User talk:Christopher Parham/Archive05

'''This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form. New additions to this page are unlikely to be seen; please direct all comments to my latest talk page at User_talk:Christopherparham. Thanks!'''

'''Welcome to my talk page. I will respond to comments made here on your talk page, so no need to watch. Please note your responses here, as I will probably not be watching your talk page unless I messaged you first.'''


 * Archive 1 -- November 21, 2004 to October 14, 2005
 * Archive 2 -- October 14, 2005 to December 5, 2005
 * Archive 3 -- December 5, 2005 to January 11, 2006
 * Archive 4 -- January 12, 2006 to March 11, 2006

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
I was wondering if the name "Praham" is Persian in origin? --ManiF 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Parham! :-)  +sj + 09:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Christopher! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"good article" star on main article page
hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles".

note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the narcisisstic meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The template places a small Good Article symbol ([[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|14px|Plus icon]]) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. &mdash;RJN 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

hi, what do you think of my new proposal? i think it should satisfy everyone, assuming they dont have a secret agenda and have finished highschool. basically the template stays, but the tags on the main articlepages are all removed for now, pending the result of a *proper* discussion involving the wider wikipedia community. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles. Zzzzz 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome
The little buggers (vandals) make my eyes water. :)Dlohcierekim 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The images I am using belong to me and my company (I am the producer of it and got the official copyrights) Thanks

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Different DRV threshold for speedy deletion (mailing list)
''50% is already enough, according to the rules, to overturn any decision and send it back to *FD for review. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * Wasn't aware of that - thanks for letting me know. Cynical 09:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Speech recognition
First, apologies if this comment is not in the correct place. I will remove it in one hour if I dont hear from you. My email address is masdmh at gmail dot com. Second, please can you tell me why you removed the link which shows details of real application of cutting edge speech recognition software? Thank you for your time and patience. Warm regards, Daniel Higgins (masdmh)

Thanks for the guidance, I will ask our chief scientist to make a contribution in the future and return when we have a real working demonstration which people can try out with their own voice. Our software has won awards for its voice recognition against many of the household name companies which are described in the article, this may be of interest to wikipedia?

Warm regards, Daniel Higgins (masdmh) Speech Recognition Press Release

Caesar Code
Caesar Code and Caesar cipher are not the same thing. Please stop redirecting the page.

It's an original source.

Can't beat that. You win.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationale to impeach George W. Bush
Not sure if you meant it as such, but I will take your comment that this article is the most NPOV on the subject as a compliment. You might not think it, but I truly attempted to create a subpage that was as NPOV as possible for such political subjects. Nomen Nescio 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly is a compliment to everyone who wrote the piece -- neatly organized refereneces alone go a long way toward promoting NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation considering the view of some editors and its duplicate. Nomen Nescio 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The system may not be working well on his browser, or something...the "jump to" function should be pretty precise. Anyway, he's about a year too late to complain about that. Also, you may want to check out [] as I think you should really reconsider your comment there; the image is clearly copyrighted and also clearly fails to meet fair use requirement #1. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that suggestion.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

68.13.182.148
This user has vandalized alot of times, and there have been no complaints about it. Will you please block this user for at least 1 month so it will knock some sense in him?68.96.23.7 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

joeddox
Why does wikipedia let everyone edit anything the want?

At least you guys are quick for editing things.

Joeddox
I agree it isn't working out how do i chat with you?

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. GizzaChat  &#169; 12:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Portal/Proposals
Could you expand on your objections to the proposal, it's kind of hard to address them without knowing what they are. Steve block talk 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

my plagarism question
the two articles I noticed that got me thinking about this are USS Saratoga (1814) which mostly comes from [|this page] and Lake Chicago taken from [|this incredibly poorly written page]. neither of these are "commercial content providers", they seem to be US government sources. But, it still seems like just cutting and pasting text from a government site is not up to the quality standards of wikipedia. Maybe I should make a Clean-up tag specifically for plagiarised articles? Is there policy that's ment to be applied to plagiarism as opposed to copyright infringment?Mike McGregor (Can) 09:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha!
Tee-Hee. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 11:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list discussion
Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad it's sparked some debate.

Tyrenius 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Ecos question
Hi there... you asked me to explain what I thought was missing from the Economics article at Featured article removal candidates/Economics. I've answered at the same forum. Cheers, Mi kk er (...) 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

closed minded
Mr. Parham,

Please do not accuse others' writings to be "nonsense". This is something that many people would take umbridge to. The article was written in a correct, neutral point of view. If such actions on deeming others' works as "nonsense" persists, more drastic action will be taken.

Please reply to my message so I can hear from you (I am not angry at all, I just would rather have writings not called "nonsense") Thanks, "MR.B" Boxbrown 04:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC) --

Your standards!
OK? I guess one has to write to please your standards....I'll do that from now on!

"the B" "Mr. B" Boxbrown 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Request, my understanding
Sure thing, "Shirlock". I will be much more understanding from now on and I hope you sincerely except my apology. I did not mean any harm to you, as I am a fairly new "wikipediator" (though i have read wikipedia articles for 2 years now(

Kindly reply to show your acknowledgment,

Boxbrown 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown, "the box"

Boooooo
I liked that image. Spoilsport! ... fine, fine, it's removed :)   Proto    ||    type    06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You have been added to the list of authorized users, and I will do my best to notify you once a download becomes available. If you haven't heard from me by Sunday, check back to see if the download has been listed. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the support
Hi Christopher- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Christopher Parham! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A Download Is Now Available
I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey Chris! "The Box " here again!

Well, I just want to say that im sorry for all the edits that i have done previously that you have not liked.

I hope that you accept my apology. I was just wondering, however, if we can start a comedy page? You have to admit, some of my edits were hilarious!

Here is one of them! :

This article is about the basketball player. For the UK politician, see Ben Wallace (UK politician). "Wallace!" they call as the center steps on to the court! Wallace! Wallace! Walrus! Walrus! Walrus! Wait, did we just hear Walrus? Well, Wallace is one of the most dominant centers in the legue, period. By stats, he definitely is. But actually, he is the most overated center in the game. This is mainly due to his size, and Ben often has trouble defending bigger Centers such as the infamous SHAQ!

Yea, please reply back!

-The "BOX", Mr. BBoxbrown 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown

sdfg

Caesar Code - should I propose deletion?
Christopher

This was on the list of deadend pages so I took a quick look at it, and I noticed that you had had some exchanges with the author (Bueller911) on both your talk page and the author's. Can I check with you where you got to in your discussions with him/her?

Your note on Bueller911's talk page (timestamped 11:45 on 27th March) reads (.. means I cut signatures / timestamps / other text).


 * The Ceaser Code as described on the page is unverifiable and original research. ..... the other choice would be to delete the material unless sources can be provided.
 * Indeed it is an original source, which is why Wikipedia cannot accept it. See No original research, an official policy. ..

But it seems that you took no further action here. Did you have any further exchanges that I have missed? Based on what I see I agree with you that Wikipedia should not accept this article.

Unless you have further information I plan to leave a note on Bueller911's talk page saying that I plan to propose deletion of the article on grounds of original research and/or copyright violation and/or lack of notability unless he can address my concerns.

However, given that Bueller911 seems passionate in their defence of the article to date I thought I would check with you first and get all the facts.

Please respond here or on my talk page as you prefer.

Many thanks Cje 10:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you got there first with the ProD. Thanks! If it goes to AfD I will be voting for deletion, unless significant new evidence emerges. Cje 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? prod can have a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article Caesar Code for deletion without providing a reason why in the prod template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that:. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!
I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat
(edit conflict) Although we do not agree on certain edits I would like to ask you to make an observation regarding the current dispute beteween Merecat and myself. You don't have to agree with the current article in question but in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download
Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative deprivation
I thought you may want to know that I have destubbed this article, rewritten it in the process and nominated it for DYK. Anything that you may want to add to it would be most appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

copyright
yeah, i saw that. I'm contacting the editor just now to ask if they mind.

I believe this is ancient history, as the movement uses their information and freely distributes it in a variety of ways, i believe that they encourage this.

Notice also "fair use" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for helping. Prior to moving that copyvio material, I had already deleted it once, but Prometheuspan had reposted it. Merecat 06:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the nicest guy
"Parham needs to stop vandalizing others talk pages (regarding comments that Parham wrote on other peoples talk pages)" this is what one of the wikipedia members wrote about you. It is very clear that the comments you are writing on other peoples talk pages need more information on why you wrote that way. Please be more informative and feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

By the way, did you see the latest article that I wrote? It is a current event that some feel is somewhat biased and I would greatly appreciate it if you could help making it unbaised and improve it.

"Theboxster, Boxbrown etc." Boxbrown 19:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown

HOW is this nonsense?
Mr. Parham, your critiqing has gone out of hand. Please explain in complete detail how the following is nonsense:

"Also is known as "Dikembe Mutombo", "Wamoto", "The Defense", "The Mutt" and several more by several Philly fans."

Without a rational explaination for your commment, you have no right to call that nonsense. Such nicknames (as I am sure you are not aware of) are nicknames given to the center. Do you seiously think that fans call Dikembe by his full name?

Until you kindly give an explanation, you may not call others' work as nonsense.

Thank you,

Boxbrown 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown

Reply
Well, the article was created by my brother (the subject on my brother has already been brought up). Interestingly enough, the user in question that brought this up agains me has been leading quitte a pointless arguement over the article. Please read the article's talk page: Talk:Political entities inhabited or ruled by Serbs and then judge the situation. Sincerely and trully yours, --HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that was basicly, my point. :) Didn't you see that I suggested the article to e deleted? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't agree that the arguement was noncensical? That meant that I really have no time to lead such meaningless arguements when there are loads of WikiProjects to create and articles to write. Nothing else. How did you interpret it, my friend? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not comment the user, and I practicly (semi-)agreed with him when I suggested the article for deletion. I commented on the discussion over a matter that is so simple; if you read the whole discussion from the beggining to my post, you'll see what I meant... Sincerely yours, --HolyRomanEmperor 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * paparlapap - Hipi

oops, interesting point. lol
i see you found the rejected format problem. Don't worry, i took the good advice and escalated to an arbcom. Thanks for removing the tag, i had forgotten to get to that detail. Prometheuspan 02:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

why am i being told off for vandalism? AOL's i.ps change everytime i log on so im getting other peoples, sort it out

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although it is clear to me that we are on different sides of the spectrum politically, I wanted to thank you for being for me a good apparent model of somebody who seems to be acting in good faith. I also wanted to thank you for getting the article opened back up for editing.

And, allthough i may regret it, (and i may not?)I hope that you will visit the new "VFD" 

and share your thoughts and insights. Thanks again. Prometheuspan 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush
Help! This article is under attack by an anon IP vandal. Merecat 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see this edit here Just now,  moved talk page so as to completely hide the proof of the POV editing on this article by himself and. Also, both the article itself and the restored talk page have been under attack tonight by anon IP vandals. To restore the talk page contents, I had to do a cut & paste. I need help reverting this bogus page move. Merecat 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't have used your strawman to make it in the first place if you didn't know how to undu it--172.150.130.38 06:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
You are invited to vote at Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). Morton devonshire 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) --- ---
 * Please tell me what you think of this: Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
 * You can leave your message on this talk page here.