User talk:Chunky Rice/Archive 1

BrettspielWelt
I've restored the article. Feel free to add citations to reliable sources. -- Merope 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe
I added the source (L'Equipe and Associated Press for CBS) under the "Allegations of drug use".

Congratulations
You're welcome, and congratulations on your first user page vandalism. It's definitely a sign that you're catching the right edits on RC patrol.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bridges in film
Thanks for the note, I will remove the prod notice. See the recent afd debate about the related article Skyscrapers in film at Articles for deletion/Skyscrapers in film before you decide to afd it. Perhaps we should focus on adding to the encyclopedia than engaging in repeated efforts to remove material from it? Carlossuarez46 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing and pruning are fine, I enjoy trying to source articles I run across that seem inadequately sourced -- get to learn a lot about diverse things... Carlossuarez46 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that at imdb a search for "bridge" brings up 275 hits, so even if half are bogus (say "Lloyd Bridges" or "He bid seven spades at bridge"), there's lots of room for expansion, improvement. Check out Carlossuarez46 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph came mostly from Skyscrapers in film and is supported by [] and the pages following it. If you think it needs rewording, feel free... You'll also notice that [] contains a list of bridges in film, which can be further used as expansion material. Carlossuarez46 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please give your opinion at talk page of Controversies about the word niggardly
Hi Chunky,

Since we share (at least some) interest in the "niggardly" article and I respect your opinion, could you take a look at the Talk:Controversies about the word niggardly discussion at the bottom of the talk page about deleting the little episode about the Ohio newspaper guys? It's not a big thing either way, but I think it shows how some people get offended, so I think it's worth keeping. Please add your opinions/ideas if you have any. Best, Noroton 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Marcy Wheeler
It seems you are, like me, an AfD junkie, so I hope you won't mind if I continue the colloquy and do so here. I'd hate to look like I was trying to dominate the actual AfD.

I think we both agree that Wikipedia is not ineluctably bound to the editorial decisions of the New York Times and its ilk. We come to it in different ways though. I contend we can be cognizant of certain media fads and discount coverage accordingly. On the other hand, your approach seems to be one of evaluating whether the coverage was non-neglible or not. I think these ultimately end up doing the same thing: that is, evidence of coverage must be wrangled with, but the weight afforded to that evidence is reserved to the discretion of the wikipedia community.

Although, I will concede that if the standard for "non-negligible" is more objective than I have presumed, that would be a superior method of analyzing the question.

At any rate, thanks for a livelier-than-usual AfD debate! Pop Secret 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilk? The New York Times? They have no "ilk." Like Walter Cronkite and Katie Couric, they tell the truth. It's called journalism. If you discount their coverage you're buying into the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American People. The current administration set out a decade ago to destroy truth in journalism because the truth is something with which they cannot co-exist. You must watch Fixed News, or is it Fake News? Oh, yeah: Fox News. Created by Roger Ailes (Bush senior's lap dog) who now works for Rupert Murdork. There is a candidate for deletion. Eventually, though, truth wins out.Hunter Steele 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre
I'd argue that the names of the victims are, in fact, quite useful in the main article. They provide single-click access to those victims with articles - legit articles, I know articles for student victims are getting zapped as we speak but several faculty members passed WP:PROF. (The template with these links is losing its TfD.)

More importantly, it needs to be mentioned that five faculty members were killed, and the victims section accomplishes that efficiently and elegantly, giving the reader more information at a glance than what could be given in ordinary prose without greatly disrupting the text flow. It was pointed out repeatedly in the text, but these mentions were clumsy and I saw no real way to improve them. --Kizor 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What What (In the Butt)
Hi, I'm kind of new to Wikipeida. I saw that you voted to keep the article on "What What (In the Butt)" and I'm wondering if you could help me out again. We tried really hard to fix up the article, add more info, add more links, and make it less spammish. Recently some kid who calls himself Spectre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sceptre) removed all the information on the whole page because he thinks it is doesn't show a neutral point of view and is not noteworthy. We already showed that it was noteworthy when it was up for deletion, and the article seems neutral enough to me. How can we stop this guy from vandalizing our article? I have little experience and he's been an administrator, so I feel powerless. If you can help in any way it would be very much apreciated. Thanks. Shatner1 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Chunky Rice, sorry, I didn't see that the article had gone through AfD. Thanks for telling me, I've restored it. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Marauders
No problem, it's that kind of game! Your edits were really helpful. Thanks for the "Up The Creek" reference - there doesn't seem to be a page for that yet, I might put some effort into that when I get a chance. --Davémon 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil twin
Good job removing all the POV/OR-heavy examples from the Evil twin article. You might want to watch the article for a while because there will probably be people ready to revert your properly trimmed article back to its previous form. Doczilla 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing
I understand that this article was edited under my profile, but I didn't do it. I will change my password. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaaos (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Bushy
I would like you to look again at Bushy and reconsider your non-vote. I have rewritten the article from scratch using reliable sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

nice username
you get it from the graphic novel? VanTucky 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for note
By the way, I never thanked you for your note a couple of weeks ago (you described what a transwiki was with regard to an afd notice on an article I had submitted). I appreciated it. RDNewman 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Boardgame rules vs. copyright
I've dug around, and now I'm suggesting a rephrasing of the copyright advice in our guidelines. Please review at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games and see if you can suggest improvements. Barno 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further input needed
The price guide issue doesn't seem resolved, I noticed you posted here a bit ago: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. I'm not sure what else needs to be done, but something does. I know if I remove prices from articles: certain editors will re-add them. It's on only a few articles, but it certainly is useless information for an encyclopedia. RobJ1981 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ra (board game)
Just a quick note to say well done for taking on that monster! Percy Snoodle 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

List of miniature wargames
I see you have left me a message on my talk page saying that I do not understand the notability guidelines in relation to lists. Thank you for your message. You may wish to look at this: Notability, which is the reason that I have tagged the list, because there is no indication of the manner in which the entries have been made to the list. There are no sources listed, and no methodology is given, for inclusion of entries.

To see how this related to lists, see here: List_guideline. Thank you. Jewish-wargamer 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote:


 * Okay, so you linked to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which says that individual entries on a list do not need to be notable. I'm not sure what your point is with that.


 * JW: As I think I indicated, this list does not give the methodology for inclusion of items on it. What I lined to specifically says: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article,[.]


 * And then you linked to Wikipedia:List_guideline#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists, which is about sourcing entries. And I agree that entries need to be sourced. That's why I left the "needs sources" tag.


 * JW: The page I linked to says: Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. This list does not really indicate that criteria at all. That fact that it does not have that for any entry indicates more than an item by item problem.  It indicates a basic notability problem itself.


 * Neither of these links question the notability of the list itself.


 * JW: Yes, in fact, they both do. A list that follows none of those guidelines, because it by nature cannot, is probably not notable and probably should not be included in Wikipedia.


 * Unless you can actually come up with a policy or guideline that supports your position against consensus, I'm going to remove it again and start an RFC to resolve it.


 * JW: I'd say I have already done that. Say, let's try it from the other perspective: Can you quote a Wikipedia policy or a guideline that allows a list to be inserted that gives no sources and no methodology for inclusion of items?


 * The result of the RFC is (so far) unanimously in favor of removing the tag. As such, I've removed it. I hope you'll accept this and let it stand.


 * JW: Well, three people, one of whom is a regular contributor to the article being discussed, isn't really a lot of folks. Also, just curious about something ... how did the other two users learn about this RFC?  They don't seem to contribute to wargaming pages at all. Just curious.


 * Anyway, I've reinserted the tag. Hope the above gives some rationale for it.  Can you explain why a laundry list of wargames belongs in an encyclopedia?  Thanks. Jewish-wargamer 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Famous Streets
I was close to closing it as a no consensus keep, but the complete lack of sourcing pushed me over. I'd be happy to userfy the article if you or someone else wants to work on sourcing. JoshuaZ 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still concerned in that notable is a term-of-art and thus might run afoul of WP:ASR. I'd therefore strongly advise that all streets, including the blue linked, be given sourcing. I will however, move it to userspace at User:Chunky Rice/List of Famous Streets. When you think a substantial enough fraction are well sourced feel free to move it back to main space under either "famous" or "notable" JoshuaZ 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it (I accidentally included the period and since it is in userspace am too lazy to fix the period. If you want to, feel free to move it as appropriate). JoshuaZ 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck Article
Dear ChunkyRice, I have tried to convert my references in the Robert C. Beck article from Google Searches to specific links to specific web pages as indicated to me would improve the article. I have also outlined my activities in the article's talk page. I have also requested some help from science experts, and hope that they will have a beneficial influence on the article. Maybe within the short time allotted (5 days), the article can be saved from deletion?

Who would you recommend that might lend me some assistance in making the article acceptable?

I have also cited more references where some were missing. I hope that you could appreciate that alternative medicine is a difficult area to support with reliable sources since no main stream M.D.s will endorse anything regarding the application of engineering and physics (bioelectric things) to treatment of diseases except in the possible case of veterinarians. Some bioelectric inventions have been successfully made to prevent fruit and vegetables from spoiling. Oldspammer 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lovely Name
One of my favourite graphic novels. Just wanted to say... --Thespian 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

willie brown
hold on there chunky...three days and three voices hardly equals and quorum or a consensus. --emerson7 | Talk 04:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
I can't force you to do anything, although I am very glad that you chose an interest in CSD and the noticeboards. CSD can get really backlogged, so it's good to see some hopeful admins working on it to get experience.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis
After Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transformation playing card
The article Transformation playing card you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Transformation playing card for things needed to be addressed. Giggy UCP 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, per WP:LEAD the lead should be split into paragraphs if possible. I'll take a look and expand a bit myself if you like, just pointing this out since (at a glance) you seem to have done everything else.  Giggy  UCP 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to upload the image without a fair use tag (there's an option for that, I think). I'd be happy to whip up a fair use rationale (I'm quite comfortable with it :D).  Anyways, I'll take a look at the article at some stage soon, make any relevant changes, and when the image is up it should pass.
 * And you're welcome for the review. GA reviewing is something I particularly enjoy =D  Giggy  UCP 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I commented on your editor review. Giggy  UCP 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Brettspielwelt list of games
In march you deleted a complete list of games that I had submitted to the Brettspielwelt page. I put it back on the 19/07/2007 as I feel that the article should have the entire list of games, not only that have recieved prizes. I do want to know why you did reduce the list so you can send me an e-mail. I am not putting the entire list to have one specific game appear there. signed: unreal_ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by unreal_ed (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, I've read your message and I agree ,and I especially thank you for saving the page from deletion. If you want to revert the BrettSpielWelt page to what it was before I changed it, feel free to do so.   Signed: unreal_ed

Your Editor review
Hi, Chunky Rice. I've just finished my response on your Editor Review. Sorry for the long wait, you've been very patient. If your thinking of going further, you should check out: Which are both excellent resources. Keep up the good work, Dfrg.msc 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Admin coaching and
 * The Virtual classroom1

1 The box is taken directly off the [[User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom| The Virtual

classroom]] page.

WikiProject Law
Welcome to WikiProject Law. I love the 'evil trial lawyer' userbox! --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD
I have changed the reason for nomination, before you posted your reply. Have you read it? The sunder king 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Readability in the WPBTG talk page
thanks for the edit. I must remember to go back and look at what I did after hitting submit! I'm still not entirely sure what I did to break it, but thanks.&mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Tim,dagnabbit!) 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD (Individual server rules in Four Square)
--I moved the article Individual server rules in Four Square over from the original Four Square page as it was cluttering it up, and precisely because schoolchildren were coming in and putting in their own things. As for WP:NFT, we've been deleting any list item that was obviously written in from a student in school. You might want to make a note of this deletion nomination on Four Square and/or Talk:Four Square as well to let the regular users know. How long do we have to find sources if an article is put on the delete list? --Goldrushcavi 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

historical and catan series
thanks for the discussion in Historical Board Games. It's helped me figure out what I'm trying to do, somewhat. Also, I saw you're working on the Catan series. I can probably provide pictures of much of the Catan stuff, if you'd like.&mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Tim,dagnabbit!) 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take your comment to mean you don't mind my editing your sandboxed article, unless you tell me otherwise.&mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Tim,dagnabbit!) 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Scott
LOL…Sorry to say I used you as a focal point to make my direction of the argument to keep! You made some very valid points, and to be honest, feared you could sway some individuals that were on the fence to nominate for delete. Again, sorry if you felt abused. Shoessss | Chat  21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversation moved
FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deduction board game
You wouldn't mind if I work a bit on your sandboxed article?  bibliomaniac 1 5  01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I hope we can score a WP:DYK for this one.  bibliomaniac 1 5  04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of GURPs books

 * You might be interested to know that it's being implied that you are likely part of a large advertising campaign at Articles for deletion/List of GURPS books, an article you created. Just thought you might like the opportunity to respond. -Chunky Rice 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes patroler
Can you block user:212.200.198.125. This is 3rd time today that he vandalise pages which I have edited and my user page. When he has used this Ip 212.200.198.33 he has been blocked by user:LessHeard vanU on 21:55. Are you administrator or you know administrator which is now on wiki ?Rjecina 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic article rule
In this edit you referred to the Topic article rule. It doesn't appear to apply, since GURPS is not the topic article for the Category:Steve Jackson Games. The Topic article rule indicates that GURPS should be in Category:GURPS and that Steve Jackson Games should be in Category:Steve Jackson Games, but that's all. -- JHunterJ 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talky) 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well. Acalamari 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job! Remember to test the bathwater lest you be scalded by jumping in too quick. And remember, if you have any problems or questions, do not hesitate to ask me or other admins you trust.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Two years of trouble and general madness 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and welcome to the cabal. And yes, you will have problems. Get advice from any of us. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will proceed with caution. Thanks for all of your support.  I created a sandbox page in my userspace to experiment with deleting/restoring/protecting.  I also plan to block and unblock myself, just to get used to the form/procedure.  I assume that's uncontroversial.  -Chunky Rice 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I thought it looked thought out and showed a knowledge of policy. I sometimes use that one to help me decide whether or not to support at RfA. You might be surprised some of the answers I've gotten. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you need some uncontroversial practice, why not take a look at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/New admin school? :) Acalamari 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, perfect. Thanks!  -Chunky Rice 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; the deletion guide still needs work, but I think everything else is fine. Jreferee and Ryan Postlethwaite will be pleased when you use this guide. :) Acalamari 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats. Sorry if I frustrated you, but I'm now more than convinced that you won't misuse the tools. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Old AFD
That happens if I'm closing AFDs while tired. I went ahead and deleted the article anyway under A7, G6, and the original AFD since it has changed little since then (which is amazing since it was in March). --Core desat 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramrod1001
You did perfectly fine. I'm also glad to see you've been attacking CSD and PROD. Just remember that when you go on to closing AFDs that you read up on how to close the debate, or you might fail miserably.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Two years of trouble and general madness 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi there. Notice you just deleted the attack page, Mary croker. Just one minor thing, and I've done this, too, in the past, if it's an attack page, you should really blank/replace the delete reason otherwise the text of the attack page will be visible to all. Like this. So it's kinda handy to just put in "attack page" or something - A l is o n  ☺ 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And BTW, for people like me who know it all, take a look at this from my early admin days :-D Owch! - A l is o n  ☺ 01:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

another note
I think that you forgot to also remove the hangon tag when you removed the speedy tag from Youth risk behavior survey The hangon tag by itself still lists the article at WP:CSD--(this is done to cope with people who remove the speedy tag from their own articles.) Anyway, I just did it, and agree totally you were right to remove the speedy for the reason given--though I would have then added an unreferenced tag to indicate what was still needed. DGG (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did an incomplete removal of a block when i was starting out as an admin and the guy in question has never forgiven me. I still make a mistake sometimes when I try something still unfamiliar, but there's no way to avoid this completely except not using the tools at all. BTW, It's useful to check one's own deletion log from time to time to pick up anything which has become a blue link. James J. Ackerman restored his article after you quite correctly deleted it, but I  think what he wrote is now acceptable & shows notability--unless it's a copyvio.  Also, even when it isn't an G10, it's good to remove really obnoxious content from the summary--I would have removed it from Felicia... and Niggermaniac and Backroom bullshit.  You'll forgive me taking a look, but I was trying to see if there was anything else that you might need help with. DGG (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
I just realised you're an admin...now where do I remember you from? *is weird like that* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Battling vandalism
Hi Chunky Rice, thanks for your quick action on my userpage protecting it from vandalism. I thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me
You sent me a message after I edited an article. If you do your own research, like I have done, you will learn that Issac Newton wrote that the world would end No earlier than 2060. He did not say that the world Would end in 2060. This article is giving false information, I assumed that it would be okay that I put the real information in.

Mind your own business, and before you go telling me to stop editing articles, do your own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanharris32 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
We'll leave it to the readership to decide. In this case, the edit war (and I'm a little surprised that an admin is engaging in one) is between you and me. The consensus you've claimed is a good example of a false consensus, as the other people weiging in on the comments are wargaming editors, or even contributors to the list. Jewish-wargamer 20:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, being an admin means more than using admin tools. Bottom line is that it's an edit war.  I do, you undo.  Of course, no one in an edit war thinks of it as an edit war.


 * It's true that I cannot log in daily and do lots of edits, like many people here apparently can. But I don't think a user can be treated differently because he's an infrequent one.


 * Anyway, what's the worst a notability tag can do? It's not like I immediately moved for the list to be deleted, which I think there's quite a strong case for.  What I sought was to get, eventually, a third opinion, but can't get that as long as you keep removing the notability tag.  What I'm getting a lot of, like is the case with many Wiki articles, is people with an interest in the article saying that the article belongs, which creates a false consensus, because only people with a vested interest in the list will see it then, and naturally they will weigh in that it's notable.  That is why there is so much of what is, frankly, junk on wikipedia. Jewish-wargamer 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As to my not being here, well, here I am. I am here.  I'm not absent just because I'm not around when you want me to be.


 * Anyway, it's funny that you are making this charge, as you just revert what I do, and since you are a constant Wiki editor, your own perspective on this prevails, because I'm not around. So it's interesting that you'd then choose to claim this as a handicap. Jewish-wargamer 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Empire of Iuz
Hi, Thank you for preventing me from becoming too overzealous at Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. I just saw that Gavin created another AfD this time on Greyhawk. He still thinks that RPG people are out to get him and still ignore the calls in the RfC. I think as a group, the RPG wikiproject is under siege. As an admin, I think you are more experienced than I am on handling such conflicts. I will try to stop his new Afd now to give the Wikiproject a much needed break.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if the RPG people are always on the defensive, they can't fix the articles as fast as Gavin nominates them. His overzealousness is the problem. I am not an expert on RPG's either that's why I'm not joining them though they need a lot of help. I know the contributor's side as much as the deletionists side as I already experienced both. Excessiveness on either side is bad for Wikipedia's integrity. If the articles were nominated without the shadow of this problem, I will go for merge as well. All I want is to give them a much needed break, a week I believe is enough.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tatum Reed
Hi. I am concerned that Image:Tatumreedpromo.jpg has been uploaded with false licensing information. The "used with permission" link is for images from lukeisback.com, whereas the image was taken from ilovepopwhore.com. Epbr123 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists based on....
There have already been extensive discussions on this page about adding such a policy to WP:NOT, and there has been no consensus to do so. -Chunky Rice 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not"


 * Thanks. With so many comments, is there one particular section that summarizes (comes closest to summarizing) the present state of the discussion? --  Iterator12n   Talk  21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 19,000 words, and indentation to the 10th degree. Smile.  --  Iterator12n   Talk  22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)