course I can read this somewhere on Wikipedia, but there's so much information and at the moment I don't have so much time to find out, maybe you can explain in just a couple of sentences... That would be so nice! Thanks! -- Mario R 01:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, all text on any webpage is considered copyrighted unless the webpage in question says otherwise. Therefore, it's always best to re-write any information. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Working on that already! Thanks... I'll keep that in mind next time. Regards! -- Mario R 11:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Spam Campaign
There is no spam campaign for The Mushroom Kingdom (at least not from me), so stop claiming it. I've constantly denied this absurdity, and the only reason it's called a spam campaign is because the debate came up AFTER the links were added. -- A Link to the Past 17:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure why you targetted this message at me, as I have not claimed a "link spam campaign" except for within ten minutes after comments were made on Votes for deletion/The Mushroom Kingdom, which appeared to encourage such spam. I removed a total of five links, at that time, that showed up in Eclipsed Moon's edit contributions, as she had been identified as participating in link spam. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't target you, I'm just putting it out to people who have reverted me linking that site and called it site spamming. -- A Link to the Past 23:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. That's fair. Do realize, however, that they weren't targetting you; there was, in fact, a link spam campaign suggested for that site in the VFD I mentioned. Just so we're on the same page... --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I've already been accused of it several times, posting in the VfD for TMK that I am not participating in it. Anyway, off of argumentative subjects... what's your favorite moveh? -- A Link to the Past 23:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Authentic matthew
You recently voted on this matter saying that the "article is noteworthy". While I agree that the topic is noteworthy, I believe it should be discussed at Gospel of Matthew.

The Article Authentic Matthew is
 * a large source text
 * discussion of Eusebius' opinions on Biblical Canon
 * Original research assuming accuracy of Jerome's erroneous [according to the majority of relevant scholars] claim that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites

This was merged by me, as a result of someone else requesting a merge, as follows
 * The source text is already at WikiSource
 * Salvagable content about Eusebius and Biblical Canon was already moved to Eusebius and Biblical Canon.
 * Salvagable content about the Gospel of the Hebrews merged there.
 * Unsalvagable original research deleted.

This was then changed into a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews.

Melissadolbeer then reverted this.

I would like to request a review of your vote, determining whether you think that the article as it stands deserves existance, since I believe it to be original research. 10:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish-American Mayors
I have already created pages for some of the mayors on the list and I will put up more information for others. 64.109.253.204 20:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay ·  Talk 15:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The bible
Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Bible verses.

18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Clarke
Normally I would have just speedied it, but I was adding it to a VfD that it seemed to be connected to. Then as I went back and looked at it, I was thinking that it wasn't really obvious that it might be vanity, so i was thinking about going ahead and taking the speedy off. Cheers. EvilPhoenix talk 10:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical edits on Hey Jude
Hey blu -- is English your mother tongue? Insulting people who try to edit verbose and clumsy sentences isn't the way to improve Wikipedia.
 * Above statement by 213.78.117.228, in response to a correction I made to a series of edits by 200.91.122.215
 * Labelling an edit (or series of edits, in this case) as nonsensical when it, in fact, is nonsensical is not an insult. One could hardly call those edis merely "corrections made in an effort to improve Wikipedia." --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you...
Did you add that note about my note on the talk page for Childhood (comic)? Please don't do that! I'm trying to play it safe there, and you could have just caused two child attacks by a guy looking for me! I was taking a big risk by even pionting out I could be one of two people. But I overlooked on detail - the history page. He could've checked there! I'll have to be careful about that... --70.104.135.190 14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Db:a1
Since you created this template, I would like to notify you that I am thinking about putting it on TFD. Here's why: it is not necessary for you to type, "A1: Article does not appear to contain sufficient information to warrant an article. If you can correct this, please do so and remove this notice." First, you can just say, "there is little or no context". That is sufficient for us admins. Secondly, the speedy tags already say that if you "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. The reason I added the text the way that I did is that I hope that it will encourage people to expand the articles, and avoid deletion. In other words, I added the extra text for the potential benefit of regular non-admin editors who might stumble upon the article, and choose to expand it. In either case, however, I see your point, and will not be offended if it is listed on TFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Mudder vote for deletion
Sorry about the simultaneous edit thing where I accidentally reverted past your note, thank you for watching for cheating. It's a thankless job, and I'm glad it's not just me :) I didn't want to post a direct link to the history showing 1 user posting multiple votes with signatures of multiple users, or else it'd just encourage him to log out and log back in with the separate users and be harder to track.  Atari2600tim 12:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Crinkle
Hi Blu! I was on RC as well when I saw Crinkle pop up; I work in a used bookstore and I can tell you that it's not a word used in the description of a book's condition. I think the better course of action is to VfD it. Thanks- Fernando Rizo T/C 22:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
Hello, and thanks for answering my question (re links in edit summaries) on the Help Desk so quickly today (8 minutes!). I've only been around a month but still, I never fail to be impressed by the efficiency and helpfulness of the people round here.

Odd that I'd never spotted those little edit links before. Now you've pointed them out, I can see them on every page :-) Thanks again, ~ Veledan | Talk | c . 16:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks
Thanks for catching (and fixing) my mistake. Friday 17:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew, boring but again

 * I recognise that there was no consensus to delete this article – and that is unlikely to change. But I still have grave concerns about it. The author’s insistence in linking it to other Biblical studies articles, is giving the impression of a scholarly theory that simply does not exist I did warn –Ril- that his involvement in the second re-listing was likely to be counterproductive  but to no avail. I am left wondering how many of the ‘keep’ votes were influenced by –Ril-‘s antics. But getting this article right is more important that –Ril-‘s behaviour.

Looking at the last vote Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew 21d, 12k, 4m – I note that 4 of the ‘keep votes’ expressed a desire for a renaming. So that would indicate a 29-8 feeling that it was undesirable to have this article at this name. Is there room for an acceptable compromise? I’d like to move it to Possible origins of Matthew’s Gospel and place it the context of the real scholarly debate on Matthew. There would some overlap with both the Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem – but that I for one could live with. I could just ‘be bold’ and do this, but it is likely to be reverted, and I’m likely to get abuse, – so I’m looking for some agreement that this has a consensus – preferably from some of those who didn’t vote ‘delete’. Any comments? --Doc (?) 17:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Discuss at Talk:Authentic Matthew

Sistine Chapel Choir
Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. Articles which use text from the Catholic encyclopedia should have the the template added. The online site is copyrighted, but that doesn't apply to the 1913 text (read Catholic Encyclopedia). Also, see Category:Based on Catholic Encyclopedia --Duk 01:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, thanks for all the copyvio patrol work.--Duk 01:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why?
Why delete it? You read what I said? Explain me the reason. 64.108.212.56 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because the VFD was closed, with a consensus to delete. I marked the talk page for speedy, because it is an orphaned talk page, with no associated article. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, Blu Aardvark, everyone came in said delete because they didn't like the creator, someone showed reasons for why it should be kept, and then no one responded it. If that is why it was deleted, than it was deleted for the wrong reason and should be put back up. 64.108.212.56 01:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the VFD was closed improperly, why not add the article to votes for undeletion?

Copy
Can you give me a copy of the page? I was making so many additions to the page, I did not save it. 64.108.212.56 01:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have such a copy, and cannot restore the page, because I do not have admin privelages.

Did you see?
Did you see how people were voting delete just because they didn't like me? Did you see how the last person changed to keep and provided a link with why it should be kept and did you notice how then no one responded after that?

I thought wikipedia is not a democracy. You should have thrown out the votes that were obviously done out of dislike for the creator and not the page. 64.108.212.56 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not authorized to discount votes, because I do not have admin privelages.

Speedy Delete?
''This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)''

Democracy
So Wikipedia is actually a democracy? 64.108.212.56 01:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that. All I said is that I am not authorized to discount votes, which is a truthful statement. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you delete the page? 64.108.212.56 01:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have admin privelages. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Restoring
Who can I contact about restoring the page? 64.108.212.56 01:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Put it on Votes for undeletion if you feel the article should be restored. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

How do I get a copy of it? 64.108.212.56 01:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't Alter Copyright Information Page
Please don't alter the copyright information page. It contains the information people need to know that it is legitimate. You shouldn't take down the page and then claim it violates copyrights. Please remove your false claim of possible infringment. If you are really interested then contact the copyright holder and find out for yourself.--Marcperkel 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't alter any "copyright information page", nor did I take down any page. I really have no idea what you are talking about. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)