User talk:Smile a While/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Smile a While, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oldelpaso 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nomination of The Belgrade Initiative for deletion
FYI, I have completed the process of listing The Belgrade Initiative on Articles for deletion. Please see Articles for deletion for step by step instructions on the listing process. Also, if you are familiar with the topic, you may wish to offer your comments on the deletion nomination page - Articles for deletion/The Belgrade Initiative. BigDT 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Afd removed
The AfD for Carmyle Primary School was deleted by an unregistered user. I have rv'd it but how do I stop this happening again?
 * Well, there's no way to completely stop it from happening, but you can leave messages about it on the anon's talk page, and if they keep it up, report them at WP:AN/I or WP:VIP, and an administrator will come around and block them. J I P  | Talk 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Smile a While 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unregistered users can't delete pages, merely blank them. You can simply revert the blanking and warn them. If they continue you can have them blocked or semi-protect the discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bible lists AfD
You said "I find it rather sad that someone has spent so much time on something so pointless, but then I guess I'm an old softy!" Don't worry, it didn't take me long, and I'm not attached to the articles, they were useful in the short term, and may have been of use to someone else later. It is nice that someone thinks about the people rather than just going into dalek mode. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 12:24 20 June 2006 (GMT).

Speedy Deletes (Bexhill prank)
Thanks for picking up on that. I was hoping someone would. I'm only just getting to grips with delete procedure, and I'm suffering from 3-in-the-morning fuzzy head, and could fathom the speedy procedure or criteria. Cain Mosni 02:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Following on - I've just come across a situation where an article's already been through AfD, deleted, and someone's re-instated it. The AfD discussion is frozen administratively from the previous AfD.  What's the procedure fro proposing it once more?  (Article in question is Bullz, fails WP:NEO IMO).  Cain Mosni 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Associated Content
Hi, Can you let me know what I need to do to get a wiki about Associated Content. There are other sites similar to ours that are listed. Also, why was I flagged for Vandalism. I removed the message when I removed the image (I was notified that I could not add an image the manner that I did). Thanks, Jcurran | Talk 13:40, 26 June 2006 (ET)


 * Thanks for your comments and quick reply. The content of the site is all user generated content, anyone can create an article, image, video or audio clip. Some of our competitors include, about.com, squidoo, flickr, YouTube, Photobucket and tagworld to name a few. Thanks, Jcurran | Talk 14:10, 26 June 2006 (ET)

Other films aired on The SciFi Channel Possibility of Deletion
Actually, I've tried tagging it with that in the early run of the article since originally it was just a bunch of movies in CAPS LOCK copied and pasted from SciFi's Schedulebot.. It was later dismissed since LeafGreen_Ranger cited his source. I'm s'posing this round would do you more luck than it did for me though.

Mmmmm, should I try creating separate articles for the two I've contributed to? I've been doing what I could to compile those two lists, although a few of the films I'm not entirely sure I've got the right title going for (or otherwise a mistake from my source).. DrWho42 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Camp Wildcat
I'm writing the article as we speak. Please undo the revert. I'll add a link on the ACW main article. Thanks!!! Scott Mingus 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I created the basic article and will expand it and clean it up later when I have more time. Have a great day! Scott Mingus 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Warriors (band)
umm sorry about the nba thingy, i fixed that right up. could you please remove it from afd. Avenged Evanfold 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge
Hi. You might be interested in participating in new WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Arbor View High School
Please be aware that this discussion has closed and is now being reviewed at Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_29. Silensor 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review

 * Endorse deletion. This is a straight forward procedural matter. The creator had two bites at the cherry. Either he could have lifted the PROD or he could have challenged PROD-deletion and requested referral to AfD. Having done neither, I am afraid that he has no further resort. Smile a While 02:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure gibberish. The article had been in the system for several months (it was fallout of the List of dictators deletion debate) and not a soul told me (or anyone else) that it had been proded. And did I mention that no reason was included in the prod tag? I don't know what process you think is being used, but it sure as hell isn't the one you describe.

As I said, I don't care about the article. I do find it annoying that DRV might be frequented by ADHD-afflicted robots. Gazpacho 10:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for withdrawing the nomination. I actually should thank you for the afd nomination too ... otherwise I wouldn't have done the necessary research and found all these nice references. You are right ... an afd sometimes brings out vast improvements to an article. --Ragib 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed versions
Hi, Smile a While, I noticed your request on WP:ANI. I've deleted the last four versions of this page from the history, i.e. the template version plus your revert and comment on it. I hope that solves your problem. Best, Bishonen | talk 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

negative commandments
The reason I created the article is so that people reading the article Mesiras nefesh should understand the meaning of the word.

If you can otherwise redirect the word "negative commandments" so people understand I don’t appose the deletion in any way.

Bloger 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that you absorb Negative commandments into Mesiras nefesh. There needs to be a link from the Jewish law article. Also, at the moment the articles are unsourced. You need to link the definitions to a source to stop them being original research. Smile a While 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you, you may do all of the above (I ask you to do it since I am inexperienced in things like these.


 * On sources, I will work on that.
 * Merge and rewrite completed. I will sort out a link from main article soon. Sources, now, are your task. HTH Smile a While 00:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, for your work.


 * I’m working on sources


 * Bloger 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now linked from Mitzvah and 613 Mitzvot. Smile a While 02:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I’m considering adding more info to this page on the concept of yehareg ve'al ya'avor and change the wording of the links you made from Mesiras nefesh to yehareg ve'al ya'avor which is better wording since the two instances you linked involve the three negative commandments as appose the positive commandments were Mesiras nefesh is better wording.


 * BTW I added a source what do you think?


 * Bloger 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The source looks very useful. I've moved it up since it spells out the three cases. Please take a look at this reference that seems possibly relevant. Smile a While 03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it does belong were I put it because it also talks about the crisis concept


 * Ok I’m going to sleep now we’ll talk tomorrow


 * Bloger 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated the position of the source - my expertise is in editing yours in the subject so I'm happy to be guided by you. Smile a While 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you
 * I think a solution for the Naming conventions (use English). Would be to rename the article self-sacrifice and redirect the words Mesiras nefesh to this article so it won’t interfere with the linked articles.


 * Bloger 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps call it 'Self-sacrifice in Judaism' or 'Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law' since we are not dealing with self-sacrifice in all culture! Which would you prefer? Smile a While 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the second Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law is better.


 * Another point, I think martyrdom is primarily a Christian concept used by extreme Muslims make suicide-bombers look better, either case it’s not fit for Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law.


 * Bloger 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - that guy's idea of merging under martydom seemed wrong. I'm off to sort out the new structure - please don't do any further edits until I get back to you when the move is sorted. Smile a While 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law is there now. Smile a While 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you


 * one more point (this might be what you were trying to say in the discussion page) although true someone that is killed for not giving up the fate is called a martyr, but the act of doing so is self-sacrifice for which one afterwards is called a martyr.


 * Bloger 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CfD
While we tend to disagree on more than a few issues regarding Wikipedia, I can tell that you are genuinely committed to improving the project as a whole. Have you checked out Categories for discussion before? It is an oft-overlooked corner of the 'pedia that could always use more input for dedicated folks like yourself. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that is helpful. Smile a While 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of ____ programs
If you AfD some of those lists, please drop me a line... saw you in this discussion. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Smile a While 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Amateur players in professional sports
I've seen this line in most of your comments to delete articles on US college athletes. In many parts of the country, there are no professional teams for hundreds of miles, so the amount of coverage the local or state university team will receive approches that of the big-city media towards it's hometown team. Where I'm from, the closest professional teams are 75 miles away, and the closest NBA team is over 200 miles away. We don't have a LeBron James to cheer for, so Kevin Pittsnogle or Mike Gansey gets all the press.

With the exception of baseball and hockey, there are no second or third division professional leagues of note, and relegation or promotion to or from the top tier is out of the question (although it would encourage some of the perrenial cellar-dwellers to put forth some more effort). So college players in the major sports will reach a notability level here rivalling or exceeding many professional players. --DarkAudit 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is helpful background. I am persuaded that college athletes can be notable but not that they are inherently notable. There have been dozens of articles created recently where the achievements have not been particulalrly outstanding. I hope that you can come with me and just keep the notable ones. Smile a While 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've concurred with one already. :) My best analogy is to consider NCAA basketball and football as similar in level to Scottish Football League First or Second Division, or 'The Championship' and 'League One' (or whatever the name of the month is) in England. Just without (Why can't they settle on a name and stick with it? Premiership and First Division were simpler to understand and weren't mucking about with semantics.) --DarkAudit 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether you consider NCAA basketball notable or not is up to you, as it's only a matter of opinion. You are very much entitled to your opinions. But for the love of God, please stop listing articles for deletion, when there are people like me who consider them notable. Top tier, all-american collegiate athletes are too notable to be listed on afd. --Summonmaster13 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I have argued for keeping most of these articles, I feel that Smile a While is indeed acting in good faith. I feel that he honestly was not aware of the points raised by DarkAudit. If anything, its good to have these sort of discussions from time to time to gauge where the community stands.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I say above, I have moved to accepting that they can be notable based on DarkAudit's excellent reasoning. However, the case needs to be demonstrated each time and Summonmaster13's argument that there should not be an AfD because he finds them notable is not in any guidelines that I can find :-) More seriously, a number of the profiles are not sourced which is a bad ommission when facts and figures are being relied upon to establish notability. Smile a While 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

More possible AfDs...
Since consensus, for the most part, has come down on your side, here are a couple of articles that may need evaluation for inclusion via AfD: Kim Wolfe (I still say keep, but there is certainly nothing exceptional beyond his nom for the HoR, a race he will most certainly lose) and David Sypolt (I would go "delete" there for sure).  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thx for that. I'll put one forward for Sypholt then. Just spent the day at the crickey, a game that you will probably know as little about as I do college basketball :-) Smile a While 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I spent a semester studying at Anglia Polytechnic University, so I know a little bit about it. A friend lived in apartment that overlooked a cricket ground and I kind of got a feel for the game (but I do not pretend to have any useful knowledge of the sport).  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; sorry for underestimating your knowledge :-) I was watching Lancashire v Yorkshire, a 17,000 sell-out (v.good for cricket). This is in a new format called Twenty20. Twenty overs per side, and lasts under 3 hours to appeal to those with a short attention span! The purists hate it but commercially very succesful. Smile a While 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard about the controversy. What's your take on it?  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour. It gets more people watching cricket and, hopefully, they will take their interest into the longer form of the game. Some of these matches start at 5.40pm which enables people to go there after work, have a couple of pints with their mates while watching cricket in the sunshine and still get home in reasonable time for the family. Smile a While 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice under Jewish law
I have rewritten the page Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law have a look and give me your opinion

Bloger 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear bluevalour I am done for now with major changes to the page and from my side the template about a major edit can be removed.


 * BTW thanks a million for your help and dedication.


 * Bloger 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just checking my changes (tidying, wickiing etc). When I'm done please check through because some concepts are very difficult and I may have got them wrong...Further comments soon... Smile a While 01:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've finished tidying. As I said, please make sure its correct. We need sources for the definitions of Mesiras nefesh and Yehareg ve'al ya'avor. Also, some of the interpretations could be considered OR unless covered by sources. HTH Smile a While 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One small thing,


 * I will change back the word clear to pure since it’s required that he have a pure anti-religion motive with nothing else involved if only he has anything else in mind even together with an anti-religion motive one is not required to self-sacrifice.


 * And would you please specify on what interpretations you need more citation?


 * Bloger 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm been away playing chess :-) I am assuming that the reference we have deals with all the key points under 'Requirement' (I'll leave that with you) so perhaps we need a source that uses the two Hebrew phrases and interprets them as we have done under 'Useage'? I notice you dropped the other reference we had - I guess because you felt it didn't add anything? Smile a While 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry it was done unintentionally.


 * I will work on the usage references.


 * Hope you’re having good luck with your chess!! :-)


 * Bloger 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Florida 9th District
You wrote, regarding the article Florida 9th congressional district election, 2006, that it ''seems to duplicate United States House elections, 2006 to which it seems not to be linked (unless I missed the link which is entirely possible!). It seems to me that the better course is to merge your content into the substantive article - what do you think?''


 * You're correct that there was not a link. I intend to fix that, in both directions.  As to duplication, the U.S. House elections page contains only one paragraph on the race, which is typical of that page's approach, since it covers dozens of races.  The article I wrote on the Florida 9th has substantially more information (though far less on Busansky than was on her deleted page), and I would expect that more will be added as November approaches, while the U.S. House elections page information will remain at a paragraph or so.


 * I would expect that as wikipedia continues to grow, every competitive Congressional election will get its own page - something that will be of continued interest to those looking back at the careers of Congressfolk or the electoral history of a district. The U.S. House elections page, which is essentially continually updated to show "current" status, is unsuited for this purpose.  John Broughton 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rory Demetrioff
Why would you deny people from Canada to have access to researching this individual. He appears on the government of Ontario and Government of Canada registry for active lobbyists. I think this needs to be opened up to a wider discussion. How can that take place. Also, it should be encouraged to review already public information on google and on the government of Ontario Integrity Commission website at: http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage

Also, a number of collegues also have entries in Wikipedia including: Leslie Noble, Deb Hutton, Gerald Caplan, Ian Brodie, Rod Love

Why is this individual singled out? Perhaps he is not in the right category on wikipedia?

Thank you for your help and insight.

Oakville123 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On garden leave
There is no factual accuracy tag on that page. I've added it since you seem concerned, but one did not exist previously. 132.205.44.134 02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've beaten you to it.
Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks --Maxamegalon2000 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On garden leave
I have removed your speedy tag. Please review the precise definition of patent nonsense, as it is quite limited. The content on the page in question is clearly not a string of random text; likewise, it does not come close to meeting the other possible requirement of "patent nonsense," i.e.: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." The article clearly does not merit inclusion into Wikipedia, as I've indicated with my earlier, but it does communicate a perfectly intelligible message. Ergo, "patent nonsense" does not apply. Please be more mindful of using speedy tags in the future. RidG Talk/Contributions 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Dear Bluevalour, the pleasure is all mine!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bloger 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags about sources
Hey, hope you're doing ok. You put tags asking for sources/references in two articles I recently worked with (Petra discography). I would like to know exactly sources to what part of the article, or references to what. Thanks in advance for your help. Take care. Thief12 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, where you got the information from? Either a webpage, the title and ISDN of a reference book etc As you know, being a very experienced editor, it cannot be OR. For example on 'No Doubt' you say 'New keyboardist Jim Cooper was a keyboard technician for former keyboardist John Lawry for several years. When Lawry retired, Cooper replaced him.' Now you may simply know this but that doesn't cut it; it needs a source. HTH. Smile a While 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Baiting articles.
I suggest that you perform edits to the baiting articles to bring them in line with policy, specifically WP:ENC. I believe the history of the articles may be helpful to this purpose. Perhaps when you are reviewing the policy-appropriate versions of the articles, you would reconsider your statement.

and the human article is unsalvagable. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will not be editing the articles - I am happy to leave this to those editors who are familiar with the subject and yourself due to your obvious profound concern. I simply expressed a view as I am entitled to and may amend my view at any time if I see a convincing case. The fate of the articles will be in the hands of the closing admin who will review all comments. If the author has not resolved any copyvio/OR issues by the time of closing no doubt you will expess your opinion to the closing admin. Smile a While 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The articles are factually correct with citations, informative and encyclopedic. They might require tweaking as many articles do but not a full rewrite.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bowers
The nomination was edited after your "vote"; removal of the other guy and addition of two new virtual subpages, and -illions of redirects. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for alerting me. Smile a While 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Empire Forums
You can also try WP:PROD for things that look like very clear deletion candidates. - brenneman  {L} 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Smile a While 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Zeese
Overturning a redirect and making it into an article is a normal editorial action that doesn't require any administrator action, as long as the article doesn't go against Wikipedia policies, so I have no problems with it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiCookie
Thanks for showing me a better way of handling things! Jibbles | Talk 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thx, I was getting peckish :-) Smile a While 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

what was wrong?
hi, this in regarding the deleted page of what the world teach. its not that am strongly against though, its just that im not really sure if i understand why you deleted it. i didnt see any violation upon browsing the deletion policies. i hope you could somehow enlighten me with such a move.

anyways, i wanna let you know hoe much i appreciated the draft page you created for me to develop. thanks so much. ofbm 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article, at present, is not what we would call 'encyclopaedic' - in other words it does not have enough meaningful content. Essentially what you need to do is to write it in stages sourcing the statements that you make as you go along. Please get back to me if you need any specific help. Smile a While 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
gratitude by sweet n pretty bratzynella 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

this is to thank you for taking time checking out my pages. you could be a very busy person but still mind checkin out what could be going wrong. iam also sorry for not liking the fix that you did, i know you just wanted to help. and im sorry that i have a kinda weird taste of being happy with the dotted box. i hope u didnt get offended in any way. sweet n pretty bratzynella 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - always happy to help. Smile a While 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I intended to reply at AN/I, but I thought, in view of my tendency toward verbosity and the less-than-specific nature of Blue's query, I might do well instead to reply on Blue's and Slim's talk pages:
 * I think Slim's reversions of the peer review formulation to have been correct, but I certainly agree that she might have been more decorous in her edit summaries and her message on Blue's talk page, where she ostensibly failed to assume good faith, or at least was gratuitously provocative (the presumption that Blue's [ostensible] views apropos of animal rights informed his editing need not to be made and certainly focuses on a contributor rather than on content). No one is immune from the impulse to respond cursorily toward that which one thinks to be other than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, but, to my mind, it is far from clear that Blue was acting in view of other than encyclopedic motivations.  I have difficulty believing, though, that any new editor would be so disturbed by Slim's comments (several of which appear to have been altogether jocular, in furtherance of the collegial and civil spirit on the maintenance of which the project depends) as to leave the project, and I'd be inclined to believe that anyone so irked would be unlikely to be able to contribute to the project. Joe 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

question
hey there. just wanna ask what i need to do to bring back the draft page you made for my "what the world teach" link??? what should i do to place everything on its place just in case i am done with the edit. thanks, so much... so sweet. sweet n pretty bratzynella 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to your draft page, edit, select all, copy to clipboard, create new article, paste. But please don't do this until the article is finished, including sources. BTW next time you get into difficulties, as you did with Spy Kids, have a word before you get into a revert war. There are some tough folks out there so you need to be careful. Smile a While 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1984 Orange Bowl
So, just to confirm, you want me to delete 1984 Orange Bowl, and then replace the current version after the page has been deleted? Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is one option. Either that, or delete the veraion I highlighted and all previous versions (which may not be possible). Smile a While 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. I learned how to do something new today: to delete partial histories. However, if anyone wants that text, they are going to be upset with me... it took like 6 deletions for me to get it right. Sigh. But it's done. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for doing that so quickly and efficently. If anyone wants the deleted text just refer them to Top 100 games from where it came! Smile a While 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Durrat Al-Arus
Just out of curiosity, what was wrong with how the pictures were displayed before? They look the same on my computer. Xiong Chiamiov  ::  contact  :: 01:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In some screen modes the top and next to top had text between them - now they should be neatly aligned - I hope! Smile a While 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gangsters in love AfD
I asked for a check user on a couple of those brand new users just to be sure, also why did you make this edit. That makes no sense.--Crossmr 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ermmmm I didn't make it intentionally :-( I got an edit conflict so I guess its a glitch. Just reverse it. More importantly, compare the style of Justin's signature, before I tidied it, with that of the other guy. Smile a While 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is the same way Joe signs his comments. I asked an admin which checkuser priveledges who edited not that long ago, hopefully they're still around.--Crossmr 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Olive branch
I nominated the article for AfD, as I was entitled to, and the Community, as they are entitled to, took a 'no concensus decision'. Let us move on from that. I can see that what I have done in removing the link in question may construed as vandalism, but it was an honest attempt to make the article better. Statements such as 'If it continues, I will report you for it' are not helpful to the Project. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve this and other articles. As always I will continue to treat you with respect and will expect you to reciprocate. Smile a While 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate that. I have to clarify that it wasn't only the removal of the link, but also of the byline that was the issue, and I wonder whether you're confused between References and Further reading. Links can be removed from Further reading if regarded as inappropriate. However, a citation in the References section means the material has been used a source in the article, and full citations must therefore be given: byline, name of article or book, name of newspaper/magazine/journal/publisher, date of publication, and a URL if one is available. Not to source material is a violation of WP:V and WP:RS, and sources should never be removed from articles or from the References section, unless the material it served as a source for has been removed or re-sourced. However, I'll say no more about it, and hope we can put it behind us. Thank you again for your note. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Huddersfield
As I am busy currently patrolling with VP, the new edit came up for inspection, VP was used simply as a means to perform a rollback to allow me to continue with my patrol, with an appropriate message on the talk page. You will note that no Vandalism warning was issued to you. Had I thought it was vandalism I would have done so in the same way that other editor have warned you, at the top and bottom of your talk page, about breaking the 3 Revert Rule. Richard Harvey 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you wished to revert my edit you should have discussed it first on the talk page. Secondly, I did not breach 3RR and never have done. If you had bothered to follow the thread you would have seen that there was a misunderstanding. Smile a While 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Ross Deletion
Sorry about this. I now realize my mistake, and I'm sure the admin wont delete. I will take more time to assure I do not mark an article for deletion before I'm sure that it is in need of deletion. --Jmatt1122 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - happens to us all. Have a look at Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 22 where some AfDs have closed; that will give you a feel for the issues. Also, play yourself in gently. Credibility in deletion discussions comes from doing edits. Perhaps go to Category:Articles lacking sources and see if you can improve some articles that interest you. Smile a While 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Member for v Member of Parliament for
Have just replied on Talk:Harold Wilson, but suggest we discuss this, e.g. on Category talk:British MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 20:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

re comment at Articles for deletion/WPVI-TV Anchors
Hi BlueValor, you made a comment about copyvio on this AfD. I think you were talking about just the screenshots, so I closed the AfD as a Keep but want to follow up on the copyvio, do you have the location of the Disney discussion you talked about? If you'd put it on my talk page that'd be great, thanks. Herostratus 06:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll take it up at WikiProject Fair Use Herostratus 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Galrpharm
How is putting gayfarm as one of the nicknames vandlisem explain it to me becuase Bradford city and Bradfor Bull fans call it that so i class it a nickname.[[Unsigned|RobertoHBCFC}}
 * The use of insulting terms is not appropriate to an encyclopaedia unless reliably sourced. Terms that you may have heard in passing are not suitable for inclusion unless they can be verified - see WP:Verifiability. Smile a While 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

John Grant Robertson
Fair enough to just highlight one of them; I was just keepng the specific link cos it had been there before. But if you only want to link to the dab page, best just to use. --BrownHairedGirl 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I wasn't aware of that tag. Smile a While 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It's very useful, particularly when used in combination the  tag -- see, for example John Robertson (disambiguation). I got ticked off when I put dab pages at xxx (disambiguation) ; that's only appropriate when the xxx page is much more significant than the others.  But the combination of , the  tag in xxx (disambigaution and  in each article allows the dab page to be moved if needed. --BrownHairedGirl 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No Doubt (Petra album) citations
All of the inforomation on the page is taken from the liner notes of the album. How do you suggest that we cite them? --Walter Görlitz 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Put a Sources heading at the bottom of the page; state 'All of the information on this page is taken from the liner notes of the album'. (Specify which one if released more than once.) Provide the serial number (and date if there is one) of the liner. HTH Smile a While 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Dear bluevalour: it’s me bloger

I have created an article called Grande Baroque and I want to upload an image from the website of Wallace silversmiths this is there terms of use  I think it says that it can be used in a non commercial way I would like your opinion.

Thanks in advance

Bloger 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you again. The short answer is no. T&C which allow non-commercial use is not good enough for Wikipedia :-( The problem is that Wikipedia content can be used for /any/ purpose, including commercial use, so pictures that are uploaded need to permit any use. There is a boilerplate email around that you can send to the company asking for permission. As soon as I've finished this bottle of wine I'll look it out for you and put the link here :-) Smile a While 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, go to example letters here and try Informal (images). HTH Smile a While 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch, my best wishes!


 * BTW, watch out with the wine one person got in deep trouble recently while he got drunk.


 * Bloger 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : AfD on Musa Cooper
Thanks for your message. Please note is that a merge is not a delete (note Thistheman's AfD opinon in particular) and merging does not require deletion, it means more of to merge its contents and redirect. No consensus in this case it means that there is no consensus to just delete the article w/o merge. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : Central Market (Texas)
It appears that you have a hobby of marking articles PROD, usually arguing that the subject is not notable enough. I am curious why, especially since a quick web search would easily establish notability in many cases such as the one above. It's sad that informative articles might be removed from Wikipedia. --Joshuadfranklin 05:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not respond to your regrettable personal comments in like since it is not my style. I did not suggest that informative information be removed; the encyclopaedic information is already in the main article and I saw no reason to duplicate it. Smile a While 15:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal intended. --Joshuadfranklin 18:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just re-read Resolving_disputes and thought that in interest of discussion I should explain my question in a different light so that perhaps it will be more clear for you to answer. I am curious about your interpretation of the notability policy. In my view a short article about an establishment of local or region interest is notable (assuming the other criterea are met, i.e. not "Starbucks number 1234") if users are coming to Wikipedia looking for it. It takes a lot of work to write the pages, then more time and effort to go through the whole AfD process; I would prefer this time were spent writing more or removing obvious vandalism. Based on your comments on the above page, you disagree. I would love to hear more details of your thinking. Again, this is a good faith question and I hope to get an interesting answer. --Joshuadfranklin 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)e

your comments regarding CL lock
I just wanted to thank for you really taking a step back and understanding why something like this would be a concern to many supporters. I give you great respect for really breaking this down, especially for someone who is detached from the issue entirely, you are able to see things from both sides, and point out things to those who do not try to see them. Thank you. --Lowg 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pradip Somasundaran -NPOV checked & cleaned up
Dear, Bluevalour, I have given reference for citation comments that you inserted and have reduced such paras by joining up matters which were under the same categories. Hope now the article is o.k. Please do feel free to point out anything else. Since I am new here I need help and guidance from you. Please do check up. regards --Gluewhale 15:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive response. The next step is to eliminate POV words such as prominent singer and eminent lecturer, and later words such as outstanding, famous etc The achievements in the article should speak for themselves. Further, 'chatty' comments such as his travels, lecturing should come out. Finally, the full filmography is not need - people would not be interested in so much detail. Better to summarise the information whilst higlighting the really notable ones, such as those for which he has recieved an award. HTH. Please get straight back to me with further queries. Smile a While 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look now and if it is O.K you may remove the NPOV and Cleanup banners. Thank you for the suggestions! I am learning and expect your help whenever needed. --Gluewhale 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the words such as prominent, eminent, outstanding and famous. Also the travelling and lecturing part was modified. I also have pruned the film song and album song list to highlight only his major hits and those having significance.

cricket...
Long time, no see. How's the cricket season going for your team?  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Badly for Yorkshire CCC - but at least the sun is shining! Best wishes, Smile a While 00:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish the sun would stop shining here for a minute. It has been we have had highs in the 90s F (32.2 C) everyday for as long as I can remember here and it has been no cooler than 80F (26.67 C) at night.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which state are you in? Smile a While 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * it doesn't matter...Its hot everywhere.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * lol - here in N.England it is just right :-) Smile a While 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nate Richert
Yea, no problem. I just came across his page, was reading it, and noticed that. It seemed a bit far-fetched, so I looked at his talk page and history, and noticed it was a hoax. andrew 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hi its me bloger, thank you for your help. How about photos from eBay without a security mark are they kosher? Bloger 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the usual considerations would apply. It would need an email, using the boilerplate template as before, to the copyright holder seeking agreement. Smile a While 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if there is no copyright on the photo there is no copyright holder! (Or less everything on eBay is copyright). In addition, how about a website with no copyright mentions at all is that permissible? Bloger 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Essentially, unless otherwise stated, any picture will be copyright. If you have a picture in mind, please let me have the URL and I'll have a look to see if inspiration strikes. Smile a While 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Many thanks for the Barnstar - I'm glad my comment helped. Smile a While 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a Detached View
Hi there. Remember me? Probably not, but you helped out a few weeks back. I'm having a little difficulty with Fields of the Nephilim and the user fieldsofthenephilim.com. If you take a look at the article history (and his user talk page) I have tried to explain that links to advertising sites are not suitable sites for external links, but he just disregards and keeps re-inserting. Now I realised that I carelessly violated the 3RR myself, which may draw some sanction, but am I being unreasonable in considering the link unsuitable? If not, would you be so kind as to helping to have appropriate action taken. Thanks. I have raised this query with more than one of the people who have assisted me in the past. Cain Mosni 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You only reverted 3 times so didn't breach 3RR. I have reverted it for you this time. I have put a message on User talk:Fieldsofthenephilim.com with a suggested solution. HTH Smile a While 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm glad it wasn't just me being unreasonable.  I was beginning to wonder.  Cain Mosni 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Afd:List of Bengali actresses
Hi Smile a While. What's "1st user contribution" on the anon vote mean? ...And Beyond! 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh Nevermind. ;) ...And Beyond! 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well so much for that. Apparently 69% delete isn't enough. No wonder wikipedia isn't taken seriously. It's too hard to delete anything anymore. ...And Beyond! 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The closing admin should disregard 'votes' by users without a track record of editing. Smile a While 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Central Market (Texas)
This article's discussion for deletion, which you nominated, was closed as keep. I realize it may be disappointing that no one agreed with your deletion suggestion, but please respect the recent discussion's outcome and do not redirect or delete the article. Clipper471 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chesapeake Schools
Because our School Divisions here in Virginia are legally separate political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia from the counties, towns, and independent cities they serve, we have been maintaining separate articles for school divisions, articles which are growing in many cases by contributions by student and teacher users. I think the info you added under City of Chesapeake would be more appropriate in the article Chesapeake City Public Schools, where it will probably generate more similar contributions. Thanks for adding. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this - I have moved the material again to Chesapeake City Public Schools. Smile a While 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin?
No, but see - there was clear consensus on the discussion. M a  rtinp23  23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see: "Non-administrators may also close the other variations of "keep" such as unambiguous "merge and redirect". " - this was an unambiguous redirect, not requiring admin involvement and not requiring AfD.
 * Please see the AFD page for reasons why it shouldn't be deleted. By the way, why do you want the page deleted?  M  a  rtinp23  00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

on an AfD page?
What on earth were you trying to do [ here]?! Kimchi.sg 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Making a mess - many thanks for sorting it out - I see now where I went wrong (steep learning curve :-{ }. Smile a While 09:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD
It's a tough call, but Mr. West's argument is slightly more convincing. Yank sox  16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria - with respect to Rainbow Mall
You tagged Rainbow Mall for speedy deletion with the reason "because there is no evidence that this is remarkable. From many AfD discussions it has been established that Malls need a notable feature to justify an article." This is not one of the Criteria for speedy deletion. The criteria are a quite specific on what may be speedied. For any other issues, use either the [WP:PROD|proposed deletion (prod) process]] or the AFD process. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this helpful comment. Smile a While 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!
I'm always happy to experiment on Wikipedia, especially with the page on the Thompson Twins. And I deride your comments as to my edits being nonsense, a lot of people want the Thompson Twins to reunite. Do you like the Thompson Twins? --75.31.211.231 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Football club notability thing
Please keep the sentence in. It is grammatically better, emphasises the inherentness of the notability, and makes it easy to quote. There's a bit of confusion at the moment with some AfDs issued today by the looks of things and it would really help to have it precisely laid out. There really are bigger things to deal with than continually reverting my edits... Qwghlm 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question continuation
Hi It’s me bloger (sorry for the delay) these are the photos I’ll like to upload

1) This photo From this page

2) The photos here: (scroll down)

3) This photo From here

Bloger 20:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you again. The copyright on the first photo will be with Facemakers and for the two eBay photos with the seller. I am sorry, but I don't see any option but for you to send a boilerplate email requesting permission to use. Smile a While 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you


 * Bloger 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count
Howdy Smile a While.

I noticed your question on edit counts at the Village pump, and I went ahead and ran a check using ais523's tool, here you go:

Edit count for User:Smile a While Counted at 01:16, Friday August 25, 2006 (UTC) (main)        2181 Talk          345 User          74 User talk     295 Wikipedia     1653 Wikipedia talk 70 Image         20 Image talk    3 MediaWiki     1 MediaWiki talk 1 Template      13 Template talk 8 Help          1 Help talk     1 Category      9 Category talk 3 Portal        2 Portal talk   1

T e k e  01:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, great service, thanks! Smile a While 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. In fact, here's your complete breakdown! (I have some time on my hands...)

Article namespace : 2181
 * Manual vandalism reverts: 11
 * Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1
 * Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 55
 * Redirects: 32
 * Proposed deletion-related tagging: 21
 * XfD deletion-related tagging: 67
 * Speedy deletion-related tagging: 21
 * Deletion-related edit summaries: 54
 * Addition-related edit summaries: 10
 * Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 3
 * Unrecognised tag ( {{ in summary): 1
 * Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 60
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 992
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 390
 * No edit summary: 462


 * Talk namespace : 345
 * Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2
 * Redirects: 1
 * Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 13
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 84
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 167
 * No edit summary: 75


 * User namespace : 74
 * Deletion-related edit summaries: 1
 * Addition-related edit summaries: 1
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 12
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 22
 * No edit summary: 38


 * User talk namespace : 295
 * XfD deletion-related tagging: 2
 * Speedy deletion-related tagging: 1
 * Deletion-related edit summaries: 1
 * Addition-related edit summaries: 4
 * Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 129
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 121
 * No edit summary: 36


 * Wikipedia namespace : 1653
 * Manual vandalism reverts: 1
 * Redirects: 1
 * Proposed deletion-related tagging: 1
 * XfD deletion-related tagging: 6
 * Speedy deletion-related tagging: 10
 * Deletion-related edit summaries: 348
 * Addition-related edit summaries: 4
 * Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 32, oppose: 2, support: 1
 * Unrecognised tag ( {{ in summary): 1
 * Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 46
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 568
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 592
 * No edit summary: 40


 * Wikipedia talk namespace : 70
 * Deletion-related edit summaries: 1
 * Addition-related edit summaries: 1
 * Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 20
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 43
 * No edit summary: 3


 * Image namespace : 20
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 12
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 6
 * No edit summary: 2


 * Image talk namespace : 3
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 1
 * No edit summary: 2


 * MediaWiki namespace : 1
 * No edit summary: 1


 * MediaWiki talk namespace : 1
 * No edit summary: 1


 * Template namespace : 13
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 7
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2
 * No edit summary: 4


 * Template talk namespace : 8
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 3
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 4
 * No edit summary: 1


 * Help namespace : 1
 * No edit summary: 1


 * Help talk namespace : 1
 * No edit summary: 1


 * Category namespace : 9
 * No edit summary: 9


 * Category talk namespace : 3
 * Unrecognised edit summary: 1
 * Edits to sections, with no further summary: 1
 * No edit summary: 1


 * Portal namespace : 2
 * No edit summary: 2


 * Portal talk namespace : 1
 * No edit summary: 1

Looking it over, just remember to use edit summaries and keep up the good work! T e k e  01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks! Smile a While 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Land Rover
Done. I also invited any prospective editors to message me if/when a noncopyvio version is created. --Fang Aili talk 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great service - many thanks. Smile a While 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Sorcery in the Sky
you said (along the lines of): "you moved sorcery in the sky, please move redirects as well"  I did not do that. I only moved the info that was on the MGM Studios page to the 'Former Attractions of MGM' page. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? SpikeJones 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what's going on. You had merged the original Sorcery article into the MGM article and pointed the Sorcery redir to the MGM piece.  When I moved the Sorcery text to the more appropriate article, that broke the redir you had set up.  Weird.  SpikeJones 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lottoxp
I was hoping that you can help me with regards to this article. I don't know if it should be nominated for deletion for being an ad or if it is a copyvio or if it is something else. It's ok if you take the necessary action for this. I just know that this article should be here and didn't want to not do anything about it. Thanks in advance! Zephyr2k 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done for spotting this and thank you for drawing my attention to it. I have AfD'd it at Articles for deletion/Lottoxp. Smile a While 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I'm glad there are people like you helping make WP a better encyclopedia. Zephyr2k 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No trouble; just get straight on to me next time you have a problem or need advice. Smile a While 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fahd Muhammed Abdullah Al Fouzan
You nominated Fahd Muhammed Abdullah Al Fouzan for a speedy delete. May I ask why? Articles about Guantanamo detainees keep being nominated for deletion. Many of the nominations seemed to be triggered by misconceptions. Others seem to be triggered by partisan political motives. I am one of the main people contributing to these articles, and I want to take all serious criticism into account. So, let me repeat, Can you tell me what about this article you objected to? -- Geo Swan 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to explain. In my view, an individual article on each detainee is not appropriate. I think that there should be a combined article with a summary on each detainee. First of all, that would make the article easier to navigate. Secondly, this amount of detail is not, in my view, suitable for an encyclopaedia. We are here to record important facts and these articles go too far. Wikipedia is not, and should not be used as, a vehicle for pressing individual cases. I am based in the UK and have no 'partisan political motives' (to the extent that I understand that phrase). Smile a While 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A combined article, with a summary on each detainee?
 * Have you done the math? The DoD acknowledges holding 759 detainess in Guantanamo.  We know something about close to 500 of them.  And we know quite a lot about close to 100 of them.  So, this combined article of yours couldn't possibly be less than dozens of pages long.  It could end up being more than one hundred pages.  It could end up growing to hundreds of pages.  An article of this length would be far too long to be useful.
 * I know that to a lot of wikipedia contributors merging articles seems to be obviously the right thing to do, that leaving the wikipedia composed as a constellation of smaller, more tightly focussed articles, is inconceivable. I think I have read all the arguments for merging related articles.  But I haven't found those arguments convincing.  And I find myself getting pretty frustrated that none of those fans of merging see how limiting that would be.
 * The wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Paper documents are inherently linear.  From top to bottom, from front to back.  It is very limiting.  With old fashioned, linear, paper documents, the author blazes the trail through the universe of human knowledge.  The wikipedia I would like to see would be composed of a larger number of shorter articles -- allowing the reader to browse through the network of human knowledge in the directions that best suits them.
 * Consider Al Fouzan. You stated that you think coverage the wikipedia has of him should be in an (enormous) article about all the Guantanamo detainees.  That Al Fouzan is just another Guantanamo detainee is just one possible way of classifying him.
 * Al Fouzan is also alleged to be an alumnus the Abu Nasir training camp. Some of us have been documenting all the Taliban and al Qaeda training camps.  So far Al Fouzan is the only alleged alumnus of Abu Nasir.  But we have about two dozen alleged alumni of the Khalden training camp and the Al Farouq training camp.  Each of those articles on training camps is linked to the articles on the alleged alumni.  If we followed your approach each of those links would then be redirected to that unusably large single article on all the Guantanamo detainees.
 * Al Fouzan is also alleged to have worked for the Al Haramain Foundation, which the US government alleges is no longer a real charity because some of its resources have been used as a cover for terrorist projects. If I come across anything that suggests that the US allegations against Al Haramain are based on real evidence I will add that to the article on Al Haramain.  Meanwhile I think it is worthwhile to link the Al Haramain article to the articles about the detainees who remained in detention because they were believed to have ties to Al Haramain.
 * Al Fouzan's name is reported to have been found on various suspicious lists. This is interesting because while there are detainees whose names were found on multiple lists, I haven't come across detainees whose names were reported to have been found on so many lists.  Take another look at factors 4 and 5 under the connection heading.  I would guess that the site referred to might be the UK based cageprisoners.com.
 * As some of the detainees pointed out to their Tribunals, a site advocating the release of those Guantanamo detainees who were innocent bystanders does not establish a tie between that site and terrorism. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the UK based human rights group Reprieve all listed details about some of the Guantanamo detainees before the DoD released their transcripts and official lists.  Does that imply that the organization is linked to terrorism?
 * As some of the detainees pointed out to their Tribunals, even if it had been established that a site advocating the release of Guantanamo detainees was linked to terrorism, does merely being listed on that site imply the detainee is a terrorist?
 * Note factor 7, Al Fouzan's known alias was found on a list. After reading several hundred transcripts I have reached several conclusions about the American intelligence analysis efforts at Guantanamo.  I am extremely skeptical of the claims that Guantanamo provided "invaluable intelligence".  I find it pretty clear that those in charge of managing the files had zero knowledge of how Arabic names worked.  Consider Faruq Ali Ahmed.  Many detainees, when responding to the allegation that one of their "known aliases" was found on a list, denied having any aliases.  Many of them asked what the alias was.  The Tribunal officers couldn't tell them.  They didn't know.  Earlier today I responded, at length, to another wikipedia contributor who was under the mistaken impression that by holding the Combatant Status Review Tribunals the USA had fulfilled its Geneva Convention obligation to convene competent tribunals to separate the prisoners who were entitled to POW status, from those who were innocent civilians, from those who had stripped themselves of POW status.  Take a look.


 * You are absolutely correct. Advocacy is not the role of the wikipedia.  But I just re-read  Al Fouzan's article, and I fail to see how you can describe it as advocacy.  Please explain further.  IMO I have confined myself to the bald facts.  It is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether Al Fouzan's detention is lawful, or wise, or well-conducted.


 * May I remind you, once again, wiki is not paper?


 * May I suggest that you exercise greater care in your choice of articles you nominate for speedy deletion, and make sure they meet the stated criteria for speedy deletion?


 * I am afraid I have not finished responding to your reply. But I have got to go.  I'll try to return to continue my reply tomorrow.


 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I said I would return with more comments.


 * I commented on your nomination of the Harry MacEwen for deletion. IMO that nomination was contrary to wikipedia policy.  Nominating Al Fouzan for speedy deletion is even more clearly a lapse in observation of wikipedia policy.  I don't see how it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion.  And you haven't offered a criteria you think it fails to meet.


 * IMO one of the wikipedia's greatest flaws is that there is no well-known forum for discussing the future shape of the wikipedia. Instead, what I see, are chaotic, and, IMO, disrespectful, attempts to reshape the wikipedia by people who feel okay about using the apparatus of the wikipedia without regard to the intended purpose of those apparatus.  It probably sounds like when I think I am noticing the mis-use wikipedia's apparatus it really bugs me.  It does really bug me.  Last fall I was intensely troubled by another wikipedian who followed around my edits, like a stalker.  This wikipedian, in addition to hundreds of abusive comments, routinely misrepresenting my positions, dozens of baseless accusations, this wikipedian routinely initiated wikipedia procedures in violation of policy, ignoring civil request to defend their use, and routinely placed bogus wikipedia tags, similarly ignoring civil requests to defend their use.


 * It is wikipedia policy to seek consensus. Some people read the WP:BOLD guideline as granting them permission to ignore real wikipedia policies and other guidelines.
 * I think that is a misreading of the guidelines.
 * Policies should trump mere guidelines.
 * The guideline encourages new users to be (relatively) bold about their first edits. It doesn't encourage people to recklessly delete whole articles.


 * You and I can have an honest, respectful difference of opinion as to whether the cases of the Guantanamo detainees are "important". If so, we should have a civil dialogue about the issue.


 * In most of the {afd} discussions I have been drawn into I find I face an uphill battle. In most of those discussions, I am afraid, it seems a significant portion of the participants are not interested in reading the opinions of those who disagree with them, and have no intention to seek consensus.  If they think those of their opinion outnumber those who hold a differeing opinion, they are perfectly happy to ignore any points the those of a contrary opinion offer.  And, it seems, if they don't outnumber those of a differing opinion, they don't try to offer arguments to bolster their conception.  They just withdraw and seek out another venue.


 * Thanks for replying to my request. If we are going to have a dialogue on Al Fouzan, or on the articles related to Guantanamo detainees in general, should I wait for you to explain more fully why you don't think they are important?  Should I wait for you to be specific about which details you regard as excessive?


 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Downes
Hello. Could you please outline on Talk:Andrew Downes which factual statements in that article you would like citations for? It would be greatly appreciated. - Mark 07:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I have gone through and added many references to the article on Andrew Downes, but they do not cover all of the factual statements made (or, indeed, all of the ones you requested references for). I have also wikilinked quite a few terms. - Mark 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

re: John Prescott - controversies
No problem. Glad to help. :) TransUtopian 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Auto images
Thank you for resizing the emblem to 200 px, however by comparison the Mercedes-Benz article has its emblem at 230 px. The Audi article has a logo that is 260 px. Perhaps you would like to resize all of them. Enigma3542002 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mobile TV
Good catch there. Erechtheus 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Smile a While 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All Hallows' School
I notice that you have removed this from the copyvio queue. By simply reverting you have left the copyvio material in the History, keeping it available. In my view the copyright material needs deleting from history. I should welcome your views before I restore it to the queue. Smile a While 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the offending versions from the history. No need to relist. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fantastic speedy service; many thanks. Smile a While 16:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the question of whether to delete copyvio revisions from an article containing good and bad revisions is a tricky one. The instructions on the WP:CP page say to "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can: The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." This is obviously a less-than-ideal solution, as it would be best if we removed unfree content altogether, but as a time saving measure and out of concern that deleting revisions can raise GFDL issues, the standard practice is that it's OK to leave such revisions in the history.  That said, this case seems resolved satisfactorily, and it isn't a huge deal either way.  --RobthTalk 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD
You might want to move New erections onto the 8th Sept Log. Cheers Yomangani talk 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. System glitch it seems. Smile a While 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : The Cheetah Girls 3
Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, great service! Thanks! Smile a While 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done
Thanks for giving me the link. alpha Chimp (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re The PodLounge deletion
in reference to your comments on the deletion of the PodLounge listing Articles_for_deletion/PodLounge : Delete - doesn't enhance WP. If creator tells us which other sites he has im mind we can look at them too. Smile a While 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

some of the other (similar) sites included can be seen at: Podcast_Alley and Podcast_Pickle (I noticed that various other podcast directories have been removed)

these are only being mentioned as they are no more relevant (imho) than the listing submitted for the PodLounge (which incidentally is a larger database and has many unique features) --Darkaz 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair
Why in particular? I am familiar with the Tony Blair article (which is excellent)- if you mean to suggest that it in any way resembles the current state of affairs with John Prescott, then I would suggest you have another look. The Tony Blair split is (to my mind) a model example of how to go about these things. The main article has a more than adequate (8 paragraph, ~750 word) summary (in flowing, reasonably good prose, fairly well-referenced and NPOV- not a juvenile, stylistically drab and uninformative bullet-point list). The spun-off criticism page is also reasonably well put together. Most important of all, there was actually a reason to do it. Tony Blair, at 90+ kb, was genuinely a very large article, and stylistic changes are justified when a piece reaches that stage in order to maintain readability. Note that, despite the fact that this split took place a matter of days ago, both the original and the derivative article have retained excellent form and quality. I must stress that I am in no way against deconvolving articles, provided that a) it is done right, maintaining POV and readability, and leaving an adequate prose summary of the excised material (per WP guidelines) and b) there is actually an imperative to do it. At 34kb, there was no way that John Prescott required such an extreme move. What we had was one mediocre article (where to my mind many problems were at their roots caused of the constant addition of Controversy-of-the-week style items when Prescott was on a sticky wicket a few weeks ago). The solution to a mediocre article is to rewrite it and make it better, not to split it into two even cr*pper ones. Tony Blair is an object lesson in how to manage and properly maintain a growing article- John Prescott is an object lesson in how not to do the same. Your comparison is not really valid. There was no necessity for the split, there was no consensus for the split and, according to the AfD, there is a reasonably strong majority (if not a consensus) that the articles should be merged again. All the best, Badgerpatrol 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

North Dakota Golf Courses
Please refrain from removing articles on North Dakota's golf courses until the AFD on Hawktree Golf Club is complete. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not removed any articles. What I have done is merged the content of single sentence articles into their locality articles where they sit much better. This is recommended by WP:LOCAL which says:
 * Initially, information on places of local importance should be added to an article on the community where that place is located.
 * This information should generally be written in sentence form, but where only basic information is available about a group of places in the same community, you might consider presenting this information in list or table format.
 * The guidelines go on to say:
 * As more verifiable information on local places is added to the community article, the article or individual sections will start to get overly large. Since large articles should be written in summary style, the longer sections should be broken out into articles such as "Education in community" "Transportation in community", etc. when this occurs.
 * As these articles get overly large as more verifiable information is added to each of these articles, information on individual places should be broken out into individual articles, beginning with places with the most verifiable information on them.
 * This is the normal way in which articles are developed.
 * The AfD, that will certainly result in a 'Keep', simply addresses whether the content of the article should be in WP; it does not go to where the content should be located. That is for future editorial consideration. I would urge you to consider accepting that the locality article is the best place. Not only does this meet the Guidelines but it means that the attractions can be read in context. The alternative is a large number of small articles, relating to a locality, which is much more awkward for the reader to navigate. Finally, I should like to compliment you on the ND Project, which is helping to improve WP. I simply ask that you reconsider moving to an organic growth approach, rather than one that creates many stubs that, in truth, are likely to remain so. Smile a While 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that North Dakota's golf courses are purely of local interest; indeed, articles on them are probably of more interest to tourists than to their local users. It is true that they could be longer, but at this time WPND is in a stub-making mode rather than an intensive article-development mode, and I would ask for your understanding.
 * Please respond on my talk page, as my talk page requests. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing our attention to the issue; I'm starting to discuss a plan with MatthewUND. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Green Hills Software
I've posted a response to your deletions on Talk:Green Hills Software. Please let me know why you think the information on GHS' products on that page is "unsourced" any more than, say, the information on the plot of The Rocketeer or the birth date of Angela Lansbury. At least GHS has a Web site (linked) where the information can be verified; I don't think Angela Lansbury's birth certificate is online. :) --Quuxplusone 00:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mythic Russia
Yes, thank you, it slipped my mind. If you see this kind of thing happen again, it might be better to use db-a5, in case whoever forgets to delete stays off line for longer. Cheers! Mango juice talk 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, thanks, I wasn't aware of that template. Smile a While 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : The DSR
Done. Apologies for missing that out. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dan Mitrione
''Comment moved from your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)''

On the Talk:Dan Mitrione page you left the following comment: "The 'disputed' tag must remain until there is agreement on this page." Now that someone has removed it unilaterally and without agreement apparently having been reached, what is to be done? Regards, Nicmart 05:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Edwards
Hi, I have left a reply on my talk (discussions are easier to follow if all in the same place). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Headingley Carnegie.jpg
This image was taken from Flickr Free, a section of Flickr (run by Yahoo) which requires the user to agree that the images are available under GFDL before they post the images. If you look here under section 6 f. it states that any user agrees to "...not use the Service to..." "...upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party". --Chappy84 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

general greetings
Hi there Blue Valour. Firstly I should point out I am a newbie to Wiki but, as I detect you've noticed, I am both genuinely literate and hold a deep fondness for my home town; I have also worked within style guidelines before, albeit not recently so I'm rusty, and am aware that they can be subject to interpretation.

Otherwise, now I've found your page I will add that I worked with style guides since I last played Bridge but, on trying to find a suitable partner since moving back here I've become rather too accustomed to a bipolarity of responses ranging from glazed stares to incredulity. I've not been successful. But if you know anyone who's looking to partner up on the bottom rung then maybe in time I might end up participating in one or other of the local clubs.

apologies for ignorance
If you'll give me the benefit of the doubt on this, I had reason to clear my cookies in the early hours of this morning and, this being the first time I've logged into wikipedia since, I was surprised to find that you'd left 3 messages for me that wiki simply hadn't informed me of. I see the cookie clearance and wiki catching me up with what's been written on my talk page as directly linked and can understand if you translated this as rudeness on my part.

I simply wasn't aware you'd been trying to contact me.

I accept that as a newbie there are habits I must get into and will admit putting off giving the the style guide a thorough reading for longer than is reasonable, though I still don't know how to use wiki to find out who kept removing my list entries.

Wilf Lunn
I note that the letter of the guide differs from the philosophy and trust you did observe I hadn't deleted any other contributors' entries, partly in recognition of my relative inexperience and partly because it's vandalism, and saw requesting verification, e.g., Wilf Lunn, as a polite way of raising the matter. I know the guidelines for such things say if somet's wrong then cut it, but they also imply that wanton cutting is vandalism, so I erred on the side of caution.

I know Richard Lunn's done well in television but I don't recall Wilf's lad being called Richard. Again, I requested verification of the relationship from the original contributor by way of a needs verification tag and added to the list of productions Richard Lunn has worked on. However, Wilf having strong ties with the HD postal and STD code area, both his children were educated here so far as I understand it.

I am happy to nip down to Queen St South to get the edition number and date of the Examiner in which the relevant chapter appeared abridged. It was about 15 months ago. I can see him turning into a Patrick Stewart.

Katrina Rafferty
I have to state now that I consider Lead Violin in the Hong Kong Phil as equivalent to captaining a premiership side--which is somet' Andy Booth's never done! It is the instrument to which the rest of the orchestra tune, which given the temperaments on intonation that can come into play in stringed instruments is some responsibility, and they are a professional orchestra on the world stage. I feel confident that if she'd made this position in the Halle or the LSO you'd not have quibbled it. So why is the Hong Kong Phil not good enough.

I'm aware Jeremy Perkins played in the pits for West End shows such as Cats (again by way of the Examiner) but wouldn't dream of adding his name as this is akin to making Town's second team squad.

Kev Smith
And although it's BriSCA it is BriSCA Formula One which, so far as I'm aware, interfaces with the FIA in terms of regulations and suchlike. Similarly, wiki has a worldwide audience and Stock Car racing is popular in the Netherlands, where Kev went on to race after winning the World Championship several seasons concurrently and also in New Zealand, where a recent Examiner article reported he is emigrating to...

James (Jamie) Whitham
Jamie Whitham also made the Motorcyle News week in week out as well as the various sports channels, and his cross-Pennine rivalry with Carl Fogarty was reminiscent of that when Nigel Mansell's winnng streak overlapped with the young Michael Shumacher's early entrie onto the podium in the share of the commentary minutes they got in the '90s, before he had to retire from racing to battle cancer.

Again, he has a worldwide media profile and is possibly a bigger figure in the international consciouness than, much as I admire him, Wilf Lunn ever will be. And although I'm not up to date on how his team's doing, he does own the team as far as I'm aware and they are still competing in one or other of the Superbike classes--i.e. regularly televised sport which, again, is a bit more than anyone can claim for Andy Booth.

Perhaps you consider these aren't sufficient achievements to warrant a wiki entry at this point

Alice roberts
I met her in and around the town a number of times prior to her securing the Time Team gig, which again made an article covering most of a page, with photo's, in the Examiner at the time. Spring 2003 I think it was. As the show is popular and wiki is in effect a vital front end for recruiting diligent and motivated students to the town I think she's worth a mention, although I am unclear as to whether she was back here as a native terrier or simply got one or other of her degrees at the Uni'.

Other notable people
Wouldn't it be a chore if we had to include able people as well!?!?!?! Now, back to being serious again, have we got William (Willie) Watson on? What about the guy who played in the 66 cup squad and ran the funeral parlour at Outlane? I've been told it was Frank Worthington but I know it wasn't, although isn't he from here originally too? Ball sports aren't my strong suit you understand, but what level did Howard Willerton end up playing cricket for Yorkshire at? I thought it was county level and, again, I know he was born here.

I'm unclear as to whether violinist Billy Currie joined Ultravox after studying in Scotland or whether he simply studied here coming originally from Hibernian climes, but he has a Huddersfield connection too.

I've added an entry on Richard Oastler to the Fixby stub as he ran the Estate there whilst pushing the Short Time (Poor) Laws through. Do you think he's worth mentioning explicityl on the town's page as it was an estate away from the town at that time?

And I seem to recall that Daniel Defoe wrote a graphic account of the Pennine climate following the Pack Horse trail and staying in Huddersfield, although I may be entirely wrong and it's Halifax or Bradford he wrote about. Whichever way I am keen to work historical figures with genuine associations in.

Do you think it worth starting a stub about the Ramsden family? Or including an account of the Heraldic Crest?

Summaries of editing
Up until now I had read [Edit] as the verb rather than [summary] and wasn't certain how the summary I should've ended up editing, had I clicked on the link, related to the wiki entry and, as such, didn't wish to gaffe things up.

I got what it actually meant the moment I read your message, so many thanks for taking the time to bother pulling me up on it.

Whether or not you or anyone else need go in and "tidy up" after me is debatable. On the one hand contributors are warned that their work will be edited mercilessly. I'm no stranger to this having both held similar responsibilities in the workplace and been subject to editing in a collaborative writing environment previously so I simply don't take offence.

General sign off
At the moment I'm generally logged into a broadband connection at some point every day, although I hadn't logged into wiki since I observed that you had read my commented note and am glad of the opportunity to discuss the pages with you. As I'm lodging with someone at the moment I can't guarantee how long this will remain the case but it's looking like I shall be here the next few months. I have someone wanting CPU time breathing down my neck just now so have to sign off. I trust there's not too much to be considering for the moment. Nice to make your acquaintance.

As regards the style guide, I shall look at it in a few hours and try harder to stick to it.

82.27.68.80 19:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD tag on talk page
Done now - feel free to add them yourself if you see any more missing. Cheers, Yomangani talk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Smile a While 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Daytona 500 broadcasters
I really, really don't appricate you having that particular article that I started nominated for deletion. You said that we already have a catagory for that called Motorsport announcers. Well let me tell you something, that is too vague of a category to simply skim over the selected few who had the chance to call NASCAR's biggest race. Motorsport announcers can't be narrowed to purely NASCAR since we have the Indy Car series, drag racing, Formula 1, and many many others. And simply listing the announcers by each race is not as easy as it sounds to you because it's a step-by-step process rather than simply being right in front of you. TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant post - I was not the nominator and did not make those comments. Smile a While 15:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You voted for this particular article to be deleted (regardless of whether or not you initiated the deletion process) or am I wrong!? # Delete - there is a perfectly good Television section in the Daytona 500 article. Not a merge because this is indicriminate information gathering for the sake of it. A couple of comments on the major commentators would suffice. Smile a While 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Danailov
Sorry for overwriting your edit! I think you fixed it... Billbrock 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) Smile a While 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Citywest
Twice you have changed my arrangement of the image to what is, to my discerning eye, a much inferior setup. Before I am forced to improve it once again; could you please refer me to the section of the STYLE GUIDELINES that suggests your visually ugly mess is better than my aesthetically pleasing layout?

Are you some sort of Wiki Senior Editor? From whom do you derive your authority? (Sarah777 13:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC))


 * As I explained in my edit summary, the layout has to look right in all screen modes. There is simply too little text for your layout to work in 800x600 - you probably have been viewing on a flat-screen monitor. In 800x600 there is a thin column of text that meets your delicate and tactful description of a "visually ugly mess". I have now restructured the layout in a way that looks fine in all modes and I hope will meet approval with your "discerning eye". p.s. the picture and map can be swapped L-R if you prefer. Smile a While 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blue, that is indeed much better then your previous arrangement. Even on my old CRT screen. I think best to leave it as it is - all the maps in this category are on the right. (Sarah777 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

2003 Fiesta Bowl
Game summary This article has already had one problem with a game summary being adapted from a website. The present game summary is so detailed that I wonder where it came from. Does anyone know its origins? Is there any assurance that an editor can give that it does not breach a copyright, please? Smile a While 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the game summary myself because I have a tape of that game and I had to make this page for class. I found this article was a stub and that is one of my favorite games ever so I watched the game as I wrote the game summary on the page. Adk4786 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Adk4786

Games statistics/Scoring summary I have removed these as possible Copyvio from http://ohiostatebuckeyes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/010303aaa.html. They should not be replaced. Smile a While 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They were copied from that site but I didn't think it would be a big deal for a couple of reasons. They are actual fact because I could have gone anywhere to get the information and make the table myself and the scoring summery but I found it on there. Also, I figured that if that article was already sited at the bottom of the page then it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I want to thank you for doing so much work on this article but I would really appreciate it if we could put those back on the page by citing the table and scoring summary inside the page after each of those two sections. I am also trying to put images on this page if you could help me out with that in any way. Adk4786 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Adk4786

Alright Blue, You and I are having some differences at the moment but I only put the table and game summary back in for a moment so that I could print it out with the images for my teacher. My intentions were to stick with the compromise that you made and I apologize for not taking them out after I printed the article as I planned. If you can I would appreciate it if you went back to the compromise and kept the images and the rest of the article. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2003_Fiesta_Bowl"

Edits
I think you'll find it is GallowGlass that is undoing mine. Why don't you tell him off?--84.9.211.122 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The key point is that you are trying to insert unsourced material. Saying Look at a map is not a source. Find a source that says that Ormskirk is on a hill, ridge or whatever and that's fine. On a different issue, GallowGlass does a great deal of valuable work around here and has built up a reputation as a responsible editor. My suggestion is that you concentrate, in this early stage of your Wikipedia career, on making sourced additions to articles (or start a new article on something that interests you) rather than engaging in pointless edit warring. Smile a While 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the map. He is not a responsible editor and neither are you. I have commented fully on his talk page. I have provided references. If you cannot read a map then you should not be commenting on geography. I will not tolerate anymore of your abuse.--84.9.211.122 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not being abused simply being given guidance that you would do well to follow. Smile a While 17:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is bad advice given, in bad faith. The references are there I suggest you read them before continuing your campaign. You would do well stay away from areas that you do not understand.--84.9.211.122 11:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure where we go now with our friend here tbh. He/She been blocked once under the 3R rule but seems oblivious of the basic facts of Geography and the need to provide actual evidence. I reset to your last edit but he/she is back again and reset the page. Suggestions welcome. Galloglass 12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You should go and learn to read a map before making any futher comments. I provided a reference, the map, you just cannot read maps.--84.9.211.122 21:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza
Hi there. I hope you're not annoyed by me moving the section on Fresher's flu. But since we laready have a discussion of how colds are not flu and this is a slang term for a event in a small minority of the world's population, I didn't think it deserved more exposure than the 1918 pandemic, which did not get a section to itself! I did not delete this, but just moved it to flu season. TimVickers 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I am happy with its new location. A couple of small points; a link to the new location would have been helpful as would setting up the References section. Smile a While 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a link to "Flu Season" in the epidemiology section, and I've formatted the ref section in this sub-article. Thanks! TimVickers 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have done a real nice job on those references - thank you. Smile a While 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blomby Car
Please may I enquire the +prod on my new article. The source and information is from mame. As you can see from all my other articles, I am going alphabetically through mame to add any missing arcade games. Mame is open source and the information is from a free history file. Sandman30s 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With regard to the sourcing that is a matter of setting up the reference. The other issue, though, is whether the game is notable enough to be worth its place. The fact that it was issued is not, in itself, enough. It needs to have been an outstanding game of its type, innovated or been newsworthy for another reason. Again, a reference is needed for its notability. Smile a While 02:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought wikipedia is factual; who am I to decide whether a game was outstanding or innovative, that is a matter of opinion. Also, what about Jimmy Wales' mission - 'the sum of all knowledge of mankind' - now there is something being left out because someone thought it was not outstanding enough. Also, I am doing a lot of hard work and spending a lot of time on this; now if some of my articles are going to be cut off then it's not worth it for me to try and have an arcade game complete listing; thereafter beefing up each article. Sandman30s 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if you still insist on deleting this article, please remove all non-outstanding links from the "List of arcade games" article. You decide which ones are outstanding etc. Sandman30s 13:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A better link: go to Category:Arcade Games and clear out all non-notable games. Heck, why stop there at arcade games?  Go all the way to all video games I can't point you to the policy that says that all games are notable.  It doesn't exist, obviously.  But if you want to go through, and I'm not exagerating, 10,000+ video game articles to impose your opinion on which games are notable, go for it.  At this point, all we got is comprehensiveness in dealing with the subject matter as a policy to follow.  Whether or not the article needs to have a lot more information is not up for debate.  I disagree with how it was made.  But you can't decide that it's not worthy of an article unless you're going to be consistant across all video game articles, and that's not really possible at this point without a ridiculously immense amount of effort.  --PresN 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My reply is on User_talk:PresN Sandman30s 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So is mine! Smile a While 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now the entire Blomby Car article has been deleted, even from my contributions :( Who did this and why? Sandman30s 12:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was deleted at here. I will see what can be done. Smile a While 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess engines
Hints: (1) Look at the results of the 2006 World Computer Chess Championship. (2) Observe that the number 5 placed program on the list, which got a very creditable score, is in the list of freely available programs (and is easily verified to be so).

I assumed this would not be unreasonably difficult for an average reader of this article. Presumably you found it less obvious?

Image:Ryan Sugden.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan Sugden.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Todd Chretien would need to go back to AfD for deletion
I have removed the prod tag from Todd Chretien, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! (Please reply to my talk page if you have further questions.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good advice, thank you. Smile a While 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob and Tom Radio: The Comedy Tour page deleted.
I created an article about a DVD which is a filming of: Bob and Tom Radio: The Comedy Tour. I believe that it was created in the 1600hrs timeframe on Nov. 10. An image of the cover was uploaded as well. I had linked it to Bob Kevoian, Tom Griswold, Kristi Lee and Chick McGee. When I checked today, Nov 11, it was missing. There seems to be no trail as to its existence and no messages relation to its deletion. Is there any way that you could help me with understanding what I might have done incorrectly to have caused this deletion? Thank you very much! Lmcelhiney 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you go here you will find the name of the admin who deleted it. You should ask him why. HTH. Smile a While 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I've sent him a note so that I might understand the reason for my corrective action.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg
I've closed the DRV for this image, undeleted the image, and opened a replaceability discussion on the talk page, if you're interested in commenting. --RobthTalk 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

One Police Plaza
My original criterion for List of famous addresses was that the address had to be recognizable on its own. To acquiesce your complaint of verifiability, I agreed to make the criterion more broad. Yet One Police Plaza seems to escape the revised criterion despite being recognizable. It has no dedicated article upon itself but the address indeed exists as a redirect and the address is mentioned in the intro of the article.

I know One Police Plaza is NYPD headquarters; I've seen it referenced by the address and not just on Law & Order. Having a WP article is an amicable start but I think it's too limited...so what will it take? Cburnett 06:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please respond on Talk:List of notable addresses. Cburnett 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd Opinion
Hi! Take a look at this Bir Gandus article I spotted. It seems more like a personal blog to me and therefore suitable for an Afd entry, what do you think? Richard Harvey 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing this page to my attention. I agree that most of the content is OR so I have cleaned it up and sourced it. My experience is that actual places, no matter how insignificant, will survive an AfD provided they appear on a map so I would advise against an AfD. Smile a While 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

North Dakota AFDs
I fail to see the point in you going through this entire set of business again. With the amount of work you did nominating all the golf club articles you could have easily performed the redirects that both of us apparently wanted.

A simple polite reminder would have been sufficient in this matter, and I'm sure you've seen that we've been working on the issue from time to time. AFD is not a place to go just to make a point. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh?? I haven't put these forward for AfDs!! I have defended these in someone else's AfD's by suggesting that they are merges. Smile a While 12:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I misread the nomination. My mind's been wandering a lot lately; I should try to get some rest. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Huddersfield
Hi! I've done a small copy edit to reduce the 'Cultural Events' section and make it more NPOV, also a content reduction to the sports section on Rugby and motorsports. Could you apply your sports knowledge to make sure I haven't messed up the rugby. Though I understand another user is looking to give it a good going over. Thanks. Richard Harvey 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done some copyediting on the sports section. The George Hotel meeting is so significant that it needs a mention. I am not wedded to the sub-headings, take them out if you don't like them, but the article needs to be clear which sport it is talking about. Smile a While 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Keep the sub-headings, the page looks fine as it is. Richard Harvey 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Inadvertent comment deletion
Apparently your comments got clobbered by mine on Talk:Reading program which is really odd, as I should have received an Edit Conflict message. Chris restored them. Sorry about the trouble. --JohnDBuell 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NP; thanks for letting me know. Smile a While 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered your Shroud-dating question
 here ... JDG 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Smile a While 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Death and Resurrection of Jesus
You added  It is important to note that no historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts. to the article and it was reverted. I am not the one who reverted you, and I think editors should be a little more kind and explain themselves when reverting others. So I am here to give you a few pointers. All new content, when added to wikipedia, should be verifiable, and the best way to do this is to cite a reliable source. Also, instead of saying "it is important to note" you should say why it is important, or at least why certain scholars think it is important (if there are any scholars that say that). By doing this, you make your addition verifiable and neutral, and it will be harder for other editors to simply erase your contributions. Hope this helps. If you have question, feel free to ask me personally, or discuss this further on the article talk page.--Andrew c 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the trouble to comment. You make a good point that the inclusion of "it is important to note" was a tactical mistake. Smile a While 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCabal
Hi, we have a heavy backload of cases at WP:MEDCAB and since you are on the mediator list I thought I would request your help. Thanks! --Ideogram 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How is an images size determined?
Is the image size picked randomly, but not too big, like I thought it was, or determined some other way?Joanee Woolee 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How come no one will answer this question!??Joanee Woolee 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you need to wait while someone types an answer :-) The image size is determined so that the page looks professional in all screen modes including 800x600. When an image is taller than it is wide 250px is the limit on what is acceptable. HTH Smile a While 02:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Izhar Hunzai
Hi Smile a While. You have probably already seen that I have moved the Izhar Hunzai content back to its own page. In my discussion on the Discussion page, I indicated that I would place an AfD on the Izhar Hunzai page. However, I don't feel that it needs to be deleted, only that the content is not suitable for the Aga Khan Development Network article. Therefore, I will not plac an AfD on the page - if you feel strongly about deleting it, you can go ahead and place the AfD. Yours, -- Aylahs (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Image:Young_Guns.jpg
Hi Smile a While! I just noted the rather nice Hudds FC brochure image and thought it worth giving you a 'heads up message'. There are a few editors at the moment who are cracking down on what may be classed an unfree or copyvio images. Could you please enlarge the source info you put on your uploaded image, IE: if you actually created it, or from where it was scourced and if permission for use is freely given. It will save having it tagged for possible deletion. Its too good an image to lose! ATB :) Richard Harvey 13:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Smile a While 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaf of a Book
What's your reasoning in reverting? --Ludvikus 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert; I moved it under its correct heading. All the content that you added is still there. If you compare versions you will see why your edit didn't fit in with the heading structure. HTH. Smile a While 11:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated removals
Hi there. Me again, from 6 months ago. I have a query for you. On the article Jem Godfrey there's a user keeps removing perfectly well sourced current information without any rationale or communication. Is there an abuse policy that can be invoked? -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I have placed guidance on the user's talk page. I have also cleaned up the article a bit. It contained some observations that I have removed with no loss of content. Sometimes a rewording deals with issues that concern editors. I have put the article in some extra cats to attract further editorial attention and reduced the stubs to two, which is the normal maximum. HTH. Smile a While 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport
Hello Blue Valour !! I am a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia and therefore still learning. After your remarks on 'Manchester Airport', I have tried to introduce external references to my contributions re traffic statistics, league position in UK etc. Hope you are now happy with the situation. Regards. 'Ringwayobserver' 13 January 2007.
 * Undoubtedly the 'Passenger numbers' section is better but not yet satisfactory. Guidance on citing sources is contained at WP:CITE. What is missing is a definitive reference to the document to which you allude. As many as possible of the following details are needed: Title, Author, Publisher, Date, a Reference number. HTH. Smile a While 00:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Honley High School
Hi Smile a While!. I think this article could do with some of your touching up. That or an Afd notice as its not particularly noteworthy for a page in its current format? Richard Harvey 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Smile a While 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Young_Guns.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Young_Guns.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chess 2006.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chess 2006.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: edit to Mary Ward (nun)
Thank you for your message, but let me inform you that I am the Heritage Collection & Records Manager for Loreto Mandeville Hall, Catholic Girls' School in Toorak Australia. A Loreto School, owned by the IBVM - Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, commonly known as the Loreto Sisters

I have excellent knowledge on Mary Ward and the IBVM, and the Loreto Sisters are not the Sisters of Loreto, they are the Loreto Sisters.

You may be interested in exploring the following official web sites:

Loreto Sisters of Australia

IBVM History "IBVM women (Loreto sisters)"

Mary Ward

Loreto Sisters in the UK

Loreto Sisters in the USA

So I am not a vandal as you put it, but correct an inaccuracy!

Brighouse
Hi Smile a While! You seem to have a better grasp than I about local journalists. Could you take a look at this new article Joseph dennison which I assume was created to link to the Brighouse page, which has an incorrect link to it due to the lack of a capital letter on the surname of the article page. Is the person sufficiently notable for an article page? Richard Harvey 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know, I am always looking to save local articles of merit. However, I see no merit in this - unsourced, no relevant Google hits and no real notability. I would support you to AfD this one. Smile a While 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than go through the lengthy process of an AfD I have tagged it for a speedy delete, with a modified  tag, under the Living person Biograpy guidlines. which will get rid of it sooner. I have also e-mailed the Brighouse Echo's Editor, with the link to the article, asking for confirmation of the persons existence, just to be sure. Additionally  I have also removed the incorrect link from the Brighouse article.  Richard Harvey 09:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bournemouth F.C. v. A.F.C.Bournemouth
Hi! First allow me to thank you for the large amount of work that you seem to do in updating the records of the English Football League. It is people such as yourself rather than dabblers like me that keep the flame burning. I would request your help, however, in correcting a problem that has arisen with the football clubs of my home town, Bournemouth. The current records of a lot of the league seasons (and I would presume, other references) link back to the club called Bournemouth F.C. However, this is an amateur club based at Victoria Park; they have never been a league club. As you can verify in Wiki and other sources the links for Bournemouth's professional club should go to A.F.C. Bournemouth, the club based at the Fitness First Stadium. The records will need to be changed and I would ask you to help in ensuring that the right club is referenced in future changes to the records. Thank You! Britmax 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those sentiments. I have changed the main redirects and league records but there is still some chasing down to be done that I shall leave with you. It is helpful yo know of the problem and I shall bear it in mind. Smile a While 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I think I have now tracked down and edited all the links that point to Bournemouth F.C. rather than A.F.C. Bournemouth. The problem comes when using the Bournemouth template which will automatically point to Bournemouth F.C.; using Bournemouth gets round the problem, albeit via a re-direct.  Daemonic Kangaroo 05:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, thank you. Smile a While 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Western Primary School
The article has been restored. Sasquatch t|c 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am merging the original content to a new version at Western Primary School . Smile a While 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism warning?
Hello, I keep receiving a message from you when I look on Wikipedia. You say I changed one of your pages, Anfield I think. However I never even looked at this page before today, I think you have me confused with someone else. I only ever look at science articles and never edit any. Could you look into this? Thanks, Steven 86.144.51.52 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The material that was wrongly removed can be found here. What is likely to have happened is either that the ISP you use assigns temporary IP addresses to each session and this IP address has been used previously to access Wikipedia (BT Internet and AOL are examples) or someone else has access to your computer. The solution is to create an account and then log on with that which should avoid messages not meant for you. HTH. Smile a While 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment re: the proposed delete of the Vita Craft article
what you wrote is in qoutes

"However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product" What does 'the product' mean, are you talking about RFIQin? The two following links, &  are non trivial and completely independent from  Vita Craft; furthermore, they do not reference RFIQin. They both provide substantial amount of information, more than what is required according to WP:ORG, which qualifies this company as notable. I do not understand why you posted comments that are the opposite of this. Do you feel that the two companies that I referenced are trivial and somehow connected to Vita Craft? I would like to know, because to my knowledge these web sites qualify as notablity under wikipedia guidelines. -ChristopherMannMcKay 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply at proposed delete to enable broader discussion. Smile a While 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaim Richman
Hello. Is it your intention to dispute Chaim Richman's membership in the present "modern attempt to revive the Sanhedrin? We normally accept statements from organizations we have articles on that a particular individual is a member. If you dispute the notability of the organization, perhaps you should propose an AfD for the Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin article. Given that there's an article on the organization, membership would seem to be a relevant fact. Given that you appear to have been a long-term contributor to Wikipedia, I assume your recent deletion of the reference in a "no change" reorganization was purely inadvertent. I of course express no personal opinion on the activities of either the individual or the organization. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have lost me here. If you look at the diff here you will see that the reference remained - all I did was reorganise the order of the information because at the moment the article is awfully disjointed; you may wish to reconsider the reversion. Smile a While 17:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right! content wasn't changed. Self-reverted. Shouldn't have been trying to edit at that hour. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield Town
Hi. I'm a new user so I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this right. Can I just ask why you deleted my update on supporters of Huddersfield Town Football Club? You said it was classed as vandalism and I'd just like you to explain to me why that is. Original Hell Child
 * Hi; Vandalism is a harsh sounding word but in general parlance means an unhelpful edit. If you want Lukas Wooller to go down as a Town supporter then it needs to be sourced. What someone says he said on a radio programme is not encyclopaedic because it cannot be verified i.e. checked out. If you want to add him then you need to find a reliable and reputable source, preferably on the Internet, that indicates his support. HTH Smile a While 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I've found the clip on YouTube.  Will that be alright? Original Hell Child
 * Cool; just add the link and reinsert him. Smile a While 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus
Hi, I have reverted your reversions to the Nativity of Jesus article. These original changes were discussed and I think we should not change it without further discussion (see the section 'Balance'). The issue of balance in the article certainly could do with more input - please feel free to pitch in. Rbreen 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking again at the section, I realise that you did take part in the discussion earlier. I think we both want a more balanced viewpoint, but need to discuss the best way to achieve this. Rbreen 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy to discuss matters but the only change that you reverted was a grammatical fix! Smile a While 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I should actually read what's there - but you did mention that you were reverting yourself for the moment, so I wonder if you're planning any further changes? Rbreen 11:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion/Heathcote High
Hi, I wonder if I may ask you to add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heathcote High School, please? Smile a While 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mindys12345"
 * Hi, I will give an opinion on the discussion page. I think the guy that wants it deleted actually goes to that school and for some personal reason has something againts the article being there. I think that other pupils at the school and possibly staff would object to this article being deleted and would probably expand on the article if they knew that it existed. All schools should have some kind of article, it would be interesting for current and former students to look back on Mindys12345 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting Kingboyk's edits to Principality of Seborga. You might want to take note that this editor is currently actively campaigning to delete a large number of other similar articles from WP, including Independent State of Aramoana. Any assistance you can give in roling back these edits is appreciated. --Gene_poole 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's an admin also :-( I will help with the defence of the articles since he must take them to AfD if he wants them deleted. Smile a While 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. He's on a one-man crusade to redefine the term "micronation" and remove entire sections of content from WP. He tried it a year ago and failed. Now he's trying again, on a bigger scale. Does continually re-nominating articles for AFD when they've already survived the process 2 or 3 times before count as deliberate disruption to WP? --Gene_poole 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one to add to the watchlist: Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia. --Gene_poole 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, it is customary for 12 months to pass before renomination after a 'Keep' but a 'No consensus' can be renominated straight away. Will add. Smile a While 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not, wherever did you get that idea? Do you have any policy or guideline that indicates so? It's quite common to relist articles after a month or so.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I said 'customary'; there are no policy constraints. However, if you relist an article that has received a keep verdict after a month you would get short shrift from the Community and rightly so; in my experience the Community has little patience with editors who keep bringing an articles back when they don't get the verdict that they seek. YMMV Smile a While 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * YMMV a lot, indeed. This is not in fact customary, and analysis of AFD will show that indeed if you relist a kept article after a week you will get "short shrift", but after a month hardly so.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request
Please don't call my edits vandalism; by all means revert and discuss (as in fact we've just been doing, so I was rather surprised to see that edit summary). I am a well established Wikipedian with many featured and good articles under my belt, an admin, and a stickler for cruft-free, well referenced articles. I don't see many vandals with those qualifications. I am also undeniably on a trawl through Category:Micronations to clean up, merge, tag, or recommend for deletion as appropriate, and some people won't like it (a very small number, trust me). You might want to check the histories of other correspondents before taking their advice at face value. --kingboyk 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise; I agree that was a bad edit summary. Smile a While 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Just letting you know (in case you didn't) about the three revert rule, and I don't want you to violate it, because then someone will be forced to block you. I'm not passing judgment on the merits of your reverts, just letting you know. — M ETS 501 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Derry City F.C./archive2
Would you be willing to add your support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for FA status? Cheers. Danny InvincibleTalk 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject
I've published a proposal to gauge interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject. Your comments and suggestions are welcome: WikiProject_Council/Proposals --Gene_poole 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. The project proposal above has been successful, so I would like to invite you to add your name to the new project page: WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Honley
Hi! I've just spotted your anti-vandalism reversal edit of the Honley image location. I've added an additional image and put them both into a Gallery format lower down the page. I think that should stop the format overlap conflict and still be acceptable to those who wish to move them around, what do you reckon? Richard Harvey 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard, well done, a great solution. Smile a While 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD - Lunds ASK
Thanks for the notice. I had seen the AFD but I wanted to wait to see what others have to say before I weigh in. I expect that I will add a comment in a couple of days. Quale 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Roma people national football team
You recently nominated the article Roma people national football team for speedy deletion per G4, recreation of content deleted via AFD. I have declined the nomination and moved the discussion to AFD. You are invited to comment at Articles for deletion/Roma people national football team (2nd nomination). A ecis Brievenbus 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin beliefs and Creation within belief systems
I've recommended remerging these two articles. I notice that you did the original split last year and welcome you to comment on the proposal.

Bathrobe 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ayre
Thanks for adding a fair-use rationale to the above's image page. Not sure how it crossed your radar, but it is appreciated. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough Athletic F.C.
I agree with the removal of the removal of Scarborough history; its irrelevant, but we need some info on their liquidisation so we know why Athletic was formed, which is already more or less covered in the article. Perhaps it should be brought up at WikiProject Football? Mattythewhite 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the removal of Scarborough history; its irrelevant, but we need some info on their liquiditation so we know why Athletic was formed, which is already more or less covered in the article. Perhaps it should be brought up at WikiProject Football? Mattythewhite 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put a new 'Background' paragraph in to make the position clearer on the liquidation as you suggested. Smile a While 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing guidance
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Scarborough Athletic F.C.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. SalvoCalcio 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * you reverted a large amount of content without discussion. One person cannot engage in an edit war alone (and Edit war makes no mention that 2 reverts does not mean partaking in one). Do not vandalise templates which have been given to you, this is bad faith editing on your part. --SalvoCalcio 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Persistent logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Persistent logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not an orphan image - image page clearly states it is used in Persistent Systems. Smile a While 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking help on adding photos
Hi, it’s me bloger, we haven’t spoken in some time! How have you been? Ok,on to the point, I have several photos I took from some silver patterns, and some silver work’ I’ll love to upload them on the topic pages, but I don’t have the slightest idea how it’s done. Can you be of any help? Thank you. Bloger 20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bloger, I'm good and hope you are likewise. The easiest way to upload photos is to use the File upload wizard - click here. Get straight back to me if you have any problems. Smile a While 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I’ve now added the photos.


 * Bloger 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Hoyte
Doesn't a friendly count as an appearance for the senior team? I thought that was the standard. Thanks, NawlinWiki 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I will speedy delete Gavin Hoyte. NawlinWiki 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Geothermal milk pasteurisation
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Geothermal milk pasteurisation, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Geothermal milk pasteurisation is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Geothermal milk pasteurisation, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Fans Favourites.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fans Favourites.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Invalid complaint; the bot is broken. The fair use rationale is just fine. Smile a While 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hurworth School
Hi there. Just to let you know that I'm recreating the Hurworth school stub which you merged and redirected to Hurworth House School a couple of months back. The confusion is quite understandable, but Hurworth House School and Hurworth School are two entirely separate institutions, sited around a mile apart, with no connection to each other at all - they both merit a WP entry and the one should not redirect to the other. I will fix the incorrect capitalisation of the title, attempt to improve the links status of the restored page which was an orphan in its last incarnation, and try and clarify both entries to prevent the confusion recurring. Cheers. --Karenjc 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Many thanks for the heads up. Smile a While 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Football Article page Links
Hi Smile a While! I've just noted an edit link change has been reverted on the Meltham article. The reverted edit had been done to change a link to the Football article to the Football (soccer) article instead. Following the links took me to the contributions of Achangeisasgoodasa who seems to have done hundreds of edits in a very short period of time, probably with a bot, to swap the links around. Now football is not my thing, but I know its yours, so I thought you were better placed to decide if the article swaps are good or bad, some have been reverted already. Not all of the articles changed relate to English football. Richard Harvey 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Meltham article is on my watchlist so I will spot any reversions there. Richard Harvey 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Greenhead Park
A one line article has been created today for Greenhead Park. I doubt that it is sufficiently notable for an article in its own right. Do you think this would be suitable for an AfD tag? Richard Harvey 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does not merit its own article. However, I think that a section on Parks might be a useful addition to the Huddersfield article. My inclination would be to create a parks section then redirect Greenhead Park to it rather than AfDing. There are various bits of news that could be included, for example this, this and the Tolson Museum in Ravensknowle Park. Smile a While 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

November, 2007
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I messed up the nom - now fixed. Smile a While 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sierra
Thanks for catching that there are links, but shouldn't those be inline citations in a reference section?Awotter (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they should; it's an awful article but I can't face fixing the refs :-( Smile a While (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:World Chess Live.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:World Chess Live.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Smile a While 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)