User talk:Stanley011


 * Why do you feel you should be unblocked? -- Tawker 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I violated no rules. Stanley011 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, content uploaded to Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL, with no restrictions, and images only free for use on Wikipedia alone are not permitted. It's therefore been deleted. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or email. All the best,   Proto    ||    type    17:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jay Black
That's definitely a different Jay Black. I'm going to revert your edits -- this Jay Black is in his thirties, tops. There's no way he was around in the '60s. Dylan 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me -- move Jay Black to Jay Black (comedian), and then change the redirect at Jay Black to your article on this other one.


 * By the way, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ). Dylan 12:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Prerna astrogirl
Hi, Stanley. Thanks for the message. Since that user is a newbie, I left him/her a message with a brief explanation and links to pertinent pages on the subject matter. If the activity continues, there will be grounds for a temporary block under our Blocking policy. But it is a common newbie mistake to upload those kinds of images, and sometimes it takes newcomers a little while to realize that "anyone can edit" is not the same as "do whatever you want". With a little luck, this new user will shape up. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it comes to that point, I'll block him/her (most likely "her", given the username..). Thanks, Redux 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The last activity of this user has been on March 19 2006. If there is a repeated attempt then you can block him/her. Thanks!! -- Nivus  (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Penn
If you'll read the footnotes at Penn, and the article on the Colonial colleges you'll see that we've put in a fair amount of work trying to be neutral on this.

Penn's status as "fourth oldest" is most definitely disputed; it's the subject of a long-running controversity between Penn boosters and Princeton boosters. (Not to mention Columbia). In case you're not aware, in the 1890s Penn decided to change its founding date from 1749 to 1740. It would be taking sides to say Penn is fourth oldest. The neutral statements are that a) Penn states its founding date to be 1740 and that b) accepting the universities' self-reported founding dates makes it fourth oldest.

"America's first university" is less disputed, but also less a matter of simple fact, because there's no clear, bright-line definition of "University" in the United States. Penn articulates one reasonable definition of "university" according to which they come out first. But Penn was, for example, not the first institution to award a Ph. D., and it was probably not the first institution in the United States to be officially "named" a university (I'm thinking here of the University of Henrico, ludicrous of course, but it at least shows arbitrary all such criteria are). First university in the United States isn't a very good article but does summarize a mass of factoids bearing on the silly question. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan Colmes
Sorry about that. I was adding some badly-needed categories that article, and copied the list from Sean Hannity's page. The pro-life was a slip-up. I'll be more careful next time in added categories. - Hbdragon88 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Paromita Chatterjee
Writing eulogies is defintiely a no-no in encyclopaediae. That apart, I don't think you understand the mechanics of the Indian Press very well. If you notice the entries on that list (the list of Indian journalists), most of them are notable personalities. However, some aren't, although some they seem notable to you because of the kind of noise google generates. I say some of them on the list are not notable because they dont have opinion that can influence more than 3000 people.

Another example; the Varun Singh entry, this is completely devoid of anything that can substantiate the article and is also self created. Varun'sonline nickname is/was Phrozenf. Also note that I haven't touched articles on any of the really notable figues in the Indian Press. The list seems to have been abused by a bunch of publicity hounds. Save the wiki. I am considering putting up some of those articles for deletion again. Please reply. Best. Boxerglove 11:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you tag this page for speedy deletion? The page obviously does not meet that criteria--a simple google search will show you that this woman is actually quite notable, even though you might never have heard of her. Let's try to improve valuable articles that haven't reached their potential, not purge them. Thanks and I look forward to reading your response. Stanley011 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found this site on her: http://cnbc-tv18.moneycontrol.com/cnbctv18/anchors.php. She is a known TV personality and should remain on wikipedia. If you absolutely feel compelled to remove her, then you must go through the normal channels--that is, propose the article for deletion but NOT speedy deletion. You tagged the article as "nonsense" which is patently false. Let me give you an example of an article that was actually posted on wikipedia and appropriately given the speedy delete nonsense tag: Article title was "SESO":

"SESO is a school in southern San Lorenzo and was founded in 2367 A.D. by Tramafladores and was later conqured by vikings in 1332 B.C. This id ue to a temporal anomaly caused by the starship ENTERPRISE after several Tachyon Pulses intersected. Later The school was turned into a mutant training academy by Charles Xavier and It tried to take over the world with ICE-NINE while the Predators Laborously stated harvesting bodies. Then Batman and the JUSTICE LEAGUE appeared and shot the school with their orbital space gun/HQ. Later it was found by Mr. Arzola who turned it into an Academy for YUGIOh dorks and the fate of the world rested in his duel against the EVIL PTA-_-... But he Cheated! ANND HUMANITY WAS SAVED!!. LAter the school came to be inhabited by The HIVE. an evil omniescent being of tremendous evil proprtion who vowed to eat humanity through its ass. ARzola then grabbed his chainsaw/Minigun and stsrtded blowing them away ubtil he fell in a vat of acid. Then the power rangers appeared and morhed into their megazordS. SPD, Mystic Force, Time Fore, Lightspeed rescue, Original, and Ninja Strom all fused together to form the Ultimate doom death obliteration of Obliteration Titanititan hyper doom MZEGHAZOZRD of RoxorZZZ. The End. but then Chuck Norris came..... I didn't mean what I jus said above. What really happened was the magic fairy came down from the sky and just magically pooffed the building and the people. Night Elves, Orcs, Taurens, Forsakens, Gobblins, and Humans came to live in the new shelter that came out of nowhere. Now....Chuck Norris was there as the leader of all the groups. He crushd all who opposed him. Chuck Norris took down a Tauren with is mighty pinky. But then out of nowhere Saddam Hudsain appeared in the school. He slowly became a close companion of Chuck. As he did so, he planned his evi, very evil master plan. This plan was so evil that no mortal can comprehend its evilness. One night Saddam went into Chuck's bedroom and placed a pea under his bed matress. Chuck was unable to sl!eep all night and awoke tired and dillusional. Saddam persuaded Chuck to go acompany him to his bed room. Chuck Norris was never seen again. The only thing that was found in that room was some substance on the bed sheets. Ganondorf dorf dorf obtains all pieces of the triforce and enters the all powerfull electrical web. Through his hacking powers ganondorf pwns everyone in World of Warcraft. Pooned all mages and hunters. He stepped over the little noobs in town like butter on knife. Ganondorf then decides to enter the chatting rooms and alter the messages being sent bet. the chatting people. He became bored and went to annoy some unwary surfers. Sent 100 popups to the unprotected netsurfers until they crashed or sighned off. Not even this amused Ganondorf for long. Ganondorf went on n sumbled upon some classified codes. He had found some nuclear cruise missile launch codes. He pondered what he would do with them."

Now you tell me Boxerglove--does the article Paromita Chatterjee meet the "nonsense" criteria. I thought not, and don't add it again. Stanley011 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my reading comprehension isn't up to par with yours, but I don't see how the entry is a "eulogy." My impression is that she is still alive and that the article is merely a biography. Is there something written "between the lines" that I'm not reading? Obviously the article needs to be cleaned up drastically (sources, grammar, etc.) but I fail to see your specific objections to it being on wikipedia at all, given that there are many articles on journalists/anchorpeople. Stanley011 19:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boxerglove"

Looks like you got a pretty extreme example of nonsense there. The eulogy sounds just as extreme to me; just a gray shade. If adding a nonsense tag is what got you into this, suggest another category and flag it. I dont know anymore about the article than I already do. Resolve the issue. We cant have information like that it hanging in there. Funny thing is, this is exactly how the Wiki is going to go down, by becoming a birth register/craigslist of sorts. best. :) Boxerglove 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles created
Hi Stanley, is it true you created the Roger Federer article, or did you just contribute significantly to it? --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad! It's Robert Federer. :) If only there were more significant material on him. As for the Fed-Nadal match, I didn't catch it, but it seems to me there's a sort of mental block for Federer there. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn
Hi, I've responded to your question regarding my revision of your edits to this article on my talk page. Pinkville 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User Subpage
You may want to create a subpage for the Federer article if you want to keep you main user page clean. You can create a wikilink on your page to a page that does not exist, such as User:Stanley011/Federer which will look like this User:Stanley011/Federer. Clicking on the red link will bring up the edit new page box, paste in the article or write something there and save it and voila, a new subpage. Thatcher131 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Bencsmith
Hi Stanley. His edits in Michael Jackson were indeed inappropriate, but this user is a newbie (check out the short list of contribs), and this one seems to be the only misguided edit so far (of the very few he has to his name). For a user that has been registered for less than 48 hours, we can still assume that it could have been a misplaced test, so it's probably better if we don't bite him just yet. About the user page problem, the history shows that the offensive part was added not by Bencsmith, but rather by an anon (diff), so again, for a user this new, and with a very short history, we can still assume good faith, and presume that it wasn't him working through a shock puppet. I've left him my standard welcome message, which contains links to our policies and the sandbox. If he continues to attack articles, then we can consider a block, but let's cross this bridge when we get to it. Redux 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
Please do not change the lead sentence. It has taken a long time to get to the version we now have, and changes without prior discussion are not appreciated. If you change it again it may be construed as disruption and lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello JUSTZISGUYYOU,KNOW?!!!!! AS YOU CAN TELL, I AM IN LOVE WITH YOUR USER NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway, I'm sorry about my edits to the Falkland Islands article--I just read the discussion page and realized the angst that went into just getting that one sentence, and now that I know the page's "history", I am a little more inclined to leave it as is. As you can probably tell from my user name, I have a bit of an interest in that region of the world, but somehow managed to escape coming across the article until now--from my personal experience, "Falkland" is far more common than Malvinas, but then again, I think that fact is evident in the title of the article itself! Once again, I am sorry for my silly edit and I look forward to getting to be friends with you on wikipedia! Enjoy the lovely spring day! Stanley011 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much, it's not the first time someone has waded in to try to help and ended up poking a hornet's nest :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, please discuss changes to articles on talk pages, rather than in the articles themselves. Thanks, RexNL 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK i misunderstood you, i hope everything is fine now. I know Coria has a good ranking, but I think that's because he is lucky, and the others, like Berqoc are too joung. I deply regret I was so aggressive, but sometimes that happens to me. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

MMFA
Please read our policy on original research and reliable sources. The addition of a single instance does not establish a pattern worthy of inclusion in the article. In order to establish this pattern we need a reliable source. Guettarda 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting the fact template from the article without providing a source for your edits. You really should should familiarise yourself with the policy links I provided.  Guettarda 02:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite familiar with the policy and do not believe I am in violation of it in any way--I did not create those posts--they were sourced directly from the Media Matters website. I will, however, in the interests of appeasement, look for independent sources to confirm the obvious. In the meanwhile, please do not delete my edit. Stanley011 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't think you do understand these policies. To begin with, how did you become aware of this?  Was it something you concluded after looking at MMFA?  Then it's OR.  If not, you should be able to cite a source - either that source is a reliable source, or it isn't.  If it is, then you should supply the source.  If it isn't a reliable source, then it can't be used, and the statement doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.  Simple enough.  Guettarda 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By your standards, much more of the article needs to be sourced. For example, read the previous paragraph, especially the claim that they engage in "content analysis." Where did that come from? Why aren't you complaining that that statement isn't sourced? Seems to me you are being a little partial with your decision of what deserves a "source" tag and what doesn't. Consequently, I suggest you read up on NPOV. Stanley011 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC).


 * In your quest to see bias in others, you totally miss my point. While there are existing unsourced statements that are probably OR, this is a new insertion that appears very strongly to be OR.  The fact that you don't seem to be able to supply even an unreliable source speaks volumes.  Given your choice of language in the paragraph, you should be the last person to lecture people about NPOV.  Guettarda 13:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I feel honoured--dignifying my rather banal observations and two minute google search as original research! Do you know where I can get it published? Seriously though, I'm going to re-insert my text without the line that "it appears to go against mmfa's mission statement" without first finding a source to support that. I'm also going to add a fact tag to the pov claims in the previous paragraph. Cheers! Stanley011 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, you should actually read the policy links I posted. Your comment above shows that your earlier claim to have done so was untruthful.  I see you have no interest in abiding by Wikipedia policy.  Guettarda 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, please discuss your changes to Media Matters for America on its talk page, talk:Media Matters for America. Thank you. -Will Beback 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Federer
Hi. I made two minor changes to your subpage User:Stanley011/Robert Federer: I removed the AfD notice (this article is a draft of yours; as such, is not up for deletion) and turned the category into a link (most people think that userspace pages should not be included in categories as if they were regular articles). The result of the AfD discussion was to delete the curent version of Robert Federer; this does not preclude a recreation if more evidence about the notability of the subject is included. - Liberatore(T) 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I will work on this in the next couple of weeks. Stanley011 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian
Dear Stanley, you have reinserted "totalitarian" into the intro of the Adolf Hitler article. While I agree with you contentwise, please understand that there has been some discussions and edit wars on which word to use. While I opted for "totalitarian" as well, others objected to that word and wanted to insert the (IMHO non-descriptive) fascist instead. "authoritarian" was the lowest common denominator, a wording everyone could accept, though with uneasy feelings. If you cannot accept "authoritarian", please make your case on the talk page and don't just reinsert the T word. Thanks, Str1977 (smile back) 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did make my case on the talk page. Perhaps you should read it before accusing me of editing without explanation. Thanks. Stanley011 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stanley, I was not accusing you of anything, just giving you an advise. The way things are going right now, your current practice will only lead to reverts again and again. Please understand that I agree with you contentwise. Str1977 (smile back) 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with me content-wise is irrelevant--the fact is, you actually did accuse me of something--you accused me of editing without explaining my edits, which is patently false. Whoever changed my edit back to "authoritarian" edited without first discussing his or her change on the discussion page because my response has yet to be answered, as you will see if you actually check the discussion page. Stanley011 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

David Nalbandian
Read the fair use template on the page which makes the following claim to fair use:

This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "David Nalbandian":


 * To illustrate the object in question
 * Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
 * On the English-language Wikipedia ([1]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]),

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

That's a claim and rationale for fair use. That's the whole point of the templates. If you can source a better image, do so. Until you can, it's got a good fair use claim and rationale, and to my mind it's not in violation of copyright until deemed so in a court. You seem to be prepared to edit war on the issue rather than engage in debate. Fair play. Steve block Talk 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You've reverted my edit. That's the definition of an edit war. If you wish to discuss the issue at hand, rather than debate the finer points of user conduct, you know where to contact me.  Happy editing. Steve block Talk 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note the following:

If you believe an image that is tagged as fair use is definitely not fair use, you can add fair use disputed to it, and it will be eventually nominated for deletion at Possibly unfree images or Copyright problems.

If you have reviewed a fair use image (whether it is tagged as fairusereview or not) and are quite confident that the image does qualify as Fair Use on the listed pages, add to the page. Do not review an image for fair use in an article if you either uploaded the image or made the decision to include it in the article where it is being used.
 * As to me dealing with the issue, I attempted to do so. Your actions make such further dealing with the issue somewhat impossible. I don't engage in reverting where I can help it, per WP:1RR. Steve block Talk 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:2006-05-22-2200-49 edited.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2006-05-22-2200-49 edited.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tennis court specialists
Hi! Appreciate these articles. Will it be ok that you add some more examples of female players, instead of just listing down male players? Thanks!Joey80 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking notice of my articles. While I already have listed some female players, I will continue to list more. Thank you for your suggestion. Stanley011 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

MLK at Penn
I had reworded what was previously there about his having attended classes at Penn. From there, I had assumed he had matriculated. Thanks for intervening. -- Usgnus 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dona Barbara
It is a pleasure to be able to help with Venezuela-related articles...if you need anything just leave a message in my talk page--Espazolano 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nassau County
Please respond at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nassau_County%2C_New_York#Seacliff --JimWae 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Ros Power
Naive question starts/ Hey you said ask here if I needed some help - I've just reverted some vandalism on User Ros Powers user page. Given the nature of this vandalism, I wondered if I should mention this rather appalling act and get the vandal banned somehow? /end naive question Swpmre 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this vandalism should be reported to an administrator, which I am not. Bigoted and repulsive personal insults, as this user left on the user page of user: Ros Power, is not tolerated on wikipedia and must be dealt with Stanley011 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
 * I left a nasty vandalism warning on his/her discussion page, but it should also be reported to an administrator. Stanley011 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ann Coulter
please help me with this article, I'm new and im afraid if i try to edit it, the liberals guarding it will rip me to shreds-- --Fellow-edit 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deciding what are Personal Attacks
You said: I'm the judge of what's a personal attack against me, not you, so get over it buddy.
 * The dictionary begs to differ. Calling someone a "moron" and a "coward" are certainly personal attacks.  Has this helped?  Kasreyn 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative_notice_board
Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 06:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Olby edit
I would have to disagree because it makes the reader understand why the two anchors have a feud.--Bairdso66 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Olby edit continued
How come you don't think we should explain what the "worst person in the world" segment is?--Bairdso66 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly because at this point, there really isn't a consensus as to what, exactly, the "worst person in the world" segment actually is--that's something that has to be discussed thoroughly before included in the article. Stanley011 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly controversies
Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. I try to contribute positively as best a can. As far as this article goes, I understand where you are coming from. It can come accross as an attack page. However, he's a controversial guy and is going to endure criticims. I have been trying to put it in perspective by organizing the article better. The main O'Reilly article kept getting bloated and editors would cut it down only to be built back up again. A spinoff article had to be created. The best thing to do is weed out extraneous information and just bring up the main points and ultimately merged back into the main article. I think an article on a controversial issue or person should be portrayed to let the reader decide for themselves. MrMurph101 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! In response to your question about why I removed the line about "Glick continuously interupting O'Reilly": Frankly, from the available transcripts, it seems like the conversation quickly broke down to the point where both participants simply wouldn't let each other talk. To me, it definitely seems like O'Reilly did most of the interrupting, but thats my admittedly POV interpretation. I think its best to conform to the way the O'Reilly/Franken dispute section has been recently edited...don't pass blame on either participant, simply present the basic facts and let the reader follow the provided links for more info/details. Not sure if you'll agree with me but thats why I made the change.Hal Raglan 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So Glick was wrong.
That's beside the point. The point is, O'Reilly tried to pretend Glick was talking about George W. Bush, when Glick was in fact talking (mistakenly) about George H. W. Bush. If O'Reilly wanted to criticize Glick, he should have done so on the grounds of his factual error about H.W., and not on grounds of O'Reilly's mistake about who Glick was talking about. Kasreyn 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You said:
 * I would be even more curious to see the exact quote in which O'Reilly said that Glick thought that W. was senior director of the CIA.
 * I've been wondering about that myself. Here is what our article on Glick currently says (2nd paragraph of "Post-show controversy":
 * O'Reilly has since stated on at least three occasions that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
 * If this is incorrect (i.e. if O'Reilly didn't claim this) then we definitely need to fix the article. However, the quotes cited by MM in the linked article seem to be saying just what the article on Glick says.  Cheers, Kasreyn 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you, too, care about the O'Reilly article being clear and POVless. Perhaps you can help me counter MrMurph101's overstepping his own efforts: He's reinstanted hyperbole, redundancy, poor grammar, and even POV by reverting very careful (and POV-less) edits that I made! :( Airumel 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Threats Accusations
Stanley, I have been discussing your claims that I sent you threats in my edit summaries with a few wikipedia administrators. We'd like to know what is the basis of your claiming for all to see that I have sent you threats. Sysrpl 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not label content disputes as vandalism. Thanks :). Project2501a 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing this topic in chat. Sysrpl 15:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to threaten anyone. If you feel I have sent you personal threats then go ahead and explain yourself rather than using the edit history comments for what might be considered slander. Sysrpl 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See this talk section. Sysrpl 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on July 10 2006 (UTC) to Bill O'Reilly controversies
Stanley, further activity of this nature will result in a abitration filed for your account's permanent suspension. Sysrpl 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Controversy
Hi. Are you referring to this edit? Redux 12:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanley, since you seem intent on carrying out your unwavering cycles of reverts without regards to anyone's statements, including Redux's request that we make an effort to stop the immediate reverts without discusion, I will leave you a message here.

Freshly back from suspension you are at it again, leaving only the comments "rv to last version by JChap due to pov insertions " in the edit history line.

I ask you to please stop insisting on presenting sources to the audience prefaced with negative information, the intention of which is to discredit or ridicule what that source is about to say. Please redress our points and stop making arguments that go in circles while endlessly making reverts leaving the same disingenuous comments. Pointing you back to what you said about not attempting to imply a Franken is lying, Franken formed a college research group to research every fact in preparing his case, what does saying the source "claims" to have researched the subject do other than imply he is lying? You also say you didn't create statements for the audience which labeled sources as "conspiracy theorists" and linking to blog website, but an examination of the edit history clearly shows he did. I find this all quite disingenuous and would appreciate it if you looked back through our comments and answered them honestly. Sysrpl 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake
I see now you merely reverted to a version with incorrect capitalization. Kasreyn 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

signature
Hi Stanley, please sign talk pages with four tildes "~" or at least some method that includes a time-stamp. It makes it easier for one to determine which comments are of current relevance and generally makes discussions easier to follow. Thanks, -MrFizyx 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to our agreement to contribute to dicussions when editing? You said "We are not justified in making that implication unless there is an accessible third party source that supports that implication." I found just that, a third party cource supporting that implication, then you went ahead and changed the article again without discussing. In addition you stated that the claim was made in the above supporting link, when what I gave was a new cited reference; i.e. a different document. You edited out the new link I posted, renegged on your prior statement, did not dicuss it, and in your edit you posted a broken link. Sysrpl 13:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't refreshed my browser in time to see your last edit prior to making the above entry. Sysrpl 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Hillary
Hi Stanley. Indeed, the account has been used solely for unacceptable behavior. The user has been warned today (by an anon, which is not that common, but given the nature of this person's edits, not really unexpected) and has not returned to vandalize since. I will be keeping an eye on that account. If they return, and if the next edit is of a similar nature, I will block it accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Redux 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I already did block the account permanently, which is why the user hasn't "returned". Sarge Baldy 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Stanley011, I'm Aeon Aktornado's advocate from the AMA. Looking back at your recent history on both the Tiger woods article and List of golfers shows that you have been acting in a manner that is inconstant with Wikipedia Policy. You are also getting close to Violating the 3RR rule again. Also your recent post on his talk page is boarder line uncivil. Please in the future choose your words with more care. Aktornado has sourced his work if you have any soruces that support your POV then please post them on my tlak page so we can settle this dispute. Thank you Æon  Insane Ward 15:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please as I requested post them on my talk page, and yes I do consider your comments boardline uncivility. Æon Insane Ward 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the dif's I will review them so I can advise him on how to go from here. Please Understand that my only issues with you on Civiliy were you last comments, I seriouly think that you are a civil editor in most cases and that that was an isolated event. I will get back to you and AKtornado in a bit. Æon Insane Ward 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I have requested that Aktornado provide his so I can compare. This seems to be a simple content dispute and can be easily solved I think. Æon Insane Ward 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop vandalising Nuclear terrorism. Removing entire sections of the article is not acceptable. Thankyou. Damburger 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Inserting sources that violate WP:RS and falsely claiming that your statements are supported by the sources you provided, as numerous editors have already told you, does great damage to the integrity of wikipedia. Accordingly, my deletion of your comments is a good-faith attempt to improve the article, and is therefore not vandalism. Stanley011 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation
FYI, I have reported you for violating the 3RR on Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. I'd really like to settle this in a reasonable manner, but you've yet to address the concern on the talk page. Stating that your version is "more accurate" isn't sufficient to comply with WP:NPOV. Also, claiming that the sources I provided are all omitting the word "professional" doesn't seem very plausible. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A point of grammar
I wish to argue your use of "consisted of" in the 9/11 article. I originally changed it from "consisted of" to "were," only to find that you changed it back. If my revision was grammatically incorrect, can you explain why, so I personally won't make the same mistake again. Thanks -- Jay  (Reply)  00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Sure, for several reasons. First, it is ambiguous as to whether "9/11 attacks" is plural, referring to the "attacks" or is singular, referring to the unit "9/11 attacks."  If we are to assume it's plural, which I do not, we must keep in mind that it is ungrammatical to equate plural subjects (9/11 attacks) with a singular object (a series).  However, "9/11 attacks was" sounds too clunky and "consisted of" has the advantage of not excluding what some consider to be "part of the attacks"--that is, the planning phases, the actual hijackings themselves (prior to the conclusions), and other facets not captured by the remainder of the description. Stanley011 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Jay  (Reply)  19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Amy Goodman
Hello, in re to your recent edit of the Goodman article, I would first like to say that I am all for compromising here. However, going from my edit here to your edit here seems to add redundancy. By saying she is a ‘voice of the disenfranchised left’ we have already indicated that she is a ‘left wing radio personality’, without having to further quote anybody. Also, we do not have to specify who the quote is from in the main article, as this can be seen in the ref section. I do appreciate your willingness to compromise, so please understand that this is just about trying to create a better article, and not a personal bias thing. Thank you. --Jackbirdsong 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tennis
Do you like tennis?Tennislover 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hi help please
I just wanted to know how to have an article listed on google when searched on google. i know it's probably on a help page, but i can't seem to find it. Please could you direct me to it?

Rocky Suhayda
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Rocky Suhayda, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! (jarbarf) 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandaunt vs. Great-aunt
Please see this google search Cho's "great-aunt" also there are two meanings according to the American Heritage dictionary. Grandaunt is the sister of your mother or father. Great-aunt is the sister of your grandmother or grandfather. Kim was the sister of Cho's grandfather. Hope that helps and you do not continue to change the word. Thanks Jeeny 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and Wiki link to cousin. I still believe the great-aunt title to be correct, in this instance, because it is reported that way. In the news, on the Internet and in the references. I provided the Google search link in my first comment, and please notice that I did not use "aunt" or "great-aunt" in the search. Just her name and Cho's. On the first page of the search all but one reads, "great-aunt" or "great aunt" and on the news that's the only term I've heard used. I do appreciate your commitment to accuracy, as I am very concerned with it also. On that article I saw 2 others comment on the term, with you being the only one wanting to use grandaunt (3 to 1). I do understand why you prefer grandaunt though, honestly. yet there are a number of reasons why "great-aunt" or "great aunt" is the correct term to use for the reasons I stated above (one big reason is that it's "reported" that way). Hopefully you'll consider that argument for accuracy's sake. :) Thanks! Jeeny 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not change it again. It is to be "great-aunt" as that is what the sourced ref link refers. Also please do not resort to personal attacks as you did on the talk page by belittling an editor's intelligence. You are asserting your POV, against consensus and all other sources, by providing one wiki-linked source to backup your POV that is totally irrelevant to the article. Others, including myself, have provided you with many sources contrary to your POV. Please stop. Jeeny 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not brilliant, it looks ridiculous. I don't know why you insist on this wording especially as much as you say you want accuracy. Oh and it's not for "grammar"'s sake, it is preference. As both are correct grammar. All sources in the article say great aunt, though. You win......... tonight. Although I don't know if it's his mother's aunt or his father's aunt. lol >-) Ooo, but that's not the point. Jeeny 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not acting in good faith because you ignore consensus, you continue to revert without discussion. You ignored other's different opinion and supported evidence. Then you went out of your way to find one source to support your argument. When there are hundreds of others stating otherwise. Being liberal has nothing to do with this, it is the integrity of the project. Now you've duplicated a heading on the talk page to again assert your pov. Jeeny 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You've done it again, and you've accused vandalism. You are going against consensus, pushing your point of view, and continuing to revert other's edits on the article Cho Seung-hui. I have reported you. Jeeny 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Move on?
It looks like Jeeny has left; maybe it's time to leave well enough alone and move on to something more substantive? DagnyB 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcom back!
Welcome back! Glad you got some outdoor time. It's been so nice outside, here. Jeeny 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsar Bomba yield
Please go look at the references and google this a bit. Preferably, go look at the paper sources. The one OSTI document does say "60", but all the more precise contemporary US government reports were "57". There's a clear preponderance of the evidence that the value used was 57, rounded to 60 in that one PR piece quoted in the declassification review.

This is not POV pushing. There are many more sources out there than the one you're leaning on, and they all agree on the other values (either the soviet basic "50 megaton", or the more precise "57 megaton" that the US estimated at the time). Using multiple alternate sources is basic research. I don't see how anyone could believe that I have a biased point of view because I insist on using the most common and also most precise value, not the one that only shows up once in one document, in an obviously simplified press release. Georgewilliamherbert 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said - please go look at the sources and research. You found the only source that's out there that gives 60 as the yield; the rest are all 57 or 58.  Those others were also working off other official US government statements about the yield estimates.
 * Finding one source and then refusing to do homework and look at others isn't reasonable. Go look at Sublette's site, Hansen's books, Rhodes' Dark Sun or The Making of the Atomic Bomb.  Google search it.  Go dig the other US Government docs out of archives.
 * There's lots of info out there on this. I am concerned by your approach to the topic - you first thought that the yield of Tsar Bomba was 120 megatons, now are latched on to the 60 megaton value that only appears in that one OSTI declassification document and the one press release that it refers to.  All the other press releases the government made used 57, rarely 58.  I don't see signs that you're spending the effort to educate yourself on the topic and get familiar with all the sources.  That's important.
 * Please take that time. At least google "Tsar Bomba Yield" and note the absence of reinforcing "60", plentiful "57" and "50", often with the US/Soviet estimate disclaimers and together, and rarely "58" instead of 57.  I can't show you all the books and primary sources directly, because they're mostly not online, but if you go look in the library you'll see what's there.  Read Carey's website: The Tsar Bomba.
 * Please do your homework. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * George is right, you are not dealing with your sources very carefully (and I'm not sure why you're bothering to pick this fight anyway). Now, in any case, might doesn't make right, but take a look at this:
 * "tsar bomba" ("50 megatons" OR "50 mt") - 848 hits
 * "tsar bomba" ("57 megatons" OR "57 mt") - 645 hits
 * "tsar bomba" ("58 megatons" OR "58 mt") - 81 hits
 * "tsar bomba" ("60 megatons" OR "60 mt") - 48 hits
 * Which is just a rough indication, of course, but 60 Mt is clearly just rounded up from the either 50 or 57 estimate and is not a popular way of talking about it. In any case if we are talking about the quality of sources the other sources clearly win out over the DOE press releases, which are not meant to be scholarly (and suffer from the ridiculous notion that if something is to be accessible it should exist in rounded digits, as if 60 is somehow easier to understand than 57). Frankly our previous discussion of it (claimed at 50 by the Soviets, raised to 57 by the US) is the standard story in the historical literature and is what we ought to keep in place.
 * Incidentally, the OSTI document is a series of allowed declassifications over the years, and that particular part is just a declassified statement which someone (the president, probably, maybe the secretary of state?) was allowed to say publicly. Such statements commonly round up, not just because of imprecision, or for publicity purposes (the bigger, the scarier), but because it is sometimes a strategic point to not let your enemy know how precise you can understand their own testing. So you'll often see official statements that round up in estimating things, no only because officials like to exaggerate a bit, but because a full knowledge of someone's precision can tell you a lot about their measuring systems, which could then be used to get around the system, etc. Just contextualizing the source a bit; the RDD's aren't bad sources inherently but you have to think about their purpose — it is not to disseminate accurate information, but to let people in the government know what has been officially declassified. The gap between the former and the latter categories is quite large! ;-) --Fastfission 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Leotardo
Hi, I am removing the speedy tag you put on the article because the claim you placed on the tag, "the page is of a character that never existed", is an assertion that this is a hoax article. Being a hoax is not one of the Critera for speedy deletion. Dsmdgold 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that Akradecki beat me to it. Dsmdgold 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Eddy Duchin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eddy Duchin.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 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jay Black.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jay Black.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 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:USGA Video Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:USGA Video Cover.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 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:USGA Video Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:USGA Video Cover.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 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing Web and News Sources
I noticed in one of your recent changes to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, you removed a properly cited reference and replaced it with an improperly cited reference. I also noticed at Diego Hartfield, that you added an assertion. I briefly tried to substantiate your assertion using Google, but was unable to do so. Please add a citation. Thanks.

Please refer to Template:Cite web for instructions on properly citing a web page, such as the one you referenced in Elisabeth Hasselbeck. For news citations, please instead refer to Template:Cite news. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
I am concerned about one or more of your recent edits. I noticed that you added a "fact" tag ("citation needed") to Elisabeth Hasselbeck. It would have been fine if you had left it at that. However, you subsequently removed the good-faith statement whose verifiability you had questioned. For your information, I have added the statement back into the article; provided a compliant citation to back it up; and restored some article information directly related to the fact you apparently disputed. In the future, if you question verifiability (except in obvious cases of vandalism), please either add a "fact" tag or discuss the matter on the article's talk page, especially when you know that other editors may disagree with your point of view. Thanks.

You might want to read Disruptive editing, especially regarding tendentious editing, lack of verifiability, and rejecting community input. In the future, please use the talk page to get input from other editors, which I see you have not yet done at least regarding Elisabeth Hasselbeck. I know you have made many contributions to Wikipedia, and that is quite laudable. If you have not done so already, please go back through any of them which you feel might not be adequately cited, and take corrective action to ensure verifiability. As time permits, I will be happy to assist you in that regard.

If you wish to reply, please do so on this page. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted your most recent edits, which lack consensus. Please use the talk page. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my good-faith edit (above). You also just added a "fact" tag to question the very same "fact" that you yourself previously added. Such edits are disruptive in my opinion, because you continue to make them while knowing there is a lack of consensus and without waiting for a consensus to be reached on the talk page. Please stop disruptive editing. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, to not post your replies to my talk page. I find your defiance of my request to be disruptive. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an honest mistake, not a defiance. I resent the fact that you do not assume good faith. Stanley011 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I always assume good faith until the editor continues with disruptive behaviour to the point that bad faith can be suspected. I have repeatedly warned you about tendentious editing, lack of verifiability, and rejecting community input.  You seem to be beginning to come around regarding verifiability, and the need for community input.  I am delighted to see that.  However, your tendentious editing must stop at once.  --Art Smart (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
At Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck you have repeatedly referred to at least one of my edits as being "libelous". That is a violation of No legal threats. Please cease making such threats. Thank you. --Art Smart (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Donald Kettl
A tag has been placed on Donald Kettl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Triwbe (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian towns
Anytime, I love writing articles about Palestinian towns and cities. Thats half of what I do on wiki. I couldn't add as much info to Hableh as I did with Rantis because of a lack of sources, so I just put in the basics (exact location, population and size). Also, I'm not a fan of using PalestineRemembered as a source but its all that I had. Cheers and keep em coming! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck
I would appreciate it if you responded to my recent comments on the Elisabeth Hasselbeck discussion page when you get a chance. Many thanks! Stanley011 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a party to the dispute, please work it out with the other editors on the article's talk page. My intent was to protect the article from edit warring and remove the WP:BLP violations.  Dreadstar  †  18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to work it out by posting a series of arguments on the discussion page that as of yet no one has refuted nor even addressed. I have provided a source (on the discussion page) that supports the assertion that the "Wright/Dahmer analogy" was controversial. Art Smart has not provided any source that supports the view (which is the current version that you have locked in) that Hasselbeck's use of the word "racist" was controversial. I was under the impression that wikipedia required sources in order for claims to stand (the claim here is that Hasselbeck's use of the word 'racist' was controversial) but perhaps I am wrong. Thank you. Stanley011 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a clear violation of policy that would necessitate editing the protected page per the Protection policy on content disputes, so if you can't find consensus for your proposed change, then you'll need to take it up the chain; get a third opinion or a mediator. Dreadstar  †  00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Eduardo Schwank
A tag has been placed on Eduardo Schwank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TOL (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regards to Your Recently Created Page
Hello, I was merely tagging your article on the tennis player because the article has very limited information, and is quite short, until the article includes a few more bits of information, it cannot be considered a 100% Wikipedia page. If the information you added is all you are aware of, try tagging it as a stub, so other can contribute to the article. Thank You for your concerns.

TOL (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Ann Farnsworth-Alvear
A tag has been placed on Ann Farnsworth-Alvear requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Undeath (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I mended the refs a bit, but I have a problem. The MUSE links require registration, so I can't see what you are linkig to exactly, and I can't put text en the refs. Can you find equivalent links where registration is not required? (please answer on my talk page, not here, since i don't have your page on my watchlist) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Masakhan
Always willing to help, but I think that this article is the same as musakhan. If so you could add facts and sources into that article and I'll just redirect masakhan to musakhan. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Any new article you've created thats related to Palestine or the Palestinians, should be reported to the WikiProject Palestine/New articles page under the appropriate month and year. This way, other members of the project could be aware of the articles and perhaps help edit them. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite right about musakhan. Thank you for bringing that to my attention! Also, I will report new articles to the WikiProject Palestine/New articles. Many thanks for your help! Stanley011 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tel Rumeida
I'm not very good with settlement info, I mostly concentrate on Palestinian cities, towns and villages in the territories and Israel. I'm not sure if it meets WP Palestine's scope, certainly WP Israel's though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD template
Hi there. On the actual deletion page (after you've done the first step), all you need to write is ~ That'll take care of the whole template for you. Hope this helps, PeterSymonds | talk  06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure does. Many thanks for your help! Stanley011 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Micky Rosenfeld
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I probably shouldn't vote though, as I'll vote delete and your chances of winning this argument will be even slimmer. I don't really think this position is notable. He appears a lot on the news because he's Israel Police's link to the news, but nothing more. If you have any sources talking about his record in the police, and he is proven to be notable on that alone (e.g. if he was the commander of Yamam or something), then I'll vote keep and try to convince the others to change their votes as well. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIPAC Discussion
A lot of work to be done. Some editors are cherry-picking quotations in an effort to tarnish the organization's image. "According to the Jewish News Weekly, in 2006 AIPAC "successfully pressed for the removal of a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required the president to get congressional approval for war against Iran."" The source of this allegation, according to the article itself, originates from a Kurdish Life article entitled "Framing Iran." I have read a few articles about this Iraq war funds article, I havent seen much of it dealing with AIPAC at all, or even Iran. I'll try to do more research. --Shamir1 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words on AIPAC
You're right, it's generally a weasel word, and was original research too. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Workscited4u.com
A tag has been placed on Workscited4u.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources cited were trivial rather than substantial; the "notability" even more so. This is just another website, with no notable features, and no actual notability asserted. There are over one million websites nowadays, with most of them not notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Young Money magazine
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Young Money magazine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Barry Rosenbaum
A tag has been placed on Barry Rosenbaum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Young Money magazine
I have nominated Young Money magazine, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Young Money magazine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion about your articles
I've nominated a few articles you've created for deletion today because they don't seem to meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. Please don't take it personally. It would be easier for other editors to judge notability if you used references instead of inline links (see WP:REF). See also WP:RS for examples of good sources. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barry Rosenbaum
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Barry Rosenbaum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keith Hendrickson (golfer)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Keith Hendrickson (golfer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Neelix (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguous José Carranza (disambiguation)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on José Carranza (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because José Carranza (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting José Carranza (disambiguation), 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Stanley011! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sibila Vargas -

Proposed deletion of Billy McKay


The article Billy McKay has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * tag for notability since 2007, seems nn

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Misarxist (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Eddy Duchin.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Eddy Duchin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tibor Feldman.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tibor Feldman.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hard-court specialist


The article Hard-court specialist has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This simple definition had been unreferenced since 2006. It does not deserve a stand alone article. It should be merged and deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Federer trophie.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Federer trophie.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)