User talk:Carter/Archive 5

'''I'll be taking a much needed Wikibreak here coming up so bear that in mind when leaving me a message. Thank you.'''

My talk page
Could you please not send me a welcome message when I've been here as long as you. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First: I didn't send you a welcome message, I send you a message about the copyright violation you did. Why did you hide it? Second: You've not been here as long as me. Martial BACQUET 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your message said Welcome to Wikipedia, and we both started editing in December of 2006. Anyways, I have the authors permission fromt he website to use that material so I would appreciate you putting it back. Carter | Talk to me 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you started to edit Wikipedia in December 2006 but I started before using another account. But whatever, even if we started to edit together, my message wasn't a welcome message. It's a template message used to put it on user's talk page, so it is not a personnal message. Now, about your copyrighted edit, if you have permission from the author, you have to send it at the email address I gave you, then an administrator will restore the page, but I (and you) can't do it by myself. Thank you for your understanding. Martial BACQUET 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent the email. Hope it doesn't take too long. Carter | Talk to me 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe you can ask a sysop about that, maybe he will do it more quickly :p In anyway, good luck and sorry. Martial BACQUET 11:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion
Hello, I am not really sure how to use wikipedia fully outside of basic editing and sourcing. I do not know if this is the appropiate place to discuss this, and if it's not I apologize (and can you tell me, for future reference, where the correct place is?). Anyway, I made the page The Cursed (band) and it got deleted rather quickly. I figured out it was because a lot of you felt it was not notable. However, I feel I didn't get a chance to appropiately respond. I'm sure to you it's obscure, but then again, so is probably Overkill (band). What I'm trying I guess, then, is that that fact alone shouldn't make the page warrant deletion. I checked he Wikipedia:Notability (music) and saw the criteria. It says if it meets any, it is notable. So here we go.

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Blabbermouth.net (hosted by Roadrunner Records) published this review of their album: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=1174

Guitarst Dan Lorenzo guested on The Classic Metal Show http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=75864

Review on Knac http://www.knac.com/article.asp?ArticleID=5634

Interview on The Metal Web http://themetalweb.com/thecursedinterview.html

Bassist Job the Raver on CILU-FM 102.7 http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76982

There's probably more examples, but that should suffice, right?

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Singer Bobby "Blitz" Ellsworth is a member of Overkill (band)

I also noted the following comments "not notable, pov, vanity..." "I feel it may be a band member" alright, that is pure speculation and most importantly not true. I'm not a band member, and thus I doubt it would be considered vanity. Also, POV? I don't know where to access the original article (If you could help me with that, that would be great as well), but I don't think it said anything but classifying them as a band from new jersey who play heavy metal featuring the singer from Overkill and the guitarist from Non-Fiction, who released an album. I don't see how, even if it was a band member who wrote it, it would qualify as vanity or POV, since it's pretty hard to argue anything about what I wrote. The only one I could sort of see maybe you might argue is that it is a heavy metal band, because it's the only one that is somewhat subjective. Still, I could very easily source it.

Thank you for your time, and again, I apologize for any rookie mistakes. 129.2.175.86 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Grinds Coffeehouse
Thank you for your note requesting that I not "advertise" my business "Fair Grinds Coffeehouse". Rather than argue that point, which I support, I would like to mention instead that the enforcement of that point in Wikipedia seems unbalanced. More than two of my competitors who run strictly commercial shops have listings, Chateau Coffee Cafe and PJ's Coffee are both sterile uninteresting chain stores. At least Starbucks and Cafe du Monde (also listed) are historically and socially important. Please be fair when allowing business listings. fgowner 24.252.85.220 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties
I have rewritten the intro in an attempt to address the POV issues. Can you re-read the intro and tell me if you think I have gotten it right? Are there any POV issues in the body of the article? --Richard 07:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you did a fantastic job. Thanks for your contributions. Carter | Talk to me 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellen DeGeneres
My apologies; I don't remember reverting your edit at all but since it's in the page history I'm guessing I was trying to revert vandalism on another page on my watchlist and mis-clicked on your Ellen edit instead. I was up late and tired - probably too tired to be doing a lot of editing. AU Tiger » talk 21:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries for getting on my case; sorry for the trouble. I wish I did more real editing than the vandal-fighting, but there's so much vandalism to deal with. Anyway, keep up the good work. AU Tiger  » talk 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moves
Aloha. Your recent page moves are causing some problems on the Hawaii WikiProject, in particular this one, where you moved an article to the wrong name. Could I ask you to discuss any future moves on the talk pages of the articles in question? Thanks for your attention. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to go to Talk:Laie, Hawaii Temple, Carter, you'll see that the change has been requested. I know I made a mistake in trying to fix it, which is why I'm trying to repair it via a move request. Your change was inappropriate as the LDS Church does not use diacritic marks in the name of the temple. You also included a comma in the name of the temple, which was also incorrect. Snocrates 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What the church calls it isn't necessarily important. The name of the city needs to be spelled correctly. Let's think outside of the box. Carter | Talk to me 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article were about the city, you would be correct. The official name of the building should be the name of the article about the building. I thought that would be self-evident. Thinking outside the box is not always good when it results in information that is not accurate. Snocrates 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
As I said on RFPP, move protection is a neutral process designed to stop repeated renaming, and is not an endorsement of what title it's currently at (see Wrong Version). I suggest that you try to achieve consensus on the talk page if you want to move the page to another title (and maybe ask WikiProject Religion for an opinion since that's their area of interest). -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Snocrates
When someone makes edits you don't agree with, that is not "vandalism". Vandalism would be editing an article to read, "Mike likes to eat turd burgers." If an editor is doing things that are grossly against consensus, it might be considered disruption, and they can be blocked for that, but WP:AIV is not the place to report it. If the disruption requires immediate intervention, you may post to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If it is more low-key, see Dispute resolution. In my judgment, you have a dispute with this editor that does not require blocking. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

False allegation of sexual abuse
Carer, I would ask you to reconsider your AfD for the Satanic ritual abuse and the LDS church. I think the better article for merging is False allegation of child sexual abuse; it more appropriately fits the circumstances of this event. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arizona
Here, just to let you know i kinda spruced up your portal on Arizona, hope it helped. I will probably be contributing to it here or there. mickyfitz13 Talk 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, anytime, i'm actually fixing up the categories now, but i'll soon be off. mickyfitz13  Talk 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Glen S. Hopkinson
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glen S. Hopkinson, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

read your entry again - uber recentism
Your entry talked about November 8, 2008 - that's nonsense. And 10 votes or whatever it was are not significant or notable - this is not Wikinews. We shouldn't enter a vote-by-vote tally into articles. Tvoz | talk 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can consider the matter closed if you like, but I do not - and you haven't answered the objection. Ten votes are not a "blow" - they are ten votes.  I am well aware of the facts (although you didn't bother to put in a citation). This is recentism and not the way we write articles.  When the complete results are in, we'll report them - this is not notable. We are not Wikinews.  (And calling it a "blow" is POV.) I think this should be discussed on the article's talk page - don't just add it willy-nilly all over the encyclopedia when it's objected to. Tvoz | talk 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not an attack on an editor, it was an attack on an edit. There is a difference. And you don't need to lecture me, thanks - the fact is, your original entries were incorrect, uncited, and POV in addition to being inappropriate.  You amended them, but they still were inappropriate.  There's really nothing more to talk about at this point, as far as I'm concerned, unless some other editors come in to discuss this on the article's talk page.  Tvoz | talk 06:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As have I - with almost 10,000 edits - feel free to look at my edit counter. And I'm not the one who entered incorrect, unsourced POV material into articles,  so let's just call it a day, ok?  Tvoz | talk 07:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)