User talk:Dawnseeker2000/Archive 1

Swedish article about Jezper Söderlund
You could create an article about Jezper Söderlund in Swedish in the Swedish Wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezper_Söderlund --Eastmain 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
...on my talk page. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...from me as well. Cheers! Dust Filter 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * you're both quite welcome... :D  E_dog 95 Talk Contribs 04:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon invitation

Wateen_Telecom
Hello, i saw your message, you're removing the links i posted. Ok, 1 link is blog but the other isn't - why are you removing www.cyberpk.net/wateen-connector/ link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda1pk (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandal blocked

 * User:No vandalism no has been indefinitely blocked by me. See his talk page.Rlevse 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of talk page
Please note that, although blanking is frowned upon, it is not actually forbidden, and is not a blockable offense. Cheers. -- Dark Falls  talk 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Along the same lines, please don't revert the Squeakytoad talk page when it is blanked. The content on it is not only old, but an editor has informed me that I have permission to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.174.205 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IT Facts Source
Hi. I removed the source that pointed to http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7697 because IT Facts does not meet the WP:Source guidelines, which require that the source be "trustworthy or authoritative." IT Facts is an anonymous site with no notability or verifiability about who runs it or the source of their information. The new sources you put in are much better. :) Collectonian 07:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Atkins
Hi. Apologies for the delay; I have been out of the Country. As you say, the two parameters you mention would satisfy WP:MUSIC. I will restore the article, but will, of course, depend on you to insert the additional data. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal Government are public domain
Hi, I saw your two copyvio listings. Works that are produced by the US Federal Government, including all of its agencies (DOD, NASA, etc.) are public domain (copyright-free). Such works can be used for any purpose, including modification and redistribution by Wikipedia. The two articles you listed did have their sources referenced in the article footer. Please keep this in mind when looking into future potential copyright violations. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder
Hi. Can you please explain to me what Tarnation has to do with the article on bipolar disorder?

Thanks. DeeKenn (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I figured you were linking to the film.  What I don't understand is what the film has to do with the article? DeeKenn (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I haven't seen the film but I heard it's riveting.  DeeKenn (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel My Heart edit
Regarding this edit, note that references in languages other than English are acceptable per our policy, and they are left there so that others can corroborate the information from the article (in this case, single listing, release date and Oricon chart information). Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Avex Net link is the official page for the CD, giving information about the songs, release date and format. The Oricon one gives information about the song lyrics writer (作詞), compositor (作曲) and arrangement (編曲), in this case all are Mitsuru Igarashi (五十嵐充). The Oricon link also used to give information about the amount of weeks the single/album spent in the Oricon Top 100, and the highest peak, but that information is not available right now (the archived version says "最高位：24位　登場回数：14回", which means "highest rank: 24; frequency: 14 times". I am still waiting to see if the ranking and times ranked return to the page, otherwise I will have to switch everything to the archived version. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and moved
Done per your requests at my talk page. Please check to see that I haven't screwed anything up! -- Flyguy649 talk 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 2008 Vancouver tornado
A tag has been placed on 2008 Vancouver tornado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Vancouver tornado
Hi there :) I'd just like to say that you're doing a great job at writing the article for the 2008 Vancouver tornado, but I advise that when creating articles, you add the underconstruction tag to the top of the page, to alert speedy deletion taggers that the article is still in progress. This will avoid having the article tagged as requiring deletion, as in this case, it didn't need to be deleted straight away. Just some friendly advice :) Cheers, Spebi 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, unless it can be expanded to at least Start-class, it is not notable enough and should be moved to Tornadoes of 2008. Also it should be 2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado as it could confuse people thinking it was in Vancouver, British Columbia (since most people outside the region think of that when they think of simply Vancouver). CrazyC83 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

External links: Lego & Yahoo!
I see you've deleted my recent addition to the Lego and Yahoo! wikis, citing them as advertising. I can assure you that the resource linked to is independent research carried out by the UK Design Council, a not-for-profit government organisation that aims to raise awareness of design. It does not seek to sell any products or promote any particular agenda apart from the resources themselves. This research provides excellent insight in to the design process of these companies and I thought it would be a useful resource for Wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designcouncil (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Articles should be classified with like articles at the most specific category. The categories that these sub categories roll up into should not be listed in the article in most cases. Consider for a second if ever vehicle was listed in Category:Vehicles. How usable would that category be? The categories need to be managed to keep them useful. Also, an article can exist in multiple sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

question
i'm looking at the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article and trying to revert it back to the version before the edit war. how do i do that? i know how to simply undo the last edit, but not from past versions. i'm going to report 76.220.202.205 in a little bit if he/she doesn't stop making such huge edits without consensus. i'm contacting you because i saw you talk on his/her talkpage. thanks.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing the Wafa Sultan article again. You already pushed the limits when you replaced reliable newspaper articles with references citing Wikipedia as a source. I do not know or care about your agenda, but I ask you to keep your self-respect and leave the article be. Wafa Sultan is Sunni and nothing can change it. Please refrain from doing more damage to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.177.170 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cornell
Could you please tell me why you have removed the entry for my site at www.chriscornell.org.uk? You say "we don't link to fansites", yet I see them on artist pages throughout Wikipedia and was unaware of any official policy on this. If there is one, could you show me where it's stated? Fan-run sites are frequently as valuable a resource as corporate-run sites. My site is unofficial but is one of the major resources providing up-to-date news for fans of the artist, who has also contributed material to it such as exclusive interviews. You have however left the link in place for Fresh Deadly Raities, another fansite. Surely this is inconsistent whatever the policy is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cornell site link removal: response
I'm sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of policy and I am going to reinstate the link, mainly because the site in question is generally acknowledged as the #1 source for daily news updates on the artist's activities and tour. At present it carries more up-to-date and relevant information than the official site; if someone is coming to Wikipedia for info on Cornell's current activities, they are more likely to find it there than anywhere else. If you are going to leave a memorabilia collection like "Fresh Deadly Rarities" in place, then you cannot really justify removing my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cornell page: please stop removing this link
I was under the impression that no-one was "in charge" here, yet you continue to repeatedly remove the link. Please desist. I have already explained the situation about the site and what it offers. I do not understand what you mean by "conflict of interest" or "advertising" - this is a not-for-profit site which offers a free resource and extensive information for fans of the artist which is not available at the official site. By removing this, you effectively deny relevant time-sensitive information to those looking for it in Wikipedia and reduce the net information value of the page as a resource. There is no rule that says "official sites" necessarily have the most accurate or the most recent information available.

You may also not perhaps realise that the link to my site has on the Wikipedia page for most of the past year before you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ISS six crew members - thanks!
Thanks very much for so quickly finding an excellent reference that discusses why the International Space Station needs a crew of six. That's much better than merely indicating the plan is for a crew that size! Really, adding this reference is a huge improvement to the article! (sdsds - talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did seem to be in the right place at the right time for that tidbit. Glad there's two of us that are happy :). E_dog95'   Hi ' 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonization of the moon
I really have no opinion, being something of a newbie to Wikipedia. I have lots of things (I think) I know about physics and astronomy, but am still barely oriented w/r wiki culture and customs. I mistakenly reverted that editor's changes to both space colonization & colonization of the moon before I came into doubt and checked Google, where I discovered that Peter was correct. But the other editor missed one incorrect occurrence, so maybe I got 'em all. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chill
An edit summary omission is hardly worth a talk page comment. Andre (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not revert good faith edits or you will be blocked. Andre (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm contributing to wikipedia by the book. Now who needs to "chill". Eating ur own words. Don't offer me that blocking rubbish. Again, I'm playing by the rules. I Always have here.

Have a nice weekend.

E_dog95'  Hi ' 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You reverted my edit first, instead of asking for an explanation on my talk page or on the article's talk page. There is no way to justify reverting a good faith correction with the reasoning that it lacked an edit summary. If you continue this practice, you will be blocked. Andre (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Edit_summary for details on how to use the edit summary. E_dog95'   Hi ' 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Black hole.jpg
You uploaded Image:Black hole.jpg, which overlaid an image with that same name which already existed. I've reverted your image to the previous one, please reupload your image with a different name. Corvus cornix talk  22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Wonder if this sig is going to work. Oh and thanks for the talk

EclipseAgent (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 unrest in Lebanon
Ok sure. was just trying to help. --MatchStickEleven (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (moving item to bottom) E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PDF
Hi. I am needing help regarding pdf files that have been uploaded as images. I'm sorting images related to vehicles and have noticed that there are a few of these floating around. I came to you because I saw you've done some work with images at Images_and_media_for_deletion. Any ideas (for deletion)? E_dog95'  Hi ' 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I normally just list them at WP:IFD if they are obviously copyvio. Kelly  hi! 06:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're now speediable, db-i10. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes versus references
Hi, look in the Manual of style which allows for a notes section and a bibliography or reference section. Whether or not the information is specifically noted for the text, the articles in the reference section provide background and confirmation. This is typical of WP articles and specifically a hedge against an AfD where multiple references help satisfy the notability criteria at WP:N. A typical format is to include the detail for all references in the reference or biblio section and then just provide brief mention from the notes (e.g., Spurr pg 105). At WP we do not have the provision for separate sets of informational and citation footnote, thus we put them into one section where note 5 could be a clarification of detail while note 6 is a citation. We don't have rigid standards at WP. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) PS: are you a Catalina sailor? I have a C380 on San Francisco Bay.
 * Why now? I added back the items you deleted from the references into the separate reference section as a compromise.  Also I began the references on this article about 2 years ago when I had less experience at WP.  Why are you making this an issue?  Just please move on, as my change is within WP standards and the dispute is now over your preference or mine, and you seem to arbitrarily pushing your POV at an article where I have a long standing of hard work.  I think that I have offered a simple compromise.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK and thanks! FYI, I'm not familiar with ease of verifiability being a criterion.  I'm pretty active in the policy and guideline pages most specifically helping to rewrite the notability page last year and merging ORG and CORP from a big mess to the lesser mess today.  Never have I seen lack of ease as an issue.  We work under the premise of assume good faith.  I'm not sure if you've been in the position of defending a good article against an ill formed but persuasive AfD.  I have a very good track record of perserving articles through persuasive footnotes and reference sections.  But we've lost a lot of good boating articles to adolecent AfD gunslingers trying to win their admin wings. Cheers!--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cooperation if not agreement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Cvt.pdf
While most pdf files uploaded to Wikipedia are useless, it's important to check their content and licensing in case any useful media or text could be salvaged. I've run across several new accounts posting legitimate articles in pdf format, in those cases it's easy to format the embedded text to comply with wiki markup, but the original upload counts as edit history and must be referenced. In rarer cases, like Image:Cvt.pdf, the uploader wanted to offer a scalable version of Image:Cvt.png. While SVG is the format of choice for such diagrams, pdfs could just as easily suffice, or at least be converted. I think there's a decent case to be made for transferring similar vector/rich text pdfs to the Wikimedia Commons, for later use or conversion to the SVG format. Your mileage may vary and in the vast majority of cases pdf files qualify for I10 deletion. Make sure to check their contents, though, just in case. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Yamaha motorcycle images
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Yamaha motorcycle images is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM by 74.7.249.145
I note you've marked and removed a load of edits by this address as WP:SPAM. Its worth adding that a reverse lookup of the IP address shows it belonging to the company being mentioned itself. All edits from this address appear to be promos for the company. Probably a well meaning employee. Beardybloke (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMPUTING Invitation
I have noticed that you are already a member of a related project and thought you might be interested in this wikiproject also and hence leaving this note ... - From the outreach dept

External Links...
I am somewhat at a loss to understand the criteria by which external links are allowed to survive or be deleted by an editor. I placed two external links in four categories that were entirely appropriate and relative to my sites. This was not an act of vandalism or spamming - it was simply adding two external links.

However, within seconds you chose to delete those external links. Which amazes me that if you had checked those links out you would have seen that they were entirely appropriate and ( with all due humbleness ) probably the most authorative and comprehensive sites for those topics. Did you bother to check the links for their appropriateness or their relevancy to the specific topic they were attached ?

Which left me wondering by what criteria an external link must meet in order to have survived being deleted.

During the surfing of the WikiPedia to find appropriate places to place an external link, I saw what I can basically say are inferior external links. Yet they were there.. ? So I will trust you can appreciate my confusion at having my humble offerings nuked.

I find it funny... only because those same hyperlinks to my sites have been included in approximately 200 hard text books by the respective authors of those books. This is something that could be searched out on Amazon.com where my sites are quoted and recommended in the books related internet security, network security, computer security and even in various 'hacker' hard cover books.

I understand the need to ensure quality and relevant additions to the various topics. I hate spammers more then anyone. And frankly the SEO aspect of having a link in Wikipedia is not my motivation. But I am still at a loss at the end of the day to understand what criteria is applied against suggested external links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.127.165 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I did look at the website. Please check my response on your talk page. E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Help out with trance.nu?
hiya mate, noticed that you've got some insight in the trance-scene. I'm working on a article for trance.nu (if you're familiar with that site) and would appreciate some help. My current revision is on my discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompalomp/Trance.nu Lemme know if ya wanna help out! :) ... regards --Tompalomp (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! I'm sure you can edit the article which resided on my talk-page, right? (ps: sorry for the late reply, vacation and all :) ) --Tompalomp (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft image categories
Hi there, I just left a comment at WP:CFD, but I see you're nominating additional categories. Please don't de-populate the categories -- it's directly contrary to the instructions on the CFD notice, and it completely preempts the CFD process. Please repopulate the categories that you've already emptied so other editors can form their own judgments. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again -- I see our notes have crossed paths. Thanks for restoring that photo, and please do restore the others as well. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by your replies. Surely you don't mean to say that there was only ever one photo among all four of those categories? Were they all removed a month ago? Cgingold (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - I've transferred the CFD for Category:Images of airplanes landing to the following day's listings so they can all be considered together. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. A decidedly strange situation. Cgingold (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - I've copied your explanation to the CFD page. Cgingold (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Intergrated banner for WikiProject Computer networking
I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project  here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:NWA Plane over Lake Harriet 020623.JPG
A Boeing 757. Great! Thank you for your help! I'll post your comment in the picture's writeup. It was taken with kind of a cheap camera, but it gives a good sense of how close those planes come. Some fine day I'll see if I can get some more plane photos there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Satellite
The first Indian satellite was launched in 1975 (Aryabhata).Stellar Grifon (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

References and "required to pay"
I've noticed that with "Google News" you can see the relevant bits of the pay articles if you type in the right terms in the search engine.

Anyhow, LINKSTOAVOID - normally is the key word. The section says "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below."

LINKSTOAVOID says: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." - As those links are inline references, they will be made visible again. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ElectricDaisyCarnivalCover.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ElectricDaisyCarnivalCover.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there,

I noticed that you had left a message on my talk page - Thanks. I am relatively new here and need some help in removing commercial external links. There is some one who keeps adding commercial links in a particular page. Is there a method of automatic deletion for any new link pointing to a particular site ?

Kindly advice.

Thanks Alla tedesca (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the Prompt Response Alla tedesca (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

VZW
Thanks for the tip, I shouldn't be that lazy, not to search for a new one. This link you added doesn't work either.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 23:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use
Responding to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.82.179.226&oldid=240316242:

Copying a single sentence from a press release hardly constitutes copyright infringement, especially when properly attributed. Companies make press releases to be quoted in the first place and a single sentence is fair use by far. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Trance.nu re-launched
Hi mate, I've re-launched the Trance.nu page now, let's see if the mods like it better this time around - thanks for the assistance! --Tompalomp (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mac
Unfortunately he's no noob. He's been at it since '04, and he's very persistent (in a smoldering fire you were sure was out type of way). His heart seems to be in the right place, but his edits usually aren't. Keep your eyes open. NJGW (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Saw your post at the help desk
Well, I'm pleased that it isn't just me! I was wondering what I'd done, lol :) Have just seen that, apparently, all and sundry are having the same problem...says so here.  Thank you for your message, cheers!  Maedin \talk 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:A State of Trance/Alaxander Vince
Ah, thanks for brining this to my attention - I wasn't totally sure on the sock puppetry claims - I am writing a message to AN/I as we speak, I'll let you know when it's up, mate. ≈  The Haunted Angel  22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've made the report here, feel free to add to it ≈  The Haunted Angel  22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:v trumps Help:Edit summary.
Re : wp:v states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". -- Jeandré, 2008-10-01t18:51z


 * No sir. You are kind of mistaken. Both policies work in tandem. You are implying that this other policy "overpowers" using the edit summary? I'll try to help you understand why with this bit. When applying the policy of WP:V editors must use the edit summary. This is for both the editor that placed the material and for other editors that come across this situation. It helps them learn about these policies in general. If the edit summary is left blank while enforcing WP:V, they're left to guess why the edit was reverted. They may incorrectly assume a silly edit war. Do you see how this is important now? It comes down to helping other editors understand the value and validity of each edit. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page...Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." So, there you have it. Please use the edit summary at all times. Bye E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit summaries guideline is important yes, but not nearly as important as the wp:v policy. "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." - wp:guide. Not only is wp:v a policy, it "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" means you can't just put back unsourced info. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-02t09:06z, -- Jeandré, 2008-10-02t09:11z

Port Forwarding
Why did you remove the external link from the port forwarding page? pcwintech.com is a site with helpful information on port forwarding. You list other sites that give info on it so im curious why you removed it. The site is helpful to port forwarding just like the other links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.174.152 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo
Thanks for asking, but right now I am swamped with RL school-work as well as dealing with my commitments to a Featured Topic drive and my duties as a Coordinator of WP:MILHIST. I would suggest asking the wikiproject that hasn't assessed the article B-class on their talk page to re-assess (I see that they use a B-class checklist which hasn't been filled-in). Also, a good place to gain suggestions about the article and how to improve it would be a peer review, or you could go ahead with a GAN if you feel you've got enough time over the next week (after it is reviewed) to put forth the suggested improvements. As for placing tags and then coming back and seeing them still there, dont' expect a fast response with maintenance tags, the gnomes who fix those things work from the oldest to the present (I think they are still working on tags placed on articles in 2007). I'm sorry I can't be of more help. -MBK004 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Santa Cruz, California
Don't know if you've yet realized that in a matter of hours your "holier than thou" and single-minded manner has managed to irk at least two long-time editors of the Santa Cruz, California article. You're welcome to keep editing because this is still Wikipedia, but do us all a favor and drop the attitude on the Talk pages and edit summaries. &mdash;  X   S   G   08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm. You just didn't like that I pointed out a Wikipedia guideline I think. And btw, the list got cleaned up. You and the other editor were kicking and scratching the whole way, but we got it done. I lead the process and I don't think I'm really the reason that you're irked. E_dog95'  Hi ' 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I speak for myself in stating that I was not "kicking and scratching the whole way". I merely pointed out what bothered me about your poor attitude and behavior towards XSG, myself, and the entire clean-up of the list in general. Consider it a lesson in online people skills and I will consider it a lesson in trying to be more patient with others. Congratulations on "leading the way," but as you may well know, this is not a website in which one leads and others follow. Everybody leads and everybody plays a part. However, I will have to agree with XSG in that the way you have integrated the list into the edit space, but made it invisible in the mainspace, is worth merit. I am working on a pretty big Wikipedia project as of now, and have exams coming up, but I will try to tackle what's left of the list as soon as I can. Adiós. Ms. Sarita (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely, E_dog95. You took someone who wanted to collaborate with you and, with a very poor choice of language, turned them into someone who wanted to have nothing to do with you. Please see User Talk:XSG for a more thorough explanation. &mdash;  X   S   G   15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I really like about what you've done is that instead of completely removing the entries that weren't referenced from the article, you only commented them out, making it much easier for other editors to work on them instead of having to go back into the article's history to find the next in the list. Keep doing this! &mdash;  X   S   G   16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sven Maes
Ok, thanks for your explanation. I figured if there was an exact birth date mentioned in the article (even in an infobox) it had justification from somewhere which is why I changed it, but also put a note in my edit summary. thanks again, --FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Avenue
The proper way to contest a PROD is to remove the template from the article. If a PROD is contested, the article is no longer eligible for a PROD and must proceed through AfD. &mdash;  X   S   G   22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wave power
I created that section (on wave power - technology descriptions) 2 years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of readers have gained from those descriptions and the links. Those were always more than just links. The spirit of Wikipedia is against using the site to promote commerce. I did something else. Wave power is a new technology. It is primarily defined by what the small companies that are going after it are doing. Industry insiders in any industry pay big money for reports on what other insiders are doing. Are Wikipedia readers so precariously ignorant that they must be protected from links to experts on the subjects they seek to read about? Anyway, I will see what happens with the wave power article: i.e. I take a long term view of preserving my content on this. Let me know what rules I might need to defend against. Anthony717 (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wave power
Hi, Iam too amateur radio operator.Sp9dev (Start at 1968) I have to mauch trouble with  my English. But I am a inventor. Some my inventions are publishingcy at http://new4stroke1.123guestbook.com/gb.php?id=new4stroke1&page=3

This is about my  invention oscillating dynamo.It is easy tonque to product energy from wave. I probably see this tonqu for all people. If You cnn helpp in this idea, please contact, what I must popularize this good tonque. Regards Andrew Feliks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.77.150.188 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Internet Security and Touchpad
New to Wikipedia Community so hope I'm posting somewhat correctly. Never intended to swamp wikipedia with links to my pages or advertise my website. Just thought it would be nice to contribute a couple of pages on the external links of a couple of subjects that I feel would be helpful for beginners. I have no problem with the links being removed if they break the rules. Perhaps as I develop itbuddy.org (aimed at beginners)I may feel I can contribute some useful content to some computer subjects. Any comments welcome. Regards Itbuddy (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "4 External Links on Internet Security have Adsense" Mine has been removed - They should be removed !!!!!!. Itbuddy (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

ip218.208 ***
Hi there sorry to bother but i would like to ask you if you could watch or semi protect the page on future and current lunar missions it is being vandalized by POV edits by thoe above ip mentioned in the title i would be grateful cheers 86.158.177.181 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Octagon Building (Santa Cruz, California)
Based on your interpretation of MOS:BOLD, bolding should be used more in the first paragraph of articles. I don't think this is a good interpretation. Have a look around Wikipedia. We use the bold sparingly especially on small articles of one or two paragraphs. It's distracting.

In such a small article items don't really get lost easily. But lets say you did have a need to emphasize something - maybe something in a really big article - then follow the advice there at MOS:BOLD and "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text". E_dog95'  Hi ' 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a National Register of Historic Places article in which alternate names are commonly emboldened in the lead. clariosophic (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Network Simulator
Hello,

This is with reference to your talk with Ronz on this subject. I am unable to understand Ronz's attitude towards me. While looking through his / her talk section, I noticed that he / she is using a lot of negative terms about me. Is that allowed? Further, Ronz is sending me warning messages about adding external links.

Most of my time is spent in removing external links and fighting spam. My area of interest is in network simulation, and given that I have a good understanding of the subject, I added a few links which I thought are important. A detailed explanation of the same was also provided in the discussion pages of the article.

Since, I saw you write in a statement of support for me, I thought of reaching out to you for some guidance on how to handle this matter.

Thanks Alla tedesca (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I facing some further problems with Ronz on this matters. There have been others too who are against what Ronz is doing, but Ronz continues to edit the way he sees correct.

Furthermore, there have been several technical points on the subject in favour of our content which Ronz refuses to accept. Now he says we should look for a third party to mediate.

Ronz has also made several personal remarks which I don't think we appropriate.

Can you please advice me on how one goes about deciding who the third party must be? Shouldn't it be some one with a knowledge of the subject?

Thanks Alla tedesca (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

this guy is annoying
some guy keeps trashing my talk page and the artical i manage.--Holden yo (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... For catching that vandalism on my talk page :) ≈  The Haunted Angel  21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

STS-126
Reference consistency? OK - if you're going to maintain this article in that fashion...fine. I maintain the references in a few articles and this is the first time I've come across an editor that wants to duplicate information in refs. I don't thinks it's a correct or even a good idea. You may have you way though. E_dog95'  Hi ' 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the author field needs not be added because it was not a "person" is not valid. An author can be a corporation, an organization, or even a government. In the case of space articles, many of the references will be authored by NASA, not an individual. But the publisher is not always the same as the author. For instance, news agencies pick up items authored by NASA, or press releases put out by organization and corporations, and thus, the publisher field is not always the same. But if you remove the author field, it alters the look of the references in the ref section. Please refer to CITE, as well as WP:CIT. In the articles I have created, or have started references for, I just happen to format them according to the guideline of the template style. If an article already uses a different format, I will use that one, but the shuttle mission articles use the template style, and have for years. Neither style is preferred over the other, but consistency should be kept with whichever style is done. I hope that helps explain my reasoning. Ariel  ♥  Gold  17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Park
Here, I meant what park? Is there only one park in Prosser? Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Timing Is Everything
Thank you for your somewhat rude communication about my edits to the Intelius page. I think it might have been more appropriate to give me a chance to respond and complete the reference citation before you summarily deleted it. You made the threat, but then gave me no time to comply before you took action. I hope you have noted the thread on the Intelius talk page about how any information that might be considered negative to the company gets summarily deleted. Please, in future, discuss your rationale for deletion on the talk page prior to deleting sections.Fshepinc (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to stir the flames, but I am perturbed by the tone of your comments, which in my opinion tread the fine line of being a personal threat. I am going to assume your absolute good-faith intention, and my own paranoia here... As to the substance of your post: Any comments or questions I place on an article's discussion page are simply that; issues to discuss. I believe that is the express purpose of the discussion pages - to provide a place where various editors can discuss points of view, accuracy of information, etc. in pursuit of improving said article. The article in question appears to have been heavily re-edited over time, with a great deal of dispute over deletions, including suggestions of conflict of interest or impropriety on the part of previous editors. To paraphrase - that's not the page I want to die on. If you say you have no professional or personal connection to Intelius, Inc,, then I believe you. If you like, I will remove the question from the talk page (or you may do it with my full support). That leaves the larger question about the appropriateness of the edits/deletions on the main article, which are disputed on the talk page. To me, the article as it now appears seems to comply with Wikipedia standards, with factual information and references. (Not that it couldn't be improved -almost any article could.) You are clearly a more experienced editor than I am. How should we proceed? Is it appropriate to edit/delete information from a talk page? Is there a need to monitor the article in case of vandalism? Do you know of a Wikipedia policy that can be quoted or referenced on the talk page that will guide future editors who wish to add or delete sections to the article? I'm not a total noob, but my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and practices (and coding!) are limited to the specific issues I have run up against while editing. I try to learn as I go, but this is a situation where your additional experience is valuable. Fshepinc (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Are emoticons appropriate around here? :) Since I have your attention, can you please recommend a tutorial for how to properly cite references here? I would say the coding commands are Greek to me, but I understand Greek better than I understand markup languages... There are several articles/subjects I track, and many are tagged as needing more references. What is the simplest way to insert one?  Thank you.

Thank you
Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. 16x9 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep on truckin'
Thanks. Hope the list was useful. Doesn't seem to get much traffic, tho. If you're interested, you can help out with this. There's plenty of redlinks... Ciao. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) (Oh, BTW, I added a header to your cmt on my talk.)

Re: Could you help
Hi, thanks for your question. I've left a response on my Talk page. WBR, CountingPine (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

hey man, about Yahoo is true. How about you read this.. www.endmafia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.228.213 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)