User talk:Pairadox

Welcome to my talk page

Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)
 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.



Why not actually think for a moment before blindly following rules?
Re your posting "Just a friendly reminder that this page is to discuss the article, not a discussion forum about night terror. Pairadox (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)".

Why? Why not a discussion forum?

Award
Oooh, thank you so much! Pairadox (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Gemini (astrology)
Could you tell me with Gemini (astrology) why the sections - See also with Western Zodiac Template, References List and Category:Astrological signs can only be seen when editing? Kathleen.wright5 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody didn't close off the last tag. I've corrected it now. Pairadox (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fish
Just leave it. WP:AGF is a policy. Harassing users is grounds for banning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this blatant trolling at AN/I, it is getting very tirespome that someone like this thinks they can run me off the site by continued harassment. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm the only one that has to assume good faith here. Pairadox (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you can start by not posting to my user talk page unless you have specific concerns about specific edits I am making currently, and then if you do not adding images but posting in a polite and civilised fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My concerns are about the total lack of responsibility you are taking for the brouhaha you created. Your defensiveness and willingness to assume bad faith in others, as well as the constant name calling, are also serious concerns. Pairadox (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table
An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

see Talk:Heath Ledger#Cit[ation] format
Your changes are creating vast problems--many typographical errors; multiple inconsistencies; they have not got a consensus at this time. The templates are being incorrectly used and you have chosen inappropriate templates for types of publications. See the talk page discussion and please desist and revert your changes. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Vast problems" are apparently your way of saying you don't like the citation templates and refuse to use them, to the point of removing citations that had used the templates and replacing them with your personalized formatting. Pairadox (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are false accusations and not at all responsive to the actual typographical errors that your changes to the citations have introduced in that article. Please read up on types of citation templates and choose the proper ones.  I restored the corr. information in an entirely-proper citation format used throughout Wikipedia articles in order to provide the information for your to work with (title in quotation marks, date in one set of angle brackets, and so on).  It is true that I myself do not like using citation templates; therefore, I am not participating in the conversion.  But my previous citations have the necessary information for making a proper citation in any format; please use it consistently.  Right now, the article is a hodge-podge of inconsistent citation templates and normal "ref" formats (which are correct and not at all my "own personalized formatting") [the only diff. between what I normally construct is the way the "Retrieved on [date]" is given and that is out of deference to prevailing format of notes when I first encountered it; I've already explained everything on the talk page of the article and in editing summaries in the article]; I suggest that you take a more thorough look at Footnotes (all of it, not just the parts on citation templates) and WP:CITE, which do not require or even recommend the use of citation templates.  If you are not going to make the article's notes consistent in one edit, there will continue to be these inconsistencies.  Perhaps you should work on it offline and then copy and paste your changes into the text?  Just some suggestions.  Editing online is highly time-consuming and unwieldy. (I'm not going to be in Wikipedia for the rest of the week and possibly more.  So please comment in the talk page of the article about your changes prior to making them if you are using templates that you are not entirely familar with.)  The advice you have already gotten there from another user is helpful.  Thanks.  [Again: Please do not respond on my talk page.  Thanks again.]  --NYScholar (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[Just a further reminder: I've already pointed out that I don't see need to use "/" in the "ref name=" codes between angle brackets, because they work the same way without the "/". I think Wikipedia set it up to default to same process for both using the "/" in that coding and not using "/"; it works fine and is easier to type. Many, many editors do not use the "/" in the coding for that reason. --NYScholar (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]

Trout
Hilarious. I had no idea there was a trout template. Wjhonson (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also a minnow (which I just discovered myself). I'm still looking for the whale... Pairadox (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like whale would be disruptive. I see bad things.Wjhonson (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Todd Karr
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I've deleted the article (G7) and apologized to the user. Many thanks. Keilana | Parlez ici 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

J Greb
Sadist. Pairadox (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Moi? : ) - jc37 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lostanos
Heh. You and I posted this at the same time. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Pairadox (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tardyness
Re: he's dead, not tardy

And I immediately knew exactly what that had to be about. Doczilla (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL  I really hate euphemisms about death. "Dearly departed" always reminds of "Elvis has left the building." Pairadox (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)
You commented on this earlier. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I'd thank you for the vote too, but that would probably be premature. What if you change your mind, eh? Best, Doczilla (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What, and risk having you stomp on me? [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] Pairadox (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of temporary injunction
Hi Pairadox, I noticed you added a notability tag to an article about a television episode, but there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So noted. I hope you also will be diligent in informing me when the injunction is lifted. Pairadox (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Pixelface (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pairadox, would you mind breaking this down for me? Seems like this "case" is about any and all characters regardless of notability being allowed to have pages.  That's a bothersome thought.  There are many, many soap characters people like that only last a couple weeks.  They make unnecessary pages that three months later are never touched and end up as barely a stub article. Is that what this is about the allowability of all character pages?KellyAna (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the key phrase is "currently existing article" as of the date of the injunction, February 3. So new articles should be outside the scope of this. Does that answer your question/concern? Pairadox (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy's Big Bite
I think so. I'm just concerned that this "directive" could end up with there being hundreds of episode articles and hundreds of character articles that shouldn't exist. You know? I think "Pilots" and "Series Enders" should be the only episodes to have articles. The rest is just unnecessary and can be found elsewhere. Oh, and I have an article I could use your help on if you don't mind. It's the Guy's Big Bite article. It needs tables, I think. No one else seems to bother with it so I want to make it look nice and could use the help of someone more knowledgeable about things like you. I started working on this when I was very knew and it could definitely be nicer. KellyAna (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of table are you wanting? I could see a basic two column one for the individual episodes. Pairadox (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could see a two column since the eps are constantly repeating it's hard to find first air date. Right now I've linked each ep to the page at Food Network (I did that before I knew about references).  Should I turn those links into references?  I think I should.  I just want it to look better and not be full of lists.  I just don't know how to have a table be page wide but not equal columns. KellyAna (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done season one. I tend to think that stretching the table beyond the data it contains looks less professional so I've just let the text set the width. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. Pairadox (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Should I change the episode links to references and then make a reference list at the end? KellyAna (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't. I think a list of references in this case would just make finding the link one wants harder to find (there would be 30-40+). Visually I think it's better this way. I can't really give you a guideline or anything to back this up, but when all else fails it's possible to invoke Ignore All Rules. So, you think you've got the gist of how to do the rest yourself? Pairadox (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I copy what you've done and replace it with what's left. I'm usually good at copying other templates there, I just have yet to learn how to do some of the little stuff like the text width and stuff. Thanks for the help. KellyAna (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. I may end up trying some of those recipes myself, so I probably should be thanking you. Pairadox (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried more than a few. I learned how to make tamales from his show and some other great things.  He's very "real world" in his cooking and doesn't confuse the average person with too many technical terms, overly fancy kitchen gadgets, or froo-froo ingredients.  So much better than some of the other Food Network stars.  You'll enjoy whatever you choose to make. KellyAna (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydroactivo
Apologies looks like I accidentally overrode your AFD entry on this article. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can live with it. :) Pairadox (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Young Oz Manager
Hello, Pairdox, Iam Very Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young Oz (talk • contribs)

RfC
I suspect that it will come to something like that eventually. But right now I just don't have the energy to take it on. Sorry. &mdash;Moondyne 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe Sarah would be interested in getting one going. (Runs off to her talk page...) Pairadox (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. If something does get off, give me a poke. &mdash;Moondyne 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stacy Haiduk's Husband
What exactly is the problem with the IMDb reference to Stacy Haiduk's husband being Bradford Tatum? It's printed right on that particular page in plain English. Kyle C Haight (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and I've reverted myself. In the future, however, it's useful to at least mention which article you're talking about. It took almost ten minutes of looking at my watchlist to figure out what you were referencing. Pairadox (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But of course. :) Pairadox (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Lee Jones
Why did you mark my page as a wannabe? I'm running a full campaign - staff, funds - the works! I've been in politics for 14 years! (J8302627j (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Lantos has been dead less than a week, you're up at 3am writing your own Wikipedia entry, and you're going up against Jackie Speier whom the SF Chronicle called a "shoo-in." They didn't even mention your name. Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I filed my candidacy with the FEC when he announced he was to retire, not when he died. A member of my staff wrote the article and called me to get me involved and ask questions (I was up doing paperwork and she knew that). I know Speier is anointed - that's kind of the point! I and many others consider such a proclamation anti-Democratic. Perhaps people are sheep, but I give them a choice they otherwise would not have. The Chronicle didn't mention me, but others have - including the San Mateo paper - the one most of the district is in. I have been involved in Democratic politics since 1994. Lastly - a quick wiki search finds many - MANY - candidates never elected with articles. What makes them better than me? Because I'm running against Speier? Because she's the establishment candidate so the media is quiet about her opposition (including the Republican - he hasn't gotten any more or less press than I)?(J8302627j (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I would also add that the article about the upcoming special election to fill the late Tom Lantos' seat is incomplete if it doesn't mention the other five candidates who are running for that office. Several other publications have referenced the other candidates, and we intend to edit the special election article to include them as well. (Fightingwords (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Image:QuenchyourthirstbyAdtitya.jpg
Sir, could you help me delete this jpg file which was loaded by mistake. Not in a hurry - Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnaik100 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already tagged with (hopefully) the proper tag, so it's just a matter of waiting for an admin to get around to it. Shouldn't be long. Pairadox (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Click Template
I am working on another Wiki using the MediaWiki platform. I really like the Click template that is available here. Do you know how I could import it over to my other platform? Thanks. CarverM (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the quick and dirty way would be to "View source" and cut-and-paste. Other than that, I don't know, but perhaps somebody at the Help desk would. Pairadox (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a protected template so how do I veiw the source code? CarverM (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The tab across the top that usually says "edit this page" is changed to "View source" on protected pages. You can still see the coding, you just can't make changes to it. Pairadox (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

This is my BIG ORANGE BANNER Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)
 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

You Will Only Break My Heart
The article You Will Only Break My Heart for Delta Goodrem's third single has been confirmed on her official website. Please do not remove it as the references state it will be released. --TheRevolution7 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the single has been "confirmed" is irrelevant. That it does not meet the criteria set out in MUSIC for an independent article is relevant, and it does not. Guidelines indicate that it should be redirected to that album. Pairadox (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the guidelines for music articles it also says : A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. The article has enough material to be included as a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRevolution7 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank God you've stop reverting it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.1.221 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

 * Out of curiosity: Did you see both versions of this? Doczilla  RAWR! 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. I thought it was a great touch and wish the caped identity could be kept. Pairadox (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Creepy socks
I'm reading through the history. At a glance, it's obvious that it's him. I want to see how many different reasons I can cite. Doczilla RAWR! 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given him a warning. No matter how obvious it is to us, I don't want to look like I'm chomping at the bit to start blocking people this minute. I also want to familiarize myself with the admin block templates to which I have access. So far, the tools look interesting. Doczilla  RAWR! 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you know, Creepy was one of the reasons I finally accepted the nom. Doczilla  RAWR! 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Big orange box. Most of the things I say, I prefer not to leave on my own talk page (not that you didn't already know that; I just want to be sure you know I do care about this), and I don't like to archive that frequently. Doczilla  RAWR! 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (rubbing hands together in a nefarious way) Aaahhh, I see my devious plan of talking up the Creep had it's intended effect. BWAA HAAA HAAA!!!!!! (And as I've said before, you're one of only two editors I allow the freedom to ignore the BOB.) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I noticed your participation in discussions about this user, or similar articles to those which he was seemingly banned for editing.

See at the bottom of the talkpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TlatoSMD  Karla Lindstrom   10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your informal sock report
Subsequent to notification that numerous people including yourself suspected him/her as a sockpuppet of banned user and sometimes vandal User:Creepy Crawler, User:Godcthulha continued to make edits of the same type as Creepy Crawler and has therefore been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for your conscientious efforts in the fight against ban-evaders who create more work for other editors. Doczilla RAWR! 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table comment
Thanks for reverting the SPA edit. I was wondering if you or another neutral editor could evaluate my argument (on the article's talk page) for lifting the "sources" tag on the "Company History and Officers" section of the article. I'm new here, and as I said, I don't see any way in which the original sources there are used in a way that is contrary to the original sources policy. If I'm incorrect or missing another relevant policy, I'd like to learn. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been a bit overwhelmed by real life events lately, but I'll try to get around to looking at your comments in the next couple of days. Pairadox (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you haven't lost all patience with this ORT business, I wonder if you could give me a bit of a reality check. Pigeonpiece berates me for "harsh abrasive comments" (here?) and for "personal attacks" for asking if he/she is Obscuredata.  Is that what you see in my recent edits to that talk page?  It's not my intention, but perhaps I'm out of touch somehow. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing that would justify such an accusation. My best guess is that PP is feeling the heat because they're trying to present a POV and aren't having the success slipping in under the radar that they had hoped for. Pairadox (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you are busy, but I wondered if you could lift the "sources" tag as I described above? Also, we are having an RfC and your input would be welcome. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you tonight?
Okay, that heading is because I have no clue how to start this. My user talk page has been in turmoil for a week. A Carly Corinthos/GH obsessed "child" has been moving, creating, messing with articles, commenting to me, creating socks, messing with my page, making "apologies"..... You name it, it's happened this week. Now there's the most recent comment. Am I horrid or good or excellent? I know we clashed hard in the beginning but I've gained a great respect for you. Can you help? The wits end is long gone and I'm grasping at very tiny straws. KellyAna (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * HEY!! You stole my BIG ORANGE BANNER (and didn't give me credit [[Image:Wink.png|16px]]). But seriously, make sure you want me to answer that question - I'll be honest, and not all of it will be sunshine and roses. Pairadox (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delta Goodrem You Will Only Break My Heart
Please stop merging this article into her album, it has been confirmed by many sources as the next single 86.162.251.249 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read MUSIC. This single does not yet meet the criteria for it's own article. It has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, it has not won significant awards or honors, nor has it been performed independently by several notable artists. Pairadox (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

This is my BIG ORANGE BANNER Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)
 * If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
 * If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
 * Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end.

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile
Could you tell me if this is a recreation? I have some vague memory of it having been deleted through a prod but want to verify. Thanks! Pairadox (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See: Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: The Exile. - jc37 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for watching article:Soy cheese due to vandalism
This article is constantly vandalized by one single user, who seems to plan its deletion or destruction (see also Talk:Soy cheese). I am watching over the article from now on, but it is better when more people interested in this subject (especially vegans, people with dairy digesting problems like lactose intolerance or Jews) are looking upon this more frequently. Thank you :-) Daimakaicho (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added to my watchlist. Pairadox (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

End of the temporary injunction
The arbitration committee have reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me. Pairadox (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

bad faith
I don't get you at this time. Is this another misunderstanding arisen between you and me? I feel offended by your comment on me like bad faith. That is inappropriate and inadequate in this situation because the list really exists and affects to Wikipedia and has caused countless edit wars. If every single of your activities are watched and intervened by someone for over 3 months, I assume you could not say like a sage. If my comment is really from bad faith, I would not spend my time to investigate Japanese editors who produces disruptive behaviors such as sock/meat puppeting, blanking, stalking, personal attacks and so forth. You can say you're trying to be neutral but you need to face to what is going on if you take responsibility for what you said.

They analyze Korean character: Koreans easily lose their temper in a discussion, so 2channel people plot (tt is all written on the boards, so don't falsely accuse me more) how to make Koreans to be blockd and eventually to be expelled from English Wikipedia. I translated their talking in part, so if you so care, please read the archived tread. --Appletrees (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your Jake Gyllenhaal edit summary: "he's dead, not tardy"
In case your edit summary was not a joke, you should know that saying "the late Heath Ledger" is perfectly correct: it means that he is dead, not that he is tardy, so it didn't need to be removed as an incorrect usage. Still, I think that no one will revert you because it is unnecessary to say that Ledger is dead. Thousands of people referred to in Wikipedia articles are dead, and we need not specify it every time they're mentioned. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't a joke. I despise euphemisms for death. Pairadox (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...
I left you a comment here. Athrun Atreides (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ROOOOOAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ('scuse me)
San Francisco actually. San Diego is in July.

And the convention was great for so many reasons. Thank you for asking. Everyone had a ton of fun and we got an awful lot of work done. I brought back a few photos which I've uploaded for Wikipedia. (Notice how I made sure that this message is at least partly about what we do to edit and improve things at Wikipedia.) Right now we're scrambling to get everything set up for July. I was going to take a smaller group of assistants to San Diego than I took to San Francisco, but now the group has grown to be much larger. No complaints here. The more, the merrier, and the more productive we can be. But it does mean I really have a lot to take care right now. For example, the official convention hotels for Comic-Con are already completely sold out, so last week I had to find us a good rate at a decent enough hotel outside the city. At least I've managed to keep us north of the border (though not by much) without going over budget.

As for the thing you don't get: Hey, sometimes Tokyo goes a long time without knowing where the city-stomping creatures are, and then WHAM! Doczilla RAWR! 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * San Francisco? Damn, that's a lot closer than San Diego - I guess I missed my chance to meet the 'zilla in person (this year). Pairadox (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliens (score)
Hi, do you know why the page for the Aliens score i created has been deleted? Because no-one seems to have bothered to say anything to me. Thanks. Terrasidius (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't deleted, it was redirected, because there was nothing to indicate that it was notable enough to justify it's own article. It doesn't appear to have charted, or won any awards, or any of the other things that make a soundtrack notable. Pairadox (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and restored it. It had only recently been created and was off to a good start with a few references, etc., thus had a likely chance to expand into a better article. There is already a section on the film's music within Aliens (film), but the information in Aliens (score) seemed to go beyond that and would be too long to merge, what with the tracklist and all. IMO the soundtrack album inherits its notability from the film itself, which is certainly notable. In any case the decision to turn it into a redirect should have definitely been discussed on the article's talk page first, which it wasn't, so the primary editor of the article (Terrasidius) wasn't given a chance to state their case. The change to a redirect was made much too hastily. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is not inherited. Pairadox (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even given that, WP:NMG states that "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." The guideline for albums says "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." It does not have to have charted or won awards in order to be considered notable. This soundtrack is for a major motion picture that is definitely notable, and the composer (James Horner) appears to be notable as well. In addition, the score was performed by the London Symphony Orchestra, definitely a notable performer, and it was nominated for an Academy Award. So, the soundtrack/score is notable in part because the people who worked on it, and the film it was written for, are all notable, plus the fact that it was nominated for a major professional award. In any case, if you don't feel it is notable then it would be more courteous of you to follow the recommended procedures for dealing with non-notable subjects than to immediately turn the article into a redirect (IMO a de facto deletion), especially for an article that's only a few days old. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your entire argument is betrayed by the fact that you mistake a redirect for deletion. When you're able to differentiate the two you're welcome to try making your case again. Pairadox (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference perfectly. Note that I mentioned I considered the change to a redirect to be a de facto deletion. My point was that the score/soundtrack is notable enough to remain as its own article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WKRC
Hi, I am trying to understand your reasoning for your recent reverts on that page. Many of the Television pages have "notable" talent that doesn't have hyperlinks (and some have people listed that aren't really notable in my opinion), why the sudden strict rule about this? Dennyg2007 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WKRC is the only one on my watchlist. If you feel other articles are following the same mistake, feel free to correct them. Just because other articles are in error doesn't mean that another one should be allowed to make the same mistakes. Pairadox (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives Characters
Hi! I just wanted to say that I appreciate your opinion on how the characters of Desperate Housewives should be addressed here on Wikipedia. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the fact is, you said that a consensus was reached, and if you mean Articles for deletion/Dylan Mayfair, well I'm sorry, but I have read the page and I do not believe that a consensus has been reached. Many of the people there are against articles for so many characters, but many of them are for it, because, believe it or not, all those characters were very notable and contributed in some way to the series's storylines development. Also, there, it says that notable characters that appear in at least eight episodes may have character pages built for them, if their stories are significant. I am also aware that Stella Wingfield didn't appear in eight episodes ( yet ), but she could, and, nonetheless, she has been a recurring character in the current season of the show. And, by the way, why did you undo the pages for Lynette and Susan, with the new images that I uploaded recently? I figured that some screencaps would provide even more information to the characters, along with their resumed stories. Now, on my user page, I have a lot of robot messages about orphaned images. Some people worked very hard on those pages, and now they're all being deleted or redirected. And I've seen the List of Desperate Housewives characters page, it is nothing special, and provides little and very resumed texts about the characters, so little that it hides the most important factors in their stories. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaboss (talk • contribs)


 * If you disagree with the decision reached in the AfD, then the proper course of action is to take it to Deletion Review. Simply ignoring the decision and imposing your will for these articles is disruptive. As for the questions about excess pictures, you need to familiarize yourself with the Fair Use guidelines, particularly the bits that deal with the minimal use of non-free images. If you'd bothered to read the edit summaries for Lynette's article, you'd know that it was reduced to minimal text because of a copyright violation. Personally, I don't give a lot of weight to the arguments of people who haven't even bothered to find out how to sign their comments, so if you expect to be taken seriously then I'd suggest you do a bit more research about what is truly considered policy and guidelines on Wikipedia. Pairadox (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good news
Well I was just looking on your talk page to fix an issue with a template and I saw that you said two years ago that you were still looking for the whale one. Well, I have created it before I came here. Your wish has been answered, albeit rather lately. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

H

info on the Waldensians
Hi,

I am researching a topic on A History of the True Church" by  Andrew N. Dugger & Clarence Orvil Dodd and its false claims as to who the true church is.  I noticed your comments written here:

By and large, I agree with the removal of the history of the Waldensians. Much of it seemed to be providing evidence that Armstrong's beliefs were correct (or at least well-researched) rather than strictly biographical information. On the other hand, I just spent a lot of time buffing up and verifying those references! ;) But seriously, the claim that the CoG (7th Day) believed these things was not sourced, only that Dugger, Dodd and Armstrong did

I am interested that you state "I just spent a lot of time buffing up and verifying those references!" can I ask what this is in reference to? any addtional information you coudl kindly provide me about the Waldensians would be greatly appreciated.

thanks Therealalzoo (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Alex

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Beyond Ex-Gay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)