User talk:Btball/Archive/Archive 01

page for archiving

French immersion school of washington
Hi, could you please tell why the school is notable enough for Wikipedia? The article needs to assert the subject's notability. ThanksDlohcierekim 07:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, There are many lists of international schools already in Wikipedia. There are only a handful of French bilingual schools in the United States and the French Immersion School of Washington is one of them. There are schools in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington as well. It appears that listing of bilingual - especially immersion schools is already widely accepted in Wikiepedia, so I don't understand why this entry would be deleted. Thanks for your help. Brian 08:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)btball

Here is an example of an article very similar to mine: Lycée Français de Los Angeles The schools are in fact, members of the same association of international schools (French immersion schools) in the United States Brian 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Thanks for the reply. Can you rephrase that and say it in the article? That would help make the article feel for noteworthy. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Arg. I started this conversation on your userpage. It should be on the talk page. If you don't mind, I'll move it there. Dlohcierekim 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome and advise! I am travelling today and won't be back home until Friday, but will update the entry then.

Brian

Brian 07:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)btball

Welcome
I see no one said, "WELCOME". Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dlohcierekim 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Belle K. Abbott
Hi Brian. I added the following notes to the Belle K. Abbott tak page. I hope they are useful. Please don't be put off, it takes a little while to get used to the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such there are a few rules and guidelines about what makes a good article. You're on the right track and I encourage you to keep contributing.

Generally Wikipedia articles should not be mostly/wholey composed of links to outside resources. Although Wikipedia is primarily a web-based encyclopedia today, it is intended that it will be published in other formats in the future. There is already a project to create a paper version. Wikipedia content is also widely distributed on other sites, some of which don't maintain URLs correctly. This means that a collection of weblinks isn't particularly useful as they may not be accessible from a particular version of ths article.

More importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopdia in its own right and articles should be self-contained. One reasons for this is that if the linked website changes or goes away, the quality of the information in Wikipedia stays the same. Imagine going to Britannica and finding an articl simply said "Read about this in the Kansas City Herald, June 16th. 1897 edition" - it wouldn't be very helpful :-)

I hope this helps you understand why we don't have articles that consist just of links to other sites. I don't think adding a stub would be enough - we need a substantial article on Belle Abbott to make this a Wikipedia article. Feel free to ask me further questions if I can be of any help. Best, Gwernol 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're helpful and I'm not put off at all. I'm just trying to help and learn the ropes. I've edited (well, mostly translated) one substantial article, created one substantial and one minor article and was just doing cleanup taskes (adding references, citations and then started on the Project Gutenberg project). I do understand, and see that it's better to get a few reasonably complete articles than lots of pages with just external links. I added some commetns on the Belle Abbott talk page and will update that page (and it's talk page) a little later.

Then I'll add a comment again to see if it's enough or best to just delete it for now.

Thanks again. Brian 12:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)btball

deleting entries and you are welcome
No, don't delete anything fromyour talk page. It does stay forever. Wikipeduia has a thing about keeping an open record. Glad I was able to help. I do not have my email activated so that all discourse is open for viewing. :) Dlohcierekim 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks again.

I'm learning the ropes :-) And I've made a few minor edits elsewhere - and happy to do more as I have time. Wikipedia is an incredibly great resource.

Brian 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)btball
 * However, you are free to archive talk pages. How to archive a talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Don't forget to sign your talk page posts and warnings with ~, so the user knows where it's coming from. Cheers! --NMChico24 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right, I did forget :-( It's been a very long day - probably time for me to stop editing for a while :-) (but first I'll go back and sign where I missed it) Brian 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Unionville High school
Sorry for talking so long, I almost missed your comments due to the large amount of complaints. The speedy tag said delete because it was empty yet there was quite a bit of material in it. I went to remove the speedy and saw the way it was laid out which looked like a copy and paste. Also the style of article's writing just looked like it had been dumped there. I don't really know how I figured it might be copyvio just that it looked as if it was. Must have magic powers or something! It came from here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yes, I suspect you get a 6th sense for things like that after a while :-) Brian 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Cycling Proficiency
Moron, check the edit history! Space Vampire 1337 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then
No worries Space Vampire 1337 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Btball! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Gl e n 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Warp Brothers
Hey. When you applied for a speedy deletion the first time, I reviewed the request and denied it! :) Please don't re-tag for CSD once a sysop has declined. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that - you'll see from the history that I realized myself that it wasnt a CSD and removed the tag I'd re-inserted. I didn't realize it was a sysop that had removed it in the first place though ... I didn't read the history well enough myself. There have been several times when an article I tagged as CSD had the tag deleted by the author (not a sysop) with no other change or information added to talk. Thanks for the help and the message. Brian 05:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Btball

Welcome messages
Just a heads up, I wanted to tell you to put welcome messages on the user's talk page, not their main page, as you did to User:Vmerengueli. Also, any template you use on a user page or user talk page should be substituted. You can do this by adding subst: after the first two braces like this–. Thank you. -- Will Mak  050389  19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew that, not sure how I made the mistake with User:Vmerengueli. I'll be more careful. Also, thanks for the subst tip --- I didn't know that ! :-)

Brian 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)btball


 * That's all right, just trying to help everyone out. If you have anymore questions or need help feel free to ask on my talk page -- Will Mak  050389  19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome?
While I most certainly appreciate the thought, I've been editing wikipedia as a logged-in user for over a year, and have over 500 edits to my name. Might I ask why you placed the notice on my page? --Eyrian 18:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no convention's been violated. I rather appreciate the sentiment. I was just surprised that I got a second welcome (I deleted the first one some time ago) over a year after I started contributing... Regards, --Eyrian 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir CK Chow --> Chow Chung-Kong
I've wikified and redirected this article to the full name. Please only tag articles about non-notable people with speedy deletion tags. Since he's the CEO of the MTR Corporation, I see no reason not to have an article on him.

If I remember correctly, I also saw you tagged it as needing wikification at the same time. Please don't tag for cleanup and deletion at the same time. Either tag as cleanup and give people time to do so or tag the really hopeless cases for deletion. Hope you keep this in mind next time you tag :) - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the very helpful feedback. Yes, I've tagged some articles as candidates for delete and in need of cleanup (in case admins decided that they weren't actually candidates for deletion). This one was borderline in my mind as it appeared to be somewhat promotional and being CEO didn't seem clearly notable to me. I'm still learning the ropes (stull a newbie) and I'm happy to get all the feedback. Yes, I'll keep the advise in mind :-) Brian 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Computer Help
The work should be able to be done with a simple algorithm but I do not know much about computer programming. What would need to be done is this: aah needs to be changed to aah. I have a page of over 1000 of these that needs to be converted like that one for one page. If you think you could help I could email you the list and more instructions. -- Will Mak  050389  19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is perfect! I couldn't find that function on Word. Alright you will want to post this here. Post it just after the A. This will make all of the links go to wiktionary and there will no longer be any red links. Thanks again for the help. Hope to talk to you again. -- Will Mak  050389  15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not showing up as posted, maybe you just previewed it and didn't save. Also, if you could show me where that regexp function is that would be great too. I might need to use it sometime later. Thanks again for the help. -- Will Mak  050389  17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just went there - to the "here" link above here, it's there for me. Here's a pretty good article on using regexp in Word

Brian 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Well, i guess that clears everything up. I hope we can chat again. -- Will Mak  050389  17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Message
Thank you very much for taking the liberty to post a welcome message on my subpage's talk page, although it should be noted that it wasn't exactly appropriate, seeing as I've been here for 19 months (and you posted it on a subpage). But thank you very much anyways. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 06:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Strong Breed
I removed the speedy delete tag on the above page, since it seems to be a legitimate article on a play by a Niergian author, albeit only a stub. If you still want it deleted, please list it at AfD or re-tag it. Travelbird 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy pile-up
Hi Btball! When an article is already tagged for speedy deletion, please don't add one or two extra speedy delete tags, as you did with Matt Chambers. The article will only appear once in CAT:SPEEDY and you're actually delaying the speedy delete process: the admin has to read the article and the history, so making both longer adds time to the process; and if you add extra stuff to an article whilst the admin is deleting it - as with Matt Chambers - the deletion process stops dead and the admin has to start over. Thanks. ➨  ЯEDVERS  13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reposted content
Hi again Brian!

If you see an article that was previously deleted after a discussion on WP:AfD, you can tag the article with  which will attract the attention of an admin. That's easier than reopening the AfD.

This only works if you have reason to believe that the article is the same or substantially the same as the deleted one (you may need to make an educated guess). Hope this helps! ➨  ЯEDVERS  10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy with the SD
Hi Btball. I'm curious why you marked the Nuala O'Loan article for deletion with this revision. IMHO I feel that bio stubs about public figures should be given a chance to develop. In fairness, your SD did prompt me to expand the article, but usually I'm not so speedy to respond :-) --Ekilfeather 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ekilfeather is right. I was too quick on the trigger with this one. I did not recognize Nuala O'Loan the shortness of the article which just said "Nuala O'Loan is the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland." led me to think it was a non-notable bio entry. It would have been better for me to have tagged it for expansion. Brian 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Hi Brian, thanks for the reply on my talk page. However, to clarify my remarks above, I wasn't annoyed with you. My opinion is that where article has a verifiable External Link and / or a link to a related article I think that it should be given a chance. That said, I think that SD patrolling is essential to keeping Wikipedia from ruin :-) Keep up the good work. --Ekilfeather 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You were right, I was too quick with the db-bio tag, and I learned something :-) I should have followed the external link. I'm still relatively new here and appreciate all the help in learning the ropes. Brian 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Ayr school
Thanks- my edit summary wasn't aimed at the person who had tagged it for deletion- I understand numbering points may have seemed a little crude, but I was simply trying to outline reasons for de-tagging. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande
As a mater of fact I have allready been welcomed :) and while I am not a veteran, I know more or less how to move around in Wikipedia. The name of this battle is relativly unknown (I found the name 5 mins ago). I looked in a lot of books and while everybody wrote that there was a battle between Caesar and Ariovistus none of them named it. I turned to the Internet and found it. Go to Google and type "Ariovistus" and "battle". I am currently improving the Gallic Wars, as I finish that I will improve the revelant battles. Flamarande 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography tag
Hi, just wondered what the autobiography tag that you put at Verne Langdon means as I am not familiar with it. Also, is there a page somewhere with a list of tags that might help me better categorise new pages with problesm? thanks for your help Mammal4 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

tags
thanks muchly, Mammal4 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

possible copyvio
Its my nomination. If you want, put a speedy delete on top. It's policy. And make note in the discussion area that if a Speedy is found to be warranted that whomever does that should also CLOSE the AfD appropriately. Another possibility is simply that it is autobiographical data, i.e. that the authors are the same as those whom hold the copyright, etc. Hope that helps. Collaborative International Study of Managerial Stress Ste4k 18:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian! I just wanted to let you know that in the AfD for Jim Catapano you need to use the same format as everyone else otherwise the computer won't recognize the votes. Start with an asterisk * then make it bold with three quote marks, then your vote, then unbold with another three quote marks. Hope this helps. :) Ste4k 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip! I voted on many of today's AfDs and got all the formatting right except this one. Thanks for catching it. Brian 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * I feel bad now. I thought you had. Maybe I should have pointed it out in a nicer way. Please accept my apologies. Thanks. Ste4k 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apologies. It's been quite a day today. :) Ste4k 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

talifan
After some thought, it may be more likely I stirred up a pocket of people who fell offended by the article. A page lock may be more meaningful than either mediation or arbitration, now thath the page has some meaningful length. New guy 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking copyvios during AfD
Reading through a recent AfD, I noticed that you said that you thought copyvios couldn't be blanked during an AfD. In fact, the guide to deletion states that copyvios are a specific exception (Guide_to_deletion). (That article couldn't be speedied under A8 because it was too old; however, blanking to replace with a copyvio notice is specifically allowed (although I would suggest leaving the AfD notice in place, just above the copyvio notice)). --ais523 10:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Toolstation article
Thanks Brian - I had looked if I could work out what to do myself, but I couldn't find it, and it was nearly hometime! Thanks for the welcome too, I was beginning to think I smelt ;) -Ladybirdintheuk 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Torrent finder
hi, i hope hyou can find time to vote in the deletion debate for article Torrent finder. The AFD can be found at Articles for deletion/Torrent finder (i noticed you had voted on a previous AFD for another torrent site). cheers. Zzzzz 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiktaalik roseae
Thank you for your edits to the article Tiktallik. There was a spelling mistake in the title of the article. The correct spelling for this fossil species is Tiktaalik roseae, and there is an article at Tiktaalik that you might enjoy reading. The name comes from the Inuktitut language of the Inuit people, so it isn't easy for many English-speakers to spell. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User :Cedricrichards
It looks like you just mistyped his username - the page landed at User:Cedericrichards instead of User:Cedricrichards. When I'm userfying a bio, I usually just open up the editor's user page and copy and paste the title, it's easier. -- Vary | Talk 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- Vary | Talk 15:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quidi Vidi Brewing
Hi again,

I think that maybe I cannoy justify the article under the WP:CORP rules, and would be happy to have it deleted for now. shorlin 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
Hey, just to let you know when you make edits with the comment "Limited spellcheck + minor fixes READ ME using AWB" your READ ME link is broken.--Konstable 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ryan Toby
You are free to AfD the article, but Ryan is a noted singer/actor/producer, having acted in Sister Act 2, sung with City high (who went platinum) and went on to produce for acts (such as Bobby Brown, Dru Hill and others), he deserves inclusion. When I created the article the last time, if there was a problem, I should have been notified. I am not a vandal, just a editor who is trying to make his part on this Wikipedia and I reject a label as such. Antares33712 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was *already* deleted by an admin (not me) and you reposted it. If you dispute the deletion then you need to use the disputed deletion process - it doesn't need AfD at this point --- as it was already deleted by an admin.

Brian 17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Hi, Brian. I'm afraid that's not true. I just came across this article while looking at the pages up for speedy. WP:CSD G4 (db-repost) only applies to articles that were deleted by the AfD or prod processes. Just because an article was speedied before does not mean it can be speedied again under CSD:G4. I've removed the tags, with no prejudice against a different speedy reason being used or you taking it through Prod or AfD. Thanks, Gwernol 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. And thanks for the explanation. Brian 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * No worries. To be honest I made exactly the same mistake a few times before I noticed the exact letter of the policy. Ahem. I think it actually makes sense the way it is - otherwise one mistaken speedy deletion would be almost impossible to recover from. At least Prod and AfD give editors time and a discussion space to improve articles before they are deleted. Good luck, Gwernol 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Thanks, Brian 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Your question re:sockpuppetry
I've answered you on my talkpage. If it's okay with you, I prefer to keep lines of conversation all on one page. Easier to read later. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  05:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed mistaken notice that I placed here via VandalProof
I had it pointed to my user page instead of the user page on which I intended to place a notice :-( Brian 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)btball

User:Jm083b
I question you use of the Template:behave for User:Jm083b. His edit was obvious anti-semetic and deserves at least a Template:vw or a Template:test2. Jon513 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't see the anti-semitic - I just saw two autobiographies (both have been speedy deleted), maybe I missed another article, although normally when I see an editor misbehave I check their entire contribution history to see if there are other problems that haven't been spotted yet. I also try to start with the most gentle warning appropriate - if I had seen something anti-semitic though, I agree a stronger warning would have been in order. Thanks Brian 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * I see now. I didn't see any other edits on the account, since they were speedied.  He made the anti-semetic comments after you left the messages on his talk page.  I only saw one edit so I asssume that you must have been referring it that.  My mistake.  Jon513 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm still new enough that I'm not always sure I'm using the most appropriate template, so I appreciated the comment. Brian 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * I often look that the "cheat sheet" - Template messages/User talk namespace. Jon513 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great tip! Thanks. Brian 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Critical Reading
Hi,

Although I am sure you meant no harm, there was an edit you made that concerned me. The whole paragraph appears to be strong defamation. Just a heads up to read articles critically, and to take a look at Libel. Thanks, GChriss 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm, all I did was fix a typo - just one word. If defamation exists, it wasn't done by me. Brian 23:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Funny, I got exactly the same message from GChriss. I only reformatted the text so it could be read more easily.  It wasn't pretty.  Schmiteye 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My only point is that we should all make a conscientious effort to remove such things on sight. (Please see a related discussion.) Thanks again, GChriss 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the point of deleting defamatory information when we realize it. Thanks for the clarification. Brian 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Response to user mograbber
Hi, I did leave some messages on your user talk page Billy Yeager's talk - which is the normal way we carry out conversations. You can leave me messages on my talk page too Brian's talk. Please let me know if there's anything that I haven't already answered on your talk page. Brian 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)btball

A recent edit of yours...

 * 01:29, 18 July 2006 Pathoschild (Talk | contribs) blocked "OFF WIKI PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE FUN (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 years (Inappropriate username, likely bad-faith account)

--ZsinjTalk 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was asking that user (too long of a name (and inappropriate)) to behave (because of the edit he made that appeared to be vandalism) and suggested a change of user name. Thanks for letting me know about the block. Brian 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Quick note - feel free to delete when done reading
Note that the replace list is actually updated daily - sometimes many times a day - to fix problems and add new words. These problems can be important. Please check for a new version each and every time you use AWB. Add a bookmark to the top of your favorites. That will ensure you always have the best, most complete, bug-free version. Or you can get the same exact version I'm using at that second by using Subversion. You get to see how I work, change, and develop the list, edit by edit, since it shows you the differences between versions. All old versions of the list can be shown so you can see the progress the list has made. If you need any help setting this up, it's actually really easy, I'd be glad to help you out. Download the latest releases all the time from the project page. Please update right now. Several problems have been found and fixed, and many many words have now been added. Current version as of this message: 0.0.4.9 --mboverload @
 * Thanks for the tip. Actually, I think I'll keep it here as a reminder - no need for me to delete it :-) Brian 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * In that case, I also have a weekly spamlist =D. However, just leaving it on your talk page might be an even better reminder. --mboverload @  04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with table
Hello, there is something wrong with this (Bridgnorth (UK Parliament constituency)) table. And I do not know what. Could you help? Thanks a lot. VM 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the mean time I have found the mistake. So, you can delete this. Thanks. VM 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, I was in the process of fixing it :-) I'll check the page in another window and if you've got it fixed, I'll cancel my edits - but if you want, I'll finish fixing it ... Brian 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)btball

For the further discussion look at User talk VM. (VM 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

A big pink chunk of kylu-thanks!

 * Thanks for all your support on my RfA, hopefully I do all my friends here proud. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - and I'd be proud to be your friend :-) Brian 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Talk page spellcheck
Could you not use your spellcheck on talk pages. Firstly I think it is better to see on talk pages what people wrote and how they wrote it. Secondly on user talk pages the users are notified that there is a message, when really it's just the spellcheck.--Konstable 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good point. Normally I filter out non-mainspace articles and unfortunately forgot this time :-( Thanks for letting me know. Brian 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Weekly AWB spellcheck changes - 0.0.8 and uberness
You are getting this weekly update because you are signed up on the spamlist for updates about mboverload's magical automatic typofixing settings for AWB --mboverload @ 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good news, I now have a new, fancy, professional wikipedia project page (READ EVERY LINE ITS A REQUIREMENT!!!) and an easy shortcut: [WP:RETF]. I have added every g word and EVERY variation of each word.  No, I'm not kidding.  I used the dictionary to look for every possible variation.  Took FOREVER.  =)
 * I have a cool new logo, too!
 * Bill Gates has offered me $1.3 million in venture capital. I'll be taking him up on that offer.
 * Important notice: It has been brought to my attention that several users were unable to open the zip files because they were "corrupted". They weren't corrupted, just using a compression style different than the crappy extractor built in to XP uses.  From now all all releases will be checked against the XP extractor.  Sorry guys.
 * Don't worry about the download size - it doesn't mean anything. It's the extracted size that matters.
 * Tell your buddies.
 * 0.0.8 is out - go update now.
 * John Connor thinks RegExTypoFix is the precursor to Skynet. Unfortunately for him, mboverload can dodge bullets...and molecules of tear gas.

WikiWoo
Hey Brian, I was wondering if you could come check out the dispute I'm having with WikiWoo on Susan Fennell. He's doing original research and citing Google search results as reliable sources! He simply will not listen to explanations of original research or what is acceptable as a source. Oz Lawyer  01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I'll do that. I just sent you an email, when I hit send on that, I saw this message. I'll look at the substance of the dispute and reply both here and your talk page (and probably WikiWoo's talk page as well). It might take me a bit to dig into the details, maybe later tonight or tomorrow as I'm pretty busy today with some family business. But I will read through all of it and will be glad to offer my opinion and help as much as I can. Brian 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Hi, I'm not sure if you're getting email; in any case I didn't get an email response. I did review the Susan Fennell article and made a change to the reference, substituting a better reference (IMO) and rewording the sentence about Susan Fennell's role in the NWHL to better reflect what I found. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to review or if you're satisfied with the article as it currently is written. Thanks Brian 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Can I finish Jay Ryan Please
Can you give me a day or so.. I just started about 20 minutes ago. meatclerk 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I just left a message on your talk page as well. I was just trying to move the discussion to the talk page (where it normally belongs) - but I'm quite willing to leave this along for a day or so and then check back. Thanks Brian 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball


 * I don't blame you or anyone else looking for speedy deletion, I been AfDing for the last two days... A lot of crap out there. Anyhow, after you someone else marked it for SD. I'm going to dinner. meatclerk 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha
Your page is mboverload. Wow. But nice. Alphachimp talk  03:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I need to finish the redesign and give credit both to mboverload and the person from whom he borrowed his design :-) I've modified it slightly but I still need to clean up my talk page, I'm not real happy with the look and feel of it yet ... but I've been spending most of my spare time running AWB, new page patrol and VandalProof.....Brian 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Stu Thomas auto bio for deletion
Just wondering if I should let it the article I started be deleted. I think the info is verifiable thru websites and common knowledge of underground music in Australia(Melbourne in particular )and worldwide scenes of similarity. What do suggest? I'm happy to let someone else edit down... Stu Thomas 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it *is* autobiography, right? And Wikipedia guidelines state that autobiography isn't accepted. So ... yes, you should just let the article be deleted via the prod (proposed deletion), or even better add the tag yourself. That's considered really top form :-) It may well be that an article about you is appropriate for Wikipedia ... you just can't write it about yourself. Sorry about that. But if you pass the notability guidelines WP:notability there should be *someone* willing to write a bio that would pass the notability and verifiability tests. Thanks for checking. I don't know enough about you, or your area of talent, to edit/write this myself, but I am happy to help with navigating the Wikipedia process. Brian 07:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Datamonitor
Hi Brian,

Thanks for helping User:Datamonitor with the Datamonitor article. I agree that there are notability concerns. However I think its a borderline case and probably needs to go to AfD to resolve. I see the user has just removed the Prod tag, so this is the right way to go. Best, Gwernol 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll probably AfD it myself - unless I can fix it. From what the article says and my reading of wp:corp is doesn't pass. From what User:Datamonitor says on your talk page (but not on the article's talk page) it might pass - if it made those claims of notability in the article itself. I think I'll add one more note on the her talk page and if I get the time see if I can help the article along. Thanks, Brian 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Let me know when you AfD. Clearly a promotional piece. meatclerk 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Datamonitor continued
Hi Jenny, I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to determine if this article meets WP:CORP or not. Right now, it seems not. I don't know about the Gartner article, maybe it needs to be improved or deleted too - but that's not really relevant to the Datamonitor discussion. First, I'm not easily reached by phone, I live in France most of the year and am travelling in the U.S. at the moment a discussion here is best, second best is email, I can be reached at btball@gmail.com - however this is a community consensus issue anyway - it's not my decision, I'm just one of thousands of editors. Link 2 does not meet the wp:corp guideline "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." It is a Nortel press release and mentions Datamonitor in passing. Datamonitor is not the subject, in that case, if a non-trivial published work whose source is independent of the company itself ... Link 1 just shows that Datamonitor is listed on a stock exchange - that doesn't satisfy any of the three criteria of wp:corp. Link 3 is the closest to meeting guideline 1 of wp:corp ... but it is only one reference and guideline one says "...multiple non-trivial published works...". Also, a clarification - we are not a "service" for letting people know about companies - Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia ... What qualifies as an entry in the Wikipedia encyclopedia is guided by verifiability and notability - in the case of corporations WP:CORP is the essential guideline and right now, it doesn't look like Datamonitor meets the criteria. You might also see WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not advertising ... and based on your statement above it seems to me that the reason you want this article here is to push people to your site (advertising). That's explicitly what Wikipedia is *not* about. I hope this helps. (will cross post on your page and article talk page as well) Brian 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Brian, I will WP:PROD Gartner. They appear non-WP:Corp. meatclerk 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gartner and Datamonitor
ok, I actually know a lot about Gartner (having been in the computer business for abt. 30 yrs - before PCs existed) and they probably *are* notable, being the first and best known independent industry advisor (along with IDC and followed by people like Forrester). But I read the article, and as written, I agree it should either be improved or go. PROD is a good start. I'm waiting on Datamonitor to give Jenny an opportunity to respond, but if she doesn't respond by tomorrow, I will AfD it. Thanks Brian 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Thanks for working on that. When I nominated it for speedy deletion it read a lot more like an ad. Czolgolz 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also formerly in the comp. business. Even worked for KPMG for a while. I'll vote it out also. meatclerk 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Datamonitor Article
Hi Brian

I have stripped the Datamonitor article down to the bare facts that i was previously told i was allowed to have up. So could you please remove the deletion and leave the article as it appears now Many thanks Jenny


 * Brian, obviously we can't remove the AfD, but I have cleaned up the Datamonitor article a bit and added some External links showing that their research is widely quoted. I've also added a Keep recommendation to the AfD since I believe the article now passes WP:CORP. Could you take another look and see if you agree? As I said in my comment on AfD, I've no connection to Datamonitor. Thanks, Gwernol 11:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't read like a blatant ad now. I'll go update the AfD with a weak keep. The second link is broken. The reason for weak keep instead of keep is that although I'm now personally satisfied about Datamonitor notability, the verifiability is still a bit weak - but that's ok, I expect it is verifiable and I may be able to help with that myself. My main concern (that it read as pure advertising) is resolved. Thanks for helping with this. Brian 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * No problem. I agree it needs (plenty) more work, and I'll try to do some of that. Sorry about the broken link, I'll fix it. Best, Gwernol 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Identity Crisis
Hello,

I am the children's book Author, Lisa Suhay. Teacher/Artist, Georgia Mason, did a writeup on me that is considered for deletion. I stumbled upon the entry on my Grat Grandfather, Morris Rosenfeld and wanted to add to that one, but saw the policy on not making entries on yourself.

A Ms. Mason offered to write it and add it in or post it, but she is even less Net savvy than I, so I signed her on to my account not realizing it would post to my name. I did give her permission to use the bio from my website and to use the texts from Amazon.com, CNN.com and the New York Times archival site for verification.

If this has violated the policy please, by all means delete the entry. It seemed to make sense to complete the family's literary history for those in search of more information, but I can see how it could cause issues.

I can't even figure out how to check my mail on this system, so I never saw yours until someone looking me up saw it was going to be deleted and e-mailed my website.

Please pardon any offense from a novice.

Lisa Suhay www.lisasuhay.com
 * Hi Lisa,


 * My only concern was that the article appeared to be autobiography (which is against guideline/policy). Thanks for confirming that it is not. I've changed my recommendation at the AfD (article for deletion) process from delete to keep based on this. It appears to me that the article will remain - the majority of the opinion is now keep. Don't worry about being a newcomer - we all start that way and Wikipedia welcomes newcomers. In fact, let me know if there's any way I can help. btw, I see no problem with your updating the article about your gg-grandfather as that wouldn't be autobiography either. Good luck, it looks like you're doing some very nice work in the world. I hope this hasn't caused you too much (dis)stress. Brian 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Your AfC reviews
Thank you for your reviews of articles submitted through Articles for Creation; they really help! Just one little request: When you leave notes to submitters explaining why you accept or reject their article, could you please sign them with ~ ? That makes it easier for the submitter (or other reviewers) to know who to ask any questions to. Thanks! Kickaha Ota 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I should have known that :-( Thanks for the reminder Brian 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * A few additional AfC suggestions:
 * When you decide that an article is a copyright violation, an attack, or patent nonsense, please delete the text of the article from the page; don't just add the reply template. (You'll know which articles to remove when you see that the template's text says "The article previously proposed here has been declined and removed from this page because...")
 * If someone proposes a redirect (or a disambiguation page, though that rarely comes up), don't bounce it for being unsourced; these types of pages have no real content of their own, so they generally don't need sourcing. (This came up in the "T72" redirect request that was submitted today; I wound up agreeing that the redirect shouldn't be created, but that was because the target article didn't say anything about the T72.)
 * Thanks again for your hard work! Kickaha Ota 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and thanks for the suggestions - I'll follow them. Brian 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Please accept this shiny object.

 * Wow! That's great. Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. Sometimes it's a little quiet around here :-) Brianbtball

Wot?
<== How on earth is that CSD!?!!!!!!!?!?

Also, please keep discussion to talk pages as opposed to editing my userpage please... Space Vampire 1337 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput concerning the issue,
however, the issue did not concern you, and I request that you allow me and the party involved to speak about the situation at hand. Thank you. Bearly541 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe, Wikipedia is open for everyone to view, comment and edit and in that sense the issue does concern me. I've removed the PROD - I also tagged the Christopher Corr article where I believe the facts need verification - or it will surely fail an AfD. You are quite welcome to list it for AfD if you want but once an editor removes a PROD, as TruthbringerToronto did, they're not supposed to be put back on again. See: "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." from Proposed deletion Brian 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Ahh, Brian, I see you got a lovely treatment from Bearly541 as well. I posted a question about his user page on his talk page  which he removed without comment, then I restored the comment, then replied to me with  and removed my comment again .  I replied on my talk page and just got another comment back from him.
 * I'm concerned about the way he's been rude to you, me, and TruthbringerToronto. He's been rude to an anonymous user on his talk page too.  What are your feelings on the situation?  Metros232 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I hate to interrupt the irrelevant chat, but as you can see with this user page,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sopranosmob781?diff=cur&oldid=prev) which was recently VANDALIZED, she tracks users. Also, I have the right to delete posts on my talk site which are deemed irrelevent or are not signed.  Okay, Toronto expanded the article, great;  however, in the future please TAG what you are doing, so that I and many other Vandalproof users will know what you are doing to WP pages.  Second, Metros please mind your own business concerning my talk page.  And, third, thank you bryan for the advice.  I guess I read it wrong.  Bearly541 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "however, in the future please TAG what you are doing, so that I and many other Vandalproof users will know what you are doing to WP pages"
 * Or in the future you might consider actually examining the edits that have taken place and not just blindly reverting and warning a user. Metros232 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the words of Americans, please STFU and monitor RC, Metro. You are not my mother. Bearly541 00:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Bearly541, do you really think that was civil? I see you're doing a lot of good work here and I also spend a lot of time on RC patrol, Newpage patrol and VandalProof myself, so I realize that sometimes it's easy to jump to an erroneous conclusion of vandalism... but we should still all assume good faith and be civil. Thanks, Brian 00:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:Bearly541, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Bearly541 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain how you think I vandalized a page. Your warning is in error - and in any case it would be the first warning not the fourth. Actually, your continued deletion of content on your talk page could be considered vandalism - it really is against Wikipedia standards. And your deletion of content from my talk page could also be considered vandalism. Please stop. Thanks Brian 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

This keeps getting more and more bizarre. Metros232 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you can't see that edit anymore, it was deleted. But, Bearly now says "This user no longer wants to be part of Wikipedia"...so, yes, bizarre.  Metros232 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel a little bad. I didn't think s/he needed to leave Wikipedia ... I wasn't even close to the point where I would have taken Bearly to arbitration (etc.). I was just trying to get him (her?, I'm not sure) to be more civil. It does look like Bearly was trying to do some good work - but s/he was mighty quick on the trigger with reverting user edits. I guess the main lesson to take is to be careful with powerful tools like VP (which I try to be - but this just reinforces it). I'll have to sleep on the overall exchange to see if there's a way we could have more gently guided Bearly back into civil and agf behavior before Bearly gave up and quit... Somehow this doesn't feel like a success :-(


 * Yeah, it definitely wasn't my intention either to drive Bearly away. At most I was starting to wonder if there was enough to ask for a review of the VandalProof rights on the account.  There was some overzealous use of it so it seemed.  At one point there was a self-revert  followed by a self-warning .  There were a lot of warnings being added that were final warnings on vandalism for accounts that hadn't edited in months until that edit that was reverted.  Interestingly, the user tracked how many accounts s/he was getting blocked...but not how many were being rejected at AIV.  And not examining Truthbringer's removal of a prod tag and just counting it as vandalism when it was a substantial improvement to the article is just careless.  But that's all I was thinking of doing, reporting for VandalProof abuse.
 * I was trying to stay civil myself and get Bearly to be less rude and incivil, but I just don't see how we could have accomplished it. Even when an admin stepped in to talk to Bearly it didn't go well at all.  Just an unfortunate situation.  Metros232 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we probably did the best we could. I need to sleep on it. You certainly stayed calm and civil throught the whole affair - part of why I sent you the sunflower :-) I agree - unfortunate. It's been nice working with you. Time for me to saw a few logs. Bye for now. Brian 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball

re talk page
im talking about the article itself. how the user got a warning for the edit made at the same time as another person and i think there was edit confusion. edits made at the time code of 1:26 and was labeled as vandalism --74.133.52.253 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

re message
so can the messages be removed from the --74.133.52.253 talk page or not?. earlier an edit was made and he left the warning on our talk page when it was suppose to go on the another ip's before that in the history and removed it when he realized his mistake.Thanks. I can see that were not the only ones he has done this to.--74.133.52.253 02:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New re message
The edit history shows two edits happening at the same time most likely reverting the same edit and possibly ours somehow canceled the other one out and reverted to the vandalism edit. I've experienced that happening before and noticed my mistake in time to change it. I could ask the person using this computer at the time if that was what they were doing to try to give you a clear answer. Thanks--74.133.52.253 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Billy Yeager
Subject i AM replying to the conversation about my site? Can you take a look I don't know where the proper place is to write and reply, but I am trying to learn, I have intention of hawking products or promoting myself like my space just trying to keep it real, that is why I re-wrote the whole bio I put up from the first time. Can I list this and how does one get a reply about these matters, it is not as if I have an in box here, let me know what I can do to contibute and be a part of this, I belive in the priciples here I have read them makes sense agree with all of it, let me know if you can how I can add a picture I treid to thoughtb I did but don't see it, soory if I took up your time here, I will also be deleting these silly messages keeping things clean 'Thank You Billy Yeager —Preceding unsigned comment added by mograbber (talk • contribs)

Get your userboxen
--mboverload @ 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

August 6th, 2006 WP:RETF update
Note you are getting this because you are signed up on the RETF spamlist Hey guys. Before I do anything, I have to thank all these people who have helped me make RETF more bug-free via my challenge to them on the Language noticeboard. Some were redundant lines, and some were words that probably never appear in Wikipedia, but as I said, I don't want any false positives in RETF. THANKS GUYS! Now for the fixes and suggestions put on the RETF page:
 * User:ColourBurst for finding 7 lines to fix
 * User:Road Wizard for finding another 13 lines to fix!
 * User:MeltBanana for finding 6 lines
 * User:Skittle for finding 3 lines
 * User:Nunh-huh for finding 1 line
 * 'behaviour' is a legitimate UK English spelling --Guinnog
 * 'councellor' to 'councillor' when 'counsellor' could be the intended word. --mattbr30
 * "Costal" is a real word, meaning "related to the rib" — Mets 501 (talk)
 * 'judgemental' to 'judgmental'. According to my dictionary, both are equally acceptable. mattbr30
 * 'Adaptions' to 'Adaptations'. JoeSmack Talk
 * repond and variants -> respond --Guinnog

RETF development
I don't know what to say really. Something has come up and I might not be able to continue to update RETF after the next week or so.......I have put in countless sleepless nights of just me, my computer, and a case of Rockstar energy drink working on this. It has made me feel that I really am a devoted Wikipedian.

I have developed RegExTypoFix from a little hobby of mine into a full SourceForge project. I told a friend that I’ve worked 50 development hours in all. I have a really bad sense of time, but I’m sure it was more. I won’t lie, I am very proud of my work. Hopefully this will be used long after I leave.

To ensure that, I need a person/people to become admins on the RETF project. I don’t ask that you do anything but fix any errors that people report. There is a bit of a process to doing this, but I can teach you. Please send me a message on my talk page. Please my close friends only please, I hope you understand that I want to 100% trust this person. However, I might just hand it off to User:Bluemoose, as if he didn’t have enough on his plate =D.

Download + more
To keep an eye on RETF, you can use  and it will produce the box you see here =D. When AWB updates, I can turn it green on command =P

Extract  from the zip file either using the zip extraction tool provided with XP or use 7zip.

Under the new system that Martin (User:Bluemoose) developed Typos.xml is separate from the settings file. This way it can be easily swapped out and doesn't interfere with your own personal find and replace settings. Put it in the AWB directory. It is loaded automatically when you start AWB.

In addition, each Typos.xml file comes coded with a version number. Perhaps in some future release AWB will be able to check to see if there's an update for you!

The latest version is not built into AWB, you will have to download it here Just updated a few minutes ago. --mboverload @ 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Jayram Menon initiated by you.
The AfD resulted in a delete - due to non-verifiability. The basis of this was solely on the number of hits that was got through a Google search. Right? I have found a newsitem which has a feature about this person. Does this acknowledge the notability and verifiability of the individual? . This was featured in the 2nd Aug 2005 and the news paper - Hindustan Times can be contacted for its verifiability. How can the deletion of the article be put up for a review. That will be fair on your part since you initiated the AfD.AshleyMiller 08:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ashley, No, the basis wasn't soley the number of Google hits. It was WP:BIO. There wasn't a single verifiable fact in the article that met any of the criteria documented there.
 * For example "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" (From WP:BIO).
 * Can you either make a higher quality scan or send me a link to the article in HT. I can barely read it. From what I can read the article establishes that he's a venture capitalist - but in itself that's no notable. He's not the subject of the article so it's not "... primary subject of one of multiple non-trivial published works...". But maybe I'll have a different opinion if I can read the entire article. The so-called "Google test" in WP:BIO states that perhaps a few hundred hits would be sufficient - but you might want to read all of WP:BIO including all of the Google test. My main concern was that little of the information in the article was verifiable - none of it by any sources supplied within it. My secondary concern was notability, even if all of the information had been verifiable I don't think it met WP:BIO.
 * There are two options for either re-establishing the previous article or posting a new one.
 * 1. You can request a deletion review, citing the HT article as new information. See But before you do that, you might want to read the entire Undeletion Policy. My guess is that the HT article is insufficient for an undeletion request to be successful, but maybe after I can read the entire article I'll have a different opinion. If the article convinces me that Jayram is notable and the noteworthiness is verifiable then, sure, I'd be willing to start the undeletion process.
 * 2. You can write a new article about Jayram Menon stating why he is notable and supplying the sources that verify that. If you take this path, please put comments on the talk page also explaining that it is a new and different article from the one that was deleted per AfD or someone is likely to tag it for speedy deletion as . If you want to take this option, I suggest that you make statements within the article that conform to the criteria in WP:BIO. For example (if true) you might say something like "JM was the subject of the following five articles that discuss his contributions in ..." and then cite those articles (five is not a magic number, I'm just using it as an example - WP:BIO says "multiple". In fact, if you want to create a new article and you have the sources that establish JM's notability you might want to start in in a temporary subpage in your userspace. If you do that, I'd be happy to review it and comment.
 * I hope this helps - if you can send me better scan, I'd like to read the entire article. Thanks, Brian 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Thanx Brian, I may try write a "new" article about JM only when I get enough references., now that the article is deleted for good., there would be no way to retrive the deleted contents if in case at some point in time I come across some relevant information about this guy. Are the deleted stuff archived somewhere? I would try to get a better scan of this article plus a few more that has come my way. Cheers.AshleyMiller 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian, I have managed to get a better scan of the specific section of the page, My point is this., if the person was not notable, a newspaper like Hindustan Times with circulation of over 5-10million would not ask for Jayram Menon's opinion on venture capital scene in India. That does prove that the individual is notable. There are many more such articles which are featured in Economic Times and other leading financial dailies in India. It's somewhat ironic that such print articles don't feature in a google search. Anyways., here is the link - AshleyMiller 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new scan - it's readable this time. However, it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the AfD, and I doubt it will change the outcome of the deletion review. Thanks for all your hard work. Brian 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Mike Barson AfD
I'm a little confused by the process you followed. If you disagreed with the PROD, all you had to do was delete it (preferably with a comment on the talk page). Normally, when you list an article for AfD it means you want it deleted - but in this case your entry says "weak keep". I guess we'll get a community consensus out of this ... but I would hav e just started with deleting the PROD. I personally don't know enough to be able to determine if Mike Barson is notable or not - just that the article as written doesn't support verifiable notability... ThanksBrian 19:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realize that. What I meant was I slightly disagree. I wanted to bring it to AfD so see what the community thinks.  —  Mets 501  (If responding, please do so on my talk page) 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bearly
Hi Brian, just let it be, we'll see what happens. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not coming back, just cleaning up articles. Cheers! -- Bearly541 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

articles for creation
I've noticed that you've reviewed many article submissions on Articles for Creation. Thanks. However I've also noticed that you've replied above the submitted text on many of them. It's generally a convention to reply below the text to preserve the chronological order. Harryboyles 11:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. I'd seen others do it both ways, so wasn't sure. In fact, I've done it both ways. I'll go back to replying after the text. Thanks for the help. Brian 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Gandharism.
Thanks for your speedy and informative reply. Despite the fact that there are no internet references, is it possible to list books and literary texts as references? I ask this because there are actually several texts concerning the land of Gandhara which mention Gandharism as a branch of Buddhism which originated in Gandhara. Well, thanks in advance! Caitu 10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Caitu

Untravelled Road
Thx for the explanation - I hadn't realized they linkspammed a bunch of articles. I'll consider if the benefits offered by the site outweigh their obvious disregard for common decency, not to mention wikipedia rules, by spamming the articles -- Trödel 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion of spam
Hi, I'm just referring you to a site you recently edited in which you deleted a link to a website and I wanted your input. The discussion is on Talk:St. George, Utah. If you feel the site in appropriate, an explanation will keep others from reading the site.

--Nate 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks, I wrote an explanation on the Talk:St. George, Utah page. Brian 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Shorthaired women and longhaired men
Thanks for your polite inquiry. I posted the original quote (didn't notice I'd been logged out) and then reverted it after you took it out. The quote is an interesting and colorful remark about the cultural impact of hairstyles and therefore, by my way of thinking, belongs in an article about hairstyles. I thought that putting it next to an assertion that short-haired women were considered liberal in the 20's pretty much underscored the point by noting that a 1920s evangelist did exactly that. I put a comment on talk page noting what I had done. Best regards, Ortolan88 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

um
Why exactly did you break the link to the AfD ?--172.130.227.58 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know that anons can't create pages?--172.130.227.58 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually I was in the process of fixing up the link and the entry when I got your message... Brian 18:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * And, btw, I didn't break the link - the link that was there was wrong and I was fixing it. User:Fan-1967 fixed it while we were talking though :-) Brian 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Probability space
Thank you for asking for references at that article. I would argue however that the sources request belongs at the bottom of the article (where the references should be). I understand that it would be less visible that way, but it would also be less obtrusive there, I would beleive. Wonder what you think. You can reply here, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the sources tag can go either place. I tend to put it at the top when there are no source at all for the article - I want it to be obvious. If there's just a section that needs sources then I put the tag there - if it's just a single sentence then I use the fact tag. But it's not a big deal - I see you moved it, that's fine with me. It's a nice article and I'd hate to see it be deleted as original research. Sources would help ensure that it's not deleted and an eye-catching tag at the beginning might encourage someone to supply sources (that was my theory), but I agree it's less obtrusive at the bottom. If I get a chance I might see if I can dig up some sources for the article myself. Thanks Brian 01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 * In all probability, we have no significant disagreement. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment "to keep calm"
I am the first to promote calmness and civility but I think people should check their accuracy before attacking others. This User David Oberst has without any merit said that I was pretending to be MathStatWoman - I think that is below the belt – It's easy to get the IP addresses checked before accusations like this. Anyway thanks for some refreshing words – Have a wonderful time and be Happy! MxM Peace 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian, FYI, User:MxM Peace has been established as also being User:Ksingh20 (by Fred Bauder, here). As Ksingh20 managed to recreated a deleted article using the same text as User:MathStatWoman, if not an actual sockpuppet there is certainly some meatpuppetry or logrolling going on. I've collected my notes at here if you are interested. - David Oberst 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for adding that banner it will let other give attention this.Yousaf465
 * You're welcome - but I'm not sure exactly which article you mean, I've been reviewing a lot of articles lately :-) Thanks, Brian 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)btball

AfD Nomination: Marion Cohen
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marion Cohen, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. I'm relisting this on procedural grounds as the earlier AfD was closed early. Espresso Addict 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... but I believe the reason the earlier AfD was closed early was that I discovered that the article was a copyvio. I put that information on the talk page of the article when I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio ... This version appears to have all the copyright violating information stripped out, so I suppose this AfD should run its course. My opinion (FWIW) is that the current version is a non-notable bio with no sources supporting notability and I've expressed my opinion in the AfD. Tomorrow, I'll check further to make sure this isn't still a copyvio. Thanks Brian 04:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Thanks for clarifying. The existing article doesn't look like copyright violation, and the subject has commented positively on the talk page so one might assume any remaining lifts from her website are with permission. Espresso Addict 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm satisfied that it's no longer a copyvio. Thanks, Brian 05:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball

mistaken accusation on 'lynn martin' entry
i was cleaning up some previous vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.129.160 (talk • contribs)
 * ok, sorry about that. I'll go edit the note. Brian 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * actually, the logs show that there was vandalism from someone at this (66.66.129.160) IP address. The most recent edit from that address was cleaning up vandalism but the prior edit was actual vandalism... Are you sharing that IP address with someone else? Brian 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Unless I'm misreading this diff? In which case, I apologize, and need to learn how to read the diff. Brian 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * ok, it looks like it was my mistake, it took user:66.66.129.160 multiple edits to clean up all the vandalism and the above diff made it look like one of the edits was vandalism itself. Sorry. Brian 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Lupin
I am unaware of the spellcheck tool. Vandalism reversion is based on human judgment and should definitely stay in your primary account together with the rest of your human-directed activity. AWB edits are one click away from running a bot, and RfA candidates have been penalized recently for flooding their contribution histories with AWB edits, which RfA voters obviously discount. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at User:Lupin/Live spellcheck. I'll think about this one - it's different than AWB, less like running a bot, so maybe I'll keep it in my main account too. As soon as I finish confirming that I've cleaned up the "accept*" mess, I'll switch AWB over. Thanks Brian 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Taken a liberty
I am guessing this is a lot better. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I should have thought of that. Yes, much better. Brian 07:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

"acceptabnce" (sic!)
uh oh FYI - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I've fixed that one and am in the process of searching everything I've changed with AWB to see if there are more (A Google search didn't find any, but I want to be sure). I'll also go look at the RETF list to see if I can determine how this snuck in... Thanks again, Brian 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * ok, I found the bug in the RETF typo list and fixed it (I hope). Brian 05:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * NP. Deletion wasn't necessary - I think if you had just removed the "b" from the resulting entry, it would have been fixed. Incidentally, search for "acceptabble", because I think there ought to be those as well given the former design. Are you interested in adminship? (Not now, in general.) I think you would make a great candidate given what I've seen about you - but if so, you need to start a sockpuppet to run AWB on because it's crowding out your human-made edits. If you do that, I would be happy to investigate you for adminship at a later date. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do the search for "acceptabble" too. Yes, I think that eventually adminship makes sense for me. I do some vandal fighting and have a fair understanding of copyright issues (IP issues in general) from my professional background - admin capability would be useful for both of those. I don't feel ready yet, from what I've seen of RfA, it would be deemed "too soon" - also probably not enough work on good articles and feature articles yet. Good suggestion about setting up a separate AWB account, I'll do that. Thanks again. Brian 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Yes, it is too soon to stand, as I made clear, but not to split off the AWB work. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that all instances of acceptabnce or acceptabble have been fixed. I checked all of my edits and also did a Google search against all of Wikipedia. Brian 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

I think I am justified
for asking for citiation regarding The Office's status as a comedy. It's more of a tragedy, but I'm sure there are a lot of reliable sources out there that will cite it as a comedy. I am merely asking for that citation to be present. 82.42.246.156 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not why I did the revert. I reverted to the last edit before any edits from your IP address because the article had been vandalized by this IP address with an inappropriate image. That's what the reversion and warning was about. I'm fine with the request for a citation, if you put that back in the article I wont' revert it. Since the vandalism came from your IP address you might want to consider opening an account. Brian 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, and I am grateful for your advice. I must apologise about the offensive image, and only hope that the situation does not repeat itself in the future.

Howard Roughan article
I noticed that you reviewed the facts in my Wikipedia article on Howard Roughan. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could tell me how long it generally takes for an article to be published after it has been reviewed.

Thanks for your help.
 * Hi, If you register an account then you can publish an article right away. Unfortunately, articles for creation, where unregistered users can propose an article, has a significant backlog. In any case, when I reviewed your submission I determined that it did not meet Wikipedia notability or verifiability requirements and so declined the submission. You might want to read guidelines for biographies, notability requirements and verifiability requirements. If, after reading those guidelines and standards, you want to submit the article again, you're welcome to contact me and I'll review it quickly. Brian 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Hairstyles
I thought about it some more and moved the Billy Sunday quote up into the "History" section of Hairstyles, which I also beefed up a bit. Ortolan88 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job, it's much clearer this way (IMO). Thanks, Brian 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

 * Thanks so much for your really nice defense of me. It made my day :). alpha Chimp  laudare 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoax Calls
Hi Brian, just to clarify my comments on the ip's talk page as well as at WP:HD, the previous picture was added by User:Nicholasink, a contributor of featured pictures, way back in June. The picture was deleted at some point after that. The ip seems to be firing hoax calls as there was another similar one (from a different ip) just minutes after that which too was a hoax call -- Lost (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi LITR and Thanks, I am confused. I saw the HD entry and went to the article - indeed, there was an offensive picture there. I first simply deleted the image entry in the infobox and then found the old russian tortoise image and fixed up the infobox. It had to have been today, shortly after I deleted the "Testudo horsefieldii.jpg" entry in the infobox of the Russian tortoise article that the entire image was deleted (rather than reverted to the old Testudo) but I can't find the tracks of this in the log. It looks like a vandal is replacing images with the penis image on the stingray article (now protected), the steve irwin article and the russian tortoise article. I was hoping to track down who was replacing the images --- but the images are being deleted, with no log entry that I can find, faster than I can find who replaced them with the penis image. I'd like to find who's doing the vandalism and at least warn that user... Thanks, Brian 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)btball
 * In that case, maybe we should take this to the admin noticeboard, as the vandal may be replacing many other images in good articles. Thanks for clarifying -- Lost (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin image
Hi, I believe you deleted the Steve Irwin image this morning because it was no longer being used. It looked to me that it had been vandalized (replaced with an offensive image) and I edited the Steve Irwin article removing the image link. I then went to the image hoping to determine the vandal from the loges - but the image had already been deleted. Do you still have access to the logs for this image? If so, can you determine the vandal and either warn or block (as appropriate)? ...Thanks, Brian 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Hello! The file that I deleted was a local copy of an image from the Wikimedia Commons (uploaded here to allow it to be protected while it was shown on the main page).  When I deleted it (because I replaced it on the main page with a cropped version), we automatically fell back to the file from the Commons.  It was after this point that one or more parties apparently vandalised the image at the Commons.  I'm not a sysop there, so I can't view the deleted versions or ascertain exactly who did what.
 * Feel free to contact a Commons administrator . In particular, Ed g2s is the sysop who deleted several versions during the time frame in question.  Later in the day, Thuresson deleted an additional version.  I hope that this information is helpful.  &mdash;David Levy 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, that was helpful. It looks like the users involved in the vandalism have been blocked now - although two of them were anon IP users, so they may just come back on another anon address. The article that was the main (but not only) target is the Steve Irwin article and it's been semi-protected several times today. It looks like there are plenty of eyes watching out for this now :-) Thanks again, Brian 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)btball

List of three letter words
The list (List_of_three_letter_English_words) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com. No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Some people think these websites should encompass the same scope of a book- we don't. Good luck with your endeavors!Joe 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks, although I created it, I did so at the request of another user (User:WillMak050389) and really have no investment in it. At the time I created it, I was pretty new here - I actually agree that it probably doesn't belong here and your suggestion is a good one. I'll contact the original editor that requested my help in creating this article. Thanks for letting me know. Brian 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)btball

woody
It is on my user page and cited, so you'll have to just leave it be. Here's a snippet from the article that you might be interested in. Justforasecond 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

''On Aug. 4, 1992, a babysitter claims she saw Allen kneeling in front of Dylan, who was sitting on a couch in the den of the Bridgewater home. Dylan was wearing a dress, but no underpants. She stared blankly at the TV screen. The babysitter told authorities she noticed that Allen's head was between the girl's legs, very close to her crotch.

''Over the course of the following 13 months, Dylan would tell her mother, psychologists, doctors, social workers and police that Allen touched her - with the tip of his right index finger - several times that day.

''After the couch incident, the child's account has Allen taking her up to the master bedroom and into a crawl space for some father-daughter time to play with a train.

''"He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over."

''"I didn't like it," she continued. "Daddy told me not to tell and he'd take me to Paris, but I did tell."''
 * So the article says ... That doesn't make it true and Allen was cleared of all charges. FWIW, I don't intend changing "your" user page ... but you might want to read WP:OWN. The way you've stated it is close to libel, in my opinion, and I wouldn't state it that way. OTH, if I, or any other editor, did think it was libel, we should remove it per WP:BLP. I won't be surprised if some other editor decides it needs to be rephrased. You might want to read WP:UP as well. It's true that Wikipedia traditionally gives wide latitude to content on user pages, but you don't own it and content that is clearly libelous or defamatory should be removed and may be removed by any editor. Brian 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Denise Paolucci DRV
Thank you for being open to discussion. I've submitted to the proper page and presented the case as best I could. I did provide external links in the article to evidence of discussion on the internet and a google search turns up numerous hits. TheQuandry 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Kathmandu
Hi Brian, I was aware of the two AfD's. The author sent me a message that there was more information that he had on establishing notability, and I thought I'd give him a chance. I've userfied things for him to give him a bit of time. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 05:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Brian 11:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Thank you and help please
Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Wikipedia and inviting me to return. You explained that the way to handle disputes is not by leaving, but this is what happened when I attempted to edit again, and I am intimidated and frustrated:

I had truly planned to stop editing Wikipedia. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.

This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.

The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least :two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page)  and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia again.

Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Wikipedia, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?

Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Wikipedia and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by  User:  Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".

However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Wikipedia operates.

To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:

1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?

2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?

3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?

4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and  User:  Chan-Ho Suh  and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?

5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?

6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.

7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as  User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?

8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)

9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.

But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Wikipedia, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.

I suspect that this experience that I have had on Wikipedia has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Wikipedia should be.

Sorry for the long message, but Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.

Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Wikipedia, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.

Thank you again. MathStatWoman 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is a lot to respond to in one go. I have a lot going on in real life (I'm dealing with a death in my family), so will respond to this a little at a time. Please bear with me. First, if you are returning, I suggest changing your user page and talk page. I think it would be a good idea for you to put a notice on both that you have decided to return, that you've never have violated WP:Sock and don't intend to, but that you do login from a shared IP address and that you intend to abide by WP:Civil and encourage others to do so as well. I encourage you to set up an archive of your talk page (see WP:Archive) such as I, and many other Wikipedians have. Nobody (including you) should delete content from your talk page. If others do, it is generally considered vandalism. Wikipedia does accept an editor deleting content from their own talk page (except recent warnings - that is considered vanadalism) but it is frowned upon --- it is much better to simply archive old discussions. You might consider advocacy or another form of dispute resolution. I don't have much more time right now but will respond, at least briefly, to some of your numbered points above.
 * 1. Up to you. I recommend signing in and seeing that you have messges waiting. But anon reaing and anon editing is also acceptable. I always sign in.
 * 2. Yes, absolutely, you are welcome to re-join. In that case, see my suggestions about your user page and talk page above.
 * 3. Well, I don't think you're "dishonest" and a "liar" and don't think it was particularly civil for an editor to have said that. Personally, I wouldn't worry about those comments. Just modify your user and talk page and move forward.
 * 4. Vandalism is never accpetable. Having said that, I didn't notice any vandalism on your talk page. If I had, I'd have reverted it and posted a warning on the talk page of the user that did the vandalism. If I get a chance, I'll go review your talk page and see what I think, but as I said above, real life is keeping me quite busy right now, so it may take me a while.
 * 5. See WP:Sock. This one may be more than I can fully address right now, but I'll take a stab at it. Some of the dialog in one of the AfD discussions looked like possible sockpuppetry ... but there is a process for determining if an account is a puppet or a master and I don't know if that process was ever followed. Some admins (btw, I am not an admin) have the ability to check user IP addresses and the suspected sockpuppet process involves one of those admins reviewing log records and using special tools to determine if an account is deemed to be a puppet or a master. Again, I don't know if that process was followed in your case or not. If not, the allegations should be removed.
 * 6. I'm not sure of the process for removing the tag. You could follow one of the dispute resolution processes I cited above, or simply put a on your talk page asking this question. If you are not a confirmed puppet or puppet master then the tag should be removed. If/when I get time I could review this and if you're not a confirmed puppet or master I can probably remove the tag (I don't think it requires an admin to remove the tag) ...but don't wait for me - I will be very busy for the next week dealing with the death in my family.
 * 7. I think I've covered this above. See WP:Civil as well as the above cited dispute resolution processes.
 * 8. Articles (btw, they aren't "yours" see WP:OWN) that you initially edited, have been deleted for a variety of reasons. Some were found to be Copyright violations, in fact, I believe I determined that a few were simply cut-and-pasted from other websites (a de facto copyright violation) and submitted them for review as suspected copyright violations. Some were deleted pursuant to the articles for deletion process. I know I posted a number of the relevant policies and guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable article (verifiable, Notable, not original research, not a copyright violation, etc.). If an article is submitted to AfD and there's a community concensus to delete it, it is deleted. There is a process for deletion review (see deletion review). I'm not aware of information that you submitted with citations having been deleted from an existing article. If you provide diffs (see WP:DIFF), I'll be happy to take a look when I have time.
 * 9. I can't speak for other editors. If you respond to me here (and I'd prefer to keep this dialog on this talk page) then other editors are free to edit with their comments. That's the Wikipedia way. If they do so in an uncivil fashion then I'll ask them to be civil.


 * ok, that's all I have time for now. Please read the articles I've linked to above. I encourage you to remain and make a positive contribution as I believe you have a lot to offer. I've seen other editors get off to a rough start and ultimately figure out the rules-of-the-road (and the culture!) becoming valuable and valued contributors. I'm sure that can happen with you as well. I'll continue to help as I can. Brian 16:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)btball

AG pics
Thanks for de-orphaning. I didn't have the cojones to do so myself. Did Jimbo ever reply, do you know? I'm gonna go check... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, No Jimbo hasn't replied yet. The thread at AN/I seems inconclusive to me. My reading of the policy is that until a replacement photo can be found, that a fair use photo is ok - so I de-orphaned the photos. Even Jimbo's July statement in which he says his position is extreme and not policy says "random celebrity" ... well, I don't think AGs are "random celebrities". I think the part of the AN/I thread which suggest a project for diligently finding images that are "more free" is a good one and I think in situations like the AG articles a promophoto is fine until such a replacement is found ... but it's clear that other editors disagree (citing Jimbo), so my reverts could still be reverted... Brian 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Re:

 * Actually, recreating a PROD'd article counts as contesting the deletion, or at least that's what consensus seems to be. Since this is technically a different article I'll let the PROD stay up... but the article did assert importance ("leading developer of Mobile and Hand Held") so I didn't really feel speedy deletion was a good idea. Anyway, being a recreation of a PROD'd article isn't a reason to speedy delete either. --W.marsh 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm, that's not what happened. There was a redirect to a PROD article and the PROD article was deleted. Nothing was recreated ... I then added a db-empty to the redirect, which you removed ... It was never a recreation --- just an orphan redirect. Thanks, Brian 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Ideaworks3D
Hi Btball, I've removed the WP:CSD:G4 tag on Ideaworks3D since G4 doesn't apply to articles that have been previously deleted using Prod or CSD, only those that are recreated after an AfD. I'd suggest taking Ideaworks3D to AfD if you still believe it should be deleted. Thanks, Gwernol 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was deleted as a copyvio --- and it is *still* a copyvio. And it was recreated after having been deleted as a copyvio. I'll just take it the copyvio path ... Thanks, Brian 16:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation. Unfortunately CSD:G4 only applies to articles deleted after an AfD. The Ideaworks3D article was, as you said, speedied as a CSD:G8, so isn't eligable for G4. The current Ideaworks3D doesn't appear to be a copyvio, at least its not a copyvio of the same text it was before. I think it needs to be taken to AfD as its not clear to me if its a notable company or not. Good luck, Gwernol 16:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. I'll try the PROD first. It all seems like a lot of effort for what was a redirect to an article already deleted by PROD. Shouldn't the redirect have just been deleted? If the PROD fails, then I'll try AfD. Thanks! Brian 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btball
 * You should not arbitrarily revert an article to a known bad state when the current version is at least much better. If this is a copyvio can you say what the source of the copyvio is. Its not obviously from the Ideaworks3D site. Thanks, Gwernol 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but there is still some confusion about the history here. This was a broken redirect (because the article it was redirecting to was deleted via PROD). I mis-tagged it as db-empty instead of db-redirectnone. When the db-empty was removed by another editor, he also removed the redirect restoring a very old version of the article. I wasn't trying to arbitrarily revert to a known bad state ... I was trying to get it back to before the confusion I started so that the redirect could be appropriately deleted. But there is too much confusion now and I am quite willing to just let the PROD stand. Thanks for you efforts and again, my apologies for all the confusion. Brian 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btball

???
What am I doing that is such a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by target0 (talk • contribs)
 * I just went back through your logs and certainly don't see anything inappropriate. It looks like it was my mistake. I'll remove the warning from your page - I'm not sure, at this time, what I spotted but it looks like I indicted the wrong user. Please accept my apologies. Brian 16:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Hmmm, actually, I think I see it now. Pink is a "her", right? At least that's what it says when you follow the link in the Kool-Aid article that you edited on August 28th. You changed "her" to "his" and I reverted your change, then placed the warning on your user page. I'm pretty sure that's why I placed the warning on your page (now removed, this is pretty minor and probably just a mistake based on what I see of all your other edits). Brian 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)btball

3RR
Hi. Please take 3RR disputes to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, not WP:AIV, because it is solely for clear-cut vandalism. thanks, AdamBiswanger1 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

Hello?
So you wanted me to state my cite my edits. I did that. You wanted me to cite my facts. I've done that. What the hell is wrong with you? Stop reverting my edits. 65.95.113.102 03:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find where your citation supports your claim. Your claim is, itself, pretty extreme and should be supported by a citation. Please be more specific about where in the citation it states that one of Francis Marion's favorite pastimes was hunting native Americans. Brian 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

WP:AIV
You just reported AntiVandalBot to WP:AIV, which I have removed. I think you meant to report someone else. -Patstuart 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was trying to report an anon IP. I'll try again, thanks. Brian 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)btball

Re: vandalism warning
May I ask what I did? Because I thought I was reverting vandalism, not writing it... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just saw that you removed the warning. Mistaken identity, I presume? -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I screwed up using the VandalProof tool. I was trying to warn the anon IP vandal that you reverted but warned you instead. I noticed it immediately and reverted - and then *did* warn the anon IP vandal. Again, sorry for the goof. Brian 03:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)btball


 * It's alright. No harm done. I also blocked the vandal in question for 48 hours for vandalism soon after. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anaraug! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter
NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
 * Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
 * Give people the Civility Barnstar.
 * Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
 * Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
 * Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian ¹³  /t  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Oliver de marche
Hi, I guess you were just translating this article from french, but I came across it while categorizing. It needs an explanation of what a matire'd hotel was in the 1400s. this article links to the modern version of matire'd as in head dude in a restaurant. thanks. Scarykitty 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Signing Articles
As you are an experienced editor, I realize it was probably a mistake, but please do not place yoursignature in articles when tagging them for maintainence as you did at Bunny Yeager. Thanks. Goodnight mush Talk  17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right. I was away for a while and am a bit rusty. Brian 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)btball

Questionable articles
Hey Brian, just read your post on the Bunny Yeager talk page. While I disagree with your conclusions, I see that your edits were entirely well intentioned and I'm glad we could work together. I'd like to direct your attention to a list that fellow photography editors have compiled regarding questionable articles. These articles basically need someone to champion their continuation by researching points or need someone to follow-through and push the article towards deletion. Believe me, when you dig into some of these subjects, you will find persons much less notable than Yeager with much more spam and much more self-promotion. The list is at Questionable article list. See ya around, TheMindsEye 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Brian 08:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)btball


 * And thank you for your good work on them so far. But NB some of them are listed merely because they, the articles, are questionable, although their subjects are known to merit articles (though not the articles they have so far been given). -- Hoary 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. That's why I read each one carefully and took what I deemed the appropriate action in each case. Some I prod'ed, some I speedy'd, some I eliminated POV and spam, some I just commented on the talk page --- it really depended on the article. They ranged all over the map - as I recall, two complete copyvio's, one partial copyvio, two reposts that were speedy'd, one repost that was actually an acceptable rewrite, so I left it alone (or mostly alone, I'd have to go back and check). I hope I've helped, that was certainly my intention. Brian 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)btball


 * You're doing fine. I'm not checking everything you're doing (even if I wanted to do this, I'd risk accusations of "wikistalking"!), let alone keeping score, but I get the impression you've got an 80% hit rate. Experience will soon have that rise to 90%. Please keep on at your work. -- Hoary 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have a little over 4000 edits here ... and two barnstars ... but I did take an extended wikibreak so it could well be that I'm rusty ... let's see, if 4000 = 80% then I'll need 4500 to reach 90% ? No problem, I'll keep on trucking :-) Seriously though, I think we only disagree on one thing and that's the reading of WP:LINKS ... I'll keep deleting what I see as spam but I won't get into revert wars ... and eventually there'll be some discussion that will clarify the community's thinking about this. In the meantime it's not a problem operationally. And btw, I don't mind at all if you go back and check everything I've done ... Brian 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)btball
 * No, please pause in deleting links to "official" sites, no matter how junky those sites are. As long as you pause (which isn't a euphemism for "stop"), I'll also refrain from reverting the deletions you've already made. Let's find out what's the right thing to do about these links; in the medium term, that will be much better than for us to dick around reverting each other (or ourselves), no matter how amicably. To that end, please see this, and of course feel free to contribute to it. -- Hoary 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can pause for a while to see if there's clarification from the community. There's certainly plenty of other maintenance to do - and the deletion of this specific kind of (what I consider to be spam) is a pretty minor percentage of what I do. Mostly, it's fighting vandalism and spam. Thanks Brian 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)btball
 * The funny thing is, I rather hope to be told that I'm wrong on this issue, in that my own opinion is closer to yours than to what I think is that of "the community". Well, we'll see what happens. -- Hoary 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

People's own sites
Somewhere in this series of edits, you removed the links to Chow's own site.

Chow looks very dubious to me. Still, he has an article. As long as he has an article, it's entirely proper for the article to link to his own site, even if his site is mere self-promotion (and I haven't looked so don't know). Please see this, and please reintroduce any such links that you've (however well-intendedly) removed. Thank you. -- Hoary 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think #3 under links to be avoided, trumps the permission to link to one's own site. If someone wants to revert my edit, I won't get into a revert war ... but I did what I think right. The overall guidance above the two conflicing guidelines is that external links should add substance to the article. From the opening paragraphs of the external links policy: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified."  I checked every link I removed and noted as SPAM and I saw no substance, just self-promotion and sales. Total spam, in my opinion. Therefore, they were not justified ... If another editor disagrees (other than the person who benefits by the spam) then I'll let it be. Brian 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)btball


 * No, the part about advertising doesn't trump the bit about the rightness of linking to the subject's own site. The former is a subsection of "Links normally to be avoided", which starts off: Except for a link to [...] an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:...... So the trumping is the other way around. Even if the subject's own site is a nightmare of Flash, Javascript, and similar horrors, a link to it is legitimate and desirable. -- Hoary 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the way I read it or see it. Section 3 and Section 4 are both at the same level. And the overall principal stated in the preface is that the links should add value. In this case, IMO, it doesn't. It's just a link to a spam site. I'm not going to put the link back - I think it's spam. You're welcome to put it back, I won't revert it. Brian 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)btball

Spam, not.
http://www.lodgephoto.com/galleries/usa/sanfrancisco/folsomstfair/ was removed from the Folsom Street Fair article and you cite the spam project. I looked at the webpage and it actually seems to be an informative photo gallery useful to the article. It may technically be listed as a spam site but I think that is a mistake as the photos are good and informative. I have no huge investment either way but did want to mention it. Benjiboi 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's actually primarily a commercial site. They linked in about 50 links into Wikipedia articles driving traffic to their site. I agree that they are nice pictures. But their purpose seems to me to be primarily commercial. Do you disagree? If their purpose is primarily commercial, then they are Spam. I won't get into a revert war ... I've already removed many of the lodgephoto links from articles (based on the notice on the Spam project page), but if someone feels strongly that it adds more value than the negative of the spam to this (folsom street fair article) I will stop contesting it. I think I've done my part by removing the obvious spam ... and if there's an editor that feels strongly that the value of the pictures outweighs the (to me) clear commercial intent, then I will defer. Thanks, Brian 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)btball


 * I see the logic both ways and agree that if the photos are good then the link could stay, hopefully to be replaced y a better photo gallery from a website with less commercialistic overtones. In the case of Folsom Street Fair I thought the photos and presentation were surprisingly good and concise. Benjiboi 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the quality of the pictures. I was just cleaning up spam. If you put the link back, I won't revert. Brian 00:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)btball

Fact-checking on publications
In a rather dubious article -- the only article I've twice put up for AfD (aargh) -- you appended "" to:


 * A feature about her titled Student Body appeared in the September 1968 edition of Playboy and was reprinted in the 1971 Playboy special edition The Youth Culture.

I don't think that this tag is appropriate. There's a claim here about the existence of a "feature" (presumably meaning a longish article, illustrated in a distinctive and titillating fashion) in a specified issue of Playboy and again in a specified publication from the same outfit. Those are the citations. Given a pile of back issues, anyone's free to look both up.

Other objections are possible to this material: that these factual claims are wrong (that one or both appearances is/are fictional), or that all of this is mere trivia. But what we don't need, other than in very special circumstances is the word of one source for the claim that something or other appears in another "source". -- Hoary 10:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I was overzealous in that case. The September ... edition ... serves as an adequate reference. If someone really cared, they could turn it into a ref citation ... I'll go fix it. Thanks Brian 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)btball

bookstores
a little more quietly than the edit summaries, we really do have a problem there with spam, and I completely support DreamGuy in his reverts. There are 5000 out there, and there has to be some way to filter them. Ideas are of course welcome!.DGG 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I though I was following the comments in that section that stated "wikipedia article or open directory entry". They in fact, have an open directory entry. I agree we have a problem with spam, I spend a lot of my time fighting it! I've reverted a huge amount ... I'm fine with DreamGuy's revert, I won't contest it ... I looked at creating an article for ISBN.nu, but really don't have the time for it right now. It would probably be good to change that comment though and remove the reference to "or an open directory entry" as apparently it's no longer valid... Thanks Brian 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)btball

Your VandalSniper Application
Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool.

Feel free to download the program, and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator.

Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and welcome to VandalSniper!

Kindest regards, Anthøny  (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Shining hope for community
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Shining hope for community, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Shining hope for community is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Shining hope for community, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Chow
An edit summary of yours suggests that this may be of interest to you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)