User talk:Kenilworth Terrace/Archive 1

May 2009
I would stick a Welcome template here, but since it seems you are not really a "new" editor, just let me say, "Welcome"! - Running On  Brains  17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you anyway! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus Publishing (Canada)
Another editor has nominated Daedalus Publishing (Canada) for speedy deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Isaacs
Question for you on talk. Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Argleton
A sarcastic comment that makes sense is better than a normal one that doesn't. Your post had no context, the references show that there are no buildings in the area, so removing an image that therefore has nothing to do with the article is the obvious move. RaseaC (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

James Stark (vampire)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Stark (vampire), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: James Stark. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Message received while splitting off text from article James Stark which had been badly damaged. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution
Hi, I'm glad you spend some of your time making this wikipedia more usefull. However I have to blame you for having misplaced an "unref" in a page that became partially uselless. This page has an infobox that miss de double { after your modification.

Then some stupid bot reject the picture of the cover that has became orphan.

You know, there is a button named "preview" just right of the one used to "publish"... "Cordialement", Kumeon (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Noted, thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
... for Willie Stark.

It has been a very long time since someone other than an actual page editor contributed to that section of the Assassinations page.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenilworth the novel? Kenilworth the Toronto street?
 * It's not a common moniker.
 * Varlaam (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's where the first potato in the Old World was planted. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating.
 * Is this the old story about trying to make potatoes seem rare and valuable so that poor folk will steal 'em and eat 'em?
 * Varlaam (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe 35 years ago, we used to hear this story regularly. I can't quite remember where.
 * It wasn't part of class work; it must have been part of these standardized tests we received periodically. Probably in a section about reading comprehension.
 * But it was a yarn about the early history of the distribution of the potato. They would use odd scraps of history for these tests, not fictional rubbish. So the doctor who died curing yellow fever, I would have first heard of him in these tests. Walter Reed, I think.
 * Actually I'm curious now to unearth the full version of this bit of botanical history.
 * Varlaam (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (in Toronto)

PlayFair
hi,

When I first wrote the PlayFair article, I was trying to write about the popular college orientation events (provided by the PlayFair company) that are common in the the USA. These events involve ice-breaker games with thousands of participants at once.

I've found it hard to provide proper sources for this, but some Googling suggests that has been at: Berry College, Bucknell University, Butler University, Carnegie Mellon University, James Madison University, Missouri State, Oklahoma City University, Temple University, Trinity University, University of Nevada - Las Vegas, University of Richmond, University of Washington - Seattle, University of Delaware; and that they also have a presence in Canada: University of Waterloo, University of Toronto at Mississauga.

I suppose I should start a new article with this information after you delete this one?

Guslacerda (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC);


 * Not at all! If you can find reliable sources you can add them right now, or improve the article in any way you see fit.  You can also go to Articles for deletion/PlayFair (facilitation) and argue for retention.  It's up to the community to decide on deletion after a discussion: I have nothing further to do with it.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Salton City
Did you look at the editor's Talk page? Immediately prior to the edit to Salton City, they had written a hoax article about the Salton City Vinegar Riots. Considering they seemed to be using made up sources, I didn't trust the sources they used to the Salton City article. Woogee (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you vouch for the authenticity of the William deBuys and Joan Myers book? Woogee (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, thanks. Woogee (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabazzah and Pompoir

 * Hasty? For all you know I could have been deciding for years whether or not to tag them as being hoaxes. They are very small articles with hardly any references. If you read the hoax tag, it says the article 'may be' a hoax, it isn't that big of a deal. If you feel so strongly about these articles, expand them and supply sufficient sources so that there is no questioning that they are real and notable. TheWrongBoy  talk 2 me 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: M. Christian and its AfD
I recommend you withdraw your nomination. It appears you did not read WP:BEFORE. DGG reviewed your PROD and removed it. That alone should have been a sign to you that the PROD was mal-advised. The AfD should get a steady stream of "Keep" votes. Recommend you punt. --Morenooso (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your advice is noted. No doubt if the person were notable, and reliable sources could be found, the result would be as you suggest.  So I propose to let the community decide.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is. Please let me rework the page. My laptop died and the system did an automatic save. You destroyed my work. Give me an hour or two and you see no further edits, then jump in. --Morenooso (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominators don't vote. Your nomination is your vote. You're making another error. --Morenooso (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another of your errors is placing a warning of the AfD on the admin's page. It belongs on the creator's talkpage. You should rescind your warning and apologize to the admin. Then you should place the AfD notice where it belongs. HINT: it doesn't belong my page either. --Morenooso (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

← When you're offering patronising advice, it works better if you get it right: you didn't. Anyone (not only an admin) can contest a PROD. I'm not responsible for your laptop or your typo, you are. AFD is not a vote. I notified an interested party and I did place an AFD warning on the creator's page. If you want this article kept, don't try and bully me out of launching an AFD -- improve the article and/or produce convincing agruments at AFD instead. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quentin-Claude Bendier
It is not an error, but the two are indeed the same person, see here:. He is notable not so much as a scholar and author, but mainly as a collector of books.—Graf Bobby (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that French Wikipedia has an article about him under the name Claude Bendier, so the move you suggested is probably a good idea. I certainly won't object.—Graf Bobby (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish to thank you...
I found discussion with you at Articles for deletion/Spanking Love (2nd nomination) to be most helpful in it reaching its current improved status. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

eroge titles deleting
I understand the concern with having unreferenced articles. I think however that merging them into a list is better than outright deletion as English translated eroge has commentary on it from various sources on both an academic and non-academic level. Also several of the games mentioned I could show enough to pass the GNG, if brought to an AfD, but am focused on other items atm and would rather preserve the info until such time as that is possible. Having a list is not without precident for video games as we have a List of video game emulators specifically because of a similar issue about notability and referencing. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Suits me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: G-Spot Express and The Rapeman
Why am I being notified since I didn't create either of these articles or made any significant contributions? —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I aimed to alert everyone who seemed to have a significant interest in each article. You made a number of edits to them (5 to one and 8 to the other) and in each case quite recently.  If you're not interested, feel free to ignore the notices!  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't as it is spamming and can be taken as canvasing. Limit your notices to article's creator and those who made significant contributions to the article's contents. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your views. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:53, 12 June 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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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) 04:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pink Grand Prix
Hi, Kenny. I noticed you tagged as "dead" a couple links to the official site of the Pink Grand Prix. I appreciate you doing this rather than simply deleting them, as some editors do-- I like to keep these things up-to-date. I've checked a few of the award years, and it looks like Hayashida (the author/editor/webmaster behind the awards & journal) is completely revamping the site, and this includes re-naming the links. So, rather than tagging every link to the site (I've put up quite a bit in my work on pink film) let's wait about a week, then I'll either fix the links manually or put in a request for a bot-fix, if it's a big enough job. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine -- I put the tags up precisely so that someone who knew the material, such as yourself, would have a chance to fix things. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)
I can see that you're keen to keep this article, and I can't see anything to be gained by fighting you over it. Would you mind if I helped you with it, so that we can really justify having two articles instead of one? Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that -- happy to bury the hatchet! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Laura Antoniou
Hi, this is Karen Taylor. I have been working on a project to update Laura Antoniou's website, her entry in the Wikipedia, and creating a Marketplace series wiki. I do have contact with her, but I'm not certain it means that I'm acting on her behalf. Laura's publisher, Cecilia Tan, encouraged me to look at her entry as sample for the type of entries suitable for Wikipedia.

I originally signed in to Wikipedia using Laura's signon information, because I'm working on her projects. The entries made on July 5th were mine as well. I did have her look at it, and the information that says "removed at her request" was certainly her input.

I've read the material for editing a biography, and thought I was following them as accurately as possible. I'm new to this, and may have not fully understood how to do the work. I did my best in finding appropriate source material, but if there's anything else I should know and didn't read properly, please let me know, thanks!

Karen Taylor aka Vivian Sinclair VivianSinclair (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD
I'm sorry, it was not meant to be terse, rather, there are so many reasons in the editing policy, I did not want to list them all and be overbearing. I am sure that much of the material comes directly from the TV series or game itself, and can be verified by watching the show or playing the game. I am concerned that you do not seem to think my reversions of your edits are sensible, as my reasoning comes directly from the editing policy, and I find your application of WP:UNDUE to be very strange. In these articles, the trouble is that there is inadequate weight on the real-world side of things, which leads to the in-universe side of things looking too big in comparison, when really, it might be considered concise, if it had the ballast of real-world information. --Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasoning equally comes from policy -- in this case Verifiability, one of the "Five Pillars", which is referred to by WP:EP. I prefer to discuss specific cases at article talk pages, since my reasons are not exactly the same in each case.  See Talk:Magog (Andromeda) for example.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kabazzah and Pompoir cont'd
These have now been merged; hoaxes seem improbable and the books referred to exist though I have not checked the existing references.--Felix folio secundus 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for that. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Misquoting
Get a sense of humor!!!!! Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessica Publishing, Selena Kitt, and My Secret Garden
I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia great and I've added discussion to the Excessica Publishing, My Secret Garden, and Selena Kitt Talk pages in order to better elaborate on my reasons for inclusion of information that you have brought into question. I hope that I have clearly expressed just where I am coming from regarding these articles. My first concern for anything I ever contribute to Wikipedia is: Is this information that someone would come to Wikipedia to discover? David Barber (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that: I have replied at Talk:Excessica Publishing. Another concern, which I hope you will give equal weight to in adding material is: Is it verifiable by reliable sources.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This -- "If anything, contributors might better spend time looking for other references that questioning CoI." -- on the other hand is objectionable. Use article talk pages to discuss improving the article, not take cheap shots at other editors.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wifey's World and the site owners Kevin and Sandra Otterson
I think a new consenses needs to be found so as to add the true names of these very notable people to this article (see below). It's not like they are in hiding. Nor have they contacted Wikipedia to ask that there names be removed. In any event, their full true names, current address, dates of birth, and social security numbers are all out there and easily found in the 'net. Kevin and Sandra Otterson; it is a matter of public record that they are involved in this million dollar website and have been the subject of neighborhood controversies.

I added a section regarding this to this discussion page of the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wifey%27s_World#New_Consenses_on_Adding_Their_True_Names_to_Article_-_2010 I am hoping that you can help me with this as some fool seems determined to scrub the 'net clean of any reference to these two foolsRepublic of Texas (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I probably will comment, but please note that calling other editors "fools" will not improve the discussion! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice adds to the references! One thing I just thought of regarding the name issue is that I do not see the difference ("The article is about the porn star...The article is not about the person behind it.") As an example, in EVERY article about WWF professional wrestling and the like, while the 'character' name is mentioned, so is that person's real name.  When an article is done about a fictional TV / movie person, such as Superman or Batman, mention is always made about the real name of the person who plays that person.  One would assume that this is done for completeness.  So is it a BLP violation to mention the real names of the WWF professional wrestling when they only go by their character name on TV?  What about those Mexican wrestlers who only wear masks to hide their identities?  Is that a BLP violation?  Of course not.  So why should it be any different than a porn star?  Or is it just because the article is about something sexy?  I do not understand why some people with fake names are treated differently then others who use fake names.  As an aside, why can't the article be about BOTH - the porn star and the person behind the name? Republic of Texas (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but had I known back then that it was 'hubby & wifey' who were engaging in the edit war I would have given them an ultimatum: Either you two go away and quit trying to screw with Wikipedia's article about you or I WILL POST on every torrent site I can find a pdf document containing your full legal names, dates of birth, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, credit reports, and your current home address. Republic of Texas (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as well you didn't then ... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Kenny. Thanks for notifying me of the AfD nominations. Not notifying me was just one of lesser of the dishonest tactics taken by the nominator. About your concerns over P*G magazine: Jasper Sharp, leading, published English authority on the Pink film states several times in that this is the leading journal on the genre. It has been in publication for over two decades, the author has been interviewed and published on the subject, and the Pink Grand Prix is similarly cited by Sharp and  by mainstream Japanese sources as the "Academy Awards" of the genre. There are citations at the articles on these subjects, but let me know if you need more. The "reliability" of the publication, and the "notability" of this award relevant to this genre of film is not in question. Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Although we may not see eye-to-eye on these matters, I certainly want to hear all the arguments.  That said, I'm disturbed by the aggressive tone that several people are taking in the AFD discussions.  In particular, it's possible to disagree without being guilty of "cultural and moral bias" or "POV and OR" or "WRONG here".  I'll make up my own mind, based on the facts and arguments as presented.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all happy with the tone of these things either. But the tone was not changed, it was started out with aggressive and inappropriate assertions. The tone of the delete votes strongly indicates that these films are being equated with US cheapo porn videos, which could not be further from the facts. They are 35mm theatrical releases, and they are part of a strong cinematic tradition in a culture in which erotic expression has a long history of social and artistic relevance. When I first encountered this genre, I revered Kurosawa, Ozu, Mizoguchi and the rest as much as any film buff. But when I first went to see some of these pink/Roman porno films in the late '70s/early '80s, I went to see some beautiful actresses and some T&A. I got that, but I came away with more-- a new respect for Japanese cinema in that they could invest real quality and artistry in even a genre which is held in low regard in the West. (I'm not saying all these films are of a high quality, of course, but what genre produces nothing but high quality? And that is the purpose of the Pink Grand Prix-- to separate the wheat from the chaff. Again, it is only a fraction of the yearly output that gets recognized at this ceremony.) Russ Meyer is probably the nearest equivalent we have to some of these Japanese filmmakers, but where we have one, they have them by the dozens... Anyway, unlike some in these discussions, I do believe you try to listen to the facts. I just think we don't always hear them the same way ;-) Again, if you need further citations or info regarding the P*G website, the awards, or other things Pink-related, let me know and I'll do what I can. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Nole  lover  19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Orgy
Perhaps you've heard of being bold? They were not really sweeping changes or hastily undertaken. You'll find, if you look, that the article Orgy was virtually a poor copy of parts of Orgia, Sex party and Group sex. Orgy, sex party and group sex were a mess of overlapping, dubious unsourced claims and original research. I cleaned them up and separated the information: "orgy," in its modern use, is dealt with largely at sex party, while "orgia" is an article about the ancient Greek religious rite. I urge you to revert your restoration of Orgy, which has really buggered everything up. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadism and masochism in fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadism_and_masochism_in_fiction I've removed the entries. Thanks for informing me about COI. (Zakfar2000 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson
Restoration was requested at WP:REFUND and the rules are that even after deletion a PRODded article is restored on request. I somehow omitted to send you the proper notification, for which many apologies - I think after clicking "Show preview" to make sure the links were right, I must have omitted to actually click "Save page". It would have read: Hi. You PRODded this and it was deleted; undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks so much. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all -- thank you! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Surrealist films
One Google search does not necessarily prove anything. Surrealism has a very specific definition, whereas "surreal" and "surrealistic" do not. Category:Surrealist films has been overpopulated with films that are not even vaguely relevant, simply because the word has now come to be a synonym for "weird" or "strange." However, since this is an encyclopedia, we need to use encyclopedic definitions. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion
The only of those three edit summaries you mentioned that I regret is "what utter rubbish." I stand by the other two. In regard to the matter at hand, I have stepped back; you will notice that this is my first post in more than an hour. Thanks for your message. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

the master's thesis
Unless it is published the master's thesis might not be reliable sourcing but the underlying source that the thesis pulls its information from certainly is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookiebookie (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Eyre Coote
I didn't "give" the date 1759, it was there. Apparently, according to you, 1762, that appeared on the side and contradicted the introduction, is the right year, then. LoveActresses (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Barn star!

 * Thanks! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion
Hi Kenilworth Terrace. Just noticed that you've created a fair few AfDs recently that just run along the lines of 'Non-notable XYZ' and nothing more. While those articles might well be entirely deserving of deletion, per WP:JNN it may be helpful to give a more complete argument.-- K orr u  ski  Talk 11:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the line about her being an ancestor of the royal houses from the lead. If it's elsewhere in the article and I missed it, go ahead and remove that. There are multiple sources about her being biracial and of the significance of that and I object to that removal and said so. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

oh dear
Oh dear, I do seem to have stuffed up a bit, haven't I?

As a recomense, here's a lovely picture of a cute little penguin:



Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agnieszka Piotrowska Article
I have updated the WP Biography on Agnieszka Piotrowska talkpage to help improve the article. I've also read your comment on the user who helped create the article and thought I'd leave a message here about the update made to her talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks for that. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive warnings
Hi, how are you? I just want to give you a tip. When you warn an editor for making unconstructive edits, you should give them only one warning, regardless of how many unconstructive edits you are warning them for at that very moment. In particular, at User talk:70.147.160.56, you gave the editor four warnings (levels 1, 2, 3, and 4) for four different instances of vandalism. However, you placed all four warnings after the editor had made their last edit. In other words, after the editor finished his or her spamming spree, you placed four warnings on their talk page. The purpose of the different-leveled warnings are to warn editors about their actions and to give them a chance to stop by their own accord. If an editor makes 5 edits without being warned, and then someone comes along and warns them four times and then immediately reports them, that defies the point of the warnings, as it never gave the editor a chance to stop on their own. If an editor is deserving to be blocked right away, then there is no need to warn them - instead, you can jump simply report them right away, without any warnings. Or, if the editor deserves to receive a harsher warning, then you can just jump straight down to giving them a level 3 or 4 warning, without placing a level 1 or 2 warning at all. Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Facial (sex act)‎
Hello can you stop reverting the image and use the talk page? The issue is being discussed. "As a black male I find one of the images used for this article noticeably racist. The second image with the black man ejaculating on the white girl is the image in question. While I can understand the authors need to show NPOV, any sexual image with two partners showing one of the partners in discomfort/sadness should be same race to avoid any potential racism. Please someone change the image with the unhappy girl to have both partners as the same race or have them displaced in a non-race fashion (EX: stone figurines, portrait of just a woman's face with ejaculate on it) to remedy this potential contrasted racism. Also while not directly related I wish to point out this article could use a picture of a male giving another male a facial and/or a female squirting on a males face (if that would be relevant to the article) 130.49.142.155 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)phDalbert You can create an image yourself if you want.Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with Dalbert. I have modified the original image to only show the woman experiencing the facial with limited racial overtones. Keep up the good work everyone! 173.188.2.174 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)"

Although i'm not sure if I updated the image correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.174 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Evgenia Obraztsova
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article for DYK status. I believe I have addressed the issues that you pointed out, but if you have any other concerns, please let me know! --Elonka 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hydroxide
Please look at my talk page "Medal of achievement". Petergans (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)