User talk:HopalongCasualty/Archive 3

Huntelaar
Hi Beamer, please take a look at this discussion. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-11-16 13:33

Henrik Larsson
Have a look through this diff and see if there's something out of place. :) If the image size is too much then that could have been corrected by itself; anyway, I've made adjustments to account for the style differences. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Hey there. There's a discussion about merging Luna Lovegood in here. You might be interested. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In other media vs singular media appearances
Looking at FA articles they tend to keep those unified either under one header or as a subheader as a part of Cultural impact (i.e. Superman, Cortana, and a few others), with the media info summarizing the character's appearances. I really think that'd be better for the MK articles as the focus for material such as reception is based off their video game appearances primarily, so I put it back for a few of the article's as is. Do you have any solid reason for it to be otherwise?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the image issue, my bad (would have been easier just to point it out to me instead mind you). I was planning to put a DVD capture up, grabbed the wrong image but decided it looked fine and left the old fair use as I didn't think it an issue at that moment. The originally planned image got deleted as a result but I forgot to edit the fair use tags.
 * Though I have to ask...why instead of removing it didn't you just fix it or give me a shout to fix it? I readily would have done so.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about this. Since you're page says you're still working on MK: Annihilation, this may be of use to you: Article on the movie in Black Belt magazine I found while researching Reptile. Should be a doozy for citations.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets
By the way, I think User:Southwestern_Seminary, User:Frank_Lea, and User:Tom Wilson Rich are all the same person based on their edit histories, writing styles, and agendas. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedies
Please remember that when you nominate for speedy deletion (or prod) to say so on the edit summary. It helps us admins to find the appropriate edits when checking. Incidentally, a national organization like National Health council is probably notable, considering the sponsorship, and it would have been best to tag for cleanup, and notify the author to add some references. DGG (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am just wary of posters who open new accounts only to create articles, most of which are non-notable or blatant advertising, which more often than not has been the case. In regards to this subject, I am not familiar with said organization, so I apologize. sixty nine   • spill it •  02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronaldo image
I disagree with that assertion. The current image in the infobox only shows Ronaldo from the side, while the new one shows him in a familiar stance from a full-frontal angle. What would you say is wrong with it? – PeeJay 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anamika Choudhari
Hello Beemer69, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Anamika Choudhari - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: User:Thekidsfromroom508/The Kids From Room 508
Hi Beemer69! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on User:Thekidsfromroom508/The Kids From Room 508- because: the page is not an article (i.e. mainspace page) nor a portal, so none of the CSD A1 to A9 apply If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kingpin13 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day
Congratulations, Beemer69! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, July 8, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

Midnight Comet 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD noms
I'm not sure that the pages created by Hoklo9999 are vandalism. They're all legitimate Green Day singles – the unsuitable content comes in the original research provided by the "meaning" sections and the analysis of the music videos. These articles could all make suitable stubs; I don't see how these articles are "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Cheers. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably went a little whole hog, but the articles were tagged as such because of the inappropriate nonsense Hoklo9999 was adding to them, such as "The Phrase 'Fuck Off And Die' Is Sexual Harasment Like Saying 'Go Fuck Your Penis.' " He continued posting material like that despite warnings from myself and another user to stop, which constitutes vandalism. sixty nine   • spill it •  00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but can't help feel that this user has been somewhat bitten. Perhaps that's me assuming too much good faith, but it seems on the whole they've tried to create articles on legitimate Green Day songs – without realising our original research policy and guidelines on profanity. In terms of the articles, I've redirected or rewritten (wikified/stubbed) them where appropriate.
 * I must note that the warning given by Coffee was for a slightly different article (although named similarly, it contained no suitable content – clearly speedy deletable). I think it would be best to show the user what's wrong with the articles rather than going straight in with a block – after all, they've been registered less than a day and are unlikely to know how the whole thing works.  Thanks for your input.  Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, they're undeniably vandalising now, ClueBot got it. There goes my friendly introduction... :)  Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week
Congratulations, Beemer69! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!

Happy editing!

Midnight Comet 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's me, another user who got his/her own day this past week. Congrats on besting me, I'm confident you deserve to. ;) Best, &rarr;  Dylan 620  (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 02:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's been an unprecedented week of activity on here for me in general. sixty nine   • spill it •  02:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon pincini

 * Thanks for converting the CSD into db-attack. I didn't read it closely enough to realize it was an attack -- I just got that I couldn't get anything out of it :) Way to stay on your toes. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Aage Indahl
I thought I was allowed to remove CSD templates if I didn't create the article?  The left orium  19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Aage Indahl
Hi Beemer69! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Aage Indahl- because: per Theleftorium If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense
Hi Please review the G1 criterion and what "patent nonsense" is, since. In addition, tagging any such page of a brand new user one minute after creation is very much against WP:BITE. Please give new articles always at least an hour or so unless you're sure that an article can't be developed into an article, like with attack pages, copyright violations, clear cut test pages, clear cut A7 articles (highschool boys or some such). In this case, the article was started with an infobox about an album by a highly notable band. It's pretty clear that that can be extended into an article that passes all our guidelines and policies. Thank you, Amalthea  08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not patent nonsense - it's an WP:CSD no-content deletion instead. Tags updated accordingly.
 * Whilst there's a concept of an article on "Best Ballads (Toto album)" that might justify an article, this isn't it. It's just a re-statement of the title wrapped in an infobox and that's not acceptable wiki content. We have no need for empty placeholders that are quite this empty. Use a stub template, or inuse, work on it in userspace, or just write some content in there, but there's no reason to put an article like this into mainspace as it is. If you can fix that, then of course it can be de-speedied.
 * Also notable bands can still have non-notable albums. The bigger you are, the more likely the label packages your out-takes for sale later. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if ... I'm unfamiliar with the details behind the album, and most probably if it stays that way it's gonna end up as a redirect to Toto, per WP:MUSIC. But for crying out loud, give the user who created that article some time, and try talking to him and ask him to expand it. He has a registered account since yesterday, how is he supposed to know about the details of WP:MUSIC?  Amalthea  09:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies - when I looked at that (maybe the tagged version from your "" link ?) there was no content other than an infobox and a speedy. Not sure what happened the edit-wise. Certainly the version you have there now is fine as an album stub and not speedy-fodder at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright, I should have thought so, sorry. Cheers, Amalthea  16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, man, this gets around ... Amalthea  16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I tagged the article last night because it was at the time badly written, the user has had at least one other page deleted, and it the content initially came off as nonsensical (how is an album released before it's even recorded?). Sorry for the mix-up. sixty nine  • spill it •  00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, no idea where he got those dates. However it still isn't patent nonsense (per WP:Patent nonsense) at all, and thus not covered by WP:CSD. G1 is a very very narrow criterion and hardly ever applies. Blatant hoaxes are covered by G3 vandalism, non-blatant hoaxes are to be PRODded or AfDed instead to get more eyes on them. Cheers, Amalthea  16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dear , Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;) Love and best wishes,  Meaghan  - Merry Christmas!  - 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Lehane
Beemer69, I am writing about an aqrticle of mine you deleted (Robert Lehane). Why have you deleted my article? You said he is not a notable person but he is. He is a footballer. He is well known in Ireland as a footballer. This makes him notable. Thank you, Cannon_94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannon 94 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're asking the wrong person here. I merely nominated it for deletion; I do not have the power to actually erase articles. It was nominated (and deleted) because the subject was non-notable (no third-party sources on him exist) and you mentioned yourself in the article. If you have any further questions, see JohnCD, as he deleted the page. Lastly, sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.  sixty nine   • spill it •  21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

he is a notable person.end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannon 94 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can not help it if you are removing bread and butter from the article's content, I must revert it. Needless to say, I find your current edit of the article agreeable and will not be changing it to any extent, but I do believe the Terminal Gamer reference has subtance, but I need to prove it to the WP:VG wikiproject, as for the only site that references Terminal Gamer, has not been brought to consensus as being reliable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections
Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Tagging explanation
Could you explain some of the tags you just added to IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company? While the article used to read like an advert, I removed most of that language. Additionally, you marked it with a "primary source" tag, when all of the sources are to independent newspapers. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've since withdrew the advertising template, as I realized that wasn't the case after looking at the article a second time. However, it still needs primary sources from third-party outlets beyond just Indian publications, which in turn will establish notability. Most insurance company articles I've seen submitted in the past have usually failed on all three counts. sixty nine   • spill it •  06:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when does a company need references outside of it's country of origin? I haven't seen hardly an U.S. companies with references from non-U.S. sites.  Here's the exact quote from WP:COMPANY: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."  That indicates that it doesn't even have to be national coverage--strictly regional coverage is sufficient.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Lloyd Reversions
Hi Beemer69, I'm friends with Ray Lloyd and we've edited several parts of his wikipedia page and plan on editing some more. We would like to thank you for updating and adding some other vital information. We will be adding some current information this week as well (post wrestling career). We would however ask that you not undo where we have removed the disrespectful term "job" and replaced with other more appropriate terminology. We have also removed conjecture based lines in the article, as those are subjective and not verifiable factual information. For example, to say that he was not over with fans, is a matter of opinion. The FACT that he remained employed there for so many years and continued to portray the character would verifiably negate the conjecture that the character was not over, when in fact it was. So please, do not undo that. Also, for an explanation, the term "job" or "jobber" refers to someone who is booked to lose a professional wrestling match in a one sided, non competitive manner. It is disrespectful because a "jobber" is not someone who has a multiyear contract, performs in pay per view matches or main event matches, or has had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in promoting him by the company. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me anytime, again, we really do appreciate all the good things you have done and hope that this clears up any misunderstandings of wrestling terminology as it relates to the career of Mr. Lloyd. satyran at msn dot com72.187.69.194 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a reply on your talk page. Thanks. sixty nine   • spill it •  18:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)
Would you mind looking at the current debate on the Talk Page regarding "Jabberwock vs. Jabberwocky", and its addition to writing and development? I somewhat recanted an argument and reinstated the comment, though I edited it to address a complaint of synthetic statement. While I haven't combed through the author's work, I can't say I'm wholly convinced that there's a correct name or not. However, this may be to a bias based on how I've seen others treat the same material. Input would be appreciated. Emtigereyes (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added my two cents, but seeing how the argument has grown like a beanstalk over the past two days, it kinda feels like a drop in the bucket. sixty nine   • spill it •  18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Survey
Hi Beemer!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Help?
Hi! My name is Nicole Chimenti, and I'm writing a Wikipedia article for my English 103 class. I am writing about cross country running shoes, and my professor is requiring that we get assistance from an expert Wikipedia editor. I am contacting you because it appears that you have a lot of experience with editing articles, and also you contributed to an article about baseball bats, which could be considered similar to my topic. I would be so grateful if you would look at my article and give me some advice on making my article better.

Thank you so much! Nchimen (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)