User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 7

concerning the warning
On January 6, 2007, you deleated a well written article on a certain, new type of pornography. According to the message you sent me, the creation of an article about nugget porn, was considered an act of vandialism, as it was, according to you, an unconstructive edit. I agree with your quest to filter out the spam on wikipedia, to undue the wrongful edits that make a mockery of a great thing, but I do not agree with you that nugget porn should fall into this category. Although by most standards the whole idea of total amputee pornography is a little disconcerning, it is a real thing, and therefore it should have an article on Wikipedia. If zoolophelia (human and animal intercourse) has an article, then I believe that nugget pornography should as well. If you do not believe that nugget pornography is a real thing, then I could send you a link for verafication. By censoring this article you deny any reconition to the hard working individuals who produce and star in these movies. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will reconsider your actions, William Chason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wchason (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Derek Jeter
Silly me! I forgot to remove the sprotected tag after the protection expired three days ago.  Nish kid 64  01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Polygamist CFD
Good work on the nomination—I'll be happy to support it. Perhaps you're in the middle of this just now, but it would be a good idea for you to go through the sub-categories and tag them as well.

Best wishes,  X damr  talk 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ackermann function
Could you provide another round of informal review on this article on its talk page? Thankx.--199.33.32.40 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Pascal.Tesson,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pascal.Tesson! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On removing proposed deletion tags
Hi. I saw you had reinserted the prod tag on Marathoners after it was removed. I definitely agree with you that the article should be deleted. Process, however, dictates that if an editor has removed the tag, then the article should be sent to WP:AFD. (Incidentally, I have done so, see Articles for deletion/Marathoners). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the info. Chicken Wing 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, is there any chance you can help me out a little bit with this user:Susannah Mills. You can look at her talk page, my talk page, and most importantly, the edit history of Melissa Keller and the corresponding talk page to see what's going on.  But, basically, the Susannah Mills user appears to be a band-member (in a non-notable band) with Keller, and Mills seems to insist upon rewriting history to make Keller an actress instead of a model.


 * If I had to guess, I would say it looks like that Keller might be trying to make the transition from modeling to acting. However, from everything I can tell, she reached the top of the world in modeling (being a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model), but right now her acting credits aren't anything special. I don't want to make the article biased as I'm accused of, so I thought you might look at the article, and if necessary, find the appropriate middle ground between my edits and her edits.  Thanks.  Chicken Wing 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this assertion is untrue. As stated it is a guess. AGAIN! Facts cited show that Melissa Keller has several noteworthy film and television credits. To claim they aren't "anything special" is the above person's OPINION. I could equally state that modeling isn't "special". In sticking with the facts there is no reason her roles should be removed. And considering this person states the so called "band" I'm in is "nonnotable" but HE edited my page to state that we are in a band together...isn't that grounds for some action? And Pascal.Tesson, if I find that my privacy has been violated via a phone call and if that person is a member of wikipedia will you take action? I have traced the call. Thanks. SM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.130.168.33 (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Conflict of interest on the LaRouche article
I strongly agree with your comments. I had earlier posted a note at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Tsunami Butler 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags
Hi Pascal, just a note, best not to subst: these tags. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 15:33 14 February 2007 (GMT).

Deleted Links
Hello Pascal, I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia. I'm trying to learn the process today, so I hope I'm posting this in the correct spot ... and to the correct person. I've noticed you've gone through and deleted links to my website after I put them in. I see that I've received a warning and am accused of posting spam. Why on earth would my website (Big Bands and Big Names.com) be considered by you as spam in the Big Band category? It's certainly a legitimate resource of historical reviews and imagery. It is also one of the largest and most popular big band websites on the internet. You've removed many others ... entertainer Tony Martin ... swing pioneer Benny Goodman ... and pretty much everything I link. Why would "An Italian Big Band" be considered by you as being a legitimate link, while my site, which is FILLED with rich history, not be? What makes you believe that a student, author or anyone who's researching these subjects, would not want to expound on what they've learned from Wikipedia, and read an actual performance review, an editorial, or see images and autographs of these wonderful performers? User:Lewisjamesz I have gone in and deleted my link because you've threatened to ban me (I didn't notice that before).

Nearly Headless Nick RfA > RfC

 * I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, a word with you
Pascal, You are an academic. Your business is not to engage in "meaningful discussion" with 13 year old boys. Wikipedia is not a place fit for any academic worth his salt. I can see easily that you can contribute greatly. But not here please. Wait for the launching of Citizendium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.46.26.10 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)