User talk:Edgarde/2008

WP:FG
Hey, just wanted to stop by and say congrats that the WikiProject Family Guy got its 9th GA, they're coming in quickly, so watch out :). I'm almost finished the project revamp (for a quick look, see here), that will be ready in a week or so. Cheers, Qst 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Qst. I'm looking forward to seeing your revamp. Will you be linking Portal:Family Guy to the WikiProject and vice versa? I'm appreciative of all the good work you have been doing for WP:FG; no one was more surprised than me to see so many episode articles reach GA.


 * Please don't credit me for the Seth MacFarlane GA &mdash;User: m ir a nd  a   (talk contribs) did the heavy lifting on that one. I just came in at the last minute to siphon off some of that editor's rightful glory. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Street Children In Angeles Article
Hello Edgarde, do you mind having a look at the following article....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children_angeles_philippines I started and seeing if you can tidy it up a bit, as well as give me some advice and guidence on some mistakes I may have made and suggestions on how to improve it and make it more encyclopedic, kindest regardsSusanbryce (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging at Nursery Cryme
Hi. When merging articles on Wikipedia, please remember to include in the edit summary a direct link to the merged article. This is necessary to indicate authorship history in accordance with the requirements of GFDL. Your link to the AfD discussion is helpful, but not sufficient for this purpose. You can see Help:Merge if you'd like more information or contact me at my talk page. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying this, a couple of wikipedians got annoyed by this. -20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.97.7 (talk)

The Xiph logo
Hi, I'm some guy. Okay not just any guy: a guy in Xiph, the makers of Vorbis, Ogg, etc. Anyway, just noticed you uploaded our logo here and that's a big no no for us. You used the rationale of our Wiki license (CC BY 3.0) but that doesn't apply to the logo. Listen, I'm not here to badmout you, but I don't have time to solve this, get with the mods, ask for deletion, proper reason, etc. I would appreciate if you would help me out. I understand you are using the logo for advocating the use of Vorbis and that's awesome; we really need people to help us promoting our formats, but try to avoid to use the Xiph own logo as that is trademarked. We have a free-logo, though, that you can use for this purpose: it's the one we use for Spread Open Media and it's released on the Public Domain. You can find it on Wikimeda Commons under the Category Spread Open Media. I personally like this blue version, which I'm not sure I ever got to upload to Commons. If you care about this issue, reply on my user page or e-mail me, whatever you prefer.-- Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me. I have requested "speedy deletion" of this image file by adding Db-imgcopyvio to the licensure section of Image:Xiph.org.gif. Usually speedied images are removed within a few hours.
 * I will look for free replacement images at Wikipedia Commons some time later.
 * I regret this error and hope it has not damaged your image in any way. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on citation and external links
Thanks for your advice. I'm still getting to grips with citation and did worry about whether people would be able to find the relevant bits. I'll try to take on board what you're saying.

I believe the external links I added did conform to policy. They mostly refer to the new issue of International Socialism, which has just become available online. They each add substantially to the relevant article (I think), but if you disagree I'd be more than happy to look at the cases you think are dubious and remove if necessary.

I've tried to use citation where I think there is a particular relevant point in the journal article, but in some cases the articles I've referred to contain a whole analysis of the topic of the wikipedia page and deserve to be external links (eg neoliberalism, happiness, Imagined Communities).

Piquant (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Script
Hey edg.! I do know a guy working on a Fam Guy script: ME!!! That's right, I'm working on a Family Guy script, I run a Family Guy society, I watch it every night, and yes, I have no life! And I would love to talk to you about it, but I don't have an e-mail adress. But how about we talk about it on the Family Guy Wikia? How about that? Type to ya' later!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. I decided to get into the 21st Century and I got e-mail. So you can e-mail me here. Can't wait to hear from you! With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You still alive ed? I haven't heard from you in a while. Just checkin'. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ed, I think I shold tell you that the Whoes Turn segment I sent you wasn't exactly the best one. They've gotten better, but that one was my first one. Just saying. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edit summary
Here.

I know how you feel man, due to the fact that I was on vacation I couldn't voice my opinions on Peter's other father. Only if everyone could vote before time runs out. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective Episode Standard
I saw your support for my statement. I would like to propose this as an objective standard:
 * ''Notable episodes are those that meet any of the following criteria:

Can you think of any specific additional criteria?Kww (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) ''has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization;
 * 2) ''have had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role);
 * 3) reached an unusual peak of ratings (such as the finale of M*A*S*H); 
 * 4) achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world(the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon; the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, etc.)


 * I think real-world notability may be the only acceptable notability. My favorite criteria for Family Guy episodes are lawsuits and Parents Television Council boycotts. That said, I think an "objective" standard (beyond what is already stated in WP:NOTE) would be a difficult and contentious discussion at this time. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Griffin
Thanks for that cleanup. I am going to try and work on some Family Guy pages soon enough, will you be able to help me with the Chris Griffin and Carter Pewterschmidt articles - ensuring they keep within the manual of style?? Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy to support such efforts, and am adding Carter Pewterschmidt to my watchlist.


 * WikiProject Family Guy is seeking editors who can help bring these articles to encyclopedic quality. You are highly invited. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Statement supported by
Done; it's been removed from the primary discussion page. Once I have the time later today I'll probably make a statement - going to need to dig up a report of such a purge for it though.

On an unrelated note, that lolcats picture on your user page has to be the best one I've seen thus far ;)

~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria
Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PinkFloyd-album-saucerfulofsecrets-300.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:PinkFloyd-album-saucerfulofsecrets-300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Wall Live-300.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:The Wall Live-300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need your warnings, thanks.ViperNerd (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ViperNerd (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, but agree with me, he is acting like a kid right?   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes kids can be cool, like me! but the other half are, well, vandalists or just annoying.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate over Article for Deletion: Clemson University football recruiting scandal
Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. Please participate in the debate here: Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal, if possible.-- Thör  hammer 08:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help standardizing refs in this article! ViperNerd (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right...
...I'm wrong. I'll keep that in mind next time.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A Cappella
Thanks! :D 86.44.6.14 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Evilmonkey
A tag has been placed on Template:Evilmonkey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pinkfloyd 50.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pinkfloyd 50.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pulse-300.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pulse-300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nice work
My work here is due to a combination of mild OCD and a life spent absorbing music through every pore in my body. Thanks for the recognition—I keep planning on leaving but then something else sucks me in. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New section -header
e- rE the triv/guideline discussion, these words- If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

I am fairly certain that i saw somewhere a statement to the opposite gist to this one which currently forms part of the text of this guideline (second section). My recollection is a statment to the effect, in fact, from User Jimbo, if memory serves, to the effect --if information does not need to be included then it does not need to be included, or some thing more like that than the "linked words". It was on an early talkpage, or archives. I am thinking Iar:talk, although it is more logical that it be talk:OR, or talk:V or some BLP; it is here my memory fails me. Does any of this seem familiar to you, at all? cheers nbg Newbyguesses - Talk 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure which quote you're referring to, but 2 separate Jimbo quotes come to mind:
 * on WP:OR or unsourced statements: better no information than information such as this (very approximate wording). This sounds closest to what you describe. The quote is from an email list, and is reprinted in a few places around WP.
 * on Trivia: The important thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection.
 * Do you mean either of these? If it's the first one, let me know and I can hunt it down for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one, still thinking I saw it in an archive of talk:Iar, thanksNewbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it."better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.'"Removed from WP:V on October 2007. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. It was restored, and is still at the bottom of Verifiability. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont ignore *Ignore*
You might like this one. Then again you might hate it, but dont blame&mdash;Newbyguesses - Talk 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bonus navboxes on Family Guy episodes
There's an ongoing controversy over whether those additional navboxes at the bottom of Family Guy episode articles are desirable. I think they have all been removed once or twice. Would you care to join the discussion? / edg ☺ ☭ 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at it. Can you be more specific as to which navboxes you're talking about? Give me an example. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I hit the wrong Talk page. The editor I wanted to communicate with is . The edit in question was this one. :Thanks for getting back to me on this. I will bring this up on Cyberhawk241's Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

W. Thomas Smith Jr.
The assertions made against Smith are defaming a respected journalist, and began with a concerted blog campaign against him in National Review. Wikipedia is asserting that he has been shamed, which is complete false. He has been vindicated by many sources and the page on Wikipedia is extremely biased against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachBrad08 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The word shamed is highly POV, and that got past me. I appreciate your pointing that out. I don't see any sources for Smith being "vindicated" however&mdash;merely defended&mdash;and I don't see how the sources provided are "defamatory". This article has been subject to tendentious deletions of sourced material unflattering to Smith. If you can find reliable sources saying Smith's claims were true, or alternately that they were a somehow reasonable mistake that a responsible journalist would make, these would be a useful contribution to the article. Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrative nomination: Please consider this posting
We were in an AfD dispute last year. Articles_for_deletion/Ernie_%28Family_Guy%29

I noticed that you removed Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg "I'm in your wiki reverting your edits", but based on the complaints above, your poor behavior in nominating AfDs has not changed.

As I earlier quoted to you another user who left Wikipedia, liking it to your behavior:


 * I had become involved in the “articles for deletion” venue, where I began becoming the target of immense hatred...All the while, I wondered why the hell I was doing it. I began to realize that, for me, the nasty truth was that much of it was a power trip. Oh, don’t get me wrong: my actions were taken because, in part, I did truly believe that the articles I nominated didn’t belong. But it was indeed a manifestation of a darker side of me — I enjoyed the fact that I could hurt someone — make them angry and mad and defensive. Because in my real life, that’s not something I do. I’m Mister Friendly with nearly everyone I meet, and I’m actually a really nice guy in about 99% of circumstances. But something about the process brought out the worst in me — aggression and adrenaline, all funneled through a keyboard without danger of being punched in the face. Resisting the temptation to say “fuck you, fanboy,” and instead turning it into a passive-aggressive “I truly believe that your article is not notable, and would remind you that Wikipedia has policies regarding not attacking your fellow editors and being civil to them” (ah, did I have a gift for the bull-lingo) ...I got a dark thrill out of seeing people froth and rage and turn into drooling rabid ready-for-heart-attack messes because they weren’t getting the fight they wanted out of me. And another side of me looked at that dark thrill and went, “What the fuck are you doing, Mike?”

Yes, I sincerely believe your deletion of the Ernie (Family Guy) article was in bad faith. I am glad that you have the moral certainty and superiority, in your infinite wisdom, to decide what is "good" and what is "bad".

I want other editors who come here with grievances about your wikilawyering and manipulation of wikipolicy to push your power trips, to read the above quote, and understand why you probably do it.

In addition, many editors who want to become admins start by putting pages up for deletion. I hope this quote and the way you push your self-righteous power trips is what causes you to lose your admin nomination.

I am not the first nor the last person who will direct their "immense hatred" toward your "aggression and adrenaline" to "hurt someone".Odessaukrain (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit disappointed because sufficient time has passed since this AFD for you to reconsider some of these opinions, and perhaps gain some perspective. Ernie was deleted by consensus of Wikipedia editors, and for good reason. You have no reason to insult me on my Talk page. I must ask you please to not post further harangues on my Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry so long in my response.
 * Your original response on my page, and your edits on your page, in which you prominently put this at the top of your posting:
 * [[Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg|thumb|right|Teh kitteh in qweschun]]
 * [[Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg|thumb|center|Teh kitteh in qweschun]]
 * and your message to me on your user page
 * shows that despite your passive aggressive tone, my assessment is probably correct. Odessaukrain (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to make this clear. Please do not post further comments on my Talk page. If you have issues with me, consider filing a request for comment. These insults and harangues are unwelcome on my Talk page, and do not help edit Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam
Thanks for removing the spam links. I am going to sleep now so will probably continue discussion later. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very patient
I was looking at the user talk of Mslatif and saw your gentle approach to his seven spam links. I couldn't find a "barnstar of patience" so I guess that means I should get off my lazy posterior and design one, but until then I think this should do.


 * Thank you Peter. I should admit however that only by leaning heavily on tools like uw-spam1 (the template used on User talk:Mslatif) can I exercise this gentle patience with spammers. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still beats mine. I usually jump straight to 3 when someone's blatantly vandalizing it. When it looks like it could possibly be a mistake I start out as nicely as possible, but when they delete an article and replace it with 'poop' I prefer not to mince words. Peter Deer (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
I removed that whole section from the FAQ - there was no consensus to add it to the FAQ and I seriously object to the leading tone, poor sentence construction etc. I've told the author to go back to the talkpage and get further input on the matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I thought this had been settled with the new item included, and I was trying to nudge it toward being more encyclopedic. I'll zap it now. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he meant by "casual" Muslims either. Moderate, maybe? Lapsed?  He pretty much C&P my answering comment straight from talk page, and I'd be the first to admit that my responses weren't encyclopedic.  Thanks for the help, even if we all jumped the gun on consensus a bit.. -MasonicDevice (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image opt-out box
I didn't see the discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images. I'm new to this discussion so I'm asking here. Free-speech principles aside, would adding a box like this one (fixed per standards, of course) to the top of Muhammad be a terrible idea? It would allow pious types to quickly fix their problem, and it encourages them to register accounts and edit Wikipedia. Per WP:NDT, it does not seem to duplicate the 5 disclaimers. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interruptions
Thanks. I'll give it a try... -MasonicDevice (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment in Talk:Muhammad/images
I hope you don't mind my reverting your comment. It seems like something you would have regretted in an hour or so. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I was reverting it myself. It's a bit difficult to AGF and stay OT with that one.  All he wants to talk about is how I "censored" him.  As if...-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Best to disengage. I see both sides getting frustrated. I'm not Wikipedia's most tactful editor, but I'm cringing every time someone says Islamic tradition is "irrelevant". I know what is meant by this, but it's so easy to see how the certain parties will find that incredibly insulting. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I wish there were a better way to say it.  The best I've been able to think up is "Irrelevant to this project operating under the rules set out in WP:LOP".  But that's a mouthfull.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might help to phrase it as an affirmative: these images are relevant to the article. The FAQ section Aren't the images false? has some reasons why. People immersed in the traditions probably find Islam relevant to everything (and why wouldn't it be?). You don't want to butt heads against that. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't exactly the complaint he was raising, though. His complaint was more, "Due to Islamic tradition, law, and scholarship why the images are relevant to this article?"  The best affirmative answer I can come up to that is: "WP has its own critera for determination of relevance and inclusion into articles."  Of course, that has the implication that WP's policies superseed other rulesets, so it's not much better than saying, "Your rules don't apply here," except that it's less confrontational.  -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd edit
Your last edit to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ (summary "fix anchor links") inserted the text "face melting guitar" at the start of Q7. The rest of the edit seemed OK, so I've deleted just those three words instead of reverting. Ajhodd (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly weird. I guess that was left in my paste buffer from some other page. Thanks for fixing this. :)  / edg ☺ ☭ 05:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

BOLD ALLCAPS SIG
Hi WBO. Thanks for you contributions.

Your sig is really loud. Could I suggest you turn it down a little, perhaps unbold, smaller font, or a lighter color? It's not a big deal, not something I usually care about, and if you don't want to change it, not something I'd complain about. But usually by the time I notice something like this, someone else is being really aggravated by it, so maybe you might wanna consider. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right you are - I was thinking that myself... how's it now? WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon  15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On my browser (Firefox on Puppy Linux, Xfce desktop I think) it looks about the same, but higher. If you're still trying things out, then I don't need to butt in any further. Thanks for getting back to me on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry; typo in the code. Should be ok now, this is what I've used since December.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon  15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this time it's lower. I'm guessing that's cos it's "buried in the garden". Also, I'm wrong about Xfce; I'm actually using IceWM. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know either ;) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on American settlement in the Philippines
"rewrite please" is a very non-specific suggestion. Can you add specific suggestions or at least identify specific problems on Talk:American settlement in the Philippines? It is a bit much to ask without explanation on Discussion page. The Cleanup-rewrite template also accepts a "Reason for rewrite" parameter. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember now why I requested it be rewritten. It appeared to be mostly an amalgamated collection of unsourced factoids posted by various users. It looked to me like the majority of the article was completely unverifiable and that it needed to be rewritten from the ground up. That was just my summary assessment of the article, I'm kind of a wikignome and I usually just make minor changes and suggestions. If you do not feel that the article is in need of such a drastic rewriting feel free to remove the notice. But thank you for contacting me about it as well. Peter Deer (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added your specific suggestions to the template. I think this makes it much more helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that should do nicely in this regard. Peter Deer (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Cheers for reverting and reporting User:Larry123456789, much appreciated--Jac16888 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom-Tom
Thanks, dude. I hate when people make mistakes like that, especially when its something so identified with pop culture.

Phone Sex
Sorry about that, I thought I was removing vandalism, instead I restored it. Thanks for fixing. --Simon Speed (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy names
That other fictional character articles do this is not a reason to do this in Family Guy. Generally the middle names are one-shot gags, so these don't really belong in the lede sections. "Proper" names (such as Megan) only make sense when the character is more formally known by that name, which does not make sense for this show. Lois has never been nee. Pewterschmidt in any real-world sense (including in the show's non-flashback status quo), and expressing this character's name in this fashion is in-universe.

Even if the show is consistent with name details (and the writers could choose to complicate this in any future episode), the characters' names are really those used in their article titles. There is no more proper name for a fictional character. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So you don't really care, huh? If you don't mind, I'll be restoring my edits. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I just thought that as nearly all other fictional characters with middle names and elongated true names are referenced at the beginning that Family Guy should be as well, my point being what seperates Family Guy from every other show? Leo (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that articles you could cite for other shows are, in many cases, wrong. The Family Guy character template contains a space for detailed name. Using the detailed name twice at the article top says this is the character's name, even tho in many cases the detailed name is almost never used on the show, and may be partially derived from one-shot gags. The bold name in the lede section should be the name of the character, not a place for pedantic trivia. I think this should be consistent with Family Guy character articles. Articles for The Simpsons, etc., can be dealt with separately. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Adult Vest
Mate,have been away from Wiki for a while and just checked your message. what makes you think i was trying to promote adult vest.There are numourous references to other websites in the pages that i edited. I also think the reference to Adult vest was fully relevant to the section on ethical investing. Dont understand your rationale for blocking the edit. Gs44631 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking.


 * AdultVest has a history of self-insertion in various articles, so when I saw this firm again inserted into inappropriate articles, I presumed it was advertising. If your sincere intention was to improve those articles, then you have my apology.


 * Your contribution to the Sex industry article seems to describe the company while shedding very little light on that article's topic. As this firm seems to be an investment novelty, neither representing a trend, nor having its own significant influence on the industry, a paragraph in that article gives this business undue weight. It's a gratuitous mention, regardless of the reason for the insertion. This is the reason AdultVest is removed from that article.


 * The inclusion of AdultVest in Socially responsible investing is even less relevant. Obviously there are many trivial examples of investing that might be considered not socially responsible, and the inclusion of AdultVest is both questionable as an illustration, and violates WP:NPOV in the presumption that the sex industry is particularly opposite of social responsibility. The best examples are ones that need the least amount of argument that they are in fact exemplary.


 * If you wish to contest the inclusion of "numerous references" to other companies in either of those articles, I would recommend you take it to the article Discussion pages. Your objections to those companies is not a rationale for including AdultVest. I hope this makes sense and seems fair to you. I've linked relevant Wikipedia policies where I think it might make things clear. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob Grill
Hi Edgarde:

Thanks for your note. My most recent post in Talk:Rob Grill I think addresses your question, but I'll expand a bit here.

My concern in this matter is this. If there is going to be a "negative" report in someone's bio, we need to be confident of what we say. This includes not only "is it true?", not only "is it properly documented?, but also "is it important enough to include in this person's bio?"

I was not taking sides with the people who were deleting the sentence, I was not taking sides against your point-of-view (though it might have seemed that way to you.)

I was standing up for what I understand as a basic principle in the BLP policy. If in doubt, leave it out". (till the doubt gets resolved.)

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell
I believe the box is needed. The Radio City DVD cannot be included on the Black Sabbath box as it is not Sabbath. I'm working on creating the tour page myself. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have continued with the tour page. What do you think? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote Stack
I wasn't doing a vote stack. I invited people from different parts of Wikipedia. Look that I have admins and regular editors, metal fans, and people completely indifferent. If I wanted to stack the vote, I would have looked at the list of members at a wikiproject. Your claim seems to be a fast action. Undeath (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

History of For Better or For Worse
It's already there. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

University of South Carolina steroid scandal article
Things have been peaceful in this article before the sockpuppet 63-14 Blowout!!! showed up to make trouble. We don't need more edit warring here. Please revert this article to the last version by ClueBot and protect it until this child decides to move on. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Article protected. Thanks for your assistance if you were involved. 65.188.38.31 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports
Suspected sock puppets has instructions for filing sockpuppetry reports. It is important to provide clear, concise evidence of sockpuppetry, using dated diffs of the actions presented as evidence. Concision is important because WP:SSP investigating is constantly backlogged, and hard work for the reviewing administrators. Long or hard-to-follow reports will tend to be set aside in favor of easier work. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit War
Hey I created the page Clemson Tigers men's basketball and have been the primary editor of the page for many months now. Recently, and coincidentally, since ViperNerd started adding and deleting information to the page, two editors Enjoisktboarding and 74.242.238.54 have joined in to add and delete information for now apparent reason. They are constantly deleting information that is neutral in nature without reason. I feel like this is a Sock Puppet attack similar to those ViperNerd is accused of in different areas.

Also, by taking a quick look at the edit history and talk page of ViperNerd, one gets a good impression he exists on Wikipedia to make Clemson University look bad, and the University of South Carolina look good.

Now I am no Wikipedia admin nor have I ever lodged a complaint or anything. I simply edit and maintain articles that are of interest to me. So I really am at a loss for direction for how to deal with blatant vandalism. The only purpose of this edit war is to frustrate me. Please advise.--Jober14 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Enjoisktboarding is an older account than ViperNerd, and does not seem to be the same person. A 2nd report on (instructions) might have a description like this one:


 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

begins editing 2008-03-20, and after a few token edits (in Jeffrey Dahmer‎), joined in removing sourced information from. is an older account with few edits (some in Jeffrey Dahmer‎), and appears to be logging out to evade 3RR. The IP address tag-teams with Enjoisktboarding  
 * Evidence

Tag-teaming with ViperNerd suggests meatpuppetry. ViperNerd often edits from a geographically distant IP address, and is probably not be the same editor.  
 * Leaving out 65.188.38.31 and ViperNerd, this might be better reported on WP:AN3 as an attempt by Enjoisktboarding to evade the Three revert rule by simply logging out. (Incidentally, you may also be past third revert in this edit war.) Looking superficially, I don't see clear evidence that ViperNerd is cooperating with Enjoisktboarding; you will need diffs confirming this. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sock-Puppet - ViperNerd
Edgarde, I have added 69.132.84.127 to the list of suspected IPs being used by this sock. User appears to be circumventing policy (48 hour block) by using this IP to make edits while blocked. I think 3RR policy suggests resetting the block clock if policy is being circumvented, so I will take that to WP:ANI. Thanks. -- Thör hammer 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Options: report to WP:ANI, report to WP:AN3, or ignore it. I'm choosing option 3. You do what you need. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Jazz Music → Music of Chicago
Thanks for creating the Chicago jazz article. This has lots of potential.

Per MOS:CAP, "Chicago Jazz Music" is miscapitalized, and as a historical music article it would be better entitled Music of Chicago. I have detailed the reasons for this suggestion in Talk:Chicago Jazz Music. Would you be okay with this change? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can change the title, im ok with that!!!!Mertozoro (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I see you beat me to it. :-) / edg ☺ ☭ 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
Thanks for recommending I do a revert immediately, instead of asking for consensus on the article's talk page. I just started editing Wikipedia this week (though I've been a reader here for a long time), and didn't want to make a major boo-boo from the start. I guess it's too early for me to be bold. I'm sure I'll get bolder as time goes by. Thanks again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Your cautious assumption of good faith is sensible and appreciated. Verifiability (not to mention Jimbo Wales) grants editors much permission to revert questionable, unsourced material. Comfort and experience pending, WP:BRD will usually work well in situations like this one. Ni! / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP pop culture personal essay
I just wanted to point you to my own draft essay on the topic, after having seen yours: User:Mangojuice/PC. Mango juice talk 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mj. I have watchlisted it, but haven't given it a thorough read yet. User:edgarde/IPC is a basically unedited archive of an essay by Eyrian. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

family guy episode count
sorry for the confusion, i just meant there were already various episode counts on THAT page, and keeping it at the top is just an unnecessary edit, but there are a few sites that have a total count and i'll get back to you in a bit on those. But when every episode on the page is currently labeled in the season count and total count there is no need for this redundant info. Grande13 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing
I was gonna congratulate you for the cool psychotic art but then I saw your user boxes and it all made sense. :) Thanks for ogging us up. Have all ICP fans seen the Frontline episode (text summary)? No idea if it represents the Juggalo fairly, but it's the funniest Frontline ever. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
You made my day with that one. thank you. so youre a fan? if you want, we're trying to get a wikiproject going for Psychopathic Records. If youre interested you can find it | here.the juggreserection IstKrieg! 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meant to get back to you sooner. Most of what I know about ICP I learned on Wikipedia, and my own bad taste in music was formed in the 1980s (Swans, Motörhead, Schoolly D, disposable punk bands), so I can't contribute much to those projects. I've watchlisted a few of the pages around User:JpGrB/WikiProject Psychopathic Records, and will try to help if I can. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks dude, any help is appreciated. but if you are gonna help, you should seriously add your name to that list. the more people we get, the faster this thing will take off.<font color='#ff0000'>the juggreserection IstKrieg! 13:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reprimand for adding link to page
I appreciate the criticism of my post to the doors page about the album Full Circle. Could you please explain to me how adding a link to an external site (without changing any wording within the wiki) can be construed as creating a hoax. Especially when the external site is a legal depository of rare music which is what the wikipedia page was referring to.

Thanks, I value your input.

Gk demian (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)gk_demian


 * My apologies. The recording was not a hoax. I have struck the warning message I left. However, it still needed to be removed because it is not free content, and the full length recording exceeds what is allowed under Wikipedia's "fair use" policy, which is very exclusive and more stringent than fair use law requires. There was some brief discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria. Wikipedia's external links policy also forbids linking to copyrighted media.


 * Again, very sorry for the hoax accusation. This was rash and unwarranted of me. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Griffin
Yeah, that one looked ok, but since it was an anon, I was hesitant to go with it. It was a tough call! =) Dp76764 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Rob Grill
Hello Edgarde:

I saw your note about deleting the article. Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way on this. The group does have 14 gold awards which I think makes them fairly well known. But rock is out of my field.

I'm disappointed that there was no answer given to our question. I'm going to try again. Likely it was a case of it "falling through the cracks".

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re Masculinity
I'm copying this from the reliable sources board in case you miss it in the sea of recent postings. It a reply to your question:


 * Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Wikipedia to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these here and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? Paul B (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this gets more and more interesting. Thanks for filling me in. I've not tried to figure out what's going on in Non-western concepts of male sexuality (tho it's a subject in which I would be interested) and have had no dealings with Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but a scan of their current TOC suggests they favor "hard science", so the more concrete User:Masculinity makes the "conspiracy", the more appropriate WP:FT/N seems. If User:Masculinity is not really proposing an explicit conspiracy (like I said, still haven't read the stuff) but merely personalizing the actions of what User:Masculinity considers a pernicious influence of outsiders' perspectives, then a re-write describing that influence (as can be documented) without the ad hominem might be a compromise agreeable to all, at least once User:Masculinity lets go of Masculinity for boys.

My ignorant $0.02.

I'll try and read thru the Non-western concepts article some time in the next day or two. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't think he means a literal conspiracy as such, but rather a ideology that is being aggressively promoted. Certainly he would not use the word conspiracy, but he does tend to adopt inflamatory rhetoric ("Suppressing the voice of opposition so that one enjoys absolute power is a typical "Oppressor" mentality. Gays are supposed to be "oppressed" not "oppresors"" etc). It's also obvious from comments he has made that Masculinity himself is either the author of the "Masculinity for Boys" document, or someone very close to him. Paul B (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology for additions made to Generation Y article
Dear Edgarde,

I am writing to apologize for the additions and alterations made to the “Generation Y” article in the past two months. At no time was Peter Sheahan aware of the edits being made on Wikipedia. Any information uploaded to Wikipedia in future will adhere strictly to the Wikipedia guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

Samuel Michael Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Leftist-Islamist Alliance or Marx-Muhammad pact, Wikiquote
"This isn't the place to discuss it, but could Wikiquote use articles on Leftist-Islamist Alliance or Marx-Muhammad pact"

I don't know and I wouldn't create the pages if I were me (and I am) but if the term is specifically used by the authors then it could work and not run into the same problems as we do here with secondary sources--because, you don't need them. I am not exactly sure how Wikiquote judges if pages should be kept or not but it seems reasonable--especially if the pages are deleted here. gren グレン 05:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone described these terms as nonce phrases, which I think would fall outside the scope of Wikiquote. However, if either of these topics were taken seriously somewhere, they might be valid entries, and the names of writers using this language could have some informative value. That said, I'm not interested in creating these articles myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick-up line
Good call on removing those "examples", I wasn't sure whether it would be appropriate to do so. Cheers Nestorius (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for replying to the propostion about Family Guy recurring characters! What characters do you think fits all the guildlines, and should be added?- Yours truly, <font color="#964B00">[ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r <font color="#987654"> reply! 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would be the best judge of this. Other editors seem to have a more complete knowledge of the show than I do. I have replied to your Takanawa draft in Talk:List of characters from Family Guy. Thanks for your work on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh but your a great editor too! But still, its no problem.- Yours truly, <font color="#964B00">[ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r <font color="#987654"> reply! 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Edg
Hello edgarde.

As I mentioned to jossi on my talk page, the first thing I want to do is reach out to you. Despite the fact you firmly believe I am Rodent, I would like an opportunity to prove to you that I am not. This is probably a most difficult and challenging endeavor. But one I do take seriously. I believe there is a lot of work ahead to be done. And while I don't necessarily agree with all the actions you have taken in the past, I do find you to be a knowledgeable and valuable editor. You may find that hard to believe coming from who you think I am. But it is the truth. I take nothing you have said against me personally. If it were me in the opposite position, I probably would have believed and indeed come to the same conclusions you did. Please try to see the opposite though. Please try to believe me when I say I am not him. I certainly cannot and won't deny I share some of his issues and concerns. Where I differ is the methods. So I extend my virtual hand to you. I hope you will take it. I encourage you to monitor my editing closely. I value your input on the issues I have raised. I will probably be raising some others as well. But always in a way the respectful, polite, and appropriate for Wikipedia. HurryTaken (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music in popular culture
After over a month without any activity, I've moved Talk:Classical music in popular culture to User:Edgarde/Classical music in popular culture. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here 2000 Remastered CD-300.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here 2000 Remastered CD-300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewie
User:Ctjf83 keeps on reverting my edits (of trying to add the LGBT characters category to Stewie's article), accusing me of trying to add lies and inaccuracies to Wikipedia.

I don't want this to escalate anymore than it already has; what should I do? --DrBat (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I've replied on the relevant talk pages,  and asked for feedback from a few uninvolved parties.  / edg ☺ ☭ 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to go to conflict resolution, this is getting stupidly out of control. Just ask some people in the FG project what they think. <font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">t <font color="#ffff00">j <font color="#009900">f <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 Talk 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, don't worry about any of it, I no longer care as indicated on Stewie's talk page <font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">t <font color="#ffff00">j <font color="#009900">f <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 Talk 21:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A third opinion is needed.
So I was wondering if you could join this discussion? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent cat deletion: electronic music pioneers
I did not see this discussion until it was closed. The cat was removed on what looks to be a 2/3 vote. I agree with your assessment, this is no different from the cats of other pioneers in technology progress. The cat should have been kept and narrowed to the inventors and developers of the technology. With my vote it would have been 2/4 and would not have had "consensus". Would you support me if I restored the category? Also, I only know of perhaps 4 or 5 who qualify for the category (Moog, Carlos, Mauzey, Theremin). Can you help with any others? --Blainster (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Restoring a deleted category is not a good idea, as it mostly perpetuates the conflict. The next place to take this would be Deletion review, where it can be considered by more seasoned Admins. If you need help with this, I will be back online tomorrow, but all you need for now is to request that the deletion be overturned.
 * Off the top of my head, I would add Raymond Scott, Louis and Bebe Barron and Pierre Schaeffer to that list, but I am no expert. Many notables are listed linked from Electronic art music and other Main article articles linked from Electronic music. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be tied up for the next day or two, but appreciate your suggestions. --Blainster (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there was nothing wrong process-wise with this deletion, I don't wish to appeal to WP:DRV on my own. Let me know when you're available. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Prophets of Islam
Odd, I must have been looing at an earlier version of the page and edited it by accident. I meant to remove the commentary attached to the link to IslamQA, and put it where it belonged as an external link rather than a "See Also". Looking back on ym edit, this is not what I actually did - I have reverted myself. Sorry for the mistake. I have no strong view on whether IslamQA is promotional, but am happy for it not to be included if there is a view against it. Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've worked out what happened - I was looking at the "Recent Changes" list at WP:ISLAM, which lists all recent edits to an article, not just the most recent. There were several edits to Prophets of Islam - I accidentally clicked on an old one and edited that, removing your more recent change. Sorry about that. Euryalus (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

B-sides
WikiProject Discographies/style under What should not be included. No FL discographies have B-side lists. I hope this helps you out. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Script
Hey, ed, you alive dude? I haven't heard from you in a couple months. Just checkin'? With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Awards section in Infobox Issue
Edgarde, the issue has been raised again about adding awards to the infobox. Your well thought-out ideas got squashed last time and I think there's enough consensus on the issue. Would you like to rejoin the conversation? Here --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't take this on now, but was interested in this. I still have some template models that may be helpful.
 * User:Edgarde/Infobox Musical artist - version with award parameters and instructions.
 * User:Edgarde/sandbox2 - example
 * Good luck. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Homer Simpson
As you may (or may not) have noticed, I have been doing a lot of work on the article as of late, trying to get it ready for a potential FAC by the end of the month. At this point I need a lot of feedback, so I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and tell me what you think. I was thinking of adding another fair use image to the article (possibly a comparison of Homer's look in the beginning of the Ullman shorts, the end of the Ullman shorts, the beginning of The Simpsons and the most recent episode although the anti-fair use warriors wouldn't like that) so if you have any suggestions for that, I would be glad to hear them. -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
I just removed some dead links,you can keep them if you like--7amada&#39;sback:) (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-Ro
The rapper Z-Ro is from Missouri City, Texas, as he states in his songs. Please do not vandalize the article by changing information which you have no knowledge of. --67.80.174.252 (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source for this. It is not supported by any of the references supplied in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On POV pushing
In the RfC on my user conduct, you endorsed the proposed remedies, including C7, which states: ''Accusations of POV-pushing: If an editor believes that an article is biassed and that the article does not conform to NPOV and tries to change the article to something which in the editor's opinion conforms better to NPOV, or if there is no clear evidence otherwise that would be convincing to a typical outside observer, then others should not refer to the editor using "POV-pusher" or similar terms. Assume good faith..''

Unfortunately, you also state that "[...] Blackworm continues to emphasize a counterproductive POV-push [...]." This statement seems to contradict the proposed remedy above. You indeed have stated that there is clear evidence, which seems in keeping with this proposal, however such a statement effectively renders the spirit of the proposal void, as such a statement of "clear evidence" could be made by anyone. I also wish to note WP:POVPUSH, which states that it is always incivil to accuse another editor of POV pushing. I do not accept and will not accept the label of "POV-pusher" while simultaneously being sternly warned against using the label myself, and asked to assume good faith, and I ask in the interest of resolving this dispute that you please refactor your comment so as not to assert that I am POV pushing. As I have said before, criticism of the form "assume good faith, you POV-pusher!" is not fair, nor productive, nor in keeping with WP:AGF. Thanks, Blackworm (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blackworm and I would appreciate it if you would refactor your comment, Edgarde. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Edgarde, I appreciate it. Blackworm (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Max Lawrence
I think the socks were "too close" to the subject-at-hand to properly step back and apraise the article.. and definitely they did not understand the meanining of COI in their sourcing (chuckle). However, I have given the article a MAJOR overhaul since your comment at the AfD. It was definitely a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find proper sources... but I think the subject might now been seen as having a minor notability... once I pulled that HUGE ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoagie
In case you're still interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hoagie#Merger_proposal BillyTFried (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks BTF. I think you've said it all better than I could have. At this point it might be better to dial it down a bit, so as not to drown out other discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How's this for showing WP:Good faith? Talk:Submarine_sandwich BillyTFried (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Momentary Lapse US-250.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Momentary Lapse US-250.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. Peripitus (Talk) 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)