User talk:Btball

deletion
Why are you deleting my contribution for Ideaworks3D when it follows the same format of many other games companies on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbcandy (talk • contribs)

Many Thanks
Hi Brian,

Many thanks for your kind welcome even though I have been welcomed before, it was a generous thought for taking the time to welcome me again :) Fast track 01:58 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Datamonitor
I have no idea what it is you want me to do. Could you please provide a phone number for me to call regarding the issues of noteability as i have provided many examples of our noteability and it seems you are still being difficult. We are a reputable company and wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company. I think the way it has been handled has not been helpful and i am at a loss as to what it is you want me to provide in order to gain a page on your site.

One of our competitors Gartner has a page with you and seems to lack any citations for any of there claims however they have not been deleted. How is this so could you please explain the difference between what i have been trying to add and their article as i cannot understand it?

Link 2 on our page shows an article on a third persons website stating we are 'leading' so how is this not a suitable reference?

Link 1 was added by Gwernol not myself and is a valid link to Reuters to prove our floating on the stock exchange.

Link 3 references a piece in a book called 'Superbrands' which we were published in and the number of employees is stated within it.

Please explain to me how these sources are not enough? Jenny

Christmas comes early for RegExTypoFix users
Yeah, all you "regular users" not signed up on the mailing list are getting coal. All 200,000 of you.

35 lines added in all

Well it's 2 AM on West Coast USA. California, homies. We all surf (even the 8 billion illegal immigrants). Los Angeles is just like they show it in GTA: San Andreas (but with more hookers). Oh yeah, and we only have one season. We call it "perfect".

Anyway, it is RETF Christmas Secular Celebration Day, and I'm not failing to deliver. I'm saying good bye to converting that whole list over. It's full of misspellings that aren't misspellings and words that aren't ever misspelled. From now on this is my method for finding new words: You can do this too and get thanked in the section below! It really works well!
 * 1) Spellcheck a random word from the existing list
 * 2) Open any article where it corrects more than 1 word
 * 3) Load it into Microsoft Word and spellcheck
 * 4) See how many times it shows up in Wikipedia using AWB
 * 5) If it shows up more than 6 times I'll put it into dictionary.com to make sure it's not a real word
 * 6) Integrate all versions of a word into regular expressions using dictionary.com as a reference
 * 7) 

Shoutouts!
This is a new section dedicated to thanking people who found problems or suggested new word(s). PLEASE do this, even with one false positive. And please suggest new words, that's how it's going to expand. Removed
 * "eminent" corrected to "imminent" Thanks to Guinnog for finding this.

Added Fixed
 * "Calender" corrected to "calendar". calender is a word. Thanks to Alphachimp.   Major props.
 * "noteable" now corrects to "notable". Thanks to Mets, keep it up!
 * "gracefuly" is the wrong spelling. it's "gracefully" - Thanks to r b-j, who reported this even though he doesn't use RETF!

Download
You can get the latest version, 0.1.01, here. --mboverload @

"You already sent the weekly newsletter mboverload! R U HI?"
Well this is important, so suck it up. RegExTypoFix is now completely built into AutoWikiBrowser Yes, that's right. My little project has now been integrated into Wikipedia's most famous utility. This expands my reach to around ~250 active users!

Spamlist signup
 * But mboverload, what does this mean? - It means that Wikipedia is going to suck less! Yay!
 * What do I do? - Download the latest version of AWB and go to More Options > Enable RegExTypoFix.  Then go to then in the Start tab > Summary dropdown box select RegExTypoFix
 * What happened to including your name in it? How am I going to praise you with every edit? You mean "mboverload's RegExTypoFix"?  Oh, just stick it in there, and complain on the AWB talkpage if you want my name in there standard =P.
 * How did this come about? Why wasn't I told? - Because it was secret.  I have known about this for about a week I think.  Putting my typofixing into AWB was suggested in the talk page, however people talking about including spellchecking in AWB has gone back awhile.  Martin, the creator and only developer of AWB, informed me and I was absolutely flattered.  I now have developer access to AWB so I can update AWB with the latest RETF without having to bother him.
 * ''' What about updates and the newsletter?
 * All updates are just going to be small files with the latest new words and fixes. When AWB updates just throw out the file until I release the next supplemental update.
 * I will be releasing the full RegExTypoFix, however it's going to be in the format that AWB uses it and not in its settings xml format. It's way easier to read, though.
 * You'll still be getting the newsletter, full of keen insights into the wiki hivemind and commentary on mind-body meta relationships.
 * mboverload, how long HAVE you worked on RETF anyway? I estimate 50 hours. Using my most accurate method of finding and verifying typos nets me 20 new lines an hour.  This does NOT include the hours I've spent testing it.
 * Where can I find a list of typos to fix? User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix/full
 * Whore-much? Silence you republican neo-con communist hippie! --mboverload @

Hello Brain
Brain, thank you for taking the time to read this, I know how busy you must be with all of this. I have a few questions, hoping you can please help me out. I am writing a book about Florida Cultural History, the main subject is music, art, and film in Florida throughout the 40's 50's all the way through the 1990s. I have been trying to fix the Bunny Yeager wikipedia page, I have been deleted, not very just, I mentioned I was working on it. I also am trying to get a page started for others, because there is so much mis-information about many people who should be listed here. I am writing you now because my son was doing some research on a well known surfer, Tom Curren, I looked at his page, and could see there were practically no references, although there were some warnings at the top of the page, there was nothing more then hearsay, Tom is a great surfer, an incredible artist, etc etc. I don't understand? How does this seem to be ok, yet I cannot seem to build a legitimate page for others here? I hope you understand my concern. The people I am researching, I can find so much valuable information, and yet if these same people were to read my book, they would never even FIND these people here? Can you understand my concern? If wikipedia is a legit place to find simple concise pertinent information, which I know it is, then I do need some help here allowing me to make a few pages if you please.

03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure if that is right, and don't really understand this signature thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakeasyandsoft (talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Brain
Brain, thank you for taking the time to read this, I know how busy you must be with all of this. I have a few questions, hoping you can please help me out. I am writing a book about Florida Cultural History, the main subject is music, art, and film in Florida throughout the 40's 50's all the way through the 1990s. I have been trying to fix the Bunny Yeager wikipedia page, I have been deleted, not very just, I mentioned I was working on it. I also am trying to get a page started for others, because there is so much mis-information about many people who should be listed here. I am writing you now because my son was doing some research on a well known surfer, Tom Curren, I looked at his page, and could see there were practically no references, although there were some warnings at the top of the page, there was nothing more then hearsay, Tom is a great surfer, an incredible artist, etc etc. I don't understand? How does this seem to be ok, yet I cannot seem to build a legitimate page for others here? I hope you understand my concern. The people I am researching, I can find so much valuable information, and yet if these same people were to read my book, they would never even FIND these people here? Can you understand my concern? If wikipedia is a legit place to find simple concise pertinent information, which I know it is, then I do need some help here allowing me to make a few pages if you please.

03:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure if that is right, and don't really understand this signature thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakeasyandsoft (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to re-edit Bunny Yeager
Hello Brian, I noticed its been a while, and there is quite a bit of knowledge missing from Bunny's page that I had worked on, I haven't got all the citations in and have been a bit discouraged, even trying, seems as if someone commenting as a "puff piece" is not appropriate to me, because Bunny was a pin-up photographer and she sells her photos, I mean that is non sense, I can find 100's of photographers that sell photos, and then someone making a discrepancy as being a formal model and references as to she is not because she took photos of herself, is ludicrous. At this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunny_Yeager&oldid=432456481 Is where I came back to see all the work I have done, and I want to know how to fix this, and then also what would be the point in investing my time if someone has something against a pin-up model who took photos of Bettie Page and the like. Bunny is getting very old, and I am trying to publish some more and accurate information about her. What can I do?

Speakeasyandsoft (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)--Speakeasyandsoft (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)