User talk:Jayron32/Archive

Charles Tripp
Hi, I did the article on UK academic Charles Tripp - notice u put it up for deletion on notability grounds which was fair enough - i added a couple of hopefully reliable sources - the BBC and NRP where's he's been used as an expert - the NRP one is a bit fuller than the BBC one as it is a proper interview with him - audio and transcript. Let me know if that satisfies...! realisis

Glad it qualifies as notable. Thanks for the advice. realisis

Badvertising
Hi, I created the badvertising article and have since noticed that it is tagged for clean-up and wikification. I wrote it pretty quickly and I know that certain aspects of it aren't encyclopaedic enough yet, but I was wondering what exactly you had in mind re the tagging? thank you. Saccerzd 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Jayron32, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NC Roads
Hey, would you like to join the WikiProject: North Carolina State Highways? I noticed you are living in the NC area and are interested in highways. You don't have to commit to anything, just edit where and when you feel like it. To join, just add your name to the project Participant list and if you want, you can add the userbox found also on the project page. --TinMan 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment to your comment about NC 42: You're right. This is an issue that's really tricky. I've been debating with myself what to do with major junctions. I used to list all the major junctions like you have done, but User:SPUI deleted them saying that the infobox was too big and instead combined the major junctions section with the major cities junction. I agree, with the longer state routes, the infoboxes are far too massive on the major junction section. Yet, I don't don't want to leave out some of the more important junctions along the way. As for concurrencies, I'm debating that as well. As a rule of thumb, I've been completely leaving out concurrencies that stretch far outside a city. For example, if a concurrency starts in downtown Townsville and stretches to downtown Cityborough, I would leave that out. Now, if it's a really long concurrency, for say 40 miles, I would list both junctions. We really don't have a standard to follow, so I'm opening a discussion on it at WT:NCSH. I deleted those two routes on NC 42 for four reasons: 1: The shield was there, but the links for those NC highways were missing. 2: For longer routes, NC highways are usually left out unless they are freeways like NC 147. 3: US 421 is far more important than NC 87 in my opinion, but that's very debatable. 4: US 421 and NC 87 and NC 42 have a concurrency through Sanford. In other words, I haven't been consistent. I guess we'll have to discuss this at WT:NCSH. I would appreciate your opinion on this, as well as the opinions of the other Wikiproject members. --TinMan 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina Highways Naming Convention
This has finally come to an end. All we need now from the WP:NCSH project members is a vote on which convention we should use at the National State Route Naming Convention Poll. If you would, please go to State route naming conventions poll and cast your vote. This should be the last time we should ever have to do this. Supermajority will decide what we should do. --TinMan 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

30/60
Hi. I removed the prod2 tag you had put on the article 30/60 because I had not used WP:PROD but WP:AFD as the deletion process. Of course, you are more than welcome to give your opinion on this article at Articles for deletion/30/60. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

re: BW Expert
Thanks for that tip, Jayron32. Actually, there was a whole series I prodded earlier this evening before hitting the "homework," so I will try to AfD them later on. Also looked at the category, but it looks as though there are some articles within the category that have actually been worked up so I didn't do anything there. I will screw up my courage be bold and try to add those other related articles to your AfD, I think. Risker 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

CFB Project


Hi, and welcome to the College football Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love college football and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Please add WikiProject College football to the talk page and list your new article in the new articles section.
 * Looking for somewhere to help? Please see our article to do list or project to do list

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page. -- MECU ≈ talk 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

American Football
Hey, I have just started on the 49ers players, i am going to move on to other teams after i am done, check out the 49ers roster page and the player stubs i have created. I like the table and i am planning on using that table for future player articles. Giantsrule 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Football project
Hey, thanks for the note. I just joined the football project.

Someone else was looking to start one a while ago, so you might be interested in having a look here: User:Lomn/Wikiproject:American football. Perhaps some ideas, a couple other people to recruit, and whatever else you may find.

Thanks again for starting up the project, it always seemed to me a much better categorization approach than the NFL project. --Daniel11 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

American football
Did some work on American football. Suggestions/comments/critique welcome. Jcam 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Biographies
Note that we have several policies on biographies at What Wikipedia is not, namely that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, not a telephone book, and not a memorial. The realization of those policies has for a long time been our Criteria for inclusion of biographies. This, in its turn, has always embodied the primary notability criterion, albeit not as clearly as our other, later, notability criteria do. (In fact, back in 2004, What Wikipedia is not itself actually came very close to stating the primary notability criterion outright, under the heading that "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary.".) You're very much on the right track in looking for non-trivial published works about each person, and reading them to see what and how much actual material they contain, and who wrote and published them. Doing the research is an important part of AFD discussions. Uncle G 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Jayron, please don't suggest I'm acting in bad faith without checking out the facts. Calton has a long and sorry history of making inaccurate, unreliable comments in AfD discussions, has been making personal attacks against me for several weeks after I pointed this out. Calton has been warned, over and over, about making personal attacks, and was blocked for it not very long ago. I removed Calton's prod on the Buckley article because Calton's claim was that Buckley was only a member of a "state level" "minor" political organization. The Democratic National Committee is not a minor organization nor a state-level organization, the prod claim was complete nonsense. and I removed it in good faith. Please be careful to follow WP:AGF yourself. I do appreciate your good work in improving the article invovled VivianDarkbloom 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Viviandarkbloom may be a time waster and I may be smarmy, but it is pointless to bring up such discussions in the public AfD forum.

Two out of three, there, bub. It is a standard practice of mine when listing articles for AfD that have been previously de-prodded to list the reason given -- or lack thereof -- for the deprodding. Given VivianDarkbloom's shoddy track record -- bad-faith removals of articles that were undisputed deletes on AfD -- that was perfectly appropriate.

''Even if I have no idea what I am talking about, and even if Viviandarkbloom is a raving lunatic, public AfD forums are not place to bring that up. Come to my talk page, tell me there that I have no business commenting on the article in question because I am a loser or whatever, but leave it out of the public discourse.''

Not even wrong. Leaving falsehoods in place and burying the correction elsewhere, while personally convenient for you, is not something I'm willing to follow along. And as for your implied characterization of my remarks to you, all I can say is, project much?

''Longtime members of state legislatures ARE notable. This guy passes the test.''

Wikipedia, unlike the US Congress or state legislatures, doesn't run on the seniority system: you actually have to do something (or, in a few cases, have something drastic done to you) to rate an article. The feeble gestures of notability thrown into the article don't save it, since this is not Who Who in Democratic Politics, and nobody knows or cares about this guy outside of Nashua and, presumably, certain smoke-filled backrooms in DC that want to get him involved in 2008 Democratic primary (given New Hampshire's ridiculously outsized importance in the process). Hometown pride is fine, but it shouldn't override basic judgment of enecyclopedic notability. --Calton | Talk 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Calton, your points on this subject would be valid if they were not in conflict with expressed WikiPedia guidelines. WP:NN expressly describes members of state legislatures as inherently notable.


 * Wikilawyering -- leaning on literal wording of rules as opposed to their spirit -- ALWAYS a good start for an argument. Common sense works better for me.


 * Since you seem to be mostly concerned with an editors track record (as opposed to the SUBJECT of the article independant of any editors)...


 * Try not to make up things out of whole cloth, as this damages your credibility. Or perhaps your mindreading apparatus is malfunctioning?


 * I merely noted that he was a long time state legislator.. And I say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the phone directory, random collection of information, or run on the seniority system. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What I want to know is what WOULD make a state legislator notable to you? Or do you just deny that any state legislator can be notable merely for being a state legislator?


 * What part of what I wrote was unclear? Note your use of the word merely.


 * To answer your actual question, actual lasting accomplishments; notoriety or outside notability (Sheila Kuehl); multiple1, non-trivial2 media coverage, where the person is the main subject of the story3 of the story, in major national or regional media (Frank Lasee, if his stupid idea gets much further than the "one-day wonder attention-getter" phase).4.


 * 1One story is NOT multiple: Buckley fails.
 * 2Buckley is NOT the main subject of the story -- substitute "Newt Gingrich" with "Unknown J. Republican" and there would have been no story.
 * 3 See number 3.
 * 4Does not count metro sections. CNN is major media -- score one for Buckley.

You know, I'm not going to give your grasping at straws any more attention than it deserves, except to say that your complete and utter misreading of my inclusion of the example of Frank Lasee -- what part of the conditional if his stupid idea gets much further than the "one-day wonder attention-getter" phase did you overlook? -- tells me all I really need to know about your purposes and referencing. I repeat my statement about not letting provincial pride get in the way of ordinary encyclopedic standards. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sarah Garnett
I've added a couple of references as requested. Very easy to do - it's a wonder that no-one who voted "delete because there's no references" didn't do something similar earlier... Grutness...wha?  01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle
''I have not called any names. You have not called any names. You do the math.''

Very cute. Transparent, but cute. Also, patently false (in your second sentence, if you need the hint), which kinda ruins the effect you were hoping for, but nice try. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You win.

Cool! I don't recall entering any contests, but I'll accept whatever door prizes are being offered, as long as I don't have to sit through some sale presentation on time-share vacations or the like.

So, what contest was I entered in? I don't recall. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Undeleted John Nagle
I saw John Nagle's vote on the AfD, then I realise that the debate was too odd/funny to be judged of its consensus correctly...so I'd rather leave it open for a while longer/relist the debate to be determined by someone else. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1932 NFL
taken from 1932 George Preston Marshall, Vincent Bendix, Jay O'Brien, and M. Dorland Doyle were awarded a franchise for Boston, July 9. Despite the presence of two rookies-halfback Cliff Battles and tackle Glen (Turk) Edwards-the new team, named the Braves, lost money and Marshall was left as the sole owner at the end of the year. NFL membership dropped to eight teams, the lowest in history. Official statistics were kept for the first time. The Bears and the Spartans finished the season in the first-ever tie for first place. After the season finale, the league office arranged for an additional regular-season game to determine the league champion. The game was moved indoors to Chicago Stadium because of bitter cold and heavy snow. The arena allowed only an 80-yard field that came right to the walls. The goal posts were moved from the end lines to the goal lines and, for safety, inbounds lines or hashmarks where the ball would be put in play were drawn 10 yards from the walls that butted against the sidelines. The Bears won 9-0, December 18, scoring the winning touchdown on a two-yard pass from Nagurski to Grange. The Spartans claimed Nagurski's pass was thrown from less than five yards behind the line of scrimmage, violating the existing passing rule, but the play stood.

It may be slicing words but the 32 game is not an offical NFL championship it was an additional game use to break the tie in first place that counted in the regular season standings. Over the years it has become known as a playoff game and yes somepeople casually use the term championship, however it is not. The result of the game gave the Bears a better winning % that is why they were the champions in fact the Spartans moved downed to 3rd place because the lost hurt their percentage. Smith03 04:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The text as written already includes the mention that the game was NOT sanctioned by the NFL as an official championship game; that it was a self-scheduled and impromptu by the Bears and Spartans for the purpose of breaking the tie.
 * The league arranged the game they did not leave it up to the teams. The league would have to approved any additional game see link above
 * The game is often retroactively considered the first NFL championship game in the same exact way that the 1967 AFL/NFL Championship Game and the 1968 AFL/NFL Championship Game are retroactively called "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II". Though not called the Super Bowl when played, the name was retroactivly applied when the game was renamed the Super Bowl prior to the 1969 edition.
 * Not quite the NFL has never listed this as a NFL title game in the same way as they do 1933-69 NFL championship games.
 * If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It may not be a sanctioned Championship Game, but it served the EXACT same purpose of one. It was played (under the scheduling rules of the time) as an extra game after the regular season for the purpose of determining a league champion.  Sounds like a duck championship game to me.
 * Not quite the team that lost the game did not finish 2nd they finished 3rd. The league in 1932 was baseing the champions and standings on winning %. It was used to break a tie that resulted in one team being the champion
 * The game is important as it LED to the formalization of the "official" NFL Championship Game. The success of, and interest in, this game is directly responsible for the formation of divisional play, standardized schedules, and a real championship game.  It is thus notable in that it directly caused the transformation of the NFL from an informal collection of midwestern industrially-sponsored football teams to a coherent professional sports league.
 * I agree it led to the an official championship game the next year and spliting the league into 2 divisions. Althought the idea of splitting the league into two division had been kick around since 1925. Smith03 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also prior to the establishment in 1933 of an actual championship game. Teams rountinely would refer to a game as a "championship game" Ie if two teams came into the season with 0 losts or similar records the team that won the game often would argue that was the champioship game one case was in 1924. Cleveland had the best record when the regular season was done, however they schedule a game against the Bears and the Bears won and claimed it was a "championship game" I believe there was a few others (21, 26) I will try to find. about the 21 season, Chicago beats Buffalo in late season game to claim championship, Buffalo see the game as an exhibitation. [] go down to the 1926 part of the article talks of a game in Dec against Bears as the "championship game"
 * Nothing against Hickory sports but in the case of a dispute I tend to give more weight to the NFL's view (simple because they should know what they did).

Also to use modern college football as an example the Big Ten does not have a football championship game like SEC, ACC or B12. However if at the end of the season Ohio State and Michigan are the only 2 undefeated teams in the conference when play each other people will call that the "Big Ten Championship game" is it well in a way yes but not in an official sense Smith03 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[] is okay with me
 * No championship game does NOT work the NFL and other pages on wikipedia call it a playoff game. A championship game is something is schedule before the season starts. If within the text you want to explained it as an unoffical "championship game" that is fine but for a headline it should be playoff game  Smith03 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Granite State Challenge
Your memory is a bit shaky. The first GSC championship team was in 1988-89. Thomas R. Graham was the Captain and high scorer (once scoring 240 points in a game versus Hanover who totalled 210). Mark Masterson, Preston Pfarner and Scott Greenbaum rounded out the first string team. The alternates were Max Tuefferd and Marshall Murray. Don't make me get Miss Lavoie to confirm this, or get the team together or bring out the VCR tape proving this fact. I'll let you guess which one of the original six I am.

I took my comment out of the rules to the past champions section. I think the 1988-89 inaugural championship team deserves that.Thenatureboy 03:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Thenatureboy

Jayron32, your facts on the 1988-89 team are shaky by your own admission. But I'll be the bigger person here and let the stay at home dad have his cake. I won't mention my 240 point game on this site every again (even though it was honored via special ceremony by the General Court of New Hampshire). The truth is the truth. Thenatureboy 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Thenatureboy

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Jayron32, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Hús ö  nd  04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

new sig test
Test --Jayron 32 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Thanks for the effort you put into the RFC summary. It's been a frustrating experience getting any attention on it. ---J.S (t|c) 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely. I tried to boil it down to the most obvious to make the whole debate easier to wade though. *sigh*   Oh, an anon on my talk page thinks he's the puppet of Grazon.  I'm not sure about that, but it does seem likely this account doesnt represent the whole of his experience here on wikipedia. ---J.S (t|c) 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pondok Indah
Re your message on my talk page, it seems you have misinterpreted the intent of my comments - but this could perhaps be partly my fault for not being explicit enough about my intent. I have just seen your message but dont have the time to comment further - hoepfully soon. I never assumed bad faith on your behalf (perhaps it appeared that way), much less intentionally tried to "smear" your name. Nor do i see my tactics as diversionary but related to the issue. Sorry for any ill feeling caused and i will clarify again soon. Kind regards --Merbabu 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: OK, i expressed my comments on the nomination page. Perhaps, if there is further comment necessary we do it on our talk pages. is that appropriate? Anyway, have a look. Cheers. --Merbabu 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * lol, i prefer your 2nd message and agree with your comments about afd and associated issues. As I perhaps only implied before, I am most impressed with the detail of the American articles and can only be envious for Indonesian related pages. thanks --Merbabu 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, although I think the actual New Hamp comparison was appropriate, publicly linking it to you personally was clearly not the brainest or tactful thing. my apologies. --Merbabu 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Mary
At least my user page has some balls. Thenatureboy 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Coito ergo sum?
That means,‘I fuck, therefore I am’ in Latin. Don't you want ‘Cogito ergo sum’, which means ‘I think, therefore I am’? ~ crazytal es  56297  O rly? 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

TheNatureBoy
I've not blocked him and two socks for a week. I expect he will continue to evade. If you stumble across obvious socks on other articles, please let me know and I'll whack those too. (Even if you did go to UIC. Blech. :)) Phil Sandifer 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can handle this without RfC. He's generically disruptive, personal attacky, and rude. I'm happy to whack him for another week if it happens again, and then just indefinitely block for a third time, and I doubt anyone would reverse it. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty's AfD Nominations
Note : That Tbeatty also nominated the evoting documentary 'Votergate' for AfD only a few short days ago. Tbeatty's nomination of Votergate - F.A.A.F.A. 08:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!
I just wanted to congratulate you on your first barnstar. You deserved it. I remember when i got my first barnstar less than a month ago. I was really excited. Now I have 3 barnstars. Keep up the great work and you will surely get more! Cheers, Jam 01 03:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ECOTM
Please go to the main Esperanza talk page to discuss the new proposal of the Esperanza Collaboration of the month. I ask you this because you have joined up, but we still need opinions and support. Thank you.  Dooms Day34  9  04:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you
 Thank you for your support... Thank you ever so much, Jayron32, for your kind words and understanding in my time of need. I deeply appreciate your support, and I hope to be there for you, should you ever need help. — Kyok  o Hello Jayron32, and thank you for your thoughts and prayers. I'm slowly recovering, though it will probably be some time before I return fully to Wikipedia. I'm taking advantage of the weekend to try to catch up on all the messages that I have received. Thanks again! -- Kyok o  01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Essay
If you don't mind, I'm adding your essay on my userpage at User:Ed.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't think of a good barnstar for you. I guess the people here on Wikipedia don't like giving out awards to people who have a critical opinion about the community itself. =) -- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that writing your opinions are strange-no one really ever takes the time to speak up! -- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

COI?
How is this a conflict of interest? I HAVE NO interests in Arch Coal, or that article, and never did. Thus there is no conflict. And what is Esperanza? Lady Nemisis 05:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So Esperanza is like Myspace then? And I'm not writing about corporations or companies but any subject that a client pays for. Did you see my rates? Lady Nemisis 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User page
The only thing about my location on my userpage is my time zone. BTW, my parents say it's okay to put that information on there. ' FL a  RN ' (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments
Jayron, An article I wrote is under deletion review and was deleted for ad hominem arguments which are being defended by other editors. Given our recent conversation I'd appreciate your voice in the matter.Dgray xplane 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What if I don't always feel like signing my comments? Like now, I feel like being difficult.
 * Now your making threats? That seems a little out of portion. ArmAndLeg
 * People seem to be responding to my comments just fine without my signature there. - Difficult Person.

US Bill of Rights
Hi - your edit summary in which you shortened the introduction mentions that the TOC should be visible. According to WP:LEAD the intro should summarize the entire article and be several paragraphs in an article of this size. I'm going to reconstruct the old intro, just wanted to give you a heads up, I know your changes were in good faith. Kaisershatner 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

user signatures - personalities
Thanks for your very interesting analysis of signatures and how they relate to personality types. It was quite informative. If you would care to reply to this comment please leave a message on my talk page ;) RichMac (Talk) 08:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, both comments where at the same level and I just read through his sig. Happy editing to you too! RichMac (Talk) 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson
I touched the section up about Snakes on a Plane a little bit. I could remove the critic's response about him since it is just one critic and probably deserves to be on the Snakes on a Plane article itself. However, I don't think it should be whittled down anymore since he did receive a significant amount of media attention for the film and the music video. Let me know if this is fine or if there are any other problems. --Nehrams2020 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I addressed the problems you listed about the article, do you think you could take another look at it? I added a better history of his film career by decade, and removed the 50 Cent controversy along with most of the Snakes on a Plane information. However, the article is now 31 kb long. Will that affect it getting to good article status? Let me know if anything else needs to be improved, I really want to get this headed to good article status. Thanks again for helping to critique it. --Nehrams2020 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article again and approving it for WP:GA. The film you listed as not included in the filmography was under a different title, but I changed it to include both titles. I'll keep a close eye on this article, ensuring new information is appropriately added and sourced. --Nehrams2020 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park GA
Regarding your suggestions for KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park - I can certainly work to fix the tone of the plot synopsis, but I'm not sure what can be done about citations. I took a look at some of the other film-related GAs (Batman Begins, The Blair Witch Project, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and X-Men: The Last Stand to name a few), and none of their plot summaries have any citations. Thoughts? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any updates? The article's been on hold for more than a week now.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
I just wanted to thank you for the advice re: "the munchies". It was a somewhat childish article but it was my thought that it would be a good starting point. You're point on verifiability is well taken, I put in references to two recent films which I see now is not really enough, and your point on the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary should have been even more obvious, but I didn't even think. I only discovered wikipedia a month ago and have been spending several hours or more a day reading it. It may sound strange but your extremely gentle criticism actually makes me feel more at home on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin 8 (talk • contribs).

Just a couple questions
- How do you ask for a citation, I am loath to run around changing articles but I do feel that many statements require a citation and don't have one, I did edit a page today that referred to American and European foreign adventures, I changed it to "wars and incursions" do you think this was reasonable? NPOV is the most important Wikipedia rule in my opinion - Re: talk pages, I Have been on several talk pages over the last few days for the first time, my question is actually several, is there a point in responding to a point made months ago? and is it impolite to go to somebody's talk page to discuss it?. Also how far are you supposed to go regarding discussing the actual issue in the article rather than the article?, the line seems blurry. - How in the world do you decide the importance of fancrup?, it seems like there is a lot of it and discussions on whats legit and whats not are kinda arbitrary, a good example would be character bio's on south park, I like these and many other things like them, but can see the need for limits. The question is what are they?. - what is Esperanza, it seems like something I would like to involve myself in but perhaps I'm not experienced enough. Thanks a lot for your time and please tell me if i'm getting on your nerves--Colin 8 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

?
Ok, I get all of your insightful Village pump (news) post except the part I bolded ..... Pokemanistarwarsi16thdivisionenglishfootballleague .... are there really that many crank editors about Polish 16th Infantry Division? - DavidWBrooks 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
Would you mind taking a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

Thanks Linux monster 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate you dropping into the Brandenburg AFD discussion. It was getting a little out of hand and needed an outside view.

I've made some basic structure changes to the article but if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

Thanks again,

Linux monster 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD for List of Finnish Films et al.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I put a hell of a lot of work into setting those up and we need some kind of list for information purposes. I swet up the nice boxes to help people learn. Why iare these lists any different to List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1719 or any of the other thousands of long lists on wikipedia? They are for information purposes. I feel that I am being targetted once again. What is the problem with a list of films? I will be removing your deletion tags. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And no it is not happy editing. Certain people are making my life a terrible misery on wikipedia. When thos elists are completed there will be far more films listed than in the categories. Information is there at your fingertips and if you require knowledge of films any where on the planet the navigation box immediately connects you to them. I am extremely disappointed in some people's repsonse to this. There are thousands of lists on wikipedia why are these any different particularly when they are for information purposes. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pleas see my comments on the deletion log page. And this is not a list of every x film very unotable films will not be included and dodgy porn films or whatever will not make the list. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of you and others acting as if I am a buffoon. For God's Sake I am redirecting 80 years of film to categories which already have lists and serve the purpose. However I may need to draw up lists for films betweeen 1896 and 1910 as there are practically no films in the categories. Oh yes of course a lists of films by year is really unencyclopedic (sarcasm) You really amaze me people. Navigation box is remaining though - useful for connecting all years in fuilms not just near years - The idea of lists is to survey the history of films but I may as well go ahead and create articles to save me doing the lists / User:Calton is a serious knob that he wants to delete everything I do. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A friendly-worded cease-and-desist. Don't patronize me. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the same was said to me after trying to be conversant and hopefully of help. I just wanted to inform you, that the issue has finally reached Film Project talk and that in the light of what I have understood of your comments and writings, I have tried to present a useful move. If you care to take a look and let me know if I missed something, I would appreciate it. I may soon be joining the Esperanzians, by the way. I need to better understand how some things work first. Hoverfish 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD of Adams County Public Library
If you feel "this should be covered in each municipality/county where each is covered", then why did you choose to delete, when a merge would suffice to fulfill your belief? - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

End to personal vandalism.
Thanks for the understaning 'Jayron'. I'll watch what I say from here on out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.155.78 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Hey mate. Sorry if I was a little harsh its just from what I saw is that you said to delete both and I was sure I read a comment of yours that I need a talking to or something. Its just I wake up the morning and see allthe year lists up for deletion and I kind of got annoyed. Beleive me I would rather not have to make unneccessary lists. You see I have looked through most of the years and realise there is aleady a great deal of work done particualry 1950 onwards so rather than created the lists it is better to redirect to them. The navigation boxes though I rthink are extremely useful and shoul dnever be deleted. Rather than start the lists I have decided to redirect to the categories and search out missing film by year and contribute that way to way new articles and info is created and the lists in the categories will become more complete. Ny only concern is that if I start new articles on film Calton will again attempt to delete everything under the living sun i am involved with. Apologies if I was rude its just very frustrating when I am doing something which I think is very beneficial and to have people look at it like a piece of dirt.

Both navigation boxes now should be used in the categories as a quick movement between them connecting to all of global film on wikipedia. If there are no objections I will now concentrate on new articles from 1896 - 1910 which are very poorly covered. Can we make up? I would appreciate all the support available to develop ''foreign films and earlier films. It is easier now I more concise if i root out the missing articles by the categories and add them with my sole aim on wikipedia to provide infomration. I initally thought the lists were to this purpose but may not be needed. Can we make up?

All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

hey mate have read your comments on the film page not the deletion page and see you can see exactly where I am coming from. Thankyou so much well done. The reason I wanted such braod lists was to root out missing articles, decide which is notable and add them to the project. But this can now be achieved by starting films by just looking in the categories to see what is missing. Just redirect the box templates to the categires and use them within them. Anothe rmisunderstanding was that you mentioned the two different lists 1896 in film and List of 1896 films but they were not intended to be sepaerate. I intended on every year that the list rather than going alongside it would actually be a part of it branching out from years in film. Very few films were listed on the annual main pages and i always and would always provide a link to the lfuller lists which was intended to be an expansion of it. THis is why I alos thought it was neccessay to expand existing articles onto new pages. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Drew Carey
I reworked the Drew Carey page and would like to put it up for Good Article Nomination. Would you like to look it over and see if there is anything that needs to be fixed before I nominate it? You did a job assessing the Samuel L. Jackson page, so I came to you first to avoid a quick-fail. Let me know on my talk page if anything needs to be fixed or if I should nominate it. Thanks again. --Nehrams2020 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response, however, I need some clarification on a few of your points. The framework you suggested is great, and I have already applied it. What information do you suggest go in the promotional work section? You suggested removing the Harvard referencing I added for information from his autobiography; how then would I cite it from the book itself? Finally, what do you mean by the "main" template. Am I seeking protection for the page, his shows? I don't understand that at all. Let me know soon, and I'll do my best to correct them. I am currently working on developing the Kinney/Stiles section. --Nehrams2020 04:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, understand the "main" template, forget that part. --Nehrams2020 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this interview, Kathy Kinney did not really know Drew that well before the start of the Drew Carey Show besides their work on the previous sitcom. I don't think I should mention the Kinney/Stiles relationship, since he probably has similar friendships/involvement with most if not all of the members of the Improv All-Stars, which I included as its own section. Likewise, the ad promotion section won't really amount to much, I haven't really found him involved to be the spokesman for too many products except for his Lasik eye surgery, which I somewhat listed, and the one with A&W which was already there. I am currently working on developing his work with stand-up and will include information about the Drew Carey Show from his autobiography to expand it more. Once I finish with that, I'll let you know it is done, and we can start this again. --Nehrams2020 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the spelling error on the Samuel L. Jackson page. Now, I have added sources from his autobiography to a few sections and also included two more pictures of him in two of his shows. Is there any other information that needs to be added? Also, do I need to put this up for nomination, or can you just establish it (once it's ready) since you are one of the members of WP:GA? Thanks again for all of your help, I really do need outside people like yourself to look at this article to push me to improve it even more. --Nehrams2020 06:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed the corrections you recommended and nominated it. Sorry, I thought you were one of its members. You have helped me so much with the two articles you should consider becoming a member, you would be an excellent asset for the WP. I don't think I could ever assess other articles as well as you do and approve/deny articles, so I'll stick to just adding the articles. A question about good articles, I don't know where to ask it, how come there is no good article symbol at the top right of the screen like featured articles do? Good articles seem to have the same format, project-wise, and I think it would be better for editors to see that an article was only a good article and see to continue to approve it to featured article status. Don't know if you know that, just want to see if you know where I could ask it or find info about it. Again, thanks for all the help, and I hope I can use you again in the future with my next good article attempt. --Nehrams2020 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the barnstar. Again, I couldn't have brought those two articles up to good article status without your help! I am going to be pursuing a couple more in the next couple weeks and I'm coming to you first for help. You talked about joining the Wikiproject:GA on my talk page, but did you join yet? Let me know if you do. --Nehrams2020 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

An article in need of a fresh start
Hi again. My attention was brought to Notability (films). I have read the past editors' discussion and acknowledge the difficulties met. Yet for the Film Project this article, if developed to guidelines status, would be of invaluable help. Should we call in a team of experienced editors for a fresh start? Hoverfish 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Electronic packaging" work in progress
I've responded to your remarks in the article's discussion page. Google book search finds a large literature on the subject; I haven't looked at any of it yet.

Myllivolt 06:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Myllivolt

I have also responded.. It would be great to have you give a further looksie, and help figure out how to remove the tags all over the front page.

r: entry (Moxy - singer) =( Ontheballartists 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding citations
I was wondering if you could help me find some citations regarding some of the points I made on the talk page for the page secular ethics. I just spent the last hour or so writing it (its under the title criticism) and I find it unlikely I made truly new points, the talk page makes a point of asking for a criticism and I provided a laypersons point of view, but that's clearly not encyclopedic without citations and I wouldn't know where to look. I don't know if the issue is your forte but I figured I'd ask, I don't mean to be a bother but its the best thing I have ever written on an intelligent topic (for whatever its worth) and can't believe I made these points first. --Colin 8 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park
Your "on hold" review for this article has lasted for over 7 days. It is time that you passed or failed this article. Diez2 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moxy
I apologize for my lack of format understanding. I am leaving a msg re: an entry that you tagged.

Moxy (Singer) is already an approved link in an approved Wikipedia entry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_10

After the Ben 10 entry was approved, Moxy was added an entry that needed information, and that is what we updated.

'''We only added pertinent information an an already approved entry, Moxy (singer) - the singer of the Ben 10 theme song, seen and heard in 160 countries and 88 Million U.S. households. In the approved Wikipedia entry, Moxy is prominently mentioned in the introductory paragraph.'''

Surely, that must be considered elgible for the notability requirements.

However, we did update the page, citing reliable third party sources. We included external links (lots of them), and cited our sources, including wikipedia itself, the imdb movie database, and all msuic guide.

Please remove the tags and respond as soon as you can. I aim to learn more about the workings of wiki, and help others. I am not too literate in the world of forums and the like, so I appreciate your patience.

Thanks.

Ontheballartists 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. You reviewed at a good moment since, at the time of the nomination, the article lacked most of the sources it has now actually :) I have been rewriting the article for the last week or so, and found 60 of the references. I just corrected the problem with the citation system, and nearly all citations include retrieval dates as well as a listing system on par with other GA and FA articles. As for the sections that you mentioned, they are awaiting to be rewritten, and that's why they are not completely referenced. However, all of those will be corrected in a couple of days, and all those sections will be rewritten, trimmed and referenced. I will leave you a note when it will be done. Cheers! Baristarim 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. It has been six days since you put the article on hold, so I wanted to leave you a small note considering that you might pass by in a day or so. Nearly all sections and the intro have been rewritten, citation system fixed per WP:CITE, + many cleanup tasks. However, the only section remaining is the antiquity subsection. I will take a look at it and fix all the problems along with some other editors in the next 24-36 hours, depending on our schedules. Just wanted to let you know in case you drop by today and see that the antiquity section is still the same :) Be assured that it will be fixed! Cheers!Baristarim 04:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks!!!! Again, I appreciate that you took the time to review the article. You made me smile after a long stressful day. Cheers!Baristarim 06:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Jayron32 - I am at a library and I'm receiving these "messages" about vandalism. I just want to make sure I'm not in any trouble for something I didn't do. 192.17.222.30 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Harry Thompson

Jayron32 - -I am also receiving messages about vandalism. i am appreciative of the fact you are pointing this out. My intention is not to vandalize. My intention was in fact to remove libellous comments in wikipedia. sorry for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.67.205 (talk • contribs)

Rather critical: Keith Records himself snoring
Jayron. I never said "I don't like this". Please, don't quote me with a fabrication. This is dishonest and an apology is forthcoming. Also, I did explain the edits. You, on the other hand have mde no defense of the restored text. I did, you would noted if you were truly interested in a process of dialogue, have explained the edits. A question remains: how is Keith recording himself "rather critical"? That wes your judgement and the absolute rediculousnes of it indicates that you may be poorlu suited for the role you have assumed. You like to have and intelligent and informed editor making edits who can respond to arguments and not avoid them with might over right. I don't think you have shown yourself to be well qualified. Nonetheless, I will note what changes will be made here befoe making edits. Mr Anonymous

P.S. Please don't remove the heading ""Rather critical": Keith records himself sonoring."" This is precisely your defense of the text you resored. Unlike yourself, I do take pains to truthfully quote other editors. If you say something silly, you still have said it. This not my creation; but exactly what you are saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.115.101 (talk • contribs)