User talk:Dgw/Archives/8

Halloween!
So what is everyone doing for Halloween? I'm just going to be passing candy out here in Big Lake! ~Angelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.133.45 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the use of my page as a forum because it's you. ;) I just hung out and went to a Hallowe'en concert at MacAlester with my best friend and girlfriend. It was a pretty fun night. How was your Hallowe'en? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 08:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Hidden Place video screenshot.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Hidden Place video screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong IP
Hey Voyager Boy, you got the wrong IP Address, because I never edited anything on the Chris Tucker page. I don't even know who Chris Tucker is. So why don't you learn to read IP addresses more closely instead of just randomly accusing innocent people of adding unconstructive things to pages they never even heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.55.41 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to your contributions history, someone who used your IP address back in March of last year made that edit. I see you've been busy making your own mark on the 'pedia, though. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenn House of Rep
Stop changing stuff you know nothing about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.204.49 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for your quick reverting of vandalism to my userpage! Qqqqqq (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wong Ming Yang -- Please read comment on latest edit
In future please at least READ THE ARTICLES (& all related pages) you edit BEFORE editing them. Then you will see if your edits are useful or not. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmk (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Had you used an edit summary in the first place saying why you were blanking the page, I would not have reverted you at all. Since your latest blanking, with summary, was reverted by someone else, I simply removed the link from Lee Hsien Loong to break the cycle. Is that an acceptable solution to the problem? Redirects from pages that used to have content are usually good things to keep. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use a descriptive edit summary when reverting good faith edits
i.e., the edit is clearly added in good faith. Please use an edit summary explaining why you are reverting the edit in cases like these. best, – xeno  ( talk ) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I honestly thought that looked like a pretty nonsensical edit, but I'll try to be more discriminating in the future. Thanks. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No,....game-guidey, but in good faith. cheers, – xeno  ( talk ) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In need of your mentorship
Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and WikiProject Outline of knowledge, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:


 * 1) Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
 * 2) Complete the existing outlines
 * 3) Create an outline for every subject that is exensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields).  There are thousands of these.
 * 4) Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
 * 5) Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
 * 6) Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
 * 7) Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I was hoping you could comment on how to achieve the goals above.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. So how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your help.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Can you recommend anyone in particular who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this? Or ways to reach groups of editors? Or ways to reach all editors? I welcome any and all advice you might have.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ruby Lin.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Ruby Lin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?
You have warned me for vandalism, for a "disruptive edit". However all I did was add a reliable source. Please explain how that can be considered vandalism, as I am totally confused. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Really, I am. My reflex kicked in to revert the edit and I thought I canceled the revert, but apparently not. I believe I've removed the erroneous warning from your talk page; I'll go there now to verify and make sure I haven't left any others.
 * Automated tools are great, but sometimes their speed is a hindrance rather than a help. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gmail login page.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Gmail login page.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just making sure.
Hi, can you confirm here that you requested a username change from User:Voyagerfan5761 to User:Dgw at Wikiquote? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. I see the note on your user page. Cheers again! bd2412  T 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Page merging
Is there some reason Soushokukei_danshi and Herbivore_men shouldn't be merged? Fephisto (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I mistook your edit for vandalism. I'll undo my revert and warning on your talk page. Thanks for letting me know! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * *thumb up* Np, thanks.  Fephisto (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski
I went ahead and removed the whole edit from the editor for now. I commend you through for attempting to find some middle ground for someone who was giving none :) Calmer   Waters  03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regular reverts didn't seem to be working, and AIV was unresponsive. I was initially unaware of Polanski's conviction, which didn't help, but I'm glad someone else stepped in. Cheers! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 03:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time to give some thought to a remedy for future situations ;) Calmer   Waters  03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy. I have certainly considered it. I just haven't had the guts to pull the trigger on an RfA. What doesn't help is the fact that I've been dormant for the majority of the last few years. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that. Shame you didn't pull the trigger around June back then :). Maybe in a few months time after be active again for a bit. If you do decide later on, have any questions about it, or want a vetting, feel free to drop me a note, or wonder over to these guys. Kindly Calmer   Waters  03:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Female Disciples
I did not vandalise my own article. I merely added further references ,external links and citations. Please see Dispute Resolution for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Curran (talk • contribs) 06:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted only one of your edits, and ignored the rest once I realized I'd made a mistake. Taking it to Dispute Resolution is overreacting a bit, isn't it? Granted, I should have more proactively corrected my error, but I heard nothing from you until this. Please accept my apologies. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 06:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now formally responded to the dispute resolution thread. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the WikiLove, Callanecc! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

newbie
Sorry about that I will use the sandbox to practice for a while ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdcelebrity (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

ummm?
I finally got the story on there correctly and you still removed it? May I ask why?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdcelebrity (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the entries above yours, it's not formatted correctly. It has no bullet (entered in wikitext using a * at the beginning of the line) and appears only as a [num], on a line by itself, with no actual article text shown in the list.


 * At the very least, you should include the actor's name, one or two works they're well-known for, and some details about the tape in question. Read through some of the other entries to get a sense of what it should look like, and play around in that sandbox you just created. You can also experiment on the article itself, as long as you use the Preview button. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks... sorry for the mistakes ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdcelebrity (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like you learned everything you needed. I just made a couple tweaks. Nice job! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help with my first edit! --Bigdcelebrity (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read changes to article before algorithmically deleting changes
You mechanically delete edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHLC this page without reading or editing. It is fun have your own spambots you built or implemented, but Wikipedia is about human editors. I would appreciate it if you would explain why this link http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/ohlcchart.asp#axzz21zLKMUA4 with a two sentence explanation is okay but this detailed link http://finvids.com/Chart-Pattern is not? The only thing that makes sense is an unintelligent bot is reviewing and not a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.228.121 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Human editors generally don't go through the article to review every other external link when deciding if a new one should be kept. If I had been patrolling the recent changes when the Investopedia link was added, I would have no doubt deleted it (something I will go do soon after saving this message).


 * My main concern with the FinVids link is that you might have a conflict of interest with it. Secondarily, the site (like Investopedia) is plastered with ads, and further, calls on visitors to "Click "Like" & "+1" for each page". Moreover, the ads are not clearly separate from the content. Wikipedia articles should not link to low-quality sites.


 * Aside from the presentational issues, FinVids looks like a much better source than the current list of links, but it does not provide the kind of user experience a site linked from Wikipedia should. If you have a connection with the site, I can suggest changes to your design that would make it more appropriate for inclusion (however, in that case, it would be inappropriate for you to add links to the site yourself). Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Let's just let it slide, eh :) Αlex (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(In regards to accidentally blanking a redirect)


 * Sure, sure. No punishment for honest mistakes around here. :) I'll delete that warning template from your talk page and let you get back to your editing. I didn't warn you after all. So. Happy editing, then! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 19:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You sign your posts Tuvoc. Awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 July 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I began the practice many years ago. It seems the logical course to continue, to avoid confusion. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Article
I apologize if I'm doing something wrong, but I am extremely dismayed to see that a single editor has recently changed the title of "California Polytechnic State University" to "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo." This was done with no consensus whatsoever, and I am shocked to see it. The title has been "California Polytechnic State University" for as long as I can remember, and to unilaterally change it I think is absolutely wrong and goes against significant discussion on this issue. Since this has been done, the intro sentence is now changed--also highly controversial. I am happy to discuss this on the talk page, but feel that the editor who changed the ENTIRE ARTICLE TITLE is not being held to the same standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.142.236 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand your dismay, and as I stated on your talk page a few moments ago I'm going to leave the dispute to you and other editors who know more about the situation. Cheers. I'll try not to bug you about it any more. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 02:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I differ with 50.136.142.236. Consensus was reached for the move. It's 50.136.142.236 who is engaging in an edit war.-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk  15:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, Marco. I will probably still stay mostly out of it, because I try to focus more on vandalism patrol than on raging disputes, but it's good to be more informed about the situation. Cheers, Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus was most certainly not reached. Indeed, none of this discussion was even made evident on the actual article's talk page.  Furthermore, even looking at Marco's arguments in the discussion, his logic is highly faulty.  Pomona's name is not "California Polytechnic State University, Pomona."  Rather, it is "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona."  This is a salient fact as it resolves ambiguity.  Marco has a history of vandalizing the Cal Poly article and this name change reaches a new low.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.142.236 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

new artical for celebrity sex tape page
Hey there man, you helped me on a post a while back but it seems everyone changed it in some way and I forgot kinda how I added the news. Anyways fyi http://sextape.com/verified-devin-star-tailes-dev-sex-tape-video-real/ I do not see this on the celebrity sex tape page as of yet and thought I would let ya know, do with it what you will ;) Bigdcelebrity (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow this kind of news, but it looks like people were merely adding proper citation templates to a few existing entries, plus adding a new one. As for Dev, there aren't enough details to qualify it for listing, that I can see. I also question the reliability of that site, but only because I haven't seen it before and it doesn't say where its info came from. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics
Hi. I see you are listed as a member of the WikiProject Robotics project. Some of us are trying to assess who and how many of those Wikipedia editors who have signed on to the project in the pass seven years are still active, or would like to still be active, in the endeavor of improving Robotics-related articles on the English Wikipedia. If you have the time and inclination, would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page, or perhaps indicate current interest by your name on the WikiProject Robotics/Participants page. If you are no longer interested in participating, please just remove your name from the Participants page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disinformation from wikipedia.
I have stated 100 percent accurate facts that have been seen on Larry King's Live broadcast from 2011 when Dana White was on. I feel the information that I have given, Which can be backed by said earlier show, is a great contribution to the Dana White page. The man himself stated all that information and for you to undo it is complete disinformation and withholding such truths is a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.57.5 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Dana White is a biographical article about a living person, unsourced negative content—and what you added counts as negative in this sense—requires a cited source, not just in the edit comment, but in a reference within the article. Feel free to add it back with a citation (preferably an article about or video clip of the interview with Larry King). :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 12:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand about the source which I will find when I re update the wiki, but for you to claim that is negative information is not yours to decide when in fact of the matter here it still the truth and the truth is to be told here otherwise this site is nothing more than a contradictory to itself and every page and post made here within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.57.5 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)