User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 7

Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up. It's starting to get annoying. I'm not the only one who has a problem seeing his book as notable, am I? Anakinjmt (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, it's too bad this couldn't be handled civily. I really don't know what is problem is or why he feels the need to attack me. Guess this eliminated my potential to be an admin. And I was SO hoping for it [/sarcasm] Anakinjmt (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares
If my addition is not in the correct place, please let me know.

Otherwise, since it is properly annotated with multiple references, and I feel it adds something valuable to the information about the show, why remove it? It has nothing to do with the discussion of "follow-up", and all to do with the actual episode itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You used a blog as a reference, and blogs are not reliable sources. And where in the second source does it say "In fact, the chef of the restaurant was originally going to be on another Gordon Ramsay show"? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan's Hamptons.com is written in conjunction with Dan's Papers, a print magazine. The article was written by the very person in the show, the so-called 'critic' that caused much controversy at the end of the show. As for my second link, I did in fact goof and link to the wrong one. http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/canned_heat_iHsni5ybqjz9C4hX5RBeTL, the one that is linked to the final credit, states all the facts and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:39, November 4, 2009


 * I'm taking this discussion to the show's talk page, where it allows for fuller discussion. Drmargi (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

APBT
Ok, so what's your problem again?? You always just delete other's work. There is no Copy right material. If you continue I will report you for vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the text you added to the article was taken from other places. Like here, here, and here . Also, you can't just come in and completely replace all of the text in an article without discussing it - it's just way too much. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * THE FIRST TWO WHICH YOU MENTIONED WASN'T POSTED BY ME BECAUSE I DIDNT REPLACED THE WHOLE MATERIAL, THE THIRD IS FROM THE CANADIAN GOVERNEMENT'S WEBSITE SO UNDER THE US, CANADA ANS EU LAWS THERE ARE NO COPYRIGHTS. THE PICTURES ARE FROM 1896 AND 1903 SO UNDER THE US LAWS THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. ALSO I DISCOUSED THIS WITH TWO MODERATORS BEFORE. REVERT IT OR I WILL REPORT YOU AND WE WILL SEE WHO IS RIGHT. I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WANT TO REPORT YOU FOR VANDALISM.k84m97 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) THE STANDARD WHICH I ADDED IS FROM THE UKC SITE WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL BREED STANDARD.k84m97 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right - the third link is acceptable. But at the bottom of the first link, it says "Copyright © National Kennel Club® 2001-2007". It's copyrighted text. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said the firs two links weren't posted by me. The Breed Standard is from the UKS site which is the ORIGINAL standard. The rest also. However I asked for help from two moderators and they will review the text and will decide who committed vandalism.k84m97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
 * What? The text you added in this post was, at least in part, copied from this source. For example, everything under Forequarters and Hindquarters came from that article. And if you copied the rest of the text from "Colby's Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier", then that's unacceptable too. You basically took the whole article, removed the prose, and put in copied lists and other text. And that is wholly unacceptable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage you here anymore. This is a content discussion, so we can talk about it at the APBT page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?? I take it from the AKC site because this is the Official BREED STANDARD. It's the same everywhere, like the constitution. Can you understand this?? "Forequarters and Hindquarters" came from the standard again which is the same everywhere.UKC APBT STANDARD   Some ideas came from Colby's book but as I see you never read it. The health section also came from an official source. It enough ! You just bashing others, this is the reason why I solicited the intervention of two moderators.k84m97 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RicoCorinth
I just read through the Third Party discussion page, and can relate very much to your experience with RicoCorinth - see posting history on CAI- Community Association Institute. Very frustrating to have such a skewed article, and an unreasoning editor. --Sillysabre (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal
I would like to mediate this CASE on the MedCabal. However, before I can open the case, I must recieve confirmation that all listed parties agree to the mediation process going forward. Thank You Reubzz (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already told the other party in the case that it would be better for the project's community to discuss the matter before action is taken. If consensus can be reached, there is no need for mediation. However, should a problem persist, I will be ready to take on the case. Cheers Reubzz (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * re your post. Are you talking about the avenue of going to the talk page and trying to reach an agreement or using a mediation process? Reubzz (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've responded again over there. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes :) Reubzz (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Long attention span
Figured I'd respond to this here. :) I'm impressed that you're still working on this one! That's some serious commitment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. I'm not active on the page; it's just on my watchlist, and it's mostly to keep an eye out for vandalism. It's been a damn long time since that conflict first came up, though.. I'd like to think I've improved a bit since then. But hey, glad to see that you're still active on here, and as an admin no less. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see you active as well. :) It was more fun before I was an admin; whoever described us as "janitors" was brilliant! I don't even have time to write articles anymore. :/ But, oh well. I remain optimistic. Sooner or later the cleanup work will get easier, right? :D (I don't remember your needing to improve when that conflict first came up!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCab
From the looks of it there and on the reliable sources board, there appears to be a consensus to not include the book. Acting under such a mindset, the case will not proceed any further. No reason to violate wp:snow Reubzz (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Steam (content delivery)
deleting peoples content without saying so and not giving any reason is hostile too.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then discuss it with the editor who first removed it. I'm pretty Smurfy removed it as a way of enacting what he spoke about on the talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * nothing on the specifically talk page relates to his removal of my section and he didn't say to look there either.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, it's not your section. And you might want to read the new section down at the bottom. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus, how is linking to another wiki page and quoting from an EULA original research? - DoveNJ  —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Removal of my edits...
I am VERY offended by all the removals by you on some of my edits. If they were copyright violations, so be it. But you ALSO went into the Hickman Page and adjusted it. I WENT to that school and I know more about it than you do. Leave that page ALONE! I take great pride in all my work on that page and know it is historically accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzoufan1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have very strict rules about copyright, and you violated them. A lot. Also, I'm not really sure what article you're referring to. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:58, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Re: Saw VI talkpage mix up
Yeah... I didn't know if it was still relevant, since it occurred over a year ago. Also, what I don't get is someone came by and rated the page a "B-Class" via the Wikipedia Films, but left the others as "Start-Class". What's that about? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving it a rating for one project doesn't necessarily mean that the same rating holds for other projects. I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone 3O
Hi,

Noted that you had removed the Silverstone 3O request. While I've posted a clarification request on that site, I've made clear - there at least - that I haven't taken it yet. I didn't use the your_username template for that very reason, and I was trying to strike a middle ground by annotating the request on the 3O page. On the other hand, I suppose that by intervening in it at all, I've kind of "reserved" it. If you think that it should be removed under those circumstances, I won't disagree (or maybe we need a third opinion  ), and will put it back into the available-dispute list if I don't take it.

Best regards — T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, heh, okay. Seems that not signing didn't really stop them from contacting you about it, but whatever. It does seem that someone else left a comment there as well, so a third opinion has technically been given. I'll leave my thoughts on there, and of course you're welcome to do so as well. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll pass, too many cooks... Thanks,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I AM SORRY
HEY

I AM SORRY FOR MY EDIT ON THE PAGE SANDWICH

IT WAS RATHER RUDE OF ME AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS THINKNG

DO YUOU FORGIVE ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.167.74 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares
I clearly see that you're following an agenda. #1 The content was reworded, so there is no longer a violation. #2 The reference provided is from a reliable source. CenterofGravity (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't reworded. Adding three words in front of one sentence doesn't change the fact that the rest of it was copyvio. You should read WP:PLAGIARISM. And as for #2, I didn't make a comment about the source. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.


 * User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
 * User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
 * Asmahan is placed under article probation for six months.
 * Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.

Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam's Club
Your arrogance is starting to really tick me off. I did not write that. Somebody else did. I simply reverted your deletion. Again, such a major change is a big issue. It is backed up with a source. Saying they have the "most liberal policy" I don't have a source which I can cite, that was the issue before. You need to be careful about what you go around saying to people. Elpablo69 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Settle down. I'd rather discuss this on the talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that an apology? I'm not exactly clear on the meaning...Elpablo69 (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting...Elpablo69 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what are you waiting on an apology for? The part where we disagreed on content and we got a third opinion? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that, as its a matter of opinion. At the very first you "warned me" about creating the entry, which was not created by me. I would have thought you would be prompt clarify that is was an unintentional oversight. Elpablo69 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in this edit to suggest that it was added by anyone other than you. If you had changed the edit comment to "reinstating old text about return policy" or something, then I would have known. I don't have the whole history of the page memorized. The fact still stands that readding the text was inappropriate, so... you want me to apologize to you for you readding text? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based upon your history, I'm just suprised that you wouldn't have promptly corrected it. The edit history shows it was added by an IP address, not by my account. I "re-added" it as I felt (and still do) that it was a big change in business. At this point, an apology would be a little late. This is hardly a huge earth shattering issue, so let's just move on...Elpablo69 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New year my friend!
I wasn't crazy. I knew exactly what I was talking about all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy

Take care my friend!

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh... wow, that's pretty bad. Though in all fairness, that sockpuppet account was only created after the Asmahan ruling, so to say that you were right all along isn't true. He wasn't puppeting until recently. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

cppcheck
Ok, so what's your problem again?? You always just delete other's work. Cppcheck is an open source tool, there is no company behind this, no profit is made with it. It think you have first inform you better before deleting blindly, my friend!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.47.152 (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That list has a criterion for inclusion: that we link to an article that exists on Wikipedia. If we just had links to every tool out there, then the page would violate WP:LINKFARM. Wikipedia isn't just a series of links, and in this case, the list page should link to other articles within Wiki. Once there's an article for cppcheck and the article can stand on its own, then it can be added to the list. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyd - Dollhouse
The original statement is as much "Opinion" as what I wrote. We do not know yet that Boyd is the Rossum Exec, or that he is there as Echos handler but still the exec. All we actually know is that in Carolines memory, she saw the same body now known to be Boyd. The other exec states quite clearly that he is the 5th. The execs obviously switch bodies as has been eluded to on several occasion, specifically Dewitt stating that when the exec finds out that Boyd killed him he is going to come after Boyd.

My entry is more factual than what was already there which is speculation. 'That the Original exec and Boyd are the same person has not been established'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.235.50 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Text like "thus Boyd himself is most certainly a Doll " is original research. There's been nothing in the show or elsewhere that says that he is definitely a Doll, so it's your own speculation. The other text there - "When Echo regains Caroline's memories, she discovers that Boyd is one of the two founders of the Rossum Corporation and seemingly installed himself in the Dollhouse to become Echo's handler." - definitely did happen on the show. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michio Kaku
Please stop revering the correct information. He is American just for the fact of being born in the USA, but ethnically he is Japanese because both of his parents were 100% Japanese. If one of them was, for instance, Chinese, you could say that he is Chinese-Japanese. And considering that North America is made up of people from all over the world, it has hard to have american ethnicity, unless you are one of the ethnic peoples.Norum 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got two editors telling you that it's not right. Stop changing it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps both editors should educate themselves about the difference between ETHNICITY and NATIONALITY, because these two are totally different things and both of you are, unfortunately, wrong. For example...I am an ethnic Swede, but, lets say, Im living in England. This does not make me an Englishman. I might have a British citizenship to go along with my Swedish one, but ethnically, I'm still Swedish. Norum 02:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but he was born in America. That counts for something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nationality yes, he is an American. He was born there and grew up there. But his ethnicity is still Japanese. Do you see the difference? Norum 03:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please give an opinion
Hi please go to Tree shaping talk page [] and give your opinion. I have also asked two other editors (AfD_hero and Rror) for their opinion. Both who had also done some editing. Blackash (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WBC
Sure, happy to take a look, though I'm sorry I probably won't have time until tomorrow night or Saturday. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr Kaku
Could you please do me a favour and tell editor HelloAnnyong (can't get through to, presumably, her by messaging), who has yet again reversed my contribution that I did source this contribution as BBC 4 TV Programme On 'Cosmic Time' screened 28th January 2010. Dr Kaku specifically talked in the programme with regard to his parents being Buddhist, showing scenes of Japanese Buddhist Temple in the programme and he was also brought up in Christian background in the debate about whetehr the universe is eternal or finite...IT IS VERY RELEVANT to both Physics & Buddhism and the way he put it over. Many Thanks Peter Dorey Peter Dorey 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey (talk • contribs)
 * Uh... I guess I'll tell myself about your post. But uh, that doesn't change the fact that an offhand mention of his being Buddhist isn't much more than trivia. Two editors have told you that it shouldn't be included. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rickrolling
You deleted my comment about the comment included in the entry on Rickrolling that the song NGGYU is the "worst song ever" under the pretext that I had made changes to the article. Since we both know I had only added to the dialog, did not change the article at all, we both also know you censored my opinion and kept the opinion given in the article. Laughable that you'd do that to such a topic. Tre.fire (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, when you added your comment, you also deleted a huge section of text. Second, Wikipedia isn't a forum, and we're supposed to remove comments that are off topic or don't otherwise contribute to the discussion. And I fail to see how your comment was at all productive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I removed nothing at all, or if I did it was in error and entirely within the comment section. Without consensus, only an arrogant prick would remove something on purpose because it is not to their liking. Second, my comment was made regarding the inclusion of a debatable comment included in the original article, a cited article from an obscure on line source that was opinion masquerading as fact. Simply because you yourself are incapable of seeing how a comment is productive is not a basis for deleting said comment. But hey, this is about "rickrolling", not something important; I just wanted to say your basis for removing the comment was absurd, but I'll make no more complaint about it and you can return to micro-managing your wikipedia empire. Tre.fire (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Another ONY sock?
Hi HelloAnnyong! Was it you who initiated the first checkuser report to match an ip to ObserverNY? Seems I remember vaguely that any other socks should be added to the initial report. Does that sound right? At any rate, I think 68.194.254.7 should be reported. The moment anyone touches the IB Diploma article it gets changed immediately. It must be the same person. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does look suspicious, and the IP - 68.194.254.7 - does match most of 68.194.235.103, the IP from the previous case. I would say go ahead and create another case at WP:SPI. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ben & Jerry's flavors and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors for List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, Articles for deletion/List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors for List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Static Code Analysis / CodePro AnalytiX
Hi..yes I am pretty new to wikipedia, but I don't think I'm out of line. First, to address your message, I already added a new (albeit brief) page for CodePro AnalytiX when I added the product to the static analysis page. Second, CodePro AnalytiX and Instantiations are no less notable than Klockwork, Parasoft, Coverity and other commercial products already listed on the page, who are direct competitors. Instantiations has been in business since 1997, is a member of the Eclipse Foundation and an IBM Business Partner, and has been on the SD100 for 3 years in a row. I would respectfully request that you either reverse your deletion or advise me to do it and let it stand. Thank you.Tkvavle (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Tina Kvavle
 * Hi. First, your article on the product doesn't currently meet notability criteria; it has no sources or anything proving that it's even remotely notable. Further, I can see that it's a product put out by Instantiations, which you work for. That makes you a conflict of interest. As such, you really shouldn't involve yourself in getting the product included on Wikipedia, as that comes off as using Wiki for promotion, which is advertisement - and is therefore not allowed. I'm not going to compromise an article's integrity so you can use Wiki for promotional purposes. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CppDepend deletion
Hi About CppDepend deletion, it's not normal to remove it few hours after submiting, i think that the minimum is to let others add references to gain notability.

For example in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software we can see this message :

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (January 2009)

So after one year we search for other references to gain notability, so why dont give a chance to CppDepend only 1 month or maybe one week?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpparchitect (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't work that way. And if you look at what happened, I didn't delete the article outright; there was an AfD discussion about it awhile back and the consensus was to delete. Someone came through, saw that, and marked the article for deletion per WP:CSD. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation, could you please tell me where can i find this AfD discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpparchitect (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but note that the discussion is closed, so all you can really do is read it. It's available at Articles for deletion/CppDepend. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Volkswagen Group engines 3O
Hi, thanks for providing a 3O about this article. I was hoping this might finally settle the dispute, however, the editor I was in dispute with has since reverted my edit to a related article (VR6 engine, ) claiming that your 3O was specific to List of Volkswagen Group engines and referring to some other 3O, which the user refuses to cite for some reason. I explicitly stated in the 3O request that the dispute affected a number of articles, and I don't see anything in what you wrote that indicates that it applies specifically to only one article. Could you perhaps clarify to 78.32.143.113 whether your 3O can be considered to apply to all relevant articles? Thanks! Letdorf (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Alright, I left a note on the talk page where I gave the 3O. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dean Karlan article
Hi,

I noticed that you have tagged an article I edited entitled "Dean Karlan." I was wondering how I might be able to improve the article. I've tried adding some references. Thank you

Shardulkoza (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get to this yet. I've started a discussion on the talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Usual and Customary Rates
I removed your Prod; see Talk:Usual and Customary Rates. Bearian (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

3O list monitoring
Do you have something that alerts you when there's a change to the 3O page, either directly or through your watchlist? You seem to consistently find new listings before I do, and I check my watchlist fairly often. (Not complaining please understand, you do great work.) I've found the way to make my watchlist an RSS list, but I can't seem to find anything that will even alert me through RSS more often than once an hour and most of them will only do it once a day. You seem to get there much faster than that. (On the other hand, I hardly know anything about RSS so I may just be doing it wrong...) Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. No tricks, just my watchlist. It helps to distract me from doing actual work. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Code Analysis list criterion
Source Navigator, in addition to other tools like doxygyn, Ctags, Csource may be considered as analysis tools too --Notopia (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... I guess? They still don't meet the list's inclusion criteria. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * from the definition of Static code analysis and its purpose of understanding, code comprehension and review, they meet the criteria in some way or another, besides, they are included in a discussion about the same topic: http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.59495.17 --Notopia (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On List of tools for static code analysis, which is a standalone list, the inclusion for criteria is that the product has to be notable on its own. This is usually done by the topic having its own article which proves the notability criteria. And by the way, a forum thread doesn't fulfill WP:N. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

recent 3Os
I think you dismissed two recent 3Os without really looking at the history, sorry. The recent Orion one was not a one-off, look in the history, we've been dealing with this for months. The flag of China one was not resolved, as one editor keeps edit-warring about it. Please give them both a second look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't just toss the flag of China one; I left my thoughts on the page, removed the 3O tag and it looks like it's been quiet ever since. Nearly a day after, there have been no edits to the article or talk pages. I've got them both on my watchlist and will respond to conversation, but there's nothing going on. And the same is true on Orion. Aside from some vandalism on the front page, no one has added anything either. I said that the issue there seemed to be a one-off as I only saw one edit in the last two months from Wes.faires. On top of that, it's clear that he's the minority opinion - KarlM, Hyperdeath and yourself have all said that the text he's trying to add is unacceptable. I just added my opinion on the page if that helps. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Buzz
Thanks for your note. Yup it has been removed as spam several times already, I'll take it out again. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think your right in calling it spam. It appears to be the systematic addition of an external link to a commercial external site. The user [] is permanently banned for adding this link, and I suspect Druidswok is a sock. The actual site they're linking is purely commercial and doesn't seem to provide any reason for notability. I think its could be worth a sock investigation and look at blacklisting the site if they're found to be socks.. (Like your username too). Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cafu Engine
Hi, just a query back at you.. This software article: Cafu Engine was just created (Actually translated from the German wikipedia, written by the person moving it) - Its well written, but appears to be created by the author of the software. I removed a blatant plug and placed a COI tag, but am not sure whether its worth doing more. It doesnt read like a spam article (mostly), but most of the external links go back to its own website. Any ideas on how to treat it? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'll continue and write a reply to HelloAnnyong's message at Talk: Cafu Engine asap, and with your help hope to get everything sorted out. Thank you very much! Carsten Fuchs (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed all but one of the EL; they're really unnecessary. The main problem with this article is that I don't think it satisfies WP:N. I'll start up a talk page over there for discussion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm never sure how to handle notability of software or objects (Mainly because there are no speedy delete tags for them). It'd actually be a nice article if it was was independent & notable..  Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Clovis Sangrail and HelloAnnyong, thank you very much for your feedback. I'm very happy about your rating regarding the quality of translation – I'm not a native speaker and it's normally not easy for me to write good English prose, or even to estimate how the result "sounds" for native speakers. I'm also new to editing Wikipedia, and I'm sorry for the problems with the article, which I take very seriously and will do my best to fix.

Ack! Bristol Renaissance Faire Page messed up!
I just found out some PR person has hugely enlarged and made the Bristol RenFaire page into a walking advert. I have zero time at the moment, but since you've been so great about the Renfaire page in general, might you be able to take a look? Someone -- rightly -- taggerd it with ll sorts of dubiousity. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, what a mess. I just reverted way, way back to a version with far less suck, and I'll leave a note on the talk page and keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I apologize for the imposition. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tanbo art



 * Thanks! Yeah, it is pretty crazy. I'm just glad that someone on the Japanese Wiki got that good of a picture... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Those are awesome. I've seen spome similar stuff before(this book has some awesome stuff too), but nothing quit that intricate. Again, thanks!. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dean Karlan article
Hello HelloAnnyong,

I was wondering whether you could delete the COI/neutrality tag you attached to the Dean Karlan article.

Thanks,

Shardulkoza (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chipotle Mexican Grill
Hey. Thought I'd leave a note in response to your reversion of an edit I made to the article on Chipotle Mexican Grill - didn't mean to offend. You attached a note to your edit explaining that the information I'd removed was sourced and I admit, I didn't investigate the source at the time of my initial edit - probably should have. But I'd expurgated the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant," because it's difficult to support, rather than for a lack of trying on the part of whomever it was that initially added it.

I still think that sentence ought to be omitted from the article, or else qualified to make it less absolute - one source does not a truth make, and the source was misquoted. What the sourced article actually says is, "This year, Chipotle will serve more than 60 million pounds of naturally raised meat - more than any other restaurant company - including all of its pork and chicken, and more than 60 percent of its beef." Clearly that statement refers only to the company's doings in the year 2009. And given a source that said what the article says in the same words, the statement still wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article because it's subject to constant change, and depends upon the assumption by the writer that the author of the sourced material compared every single restaurant that existed at the time, which is unverifiable, which is the bottom line.

What're your thoughts on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't respond to this here, but I did leave a response on the Chipotle talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

World Heritage Arab States List
Thanks for keeping an eye on Jerusalem on the World Heritage Sites in the Arab Countries List! It's a hassle to have to deal with that every couple weeks.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Tasburgh House Hotel
Hello HelloAnnyong, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Tasburgh House Hotel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Build an article for it, and then add it - that's how notability is determined
So a self-fulfilling policy, it has to be notable to appear in wikipedia and if it appears in wikipedia then it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.95.154 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? No. You create an article that fulfills WP:N through sourcing and whatnot. Then you can add it to the list. It's not catch-22. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto 3D
Hi HelloAnnyong,

As you know digital 3D technology is new to the market. Most of the products for sale currently require the use of 3D glasses by the viewers in order to see the 3D effect. Autostereoscopy allows for the viewers to see the 3D effect w/o the glasses. This is new and the terminology for this technology is new as well. As you see more Autostereoscopic 3D displays enter the market you will see the use of "Auto 3D" term more often. Most consumers are not going to refer to there new 3D TV as an "Autostereoscopy TV", or as a "no glasses 3D TV", they will call it an "Auto 3D TV". The term is new and just starting to pop up around the net and at Consumer Electronics shows, so I understand how you can have doubt with such a new fresh term.

Here are just a few online examples that I have found: http://www.shopdigi.com/product.aspx?pf_id=A19MABU : Here is an "Auto 3D LCD Display" for sale. http://www.ampronix.com/content/web/siemens_sxd1899.asp : Another "Auto 3D display" for sale. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=104865 : Here a few forum users are refering to the new technology as "Auto-3D". http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Auto%203D&defid=4809012 : The term was recently defined on the Urban Dictionary, not a hugely reliable source, I agree. http://www.3dz.co.uk/3d_lcd_monitor.html : This site is selling an Auto 3D kit that allows for 3D w/o glasses. http://alfa.magia.it/3DGugle/DirectAna.htm : This site refers to software feature that gives 2D images a 3D effect by using the "auto 3D feature". http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18362197 : Users on this forum are refering to the technology as "Auto 3D" http://www.3d-forums.com/auto3d-no-glasses-needed-t58.html : This forum is refereing to it as "Auto 3D". http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16182854/3rd-China-3D-World-International-Forum-_-Exhibition : The China 3D World Intn'l Forum & Exhibition is calling it "Auto 3D". http://www.displayexpo.jp/english/exhibitor/index09.phtml : Both the Mitani Corp. and Newsight Japan Ltd. are reffering to these products as "Auto 3D" http://ces2010.techradar.com/2010/01/07/lg-pushes-three-pronged-3d-approach/ : LG's new projector has Auto 3D image calibration. docs.google.com : The 2008 Intn'l Workshop on 3D info Tech referes to "auto 3d". http://randysimons.nl/125,english/126,3d-page/ : This site refers to Auto 3D displays

You may have to search some of those pages with the Find feature but I assure you "Auto 3D" is a new term, that we will see more and more of as the technology becomes mainstream.

Let me know if you have any questions or need more references, Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So... exactly one of those even remotely qualifies as a reliable source, the TechRadar link. I know it's a term that's used, but you don't need to put it everywhere on the page. There is no reason to add a self-redirecting link to the See also section. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't think the two International technology forums count as reliable also? Nor the fact that some companies are already selling units dubbed as "Auto 3D".   Why do you keep removing it, whats the deal?  No, it doesn't need to be everywhere, but it does need to be somewhere.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:RS and WP:V. Forums are not reliable since the information on them can change at any time. And I keep removing it because you're adding it in a completely inappropriate way. Big chunks of text saying "Companies and consumers are beginning to use the abbreviated term, Auto 3D, when reffering to 3D displays that do not require the use of glasses to view the 3D effect." are inappropriate. It is a marketing term that at most should receive, at most, a small mention. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you even looking at the source? When I refer to the 2 technology forums I am not reffering to an online messaging board with members submitting content, I am reffering to an Electronics and Technology Expo, like CES...


 * docs.google.com : The 2008 Intn'l Workshop on 3D info Tech referes to "auto 3d".


 * http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16182854/3rd-China-3D-World-International-Forum-_-Exhibition : The China 3D World Intn'l Forum & Exhibition is calling it "Auto 3D". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that I am adding it "inappropriately", then please, you add it where it should be.. but it SHOULD be on there. It is being used and will be used more and more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're not getting is that neither of those websites are particularly reliable. Even if those papers claim to be whatever conferences they're from, how do I know that that's true? How do I know that someone - like that person who added them to Google Docs or docstoc.com or wherever - hasn't tampered with the information inside? References to the actual locations of the papers or work is better. Either way, I've added a line at the top about the term so this isn't an issue anymore. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I never thought about somebody being able to manipulate those documents. I suppose you could use the wayback machine to verify the content from the point of publishing. I just wanted it added because it wasn't there and I really think it should be. I see your addition, and I agree it is better than what I had added. I will not add anything else on this topic. I do hope that I've proven to you that Auto 3D is a new term being used when reffering to this technology and I thank you for your good judgement and wiki editing expertise. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ObserverNY sockpuppet
So I guess I submitted the report wrong, eh? Sorry. I've done a lot of vandalism-fighting, but haven't started an SPI before. Thanks for fixing it, I guess. :) Regards, • CinchBug • 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * HA, okay, I think I see what I should have done--I was supposed to file the report under ObserverNY instead of the IP address. Thanks for submitting the correct report! ;) • CinchBug • 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment on the talk page, but for a new user to know how to restore content and use terms such as meatpuppet makes me suspicious. If it doesn't stop, we can put in a 3R report and/or a request for page protection.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually... I already put in the report. And RFPP would be turned down for something like this since it's just one IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

IBDP
Hi HelloAnnyong,

(That's weird Hi Hello...)

Anyway, what's the problem with the content that I restored? It keeps getting undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.60.87 (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At least three users have removed it as being inappropriate. I don't know if someone put you up to reverting that text or what, but we've discussed it on the talk page and concluded that it should not be included. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman888
Did you see this? We knew our little tendentious friend had issues, but holy cow. Drmargi (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. That's.. pretty ridiculous. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To say the least. I just read back through the epic "discussion" (which reads like scifi when you treat it as one document) looking for socks, and there may be a couple more.  Drmargi (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Contributor!

 * Hey, thanks! Always glad to lend a hand. And as a side note, my username is largely a reference to a TV show. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A bribe
Thank you for your comments on the State of California. Here 's a userbox just for you. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Worthy information
Sorry, but are you a little confused. Bonus tracks are worthy info. Go on any discography, click on an album, and it will probably have a bonus track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is before you added the 12th track info on Lunasa. Sorry. And also sorry about the disruptive edits.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aisha
Why on earth would you choose to vandalise the Aisha article by removing constructive edits? That's just rude! It makes me believe that you are some sort of pedophile protector or follower of allah who hates to see facts about your prophet aired! If this is the case you would do well to study WP:NOT especially the section regarding soapboxization!

Thank you sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.199.185 (talk • contribs) 14:41, April 26, 2010
 * Haha, wow. That's the first time I've ever been called a pedophile protector on here, so thanks for that. Um, I assume you're referring to my removal of WP:POV and otherwise wholly inappropriate additions to the Aisha article. It should probably be pointed out that I'm not the only person on that page to remove POV text from that page. I promise you that I'm not here to soapbox in any way; hell, I'm not even Muslim. But while we're quoting Wiki policy at each other, you should look into the policies regarding adding unsourced original research, or misquoting or misusing sources. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find this amusing! I am not referring to any "unsourced original research" or "misusing sources", if you check my ip address against the talk page edit log youll see what i'm talking about...I've re-added the comment which you removed.


 * Specifically I refer to
 * (cur | prev) 16:21, 23 April 2010 HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) (11,244 bytes) (Reverted edits by SineBot to version 357830307 by HelloAnnyong (ok, that's really not helpful)) (undo)


 * Oh and PS, i do appologise i am not attempting an attack...if i was attacking you you'd know about it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.199.185 (talk • contribs) 14:58, April 26, 2010
 * Oh, ha, you mean this edit. Okay, yeah, I removed that because talk pages aren't meant to be used as a forum. Comments that are not helpful to the discussion can and should be removed from talk pages - and a comment that says "Good for you! It doesn't change the fact that he was a pedophile though :(" falls within those guidelines. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I may not be as proficient with wiki code as you are to make such links. I have other things to do with my time...but there is no need to be so pompous....and i don't believe that that is a forum-esque comment, it simply states personal opinion about the article which is the function of the talk page as I understand it 110.33.199.185 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Stonemason89 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash   have a chat 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi, could you please help me wit a dispute I've been having about SVGs as FUR logos on my talk page regarding the replacement of a raster logo wit an equivalent vector, it would be greatly appreciated. I acme to you first because your the first wikipedian in the third opinion givers list that had an SVG uploade. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian Psychological Society
Thanks for your third opinion on recent edits to Australian Psychological Society. — Manti  core  01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the material you have edited are factual positions relating to the Australian Psychological Society and are referenced as such. The section that was previously included by Manitore is not factual and merely the views of some disaffected ex members who wish to promote their own new organisation-this is against Wiki rules and I ask you not to continue to reinstate Nik50382 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're taking text directly from outside sources, like http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Assessment-of-eligibility-for-Clinical-College-membership.pdf, and putting them into the article. That's plagiarism, copyvio, and completely unallowed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The material which you have removed is provided by the Australian Psychological Society with copyright consent and should not be removed. It is placed on this site to correct inaccurate information that has been placed on it by Manitore and others who are trying to misinform site visitors and encourage membership to an alternate organisation. This is against Wiki rulesNik50382 (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Two things: one, where is this copyright consent? Two, read WP:NOFULLTEXT: you're not supposed to copy text over verbatim. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The material you have removed form the Australian Psychological Society Wikipage is both sourced and accurate. The material you replaced it with is inaccurate and promotional as it relates to another another organisation's views not the Australian Psychological Society. It seems bizarre that you are continuing to try and post incorrect information that misrepesent the positions of the Australian Psychological Society and then try and restrict my access for including the correct information. My advice to you and your colleagues from the newly formed Australian College of Clinical Psychologists is to set up your own Wikipage.Nik50382 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's copyvio text, and it doesn't belong. Stop adding that text or I will report you. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The material you are removing is sourced and appropriately referenced. You should not be removing factual, refernced material and replacing it with personal opinion that is referenced with newspaper articles that are subject to potential legal address due the slanderous content and additional promotional material. This is against Wiki rules and if you continue I will be seeking further address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik50382 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I'm done arguing with you about this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Television program
Thanks for covering! It's good to get some human feeback :-) As I am still relatively new to wikipedia, I'll now have to have a closer look at reliability of sources. Mentalmoses (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now made some research and tried to improve the references. But obviously there are many TV related market data exclusively published by international-television.org and not directly by the original sources (who tend to offer these insights as paid services). And the ITVE group is well known in the industry, so I would expect them to be a reliable source. Anyway, you may consider a second review at User:Mentalmoses? thx, Mentalmoses (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * HelloAnnyong, sorry for bothering you again, but I really believe the above mentioned passage could help improving Television program and I would therefore kindly ask you to consider a second look at User:Mentalmoses or instead just briefly let me know, if I should better try and find help elsewhere? In any case, many thanks and best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been exceedingly busy. I've responded at Talk:Television program. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your good and helpful advice! Best, Mentalmoses (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Koman90 (talk), Network+ 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shroud i Be discussing this with an admin at this point, because i feel i am being personally attacked. Please Email me with a response so i can collaborate in private regarding this matter. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being personally attacked here; he's just an editor who wants to make sure that what's being done is right. You can take it up with the admins if you want, I guess. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've twice claimed a consensus here, and I cannot find any evidence that one exists. If you have evidence of a consensus building discussion that discussed SVGs being used as logos please provide it. The last talk in the WP:LOGO archives shows this Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_5 which indicates no clear overwhelming consensus as you've stated.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then bring up the issue on the talk page there and let people chime in. I would think that if there were serious issues with turning the logos into SVGs, they would have come up in the two years since that discussion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the issue IS currently on the talk page started by another user who also has a problem with the 2000px link in SVGs. That discussion was not even a year ago. Not 2 years. You wrote in the discussion that there was overwhelming consensus for their use. Do you have a link to an actual discussion where that was formed? It also seems that the user has now been interpreting the logos existence on a user generated site as evidence that it is in public domain. In fact there were several discussions last year, and all they determined was the fact that there was no consensus Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12, Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_41 and the discussions fizzled out.--Crossmr (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, the first you link provided above is from July 2008. That's nearly two years ago. And I'm only one editor who gave his opinion, so I don't know why you're coming after me for this. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. And I'm not the final authority on fair use images. Go take your issue to the noticeboards or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the last time stamp which was 2009. The other 2 are from a year ago. You gave your opinion in which you twice claimed consensus. I'm asking you for evidence of that. I'm not coming after you. You brought yourself into the discussion and made a claim and I'm simply asking you to provide evidence of it. I can't find one and you spoke like you knew about a discussion that perhaps I missed. If you can't provide one, that's fine.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going more on de facto consensus. Logos of many major companies have been rendered as SVG, and it's been a practice that's been going on for two or more years. Just seems to me that if doing so was breaking a Wiki licensing rule or something, someone would have put a stop to it - or at the very least we'd be able to find a considerable group of people who are opposed to it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems it hasn't been an issue that has come to a head yet. It has come up in the past but consensus was never actually made on it. Attempts were made but they didn't really go anywhere. A central discussion that actually reaches consensus needs to be had.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How To Destroy Angels (band)
Before you continue editing, particularly on How To Destroy Angels (band), I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies on original research, verifiability and reliable sources. Articles should only reflect that which is found in reliable sources, such as news articles. Adding text that's not directly attributable, such as referring to Reznor's wife as Maandig-Reznor, is considered original research and is therefore unacceptable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, I have the capacity to read Twitter. I don't appreciate being called a douchetruck. See WP:NPA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet somehow you can't understand what RT means... Sheepdean (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have RT'd it if you didn't believe in it.. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Apple TV
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have posted a request for review on the admisitrator's noticeboard here AshtonBenson (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is the first time I've ever been accused of being a meatpuppet for giving a 3O. Thanks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are only connected by being invited in as a 3O. Since we have a break from editing for now, think and RFC might help?  At least we'll get more views on the topic.  Mattnad (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * May as well. RFCs can be touch and go depending on how many people leave a note, but it can't hurt (even though I think the consensus is done). Since it's really a question of sourcing, a post on WP:RSN may be useful. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme 3O
Hi I hope we haven't exhausted your patience but I have put a new discussion about alleged POV and SYN at the bottom of the talk page Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme. Your thoughts are appreciated. Mrfebruary (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's okay. I saw your edit, but I was going to wait for Catonz to respond before leaving my thoughts. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Psychological Society
No I am not a sock - whatever that is - but I have been following what has happening on this site and it worries me that you are supporting the continued carriage of incorrect information by removing my edits without any explanation. Can you please explain why you haved removed these so I can understand your actions.Superstitous123 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Catholic sex abuse cases
The dispute had mainly been between myself and user:Albeiror24. Alberior24 deleted a previous section entitled, Controversy, which had a citation and been present since February 2010. I objected to the deletion and the dispute has raged on there with three other editors of varying interest in the matter. I asked a neutral editor I know to rewrite the paragraph because I had seen his work on another disputed article where he did a neutral rewrite that was accepted by all. When he included the term, pedrastic, I knew that Alberior24 and user:Mamalujo would never accept that as it was potentially worse than what the original section read. At the time of his rewrite, which is described on the article talkpage, User:NatGertler opined that he thought that because he did not have time to contribute more to the article, that that would be the limit of his participation in the matter. Several days ago when Alberior24 defended keeping the POV disputed tag on the article, I sensed that maybe we had ground for WP:CONSENSUS. In the Under dispute - disputed maintenance tag cannot be removed section, I approached him and asked if a neutral Third Opinion would be helpful. He agreed and I stated both on the article talkpage and his that I would respect and support the TO regardless of how it went. --Morenooso (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Psychology Society
Heading has been changed to be more specific to the topic content; ist paragrah significant controvery has been changed to be more specific as it relates to a small number of ex members who wanted to attract media attention to promote their new organisation; 2nd paragraph has had inaccuracies removed that referred to psychologists who were not clinical as not having any practical training which is not correct and supporting reference has been added; sentence has been added to correct statement that inferrred that the APS was effectively lowering standards when it is the psychologicy registrationn boards that sets the standard for who can call themselves a psychologist; Paragraph 3 has been modified to be more specifc as it reads some clincal psychologists when it is only the four people referred to in the referenced newspaper article that be confirmed as holding these views; fourth paragraph has been removed as it promotes an alternative organisation and provides a link to their website.Superstitous123 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit. You need to integrate your changes, rather than simply replacing the information on the page. I think in both revisions there is a problem with non-NPOV. — Manti  core  13:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert
Don't revert my changes about canvas. If you don't like editorializing parts, delete/edit those sentences. If you want more references, add citiation-needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.147.157 (talk • contribs) 21:53, May 13, 2010
 * That's not how this works. You don't get to add text and then ask for a reference for it; the WP:BURDEN is on you to add the source with the text. Without a reference, the text can be removed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've reverted more than necessary. You've even reverted change where I have replaced 'citation needed' with a reference! 87.114.147.157 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Community episodes
Hello, I'm interested in helping rewrite the episode summaries. Are there any examples/guidelines I could look at to get an idea of how to write them properly? -- DaJungKi talk2me 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, welcome aboard. I think your best bet would be to look at featured TV list articles. That's a list of sixty-five articles that have been raised to featured status, showing that they're the best of the best. There's also a section in the manual of style for TV articles that could help. In general, you really just want to avoid any sort of copyright issues here. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the resources. Please review my rewrite of the pilot summary. It's a bit long, but the plot is a bit complex and it's also the pilot. I tried to be concise while keeping the necessary plot elements. I imagine subsequent summaries will be shorter. -- DaJungKi talk2me 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)