User talk:Maniwar/Archive 4

Curve
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curve&diff=prev&oldid=148262110 this], first just a remark. "Rvv" means "Revert Vandal", are you sure this is what you meant to say?

Second, in the case of Apollo, such note is of course allowed, since the Apollo missions are very famous, but Curves International appears to be just a gym company, it does not deserver special treatment.

You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Repeated from Oleg Alexandrov talk page:
 * Apollo is but one example as there are many. For example, I also said firefly but Paraffin follows suit, and there are many more. Curves International is only the largest fitness franchise in the world, larger than Bally's and Gold's gyms combined. You can read a discussion on the Curves talk page to see why I'm doing this compromise, if you will, rather than seeking another rfc. Most people when they search for Curves, are not looking for the math concept, but in fact are looking for the women's fitness center. Again, this is in keeping with Wikipedia and the many articles that do the same. There is no defacing, no edit wars (hopefully), and I think is a good compromise. I originally created Curves and pointed it to Curves International, however, when the math guru's decided they wanted it to go to Curve, the math concept, that's where the issues arose. I went along with the community in the redirect, but I am doing so here with the perfectly accepted format of otheruses4 as a good compromise as well. Hope that answers your questions, if not, just let me know and I'll be able to answer whatever I missed. Cheers! --User: (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging by the number of links to it, Curve (band) appears to be much more notable than Curves International, and Curve (magazine) appears to be tied. As such, if you wish another link at curve, that one has to be Curve (band). I believe it is not appropriate to have a link to Curves International appear on top of curve, being in the disambig page is enough, that's what such pages were made for.


 * Please reply here, to keep all talk in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification request. How are you determining your comment appears to be much more notable? I can only assume you mean links from/within Wikipedia. If that's the case, I will concede to that statement. However, in the rest of the world, when someone searches for Curves, they are searching for the fitness company and not some unknown band or the math concept. By the way, I did forget to apologize earlier for the rvv comment, that was a slip of the finger as I did not think your edit was a vandal edit. But again, the addition is within keeping of wikipedia. Please explain why you oppose this? --User: (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know that when people search for "Curves" they mean the fitness company? I believe a general audience will take much more interest in a music band and/or a magazine than into an obscure fitness company. And the population of undergraduate students taking calculus (which is very large) will care quite a bit of the math concept. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question as to why you oppose this entry. Again, I ask, why are do you opposed to this minuscule entry, especially when it is in keeping with wikipedia? Now as to your question. Curves is the fastest growing fitness company in the world with 10,000 locations. Last year, for the first time since the U.S. Government started keeping tract, the rise in women's obesity stayed the same. It did not increase, nor did it decrease. However, as mentioned it did not increase. But in the male category, there was still an increase. The only major contribution that could possible have made the difference in the female population, though the research is not yet complete, is the rise of female attendance in physical fitness. Curves has about 4+ million members and all the copycats combined are around one million. Curves is such a phenomena and is known to be such that Avon has partnered with them and has placed them in every Avon Magazine for the past year; and there is now a new partnering campaign with General Mills where they are making and selling Curves cereal, and Curves bars (snack). If you look a the search engines, there are more items for the fitness club than any other and there are more searches for Curves than there are for the math concept or any other. I fail to see why you all remain close minded and will not allow this minor compromise, which has been done by many other articles. --User: (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this entry because there is no need to treat it separately than the other ones. Besides you seem to be very biased towards this company, and it is bad having editors pushing their agenda around here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is twisted and speculative. I can say the same for you, that you are either a math student, a math teacher, or some sort of mathematician and that you are guilty of COI, however, we are all guilty of that in some form, shape or manner, so I'm refusing to call you out on that. I simply was providing you facts and answering your question of how and why they are important, not to sell the company, and yet you come back at me with an accusation. I know about the company because I've been doing research. Just like Ivan Bashev whom I had to do research on him and I now know a little bit about him. You avoid the issue by bashing me. Again, why are you opposed to inserting a perfectly acceptable practice within Wikipedia that appear on many articles, which do not vandalize or hurt the article in any form shape or manner. And having showed you how Curves is an important entity in the world do you still refuse to see the value? --User: (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment above was not constructive. Sorry. To go to the point, there exist many meanings at curve (disambiguation). At least three of them are at least as notable as Curves International. Then the choice is between putting them all on top of curve, or putting none except the disambig link. I believe the latter option is better, that's what disambig pages are for. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point and I would concede if there wasn't more complications involved. Because Curves (plural) redirects to Curve singular, it warrants that the former deserves some recognition. A person searching for Curves ends up at Curve and wonders what? And then there is only a disambig notice for Curve (singular) thereby adding confusion. With this otheruses4, again in keeping with all the examples I've listed above and the community, this is a good compromise and does not add confusion. Again, no vile, no vandalism, or anything is committed. I do however like the compromise that was just completed and I can live with that one. Your apology is acknowledged, accepted and reciprocated if I was too strong. --User: (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can change the disambig to say For other meanings of curve and curves see Curve (disambiguation). By the way, speaking from a male perspective, anybody searching for curves will look for "woman curves", rather than "gym company" I think. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to inactive and/or historical status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Retort/Rant/Vent

 * Posted here instead of at Talk:Amazing Facts

Over the past few months, I have been editing articles. One thing that chaps my hide is when an anonymous/registered editor try to inject loaded sentences that are unsourced. One such thing has been happening to the Amazing Facts article. For over a year, it appears, that the same editor(s) have been trying to inject their POV and unsourced sentence. Many editors have reverted this entry and it has been discussed on the talk page as to why they have. I just happen to be a new editor, and have been reverting the same loaded sentence all the other editors have previously reverted. Apparently, this does not shine well. Here is the newest comment from User:70.91.213.234 I don't think Maniwar should be so happy. He has not covered the SDA church with glory in this. He just proved the other editors were right. SDA's are bigots. Why do they think it is okay to lie about other religions? Do they imagine this really will work in the long run? He never did answer the questions put to him about his own affiliation with Amazing Facts or the SDA church. Instead he accused every editor of being the same person. Looks paranoid and delusional to me. A perfect fit for Amazing Facts.70.91.213.234 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) big·ot (bĭg'ət) – n.- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Mr./Ms. anonymous editor(s), instead of wanting to improve the article, or even come back with a source to backup your statement, you come out and attack me. Let's look at this. Through your misuse of the word bigot, you yourself show yourself as such. Apparently you can't read, because I've in no way been intolerant of anyone's religion or belief system. However through your communication, you show that you in fact are a bigot with your accusations and tone. How many times must I tell these people that I do not oppose a controversy section? Several editors have also expressed that the entry is not being added properly. If I go to an article and say, "this person is an idiot and is not liked by others," I must then somehow support that entry with a source. However, to follow suit with these editors, I instead just need to go around calling everyone who reverts me...a bigot! Like these editors, I can totally ignore all advice given me, I can totally ignore wikipedia's policies, and simply call the person a bigot and not worry about having to find a source. It is interesting that the person doesn't even know the true definition of bigot. Apparently, bigot to them is telling them to go and find a source. Wikipedia, watch out. If you tell someone to find a source, you are intolerant of them and you are a bigot.

I know this rant serves no purpose other then for me to vent. I did not want to post some insulting response to them at the article and cause them to go off on me again or create some bad taste for Wikipedia or the article, but I can't stand the tomfoolery, therefore I had to vent. Oh well, back to editing and moving on. --User: (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some frustration when editing the wiki is normal (usually ignoring annoying persons or taking a few hours of wiki-break can help). If the anon becomes too insistent or too rude, a post at WP:AN/I may help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oleg, thanks for the nudge and support. Yeah, I had to take a break and avoid responding to them. I instead vented on my talk page, as mentioned above. This truly was mind numbing at how people have self-induced ignorance. --User: (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please respond soon. This is time-sensitive. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal Boortz
Hi, as much as I would like to take credit for making that up, that is actually what Neal Boortz calls Michael Savage's radio program. Boortz is based out of my hometown affiliate WSB-AM and every day during the local and syndicated hours, he announces WSB's lineup and he says "Weiner Nation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by StockMail (talk • contribs) 27 August 2007
 * I am too in the WSB Market and listen on the radio, but the section is a direct quote from his website, and since he does not have it on his website, we cannot add it to the Boortzism section. Additionally, the purpose of it is to introduce folks to Boortzisms. If they want more, the link is provided. Not all of his quotes, only a select few are used. That's why it was deleted. Cheers! --User: (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta bid team meeting
Hello, The Wikimania Atlanta bid team meeting is being held nightly on weekdays. This week meetings are starting at 9:30EDT and running for a few hours. If you can make it to the meeting (or at least pop in) that would be wonderful. Meetings are in the IRC channel #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.net.--Cspurrier 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I don't know what IRC channel #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.net is. Can you e-mail me with instructions on how to access it. I never got into IRC, so that is one area I have absolutely no knowledge in. Thanks! --User: (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show
Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, and I have responded and commented on the page. --User: (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta
Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania 2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change Wikimania 2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify list --Cspurrier 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting
We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania 2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) couple questions
First, I don't know anything about this particular dispute, and don't normally deal with this sort of thing.

However, in answer to your questions: In summary: you seem to have misunderstood some parts of policy here, but you might (or might not) be doing the right things for the wrong reasons. It's probably better not to continue reverting the contentious material yourself (if it's really a problem, you should be able to persuade another editor to remove it on the talk page) until discussion comes to a consensus, mostly because it's just likely to be immediately added back in by the other side of the argument. There doesn't seem to be a 3RR problem here yet (although excessive reverting tends to be bad in any case), and BLP is about badly-sourced material (not the whole paragraph, although possibly bits of it), but NPOV and notability are both other reasons why removing the paragraph may be a good idea (I don't know the subject well enough to say whether they are or not in this case); I suggest joining in the discussion is the best way to resolve this.
 * 1) A user can delete posts from their User Talk page; consensus among administrators seems to be that even removing warnings is acceptable, although discouraged. (The warning is still in the page history, and removing a warning at least shows that the user in question has read it; in this case, the warning seems to have been moved to the talk page for extra discussion.)
 * 2) Technically speaking, I don't think there's a 3RR breach here; that requires four edits which revert material to the same article within 24 hours. (Re-adding four sections which were removed is one revert.) However, 3RR exists as an 'electric fence' to try to stop edit wars getting out of hand, and it's expected that people will stop reverting long before the 3RR count is reached; it's there only as a last resort to give a firm policy reason to block repeated edit-warriors. Warning users that excessive reversion is unhelpful is certainly a useful thing to do, although in such cases it's best not to revert yourself (that gives the wrong impression.)
 * 3) BLP is about removing badly sourced negative information about living people (because such information is often incorrect, and even when it isn't, it's important to be able to back it up). The paragraphs in question have at least some sources, so I don't think a literal interpretation of BLP would allow you to remove the entire paragraph without consensus, at least not now a discussion has started up on the talk page. However, there may be other reasons to remove or edit the paragraph; for instance, if some part of it is unsourced and negative, you might want to edit that out; and (in this case in particular) the neutral point of view policy may be a reason to remove some of the negative paragraphs or rebalance them; just because something's sourced doesn't necessarily mean it's useful for the article. A discussion about this in particular has brewed up on the talk page of the article; following and joining in with that discussion would be my advice here. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Stossel&diff=160646324&oldid=160646024 This talk page post by JamesMLane] is quite a good statement of what the policy is; there may be a BLP issue involved in parts of the paragraph, but not for the whole thing unless you think the sources are deficient; however, NPOV or notability may be other reasons to remove the paragraph in question.) At the moment, there seems to be a reasonably constructive talk page conversation; other places you could try to get extra opinions are the BLP noticeboard and requests for comments (the second page is probably a good one to use if and when constructive discussion breaks down without a result).

Hope that helps! --ais523 08:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not sure you answered my questions directly, but you did show me that perhaps I need to learn more. The frustrating part is that the consensus seems to be remove them, but the one user wants to keep it. I am happy to stop reverting though and see your case on that, which makes perfect sense. Thanks again for the info and thanks for taking the time to look into this. Cheers! --User: (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stossel
If you have a chance, I hope you can re-enter the discussion on John Stossel. The article has been locked and I think we're getting into a back and forth discussion. Some additional voices would be helpful to bring some compromise. Thanks, Morphh   (talk) 18:20, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that your entitled to display this award. Morphh  (talk) 20:58, 02 October 2007 (UTC) :Yeahhhhhh! I got one. My First! Yippee Kayeah (however you spell that). Thanks Morphh! Yeeeeehaw--User: (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The changes recommended in that discussion were implemented in the Example being considered. Please voice your thoughts on it as the article should unlock tomorrow and I'd like to get some agreement on replacing the current controversy list with the offered text.  Morphh   (talk) 20:51, 05 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Layout Question
I just redesigned my Front Page and can't figure out why the "Edit" link does not appear on all the sections like it used to in my old page. What am I doing wrong or didn't do? I have no clue of where to even go for help or where to look on the page to figure this out. Thanks! --User: (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason is because your new page is formatted outside of the wikimedia HTML standarts. The [edit] tabs only appear in standard CSS format.  If you're using a coded page, you'll have to make edits by hand in the code.   Keegan talk 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have to ask someone who can program to help me out. --User: (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just testing my sig...  M aniwar TC 26 September 2007 

74.255.97.11
74.255.97.11 is a shared IP. I've blocked the IP for 6 months. If the vandalism persists after the block expires, the next block will be of 1 year. utcursch | talk 04:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional info. Ok, that works. --User: (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Content descisions
Thanks for your note. Please have a look at WP:CCC; in particular:

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

It is appropriate to "close" a decision such as a deletion discussion or a request for administrative status, because those decisions are final. Decisions about article content are not final, and should not be closed because consensus around an issue can change at any time. What if someone wanted to add their opinion the discussion that you "closed"? They would be discouraged from doing so even though it would be perfectly valid for them to, even after the section is archived (provided they move the section back from the archive.)

Does that make sense? 1of3 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not sure if I agree or not. After all, the consensus does say if they want to discuss to do so in the next section. Additionally, I'm confused as I mentioned in my post on your page, that all the consensus discussion (all three or four of them *smile*) were all closed the way I did. Also, I don't see the discussion preventing further consensus calls or future discussions. --User: (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Were they content decisions? Point me to some of them, please. 1of3 02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh boy...that was a long time ago. I can't remember. I just remember being told that I needed to close the consensus discussions. As far as this article, the consensus was to remove the non notable content. Only one editor wants it while the majority do not. I went to the article because of BLP issues and so I called a consensus since this one editor was continually breaking 3RR and causing edit wars. Oh well, thanks for sharing and I'll think on it and leave it for now. --User: (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations on your work at Neal Boortz
I understand, having recently worked to get Michael Savage (commentator) to GA status. Congratulations to you and the other editors for their valliant efforts. Ursasapien (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you. Wow, that was fun! --User: (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas
Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see.

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Hello! Just to let you know that I posted a reply to you and Durova on her talk page here. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your View and A Few Points
Hi there, Saw your comment at TTN's page and your subsequent complaint w/Durova and I am happy to see that some other editors have pointed some links your way. I also advise you to review the talk pages of WP:FICT and WP:WAF as well as WP:EPISODES where you will see a lengthy set of discussions about these topics. I also urge you to read closely WP:CONSENSUS because that is also important. So, sorry to burden you with all that but context is of some usefulness here. I have been reverting you on the 3rd rock stuff which was originally redirected by arch uber-villain TTN, but we need to avoid a stupid edit war here and I do understand your desire to fight the Evil satanic forces that have been arrayed against Good. (/humour) But: I ask you to consider this. It is a bedrock principal of Wikipedia that notability is grounded in the real-world. Note that we do not have inherited notability, meaning that if X is notable, sub-X is not by extension also notable. We also specifically proscribe plot summaries as unencyclopedic and likewise strongly discourage trivia for the same reason. Also, real-world information must assert notability per WP:N; providing run-of-the-mill ratings info, for example, is not an assertion of notability. Winning an episode-specific Emmy for X or Y achievement, on the other hand, probably is. I understand your passion on this issue, and I will not presume to judge your familiarity with the ongoing debates here. But note that this issue, mutatis mutandis, has surfaced on other topics – Star Wars & Pokeman, for example. Wikipedia is not TV.com. It is an encyclopedia and as such it strives to encyclopedic content. I know it may look like us evil-doers are contravening consensus, but as you will note on the consensus page, consensus always refers to community-wide practices; these are expressed in the various links I provide above. I look forward to your disagreeing with me and pointing out where I am wrong, but please do so with specific reference to our policies. It will be helpful in moving the debate along and avoiding further frustration. Eusebeus 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you have the decency to carry on a conversation. I will ponder what you say during my vacation which I'm heading out on in a few minutes. I may respond when I get back or perhaps sooner. Thanks for the info. --User: (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read through the policy pages I noted above? Particularly what consensus means and our policies about fictional topics? I suggest you find a 3rd rock wikia for this stuff, but this is not the place for this. Eusebeus (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

simplefit.org at it again
I've just installed Twinkle to try to fix and report the latest three edits (see Special:Contributions/69.12.133.15) but it is giving me an error, so can you please handle it? Final warning already given (by you.) Thanks. --David Broadfoot (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Philadelphia
Can you check out Template talk:WikiProject Philadelphia?

All the best, --evrik (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Philadelphia
Can you check out Template talk:WikiProject Philadelphia?

All the best, --evrik (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Boortz
In what possible sense was my addition unsourced? It was referenced to the website of the subject of the entry, Neal Boortz. He worked for Maddox. He doesn't acknowledge working for Maddox on his website bio. Instead, on his website, he now identifies Maddox as a racist to condemn his political opponents(Democrats)...Come on....This isn't relevant?Jimintheatl
 * It's not the source, it's a violation of BLP and it is a POV edit. You've been warned about adding controversial statements to articles before, and yet you ignore the warnings. --User: (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened to your original complaint--unsourced? It was not unsourced. Why is it OK for the Boortz article to frequently refer to Boortz own website for complimentary or "cute" info (e.g.' Boortzisms) but not OK to accurately cite his concealment of his association with Lester Maddox, when on his won site he criticizes Maddox as a racist? Jimintheatl I see in the discussion of Boortz jargon that your entries there were decribed as "fanboy stuff." Is this another example of that? I do not understand why you originally claimed the material I added was unsourced (it was not) and now say it's a POV edit. How is it POV when it merely states facts: Boortz worked for Maddox, Boortx conceals this on personal site on which he also accuses Maddox of racism? Please explain. Jimintheatl
 * Tread softly Jimintheatl and watch the personal attacks. Consider this a kind nudging and not a warning. Now, if you go back to my edit summary here[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neal_Boortz&curid=176237&diff=175108961&oldid=175056037], you will note that I cited POV and BLP concerns. What you are injecting is an interpretation. Find sources, Reliable, and verifiable to back up the charge. No surmises allowed. As for your other nonsense, that is off the subject...so stick to the subject and leave me out of it. Another attack and you will be warned for that as well. Cheers! --User: (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What charge? I agree there is an inference which can be drawn (or not), but I don't think I "charged" anything. Why is Boortz's own site not reliable, not necessarily for independent facts, i.e., that he worked for Lester Maddox, but for what is posted on it (i.e., that he says only the he worked for a "Governor of Georgia" whom he also (on his site) implies is a racist Democrat? It seems to me that allowing this sleight of hand allows the subject of the article to have it both ways....Sorry if I offended you, but your edits/removals seemed vague to me; I was thrown by the "unsourced" reference. Jimintheatl 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN
I would like to give you a friendly notice that User:Seraphim Whipp reverted your edit to User:TTN's userpage. Also, I was wondering if I could take a look at Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7 and Wikiquette alerts. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi – you are correct, User:TTN's deletions of Scrubs episode descriptions are in fact VANDALISM. He removed all the Malcolm In The Middle episode articles too, saying TV.COM is the place to go for that. I wrote to TTN explaining that since TV episodes are covered by tv.com it only bolsters the argument against TTN's censorship: Wikipedia's goal says: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...".  Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of notice" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Yes, tv.com is the best place to look for such information NOW, now that TTN has vandalized and dismantled all the interesting information about the shows that WAS on Wikipedia. TTN is tearing down the body of knowledge, while others are trying to build it. Are you going to restore TTN's vandalism? If you do, you might want to include in your edit summary the citations I've given above, plus the fact that TTN always says "redirecting per discussion page" yet NO consensus was reached on the discussion pages that I've found. Thanks... Geĸrίtz (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re : Question
1. AfD of Dr. Mary Albright has been closed. 2. Deletion guidelines for administrators lists how the process is done. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision page
You may not edit the Proposed decision page; I have undone your edit there and made a note of it on the talk page. You may comment on the Workshop page – however I would appreciate if you would wait a hour or so as I am currently bringing stuff over from the Proposed decision page to the Workshop page and would rather avoid edit conflicts. --Jack Merridew 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MFD Update
Thank you for the note, I've updated the closure [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3ASuspected_sock_puppets%2FTTN&diff=179217668&oldid=179180561 here]. — xaosflux  Talk  17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is important, see the last update [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3ASuspected_sock_puppets%2FTTN&diff=179319114&oldid=179217668]. — xaosflux  Talk  02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)