User talk:Fightindaman/Archive1

University of Miami criticism section
thanks for previously removing the vandalism from the UM page. The criticism section has been repeatedly deleted for maybe a dozen times now, and we have been having to just keep putting it back up. Finally, someone prtotected it- but with the vandalsim up (and the criticism down). If you could add your input on the discussion section it would be helpful. Thanks, jcdpi

Thanks and welcome
Thanks for fixing my typo on apples and oranges.

I took a look at your blog, and I thought you'd like seeing this. I don't know how much you've been following the Padilla mess in recent months, but it brought a big smile to my face to see the 4th circuit spanking the Bush administration for its dishonesty. The whole thing is wonderful, but here's one of my favorite excerpt from the decision:


 * Because of their evident gravity, we must believe that the consequences of the actions that the government has taken in this important case over the past several weeks, not only for the public perception of the war on terror but also for the government’s credibility before the courts in litigation ancillary to that war, have been carefully considered. But at the same time that we must believe this, we cannot help but believe that those consequences have been underestimated.
 * For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant. They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.

It looks like no one ever officially welcomed you, so I thought I'd do it now. Let me know if you need anything.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Dave (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ambling
I just started this article. Several more paragraphs are coming. It's definitely not dictionary-material. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-11 18:02

Offensive behaviour
Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Ukpcdaz 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is only one liar, and that is you, you are adding 1+1 and calculating 3. A typical schoolboy error, my friend.Ukpcdaz 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this "personal attack" was pointing out that user ukpcdaz (and possibly other editors) lied about his/their identity(ies) in attempt to appear unbiased on an AfD vote. Fightindaman 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(a) you have no reason to believe this, (b) you have no evidence of this (c) i am appauled you could suggest it (d) it is plain (but typical) ignorance, to disbelieve and not listen to someone when they are they are telling you something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ukpcdaz (talk • contribs)

I proved evidence on the AfD page. Fightindaman 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All you proved was your rudeness, and your inability to listen. If everyone in the world were as rude as you have been, the world would need bush to kill us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ukpcdaz (talk • contribs)


 * I've speedy deleted the vanity article as per his wishes, but the threats leading to the deletion has caused him to become blocked indefinetly from the site. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Green Day and Neo Nazism page was a complete and absolute hoax. It was actually made to be interpreted more as a joke, but I understand that's not what you Wikipedia people are interested in. So be it though I'll stop. ---MonkeyCMonkeyDo 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RAZR
Are you telling me a mobile phone is worthy of a 2-page long article? It's not even a particularly sophisticated or popular phone. It retails for £99 in the UK (about $150). The phone here is a mid-to-low budget phone. My putting the article up for deletion was not in bad spirit, I honestly don't see why this particular phone deserved such attention, when in a few months time, nobody will remember, or care to remember, anything about it. It's replacement alredy exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helzagood (talk • contribs)

Mallory Knox
Please revert Tony Sidaway then, and perhaps expand the article to mention the tour, citing reliable sources. See the new Proposed deletion experiment for information on what went on to the article. Thanks for your note. --Perfecto 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Edmunds.com
Hi sorry i am new at this. I noticed you put a warning on my post. How do I go about resolving it? juejuebie
 * I was simply restoring the tag. BrokenSegue put it on originally, probably because the entry reads more like an advertisement than a non-biased encyclopedia article.  Fightindaman 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will ask Brokensegue about it then. Thank you. juejuebie

Kathryn, Bryan, Stella, and Ruby Harvey
Hello Fightindaman, I switched the tag on this article to WP:PROD. Sorry to step on your toes, but I think it has less WP:BITE. The crime sounds horrible! Any questions, please contact me on my talk. regards, --FloNight 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Horrible as the crime sounds, I'm not sure getting killed makes one notable in itself.  Unless there was pretty substantial media coverage of the crime (and there may have been, I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know if they had made a huge thing of it) I don't really think it merits an article. Fightindaman 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

what up dude
I agree that the way I left it sounds awkward- maybe we can polish it. but it is more accurate than what you changed it to. the word fuck doesn't literally refer to sex. the speaker does so when he uses the word fuck. yameen? skizzno logic3.1 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "While the literal use of the word fuck refers to ...." ? Fightindaman 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * how bout "In literal usage the word fuck refers to... skizzno logic3.1 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * oh yeah. I also should have put a comma in there. I see why this might read weird at first glance:

"while the word fuck used literally, refers to as opposed to "while the word fuck, used literally, refers to skizzno logic3.1 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, sorry, sorry! I switched the tag without checking the first edit. You can switch it back if you like. FloNight  talk  02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright. Don't worry bout it.  Fightindaman 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Next gen gaming
[copied from the page of User:Jmabel] Since you are an admin, could you please go over to this page. I've listed it for speedy deletion, but in the meantime it's being used to list a whole host of personal attacks by various anon users. I'd appreciate if you could either fulfill the speedy delete, or at least semi-protect it if it's not actually speedy-able. Thanks. Fightindaman 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [end copied material]
 * Done. Blatantly non-notable. But if they decide to protest the deletion, I have no interest in fighting over it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
thank you for editing my first article "Matt Serra" i appreciate the help and if you could look at it again i would be greatful

The Great News Network
Hey, I wrote a stub at the The Great News Network temp page. Was just curious what you thought of it.
 * Looks good. Fightindaman 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You want to switch over from the copyvio page, or should I?  Once school settles down for me, I plan on unstubifying (?) it. --MessengerAtLWU 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think an admin needs to do the move, unfortunately I am not one. If you know any you can enlist one of them to help you. Fightindaman 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Thun
Thanks. Yeah, I know. I am just a poor little new admin and am not too sure if I would be overstepping my authority to block the editor involved. So I have asked for advice at a few different places and am waiting to hear back before I do anything else. --Martyman- (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

movement on AFD/Sarcasma
What was the reason for reverting my edit on AFD/sarcasma? It's well established policy that anonymous users are not allowed to participate in votes. By moving their comments to a seperate section, without deleting them, the admin can review them if necessary, but they will not clutter up the vote. Furthermore, deleting my personal comments on the AfD is entirely unacceptable. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason was that it appeared to be a simple expression of your bias against anonymous users. Saying that you wanted to prevent "clutter" is rediculous; there are only 3 anon votes on the page, hardly clutter.  Anonymous users are permitted, as far as what I've seen, to participate in ever aspect of wikipedia.  Saying that anons cannot vote would harm the very useful contributors to this project who have chosen not to sign up.  In addition, any "tally" is misleading and not necessary because closing of votes is not done based on a simple tally but on "rough consensus" (per WP:DP).  Noting that users have made no other edits to the encyclopedia is fine, and there is nothing wrong with giving these votes less weight, but segregating them and saying that all anon votes are invalid is not only out of line, but also contrary to Wikipedia's policy and spirit, in my opinion. Fightindaman 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Simon Song & PROD template
From the Proposed deletion page "...If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD." Please do not replace the template but you may want to list it as either a speedy or a AfD. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm aware. Just didn't notice that they had removed the PROD template when they restored the info I deleted. Fightindaman 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PROD
Hi thanks for readding the prod tag to "the game" but we can only add them once, we have to open a AfD after a PROD is removed. Mike (T C) 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Straight edge
Hey, sorry about an edit made to straight edge under my user name yesterday. It was made by my friend&mdash;not me. RJN 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright. Don't sweat it. Fightindaman 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in Kansas
I didn't think that the deletion case had been persuasively enough to justify deleting below the commonly-used threshold of two-thirds support to delete. Further, Kappa's brief point it actually very true and, whilst I rejected the author's argument in my closure statement, I know from experience that at least several similar articles have indeed been kept (usually as no consensus) in AfD. -Splash talk 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (PS I'd prefer a reply on my talk page as I am not looking at my watchlist whilst closing AfDs.)
 * Wait to see how that other AfD turns out. It may not go the way you are hoping! I think adding that article to the List of lists AfD would be a bad idea, for the reasons you give (it would be an immediate re-nom to a running debate). If those other articles do get deleted, then you could revist this article's deletion after a polite waiting period of a couple of weeks or so. -Splash talk 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Salesianum
hey, I go to this school - I understand why you might see the contribution in the trivia section about fights as unverifiable but I assure you historically that is where fights always happen (of the 2 major fights to date this year both of them were during the F-6 period and both of them were on monkey hill) telling a kid you'll see him F-6 is the Salesianum way of challenging him to a fight. —This unsigned comment is by Schrandit (talk • contribs).
 * You, unfortunately, are not a reputable source, so it is still unverified. In addition, where kids fight is not really pertinent to the article on the school, and is not encyclopedic. Fightindaman 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is the reputable source who said the archrival of Salesianum is St. Marks? Where kids fight is more pertinent to the school than who archrival is or what the school IP adress has been banned for. Schrandit 21:26, 15 March 2006 (EST)
 * While I may agree with you on the IP ban, for a school which is as competitive in sports as Salesianum, a school rivalry is significant. Where kids fight on the other hand, is not. Fightindaman 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But how do you know the archrival is St. Marks? All you have is my word to take that on.  The fight comment is as substantiated as the rivalry and as pertinent as the IP comment and its in trivia - people know it’s not a central part of school life.Schrandit 17:57, 19 March 2006 (EST)
 * Actually, sports rivalries are generally well documented. See  for an example.  And you know what, I think I agree with you on the IP comment, I'll probably remove that as well. Fightindaman 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not the whole of the trivia section? Why not the triva sections of other schools? Is it really that substantial that Padua Academy has a dog named Michaela - Schrandit 18:54, 19 March 2006 (EST)
 * I actually did get rid of the whole trivia section. And the fact that there may or may not be pointless nonsense in other articles does not have anything to do with the inclusion of your factoid in the this article.  If you really want it put it in, suggest it on the talk page and see if anybody else agrees with you. Fightindaman 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That’s a fine idea and I’ll take you up on it but right now you and I are the only ones that seem to have given it much thought. I’m trying to establish precedence with the previous arguments; a great number of schools and institutions (including yours) have trivia sections where extraneous information that might not be verifiable but never the less offers some insight into a place goes and we recognize it’s not trebly encyclopedic by putting it in a section called trivia.  While I commend your removal of opinion from the Salesianum article many of the things you’ve taken are not opinion and grant a greater understand of the institution. - Schrandit 19:12, 19 March 2006 (EST)
 * The Padua article was created by you and only edited by two other editors, as such you can't really cite it as precedent. The trivia section in Georgetown is quite different from unverifiable things like where fights take place.  It includes verifiable facts which involve important figures and cultural references.  The facts in Georgetown's trivia section are comparable to the statement that Sallies was the first integrated school in Delaware, if you want a good analogy. Fightindaman 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CFD
Thank you for the note, I was working on multiple CFD's and put the wrong header on that one. I've ammened to no consensus but recomend renaming. Please see Category talk:Fuck for more info. — xaosflux  Talk  05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Flag
Hi, i noticed that you added back the line about "Many fans find this decision hypocritical", was there a survey, is there anything that can back that statement up?Jacknife737 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I compromised and changed it to some. While it's true that "many" may be unverifiable (since it's impossible to know whether they constitute a majority), it is undeniable that some fans have found it hypocritical.  You want me to dig up message board posts to cite as a source?  Do you honestly think that nobody found the decision hypocritical?  The punk community loves nothing more than to talk shit. Fightindaman 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm an ex-fan (still sorta like the old stuff) and I think it's hypocritical. There ya go, there's a source, at least one (ex)fan finds it hypocritical. Then again, they sold out long ago, so yeah. The Ungovernable Force 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Cramer
Hey, I noticed you put a on Kelly Cramer. Since it was a new article, it can be requested for a speedy deletion in which case the content can stay. I switched it to. I hope you don't mind. Prolog 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Sea Brother
Why u request a delete on my page?

LOL
And you call yourself an Anarchist? Yeah, right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crud3w4re (talk • contribs).
 * Wikipedia is not anarchy. Fightindaman 04:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. So don't proclaim to be an anarchist when you're not. Crud3w4re 04:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't presume to tell me what I am and am not. There's a very good reason why people aren't supposed to blank their talk pages. Fightindaman 04:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to go over how you think you're an anarchist. I was told by an Admin that I can delete it in a month since it would be old anyway. Crud3w4re 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the past, it was considered vandalism to remove warnings from your talk page. It seems that the policy has changed recently and is currently under debate.  Many consider it misleading and disingenuous to remove legitimate warnings from your talk page, others do not have a problem with it, but as there appears to be no consensus on it at the time, I will leave it at that.  Sorry for the disruption. Fightindaman 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. No hard feelings? I just never heard of you before, so I thought I was being targeted for something. I'll keep it there for now, but I hope to one day do some "spring cleaning". Crud3w4re 06:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, no hard feelings. If you want to clean up, you can always archivd your talk page. Fightindaman 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

sXe Part II
hey there...whatever happened to the SE template you listed on the talk page? anyway, i'm interested, if'n you still have it.

thanks! --HatchetFaceBuick 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is. If you want to be added to the category, you have put that one in seperately.

Fightindaman 14:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:North_America_Sucks.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:North_America_Sucks.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. Videmus Omnia 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey.
Just Wanted To Say Hey. Casey19 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

activist afd
Thanks. I've had this on my list for a while but couldnt figure out how to do it. DGG (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:For Blood and Empire cover.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:For Blood and Empire 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) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Purgatory cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Purgatory 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) 04:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Insurepink
A tag has been placed on Insurepink, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Insurepink and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Coastal Extreme Brewing Company
Did you realize that you tagged this article I just created approximately one minute after I saved the first line? Why in the world did you do this so quickly when I didn't even have a chance to add any more information?BWH76 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm doing new page patrol at the moment so it was kind of a hair trigger thing. I saw your notice on the talk page and looked around for info on the company and agreed that I was too hasty.  I removed the tag so worry not, best of luck with the article.  Fightindaman (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I appreciate it! It's going to take me some time to get information down on this brewery.  Check back in a couple days and I think that it will be up to par.BWH76 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)