User talk:T-rex/archive

Billhpike went to the same High School as me
Are you a student at LHS. I am to. What is your name?

Thanks for that edit:
Thanks for editting the link into my faulty "We are one tonight" "url" which didnt go anywhere. Much obliged! Goodness, seems like we both dig the "Feet," eh? Nice choice! --Teenwriter 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw what you where trying...--T-rex 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well...how do you make those link things the way YOU did it (so well)? --65.31.176.16 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Teenwriter is a fan of Switchfoot

 * Hey, this is the infamous Teenwriter (who kept adding the album review for Nothing Is Sound! ;)). Anyways, apparently you are a big fan of the "feet."  nice band choice! ;) --Teenwriter 04:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deskana asks that you sign comments to avoid confusion
Please sign your comments on talk pages using ~. Thanks! Deskana (talk page) 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Capital (magazine)
Just wondering if you're going to finish the AfD nomination process for Capital (magazine) as per Template:AfD_in_3_steps. Andy Saunders 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I have it taken care of now --T-rex 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Goo Goo Dolls
Please give a rationale as to why you keep switching the song "Better Days" from the album category of Single as opposed to Sounds of the Season – The NBC Holiday Collection? It doesn't matter if it's not a Goo Goo Dolls album. The fact is it came from a KNOWN album and was not released as a single from a Goo Goo Dolls album. This detail according to Wiki falls within verifiability whereas your edits don't. Please provide a valid reason without POV or I will be forced to revert it. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † 03:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, have done please read here. --T-rex 03:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

female third party US presidential candidates
Not sure if you get alerted that i reponded to your post on my talk page so - don't worry, I plan to expand them soon.Schizombie 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed, but I did make a list, and then changed it to tables: List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Anyway, have to add more of the vote totals & references and work on expanding the stubs for the people. Schizombie 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

subst
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks!  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, well thanks. Kindof wish someone had mentioned this before, I put these templates all over the place... but that won't mess things up too much (I hope) --T-rex 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See the reply at Userbox_policy_poll
Just making sure you know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks --T-rex 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop
I have just done a massive refactoring of Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
 * remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
 * make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Best I can tell, everything I added to has been withdrawn anyways. Also after first making a handfull of remarks, I decided not to continue wasting my time on that disscussion, so I don't really care.  Feel free to delete any comments that I have made on that page --T-rex 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Name (song)
Thank you for creating the article. Not only am I a fan, I couldn't stand that before, everything pointed to Name. I will try to find useful material to add. Robhmac 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop it
Do that again and you will be blocked for inserting a personal attack into wikipedia! --Doc ask?  01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't my comment. You have no right to censor other people opinions. I reverted your deletions nothing more --T-rex 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc's a fucking vandal with admin rights. See here where he removed an entire discussion, then when User:SPUI reverted the vandalism, Doc blocked him. --Analogdemon (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Search for Extant Contemporaneous False Prophets
(the title is an inside joke from Talk:Jesus). Thanks for the invitation. At this time, I think I'll wait for the field of candidates to narrow before I register a vote. On Talk:Jesus there has been a LOT of voting, to the point that it's gone beyond "voting is evil" to a hypersphere of hell that only Georg Cantor could help me escape (by leading me to the Absolute Infinite). Sorry, at this point I'm just all voted out. Arch O. La 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a reason that I have yet to make an edit to the Jesus page. Or abortion, palastine, kashmier, and scientollogy for that matter.  I just sent you the message due to a low number of voters and the fact that you had previouslly contributed to the disscussion --T-rex 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very little. I just said "stop moving the page" and "LOL." Arch O. La 04:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, all contributions are appretiated --T-rex 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Medal Box Template
A bunch of us have been working on a medals box template for Olympic medallists. While there is a bunch of debate going on about the look of it, we are trying to implement it on athletes pages. I noticed you added a medal box to Hasna Benhassi and wanted to make you aware of the template. It's at Template:MedalTop. Sue Anne 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well even after looking at that page I can't see which box you are pushing. I have just been using the one that I think looks the best, and for now will continue to do so --T-rex 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments requested
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A good idea, but you need support first --T-rex 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hey
its phil from the switchfoot page, good suggestion, i'll have an account asap, promise. gonna be super busy until friday. and yup, thats the only page i edit. peace out. PS: gonna see SF live for the first time ever in 38 days! i'm so stoked man..
 * well, I'm going to see them live for the first time in 23 days (or so), looking forward to it --T-rex 17:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * hey, thanks for the welcomes!! hope you have a mighty awesome concert, man. --.phil. 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and, i would appreciate some feedback on my fine-tuning of the "christian rock?" paragraph, and my write-up on "influences". peace. .phil. 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know much on influences besides with Tim and Paul McCartney, I'll try to look into the christian thing --T-rex 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tex: since you're going to see them for the first time in a few days, why not arrange with their managemant to pose the "are you a Christian band" question to them at the concert? I don't know if writing for Wikipedia makes you a journalist, but I think it's important for you to try and to hear their answer. --Walter Görlitz 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

dude, you don't think this would be a nice addition to that paragraph?...

In his book "Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock", Spin writer Andrew Beaujon finds Switchfoot "interesting" because, according to him, "their lyrics often have two different meanings, one meaning for a Christian audience and one meaning for the rest of us. They try to relate to two different groups of people at once." 

.phil. 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it would fit with the theme of the phargraph, but I'm not sure how well known the book is. Also i'm not really convinced that Beaujon did too much reaserch, but if you think it should go, add it in --T-rex 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * alright, i've thought about it for a while, and i find myself thinking it might be a good idea to add that to the paragraph. i don't know if beaujon's research cred needs to be taken into consideration, since i just wanna reflect a common opinion regarding the subject... beaujon's words reflect one way of looking at SF's music.. and what i consider to be a truth, at least in part: that jon writes so people can connect on different levels- so nonbelievers can relate to his songs more easily than they relate with other christian music. besides, beaujon's words might help desensitize people to stereotypes and biases that affect the perception of SF's music, and help them have an honest look at this great band's work... how they smartly, effectively, and with good intentions, walk the thin line between the sacred and the secular.

-.phil. 10:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * hey dude, i'm the one who took downn the oh gravity cover. thanks for putting it up but i think that EMICMG website made a mistake. cuz switchfoot.com is revealing a slice of it every day to fans, so i don't think the guys would like it all revealed here... maybe we should respect that, eh? take care man.

-.phil. 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * this section is due to be archived soon, so I've moved this discussion down and placed my responce at the bottom of this page --T-rex 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot
Reverting your uncalled-for reverts. Please do not turn this into an edit war. --Walter Görlitz 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are going to continue to incorrectlly refer to switchfoot as being a christian band, please at least refrain from adding uncorrect content to the article --T-rex 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not incorrectly refer to them as a Christian rock band. The information aI have posted is true and verifiable.
 * Switchfoot is also known as a Christian band by many of their fans
 * CCM magazine, Cornerstone magazine and other Christian music magazines continue to write about the band.
 * mostly due to their involvement with the Christian rock scene during their early years.
 * There is no disputing this statement. It was part of the original article.
 * Their first albums were distributed exclusively through stores that sold Bibles and other Christian materials.
 * Since their first two albums were on re:thing and distributed exclusively through Sparrow, this statement is 100% true.
 * They have played many Christian music festivals even after signing with Columbia.
 * Creationfest, where I personally a saw them along with 30000 others, and other festivals.
 * They obviously do not shy away from the sub-culture that Contemporary Christian Music as they continue to be distributed on the Christian label.
 * again true.
 * I don't know what your problem with the Christian label is, but all taht I have written is verifiable and factual and I resent your hostility towards those edits simply because you don't like the term Christian being associated with the band. I have re-reverted my additions on the grounds that you are biased against that term and have gone on record to that end. --Walter Görlitz 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have no problems with the Christian label if it were true. In fact I even do listen to some Christian music, and have nothing against CCM. I am only biased towards the truth.  Just because you want them to be a Christian band doesn't mean that they are.  Your claims are not factual, (and as a result neither verifiable).  Sorry.  You can not re-write histroy --T-rex 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you don't know the truth. The truth will set you free Tex. They are a Christian band. They do not wish to be restricted to that label. It's not that I want them to be a Christian band, I am stating that they are a Christian band. These are they facts. None of your quotes say "We do not want to be considered a Christian band." They say "we don't want to only be considered a Christian band". That one word alone makes all the difference. The facts are verifiable. Every one of them. Sorry. You cannot re-write the facts. Re-adding the facts. --Walter Görlitz 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a page full of direct quotes from the band... Honestlly I think they are being truthfull, and don't see why they would lie about something like this --T-rex 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I love those quotes, they do not support your point. They all say that they don't want to be contained to the Christian label. They do not say don't attache that label to us at all. I don't think you're lying either. I do think that you don't understand that small point.
 * To answer an earlier comment: No I really don't want them to be Christian rock musicians. I wish they had done what U2, and Brent Bourgesois, Bruce Cockburn, John Coltrane all have done: be Christians who are musicians. They decided to be Christian musicians. Probably not intentionally, particularly knowing the kind of latitude that Charlie Peacock was giving the re:think artists, but it was inevitable. They have also not done what Sam Phillips did by completely turning her back on the CCM industry. They are happy to have their feet in both the mainstream industry and the Christian one.
 * I have an [audio interview] that I would like you to listen to. First as a fan I'm sure you would like to hear it. Second, it's from the promo material that was sent out in 1999 for the New Way To Be Human album. It says two things to me. The first is that they are serious about their Christian faith. The second is that they don't want to be constrined to the Christian market place. It is what has always bothered me about them as a band. As a serious fan of Christian rock, and as a DJ of Christian rock, I had to decide who and what to listen to and what to play. I don't have time to fence-sitters. After the interview, they give station ID liners for every known Christian radio station in 1999. I have included the interview only. It's hard to suggest that they were not willing participants in the CCM machine when they did stuff like this. Sure, they were starting out, but there are plenty of artists who know that they don't have to do this, but their careers will be limited in CCM if they don't.
 * As I said, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I'd like you to acknowledge that their past was steeped in the Christian music industry and return those comments&mdash;which do not detract from the remainder of the article&mdash;to the sub-section that I created. Thanks. Please post your comments on the audio article.


 * I'll try to find time to listen to the interview later, as for asking them myself, I would love to have the chance, but somehow don't think that my wikipedia credientials are going to be much help to that end (although I might try asking on their website) --T-rex 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now listened to the audio, and it doesn't really address your topic. If you were simply trying to show that Jon, Tim, and Chad are Christians then yes, but there is nothing that says that their music is CCM.  Intresting fact about the water polo though --T-rex 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This was never released to the mainstream market, only the CCM ones--by Sparrow. Maybe not conclusive, yes, but a serious link. I'm glad you listened to it. I hope you enjoyed it.
 * I like the way the section reads now and will take no further actions to emphasize their ties to CCM as they, like others before them, are gaining much more of a hold in the mainstream marketplace, and CCM is going to become a much smaller part of their future than it has been as part of their past. Ignoring their start in CCM is somewhat like forgetting that the Beatles had some major ties to the German music scene. When looking back at their entire career it was a minor part, but I have their two German singles and I have Switchfoot's three Christian albums. ;) --Walter Görlitz 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot - second run
You are so very biased against the CCM industry nothing will convince you so I have made one further effort to remove some of the anti-CCM POV in your article. I call is yours because if the article doesn't address your anti-CCM POV, you remove it. If that doesn't satisfy your distaste, I will go to arbitration.

The fact that they were involved in CCM in any fashion seems to argue that they were a CCM band. They could have reached 1 billion people if they decided to record for a bollywood label, but they decided to sign their first contract to a label that, at the time, only had distribution to the Christian marketplace. Other bands who have had Christians in them such as King's-X, Bourgeious-Tagg, Sam Phillips, U2, Galactic Cowboys, and Stryper, signed to mainstream labels and never looked back. Switchfoot willingly stepped into the CCM marketplace so stop suggesting that they were fooled, duped, or ignorant of re:think's marketing or goals and thereby minimizing their willing participation in the "Christian" music industry.

What I changed in the section was
 * the heading: moving it down level up seems to suggest that CCM was sub-influence. It wasn't. Its' an entirely different topic and I've left it where I think it should be.
 * the label that they were connected to, re:think, was Nashville-based and distributed internationally so they were not only part of California CCM "scene". Removed the suggestion that they were only locally involved.
 * the "We try to make music for thinking people," quote suggested that Christians are not thinking and is inflammatory and demeaning in that sense, so I moved it up to the influences section.
 * clarified the labels and where they are distributed.
 * re-added the band of the year dove award. Will get some verification for that award if you have problem with it.

--Walter Görlitz 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not biased against CCM and am actually a fan of a number of CCM bands. Switchfoot has always been more involved (and far more popular) in California then Nashville, as you noted this is because they are from San Diago (please don't debate that). Having it as a section heading does not make more sense as a subsection, as God is clearlly an influence on this band.  I saw that you moved the quote, and despite that I wouldn't have moved it myself, I did not move it back.  I think the thing about the dove award has been there all along, and I have never had a problem with it.  I you feel arbitration is nesseccary then go ahead, but it is my understanding that they don't accept content disputes --T-rex 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * San Diego maybe, but their sales have been strong all across the US and Canada. Agreed, but the sub-heading isn't about Switchfoot and God, it's about CCM. The section doesn't really talk about how CCM or God have influenced them, but rather their role in CCM.  I like the page the way it reads now. Arbitration not required. Abitration is usually required after the three revert rule has been breached. Others can easily step in and try to help. --Walter Görlitz 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you now accusing me not listening to music? anyways the article seems pretty settled now, although you may want to look at WP:V --T-rex 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

May the Force be with you.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M   o   P-_  21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my RFA...
Hi I noticed when you voted for my RFA you said that I have under 1000 edits I have more than a 1000 Mahoga ny


 * You wrote that you have around 900? For now I think I'll keep my comment unchanged... --T-rex 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to remove the comment just see my contributions Mahoga ny

oh
I thought that you would have liked the t-rex accident one, but it dosen't matter---it's been deleted! ''' the_ed17(talk)Use these! ''' 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually left it up utill it got deleted... --T-rex 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe I should have.... ah, oh well, it's not like it was a big deal.  the_ed17(talk)Use these!  19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
Mahoga ny

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  09:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA
 Request for Adminship 

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers

Userboxes: A New Proposal
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29


 * I have no idea why someone left the above comment, but I don't really see the point in deleting it either... --T-rex 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Switchfoot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Switchfoot.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. 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I was the one who uploaded this but i think it should be taken care of for now... --T-rex 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you


Oh boy
Hahaha...have fun with Hasek boy. I've dealt with him for 3 days along with about 3 other people trying to control him...I quit. He's been requested for blocking, but it hasn't happened. scsgoal31 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed a ton of photos he had posted on that page. You should know that his other user name and ip address both came close to getting blocked, because of that issue. --T-rex 02:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Mouthing NFTA's Metrorail
On the discussion page for NFTA's Metrorail you called it "a pathetic system". The truth is far from that however, it is a fine system that serves the region well. I would appreciate a response at my talk page.-User:Railmogul


 * Well I stand by my statement, as the rail lacks any practality. However, I'm not going to make a debate out of this, as I don't really care... --T-rex 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA



 * better luck next time, and thanks for the note --T-rex 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

See Before You Die.net images
Regarding the images uploaded from See Before You Die.net. I approached the website, and told them of the Wikipedia uploads, and they noted that they had allowed the user to upload the images, and have sent an e-mail to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. So it seems that it is legit. Just have to crop the images so that the ad doesn't appear at the bottom. Regards. -- Jeff3000 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I thought there was a possiblity that might happen so thats why I was waiting on the results of the first two images before cleaning out all of them. I think there should really be a link to that email on those image pages though, because this isn't readilly obvious --T-rex 01:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you nominate Image:GirlsAloud Nadine.jpg for deletion?
Hi T-rex, I'm curious as to why you have nominated Image:GirlsAloud Nadine.jpg for deletion. It is properly sourced and licensed, of decent quality, and illustrates the subject in question on the page Nadine Coyle. I am aware that a free image of the person is available and displayed on the page, but it does not clearly show her face or make her distinguishable, so providing a clearer picture in addition to the free one enhances the quality and depth of the article in my opinion. Please give me a detailed explanation as to why you feel the image should be deleted, or else remove the tag and restore the image. Thanks. Fabricationary 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that it isn't properly licensed. The fair use claim is dependent on there being "no freely avalible equivelent".  As another free image does exsist the fair use claim is invalid, and as such the image should be deleted --T-rex 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion has now been continued at Images and media for deletion/2006 August 28, please leave any further comments there... --T-rex 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

 * looks like i need to go download a codex... --T-rex 03:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can give you help with this if you like. Stephen B Streater 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this in the vorbis codex? --T-rex 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The audio uses Vorbis, the video uses Theora. Media_help has instructions on it on how to install these. If this is difficult, let me know and I'll give you a shortcut to the player I use. Stephen B Streater 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * alright, thanks for the help. I'll see if I can get it going... --T-rex 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Artist's Lyrics External Links Deleted
Hi T-rex, I'm just wondering why you deleted the lyrics pages I listed for some of the artists I listed them for. I went through and added them at the end and it was relevant to the artist. Unlike some of the other links listed for lyrics we don't do popups or anything like that and for the artists we list currently we actually work with the artists within the industry. If I need to provide documentation or information from the artists I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordStryfe (talk • contribs)


 * Please read wikipedia's policy on this. Most lyrics sites don't do popups so yours isn't anything special in that regard. --T-rex 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So your saying relevent information on the bands lyrics isn't good for Wiki. May I then purpose that all external links that are not to articles such as band sites, other lyrics pages, fan sites etc be removed to be fair and impartial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordStryfe (talk • contribs)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What isn't good for the wiki is an endless promotion of your own website.  Also you will find that most fan sites are removed for the articles.  Also I don't know why you would want more then one lyric site in the external links anyhow. --T-rex 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why you would want to have more than one is #1 for accuracy. #2 I know for bands such as Kutless my site actually was the very first to have their new album lyrics because the management got them to me in advance.  Like I said I am an actual industry member, but if Wiki isn't interested in relevant data I will be leaving because the point is relevant.  Also, the bio you took down for Everlife was from their myspace.  The girls actually talked about how their section wasn't really upto date and for awhile had their last names as rose, but I guess thats what you can expect from this place —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordStryfe (talk • contribs)


 * Yes I know the bio was from mySpace, and that is why I removed it. To copy the text from their to here is a violation of international copyright laws and a big no no on wikipedia.  We don't want you to leave, really we don't but we can't be allowing copyright problems and advertising to overrun the site.  If you feel that the Everlife article isn't up to date you are more then welcome to make some changes to fix this problem, however, it must be done in your own orrigional prose. --T-rex 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus
John Reid 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * actually I support the Germen Userbox Solution. If you want me to get all mad over this, you are very mistaken.  In fact if anything I'm annoyed that your spamming my talk page.  And by the way WP:GUS calls for userboxes to not be created in the template space, put it as a user subpage and the admins will most likly leave it alone. --T-rex 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA
Thanks, T-rex, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your bot task has been approved for testing, see Bots/Requests for approval/DinoBot for details. — xaosflux  Talk  03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the approval, I'll start the tests tomorrow... --T-rex 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first tests went perfect, so I'll get the bot up to full speads in a few hours --T-rex 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Second round of tests worked good as well, although a small error was discovered and has since been fixed --T-rex 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Testing is still going good, probably just one more run, before I sit on it to get full approval on the bot --T-rex 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Testing complete, awating approvals group responce --T-rex 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DinoBot
Just a little request can you change the Edit summary from (Bot: HTML Removal) to (Bot: converting HTML to wikimarkup) or something similar thanks Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the bot approval process being slow, I've gotten two responses in well under an hour. As to the summary, I do see how the term "removal" could be a bit misleading.  I'll change it to something along the lines of "conversion" --T-rex 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * we just overhauled the process and added 3 members to the approval group, so before it was slower Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Human rights and Social justice
Please remove Human rights and Social justice category from the pro-choice article. Considering pro choice belonging to that is a matter of opinion, wikipedia is not a place for your opinion. The only sources which would back those statements up would be pro choice organizations, and to be unbias, if wikipedia uses pro choice organizations as sources, wikipedia should also have to use pro life organizations as sources, and then the Genocide category would have to be added to the Abortion article, so unless you add the Genocide category to the abortion article, do not put Social justice and Human rights back into the Pro Choice article. 75.3.50.41 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * wikipedia does have to use pro life organizations as sources, and it does. Also the abortion article probably should be put in the genocide catagory, but these are totaly unrelated topics to the removal you made and I reverted.  The fact is that you have continually tried to remove these two catagories, despite no discussion on the talk page, and opposition from numerous other editors.  Trust me plenty of discussion has gone in to that (and all related) articles. --T-rex 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Gravity. album cover

 * hey dude, i'm the one who took downn the oh gravity cover. thanks for putting it up but i think that EMICMG website made a mistake. cuz switchfoot.com is revealing a slice of it every day to fans, so i don't think the guys would like it all revealed here... maybe we should respect that, eh? take care man.

-.phil. 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that that the ENICMG website made a mistake, but seeing that it's out now, I see no reason not to put it up. As such I also think any attempt to keep quiet about the cover at this point is rather futile.  Actually the more I look at what is up at switchfoot.com the more I'm begining to feel that this is menat to be more of a layered thing.  Maybe we could eventually create a gif to represent the album artwork for the page here? --T-rex 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kindof looks like this is up for good this time, not by me, but I saw your comment on the talk page anyhow --T-rex 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!
Hi there, T-rex!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte! hoopydink Conas tá tú? 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA


Jim Kelly was born in Pittsburgh
Or the Hall of Fame must be wrong, please msg. the poster or check discussion before changing CORRECT information, thank you for your assistance. http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=112 Hholt01 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen the link, but it is in error. If you really need a cite I can get you one, but his hometown is pretty common knowledge --T-rex 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright look at this article on nfl.com it indicates East Brady, Pa rather than Pittsburgh --T-rex 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD UDUIW
You might be interested in the discussion at User_categories_for_discussion. --NThurston 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the note, this is probably going to turn ugly, but lets hope not. I'm a bit busy now, but I'll comment on it later --T-rex 23:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * actually the discusion appeared to be rather civil, although it was a bit tainted by the nominatior --T-rex 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For properly editing my link on the Tim Hortons page. Appreciate it. KsprayDad 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. however you should know that there has been some contraversy over the format of the contraversy section of that article, so I wouldn't be too suprised if your entire addition gets removed. As for the formating, I try to help when i can... --T-rex 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot videos
I kind of thought other users would show me respect after I what I said about the Switchfoot music videos, and most of them did. I guess it doesn't matter to you if their videos are in the article or not. Hey, I'd gladly put up the links to their official site, they just don't have the video page back up yet. So try and work it out with someone before you delete everything they've put up on the article. And no one else seemed to have any issues with the use of YouTube. By the way, plenty of other band pages use YouTube, so the fans of those bands can easily find their favorite band's music videos. I have no intention of sounding mean, but I find it rude that you just delete what I post and call it spam.RoryS89 16:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)RoryS89


 * I'm not trying to be mean, but in my book excessive links do constitute as spam. However that was not the primary reason I removed the videos.  First WP:EL strongly discourages the use of links to both media rich locations and unrightful use of copyrighted material.  I don't remember where to find it but there has been a discussion justifying the idea that simply because something is not hosted on the wkipedia servers that we should not link to it in order to circumvent wikipedia's copyright policies.  The other reason I removed it is that the list was largly incomplete, and had I instead completed it, the list would then be too long to comfortably fit within the article.  Hope you understand --T-rex 17:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that there are more videos for Meant to Live, Dare You to Move, Stars, and We Are One Tonight, I don't see how it would expand it too much. But whatever, I guess I understand where you're going with this.RoryS89 18:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Open Proxies (re: Tor) and account creation
m:WM:NOP and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010659.html - in short allowing account creation on open proxies / tor exit notes would allow one to create vandalism accounts and circumvent the restriction. Sadly 99%+ of the edits from open / tor proxies are vandalism and hence the policy was decided. The bot's more so a policy following bot. -- Tawker 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks as if this is just one of those instances where is disagree with Jimbo. I fail to see how editing wikipedia is not a valid use of anonymous proxies.  Especially if they have a registered account.  User accounts can be blocked easy enough, and if someone is willing to go the trouble to make an account I'm willing to give them the benifit of the doubt. --T-rex 05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not so much its not a valid use it's that tor proxies are used by pretty much every vandalbot around and pretty much create a pain in the ass for sysops and bots alike. Pretty much we've been doing the same thing manually, hopefully this will allow the non-open proxies to get unblocked faster.  (We did a survey and something like 99.7% of edits from Tor nodes were vandalism... Tawkerbot only has so much capacity :) - there's a workaround (and probally a safer one) of having someone outside the GFOC create the account and then email the login info. -- Tawker 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most IP edits are vandalism as well, but we don't block them, I'm really having a problem seeing why we should treat tor nodes any differentlly --T-rex 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If one uses an IP and edits they're relatively easy to individually block. If a Tor user makes vandalism it's impossible to stop as they get a new IP every 15s or so.  Think of it is the AOL issue of not being able to localize a block on a user but 10,000 times worse -- Tawker 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is the aol issue, I see no difference at all. I'm ok with these being blocked, it is not allowing the creation of new accounts that bothers me --T-rex 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk to the consensus that decided that. Our advice to tor users is to find someone outside of Tor to create the account then email the credentials for tor login.  Not perfect but a hell of a lot better. The bot solution ensures that non tor proxies (and they do change fequently) won't all be indef blocked... better than the current indef solution. -- Tawker 20:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Saint Vincent and Royal anthem
Hello there T-rex. I see that you had again reverted the change to St. Vincent and had originally cited that St. Vincent is not in the Commonwealth. I believe this stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Commonwealth and the former British Empire. I directed you to the pages on the Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth Realm and Royal anthem to help clarify matters...I don't know if you actually looked at them. So quite simply, Queen Elizabeth II is legally Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, with that country being ipso facto an independent kingdom (with a constitutional monarchy) separate from the United Kingdom (see personal union). As many monarchs have their own royal anthem and in this case, Queen Elizabeth II does, then that is why the royal anthem is being listed. Note that in some cases such as Spain and Jordan the royal anthem and the national anthem are one and the same (in Jordan's case this is because the country is an absolute monarchy). At some point in time many (but not all) royal anthems served as national anthems. 72.27.87.249 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, i do know what a royal anthem is. However, I think you fail to understand how much St Vincent goes to distance itself from England.  They do not recognize the queen as the head of anything, as much as england and some of the other former british colonies would like them too.  Your mistake is in thinking that the monarchy is recognized within St Vincent.  It simply is not... --T-rex 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Images?
While you have every right to your opinion, I would encourage you to take a look at the contributions of ten or twenty randomly-chosen admins and see how much image work they do. For instance, myself, I have two image uploads and five edits to the image namespace despite having been an admin for over a year. The reason is simple: most people tend to pick a specialty and work in that area, and mine happens not to be images. Do you believe that a candidate must be good at everything?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If wikipedia's current admins arn't well versed in image policy it seems to me that it's then even more important that our future admins are. My standards for image experience arn't too increadbly high, but I feel that some experience on this topic should be required of our admins.  Currently I feel as if with images is where knowledge of policy is the most important as it is where copyright concerns are the largest (although just wait until wikipedia starts using video).  I do realize that this stance has left me as the odd vote on a number of rfa's, but if everyone had the same standards there wouldn't be anything except new page patrollers (or any other given sect of editers) as admins.  It's not like I'm going to ask for you to be desysyoped because of your lack of edits in the image namespace or that I expect all new admins to start editing up a storm there.  Personally I only have around 40 edits within the image namespace myself, and if Yomangani gets the admin bit anyways (looks as if it will happen) I'm not going to complain... --T-rex 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually check out The Halo's rfa (support vote #20) for an idea of what I'm looking for on rfa's --T-rex 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick note, you realize that WP:RFA isn't a vote, right? We're trying to form a consensus, not snout-counting. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do, but in many ways it does work like one though. But yes I've read the essays on this and regardless am more then happy with the current workings of the RfA process.  I do realize that I have frustrated some editors by having stricter RfA criteria then most, but I really don't have a problem with this. --T-rex 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're not "upset by your stricter criteria", we're puzzled by what appear to be... well...  silly criteria. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, as well as for understanding what I was saying with my answers to the questions!

Atlant 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Getting a thanks before the rfa closes, is a bit different. In some ways I kindof like it, but this struck me as being a bit odd regardless. --T-rex 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's a more conventional thanks...


 * Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!


 * Atlant 14:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch at Switchfoot
Just a note saying "good catch" on the vandalism revert on Switchfoot. I should have known to look closer when I reverted the AVB. When I did, I saw you picked up and solved my bad revert. Thanks :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well both another AWB user and AntiVandelBot had already messed it up before you added your edit, so I can see how that edit can go bad. --T-rex 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
''' Announcement: It's an administrator! '''

T-rex, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

MER-C's RfA
I've just popped a quick query for you under your comment when you have a spare moment. Appreciated... Gl e n 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I honestly have nothing better to do right now --T-rex 17:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, know the feeling! Thanks mate Gl e n 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres
Hey - I pulled your text regarding the start to the Sabres season. They're still 2 wins short of matching the best start in team history.

However, the Sabres have equaled a club high with 11 straight regular season games dating back to the end last year if you want to add that. (Buffalo's last regular season loss was April 7, 2006 against Philadelphia.) Also don't forget to check your work, Sabres requires a capital "S". Thanks. Yankees76 21:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? I never said that it was record (give it two days I think it will be), but I just added a single line indicating how the new season was going.  As for the two season no-playoff record, I really don't see how that statistic is useful so I won't be the one adding it in.  This isn't about records, this is about the 2006-2007 season. --T-rex 07:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, with the win tonight, 12 straight regular season wins is a new team record - just slightly more "useful" than posting about a "quick start" to the season. At least ESPN think so.. Thanks for reverting your error back though, I'll do the edit - and fix your mistake. Yankees76 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent contribution to the Wikipedia article Buffalo Sabres is very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copy-editing work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you! Yankees76 03:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all my spelling sucks, and as cool as the preview button is, I don't think thats going to help smarten up my brain cells any. Also, you might want to rething your current way of phrasing that article, as on first glance it seems to indicate that they have won 12 straight this season, (which we both know hasn't happend), thanks --T-rex 03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, it's just that in my first message to you I politely asked to you remember to put the "S" on Sabres in caps. Then you not only revert my edit, but you make the same mistake again. Not cool. I'm still working on the edits - bear with me. Yankees76 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I didn't even spell anything wrong? It's just a capitalizatin error? Well thats a first so I'll give myself a pat on the back --T-rex 07:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey T-rex, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

 * Good, job! with no opposes at all you must be doing something right --T-rex 16:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Uruguay-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the Uruguay WikiProject? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Uruguay-related articles.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Uruguay project talk page, or feel free to ask me on. Wesborland 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really much of an expert on Uruguay, (although I do think they have a really sweet flag), so I doubt that I'd join. I'm not quite sure what recent contribution you are refering to, but I hope they were a help to your wiki-project --T-rex 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Interference with a Wikiproject
May I ask why you removed the Wikiproject Indonesia collaboration notice from the Java page? Normally, such an action from an editor who has had nothing to do with it would be insignificant and just reverted, however, it is particularly inappropriate given not just your opposition to it being the first/prime meaning, but also given the nature of your comments (somewhat sarcastic, and mocking, almost uncivil even?) on the discussion page. I suggest it is not done in error, but more out of spite. It's nomination for this fornight is not unusual, in recent weeks we have had Suharto, Indonesia, and only last week Bali - like Java, each of these is of the highest significance to Indonesia. Is this a fair assessment? On the other hand, any constructive contributions from anyone are always most welcome ;) regards --Merbabu 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate? This is just standard policy.  I didn't mention this at all on the talk page (apparentlly I needed to).  I understand collaberations of the week, and despite not participating in many myself, think that they are great projects.  As for the actuall edit, it comes down to wikipedia's policy of not having maintaince notices on the main article page, but leaving them on the talk page instead (more of the editors arena then the readers, if you will).  In fact, just for you I've found a disussion on this specific to collabarations even.  Just because we disagree on a trivial page move, doesn't mean that I'm trying to implode the project --T-rex 05:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Although i still disagree with you, you do approach the issue with more reason than I initially expected - my apologies. The discussion you link to is hardly conclusive, and given that it is not a permanent label I am still inclined to think that it should there for the brief period (another 8 days). We have used this method on a number of collabs now and to my (good) knowledge, you are the first to object. regards --Merbabu 07:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, i have just been shown a list of the collabs here . Almost all have the tag on the front page. --Merbabu 09:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit, the discussion was a bit inconclusive, but I could swear to you this was official policy at one time or the other. I actually was looking for a policy page to point you to but I couldn't find it.  Around June/July a bunch of these polcies were all merged and or moved to WikiMedia, and I'm starting to think this one may have gotten lost in the mix as well.  From looking at the list of collabs of the week it looks as if around half of them use the template, so I guess I'll drop the issue (still think it's ugly and unprofessional though), I'm tempted to write up a policy proposal against them, but such minor policies have a tendency to never gain support... --T-rex 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted a formal request to this extent on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia/Collaboration, lets see if anything comes of this --T-rex 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Small favor
Hey T-rex, I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.

Thanks man! Sharkface217 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your article looks a bit stubish, so I would actually imagine that it isn't the best one to choose, although of course I'm not really sure. For the record, this request is the third straight on this talk page asking for help on a national wikiproject I know only a little about.  Nothing wrong with all of wikipedia assuming that I am really smart, but the question is why? --T-rex 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! &mdash; Saxifrage

Assumptions
Decided to take the time to post here as well, you're probably not watching the talk page for some random ip. My edit was not intended as a test and was a valid edit for a minor error. If you'd bother to review the edit and my edit note you might have noticed that. 24.50.118.245 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here as I'm not sure if your ip will change. The fact is the team name is the Buffalo Sabres not the Buffalo Swords I'm not sure how your edit would be considered to be a spelling fix  --T-rex 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, if you would have paid attention, you would have seen that I changed it /to/ Sabres /from/ Swords 24.50.118.245 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Apparently I read the page dif wrong.  My appologies. --T-rex 02:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi T-rex, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam ( T / C ) 06:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP VANDALIZING the List of keytar players page
Sir, you have -0- right to eliminate one of the players from that page because they are a "Red Link". Fact is the player in question is a 1.VERY well known keytarist 2. An Wikipedia admin has already committed to scribing an article. Your childish ploy of locking out a future article being scribed has not gone unnoticed and you well be dealt with accordingly. Again stop your childish behavior! A copy of this thread will also be sent directly to Jimmy Wales.


 * In order to eliminate self promotion and to create verifablity most lists on wikipedia to not accept red links. Your pet page has already been deleted multiple times independent of me, and you are now setting yourself up to be blocked as well.  Go ahead and tell Jimbo, perhaps he will make me and admin so I can block you quicker next time. --T-rex 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

nn Schools
I came across your prod of Evans Elementary School. I have no strong feelings one way or the other on WP:SCHOOL in general or this page in particular. I did a little digging, and it appears that the creator of the article (User:Wakemp) created a number of others that aren't any better and haven't had any edits since they left Wikipedia in September. I thought that since you prodded the one, you might want to work through the Special:Contributions/Wakemp page and prod the rest. ~ BigrTex 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm usally pretty ok with school's myself, but that article lacked anything besides an address. I think I'll wait to see if anyone removes the prod before looking through the rest, alhough I should probably drop a note to the author if I do that.  Actually on second look it appears that there have been some pretty nasty arguments over some of these, I think I'll play it safe at first. Thanks for the info though... --T-rex 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It got de-proded (although with a suggestion to merge rather then a reason to keep). I might list another one on the list, but it looks as if the prods won't go through, and I don't want to take the time to either merge or AfD them all --T-rex 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

dongducheon
Hi - I noticed that you removed a link to the Galbijim Wiki page on Dongducheon a few days ago - was this done automatically by the bot you run? I hope it hasn't been running around removing links willy-nilly as I doubt I could keep up considering the number of town articles. Mithridates 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I just noticed that you have removed the links to each and every one of them. You are aware that our wiki uses the same license and has much more detail on Korea-related topics than the pages here? Please restore them. Thanks. Mithridates 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No this wasn't done by a bot. I noticed the links when I was fixing the templates on all of those pages, and figured I may as well remove the links as well, seeing as I already was editing all of those pages.  This has nothing to do with GFDL license issues but that your site is simply a wikipedia mirror and as such there is no need to link to it.  Please see WP:EL for more details --T-rex 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The site is most certainly not a Wikipedia mirror. All the links you removed were pages created by our users, and are much more detailed than the pages you find here on Wikipedia. Dongducheon, Gunpo and Icheon are three of numerous examples where you have removed a link to a page much more detailed than the one here. The only time links are added are when the Galbijim Wiki page is much more detailed than the ones here, and when we use content straight from Wikipedia we have a template indicating the source and do not link from the Wikipedia page. Please restore the links you have removed and be more careful in the future. Mithridates 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not spam your site all over wikipedia in the future. As you seem unable to click the link yourself let me reitterate something from WP:EL Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article.  One should avoid Links that are added to promote a site.  One should avoid Links to wikis.  Your site fails on all three counts.  Regardless if the page is actually a "mirror" or a "fork" these pages are mostly just content from wikipedia with a few images thrown in. --T-rex 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Missed the first sentence? - Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article - which is exactly what they are. You are still stuck on your unfounded assertion that the site is a Wikipedia mirror, which it is not, and you have left a large number of stub articles on small towns with little to no English information where they could have used information from the Galbijim Wiki. A large amount of the info on towns was created by myself over an entire month, translated directly from Korean sites, and some users here have even taken our pages, copied them verbatim on Wikipedia to make new articles and have claimed them as their own. See this page compared to this one - the article was created by me in November and copied onto Wikipedia the next year. This is but one example of many. Now once more, please restore the links or I will be forced to bring the matter up elsewhere. Mithridates 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The page is not the subject of the article, that means like Google should have a link to google.com Regardless to if your site is a mirror or not it still qualfies for half of the list of things not to link to.  I'd be carefull about bringing this up elsewhere as I think that you'll just end up getting yourself blocked --T-rex 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I'm disappointed you have decided to assume such bad faith, but having no alternative have first brought the matter up here. You can continue to make your case there as you see fit. Mithridates 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Korea? This isn't really as much about the content of the articles but of the appropriatness of the links.  WP:EL or WikiProject Spam would probably be more appropriate.  Here is another idea though.  You said that your site is GFDL licenssed, as such I see no reason why you couldn't just transfer any important information of off your site and onto the appropriate wikipedia page.  This would have the duel benifits of both improving wikipedia and removing any remote need for the links --T-rex 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of the information on our wiki isn't appropriate for here - hours of operation of shops, how to get from A to B, Korean language tips etc. Think of the wiki as the Wookiepedia of Korea-related content. Some crossovers occur but in general we allow much more detail than you would find here. I'll consider taking the subject up at WP:EL in a day or so if the Korean-related users don't give their opinion. Mithridates 05:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you make a template to better spam your site? Your links to your site still are in violation of our WP:EL policy.  I don't want this to get ugly, but this is about what is best for wikipedia, not your fork of the site --T-rex 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a note about this with WikiProject Spam, we'll see where it goes --T-rex 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DinoBot
Your bot is changing articles with HTML like italics to italics. Which is usually fine, but in articles with " Shipnames " twice in a paragraph, it changes "Shipnames [stuff stuff stuff] Shipname's [stuff]" into "Shipnames [stuff stuff stuff] Shipnames [stuff]", as the triple apostrophes get treated as bold markup. See, e.g.. You've got to replace the third apostrophe with a single-close-quote " ’ " or with " '  ".


 * Yikes! I think the bot changed around 20 of those.  I'll go revert them, and I'll try to see if I can get the bot to just skip any pages that have the ship infoboxes or something to try and avoid this from happening in the future.  Thanks for the heads up. --T-rex 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I just fixed all the ones where the problem occurred. :-)
 * Can you set your bot to look for " Ship name's " first, and change it to " Ship name’s ", and then go through again, changing " what ever " to " what ever "?
 * —wwoods 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I've fixed them all. Do you know if the  template is included in all of these?  If so it should be easy enough to put that in as an exception to the pages that the bot fixes. --T-rex 03:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (now after seeing your note) I should be able to do that on second thought that won't quite work, because if someone has something then it wouldn't read this as bold and italic, but as something else. I may be able to do it if I include the "s" as part of the string though that complicates things.  However I don't have much to do tomorrow so I think I may give it a try --T-rex 03:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Everything looks right but if you open the page to edit, it still looks like it did before. As such the odds are these may be messed up again, but it is just as easy to re run the bot --T-rex 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I ran the bot and it turned out to be rather hit and miss. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't so I cut the run short. Don't know what quite is going wrong, as I didn't see anything different with the ones that didn't work but I'll hope the bot just dosen't pick these up often. --T-rex 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA
OK, thank you. Comments and clarification noted.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem --T-rex 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at RFA
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The List
The above is a now deleted template to cronicle the crazy life of the GNAA on wikipedia, that I asked tawker to drop off for me as it is (for now at least) finally deleted --T-rex 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the copy is here, I've used it. Hopefully nobody will be objecting. Mathmo Talk 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra RFA question
Hi. Thank you for asking the additional RFA question regarding my nomination. Just to let you know that I have answered your question and others asked by other users. Thank you for taking such an interest in my nomination. Wikiwoohoo 15:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for takeing the time to do that --T-rex 16:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information
This was unnecessary, I think you should keep in mind that privacy is an important aspect of Wikipedia. Yank sox 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a false sence of privacy is an even bigger mistake. You will notice that I neither revealed his former username nor how to find it in that message. Also in seeing the potential privacy issue that this could be, I weant out of my way to remind him that the question was optional.  Actually in terms of privacy I really don't know anything about him besides a second username, I know nothing about his real name or where he lives or what computer he is useing or anything.  That said I'll leave the comment to what you left it as. --T-rex 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The real issue is asking what exactly you are desiring to get out of this question. It's fairly apparent in the statement that MrDarcy made, that it had to do with his privacy. I'm really befuddled by why you are asking the question, and what you seek to accomplish. Yank sox  01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to know the reason that he wanted a username change. I see nothing about the former username that would cause a privacy issue, especially when comapared to his current username.  Changing a username seemed a bit odd and out of place in this instance, note that I'm not asking for personal information, but a reson to why he felt a username change was needed --T-rex 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * T-rex, you are perplexing me. MrDarcy (which is a charcter from Pride and Prejudice), has a statement that expresses the fact that he changed his name due to concerns about his privacy. What more could this be? I understand you have concerns, but the level that you seem so dedicated to chase it down is worrying. I hope I am wrong. Yank sox  04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all don't be worried. I havn't looked into this any further then the same quick check I give to all AfD cannidates.  As for pride and prejudice I actually have read that, but it was a few years ago and I don't remember it really being any good.  I don't feel as if I've been pushing this that hard, all I did was ask an optional question, he doesn't have to address it any further if he doesn't want to.  He appears to have taken a half week break in the middle of his RfA, but lets see --T-rex 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Apparentlly he posted a responce to my question seconds after my post here yesterday --T-rex 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a short note to say thank you for participating in my RfA. My nomination succeeded. You are correct that I use popups to do my vandalism reverts. I hope my future activities on Wikipedia will change your opinion of me. Thanks again for your input. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Change you opinion of you? Now why would you want me to do that?  I already think highly of you as it is... but if you want it to change I guess that can be done --T-rex 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake. Let me rephrase that... I hope that my future activities on Wikipedia will continue your good opinion of me. -- Gogo Dodo 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot
Why the hell did you revert my changes on the 'Switchfoot' page? I made it look a lot better... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cubfan789 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Removing info and changing formating that has been there forever, made no sense so I reverted. If there to add to the page go for it, but pointless reformating makes no sence --T-rex 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any info.....I just organized it. It looked alot better how I had it.

Numerical standards?
That's not at all what I'm doing: I don't want you to have namespace-editcount "standards" of any sort. However, if you're going to oppose people with about four image edits, and support those with about forty such, you might want to put a bit more effort into justifying same, lest it seem wholly arbitrary. Alai 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if I did have numerical standards I don't think anyone would expect them to be less then four. Additionally there is no problem with it being wholly arbitrary, it isn't, but there is no reason why it couldn't be. --T-rex 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian metal
T-rex, I reverted your edit to Christian metal. I'm assuming your revert to a month-old copy of the article was accidental. Jpers36 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yea that's not at all what I meant to do, not sure what I clicked there.  I was simply trying to remove tooth and nail as their metal sub label solid state was already listed --T-rex 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Buffalo Sabres
I've made same edits to other NHL team pages (that didn't have them). Got a feeling though, anon-user 'Darthflyer' will revert it (on the Flyers page, without discussion). 'Darthflyer' never post's on his IP adress talk page (therefore, can't contact him/her). Even more stressful, 'Dartflyer's preferred list is an exact copy (copyright violation?) off the Philadelphia Flyers official website. GoodDay 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Darthflyer doesn't look to be an ip, but he doesn't seem to be talking most anywhere either, he appears to be mostly a philly fan so he will probably leave the Sabres page alone. A list of this style doesn't actually have much of a copyright on it, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I don't see why your changes should need to be reverted --T-rex 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Flyers
(Continued from Buffalo Sabres discussion). As for the Philadelphia Flyers page; I hope you're right (about DF's revertings). In the past 'Darthflyer' usually reverted my edits. He is indeed a Flyers fan. Sometimes though, I get unconfortable with his ('Darthflyers' way) attitude on that page. GoodDay 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it happend 'Darthflyer' reverted the list (back to 'by season'), an exact copy of the Flyers official website. GoodDay 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh!Gravity.
Yo, do you have the New Switchfoot album? I just got it, and they DID add a shorter version of The Shadow Proves the Sunshine, I'm changing it back, please don't undo it. EDIT: Okay. Here you go: [] I'm sorry, I didn't know it was Wal-Mart exclusive, but I did add that before you edited it out.


 * But they didn't... I have he album and it's not there. I'll tell you what find me any evidence at all that this track is included and I'll let it stay --T-rex 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if it's something that wal-mart tacked on then it still doesn't belong as part of the track listing --T-rex 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Foreman
Hey, the faith of an individual is certainly worthy of mention, especially in this case. If you're going to delete my edits, then at least give a reason. I understand your first beef about the article being about Jon and not the band, but my second edit was personal, and had nothing to do with Switchfoot.--Teenwriter 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your edit consisted mainly of song lyrics, which is an absolute horriable way to decipher someones true beliefs. On top of that the lyric appeared to be way out of context, and it really isn't neccisary to create a whole new section for a single line.  I really don't think that anything should be mentioned beyond the fact that he is a Christian --T-rex 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation, Board of Trustees
Voting for the Wikimedia Foundation, Board of Trustees

Hi T-rex, do you know how and when I can vote for the Wikimedia, board of trustees, and what I have to do as a new Wikipedian in order be qualified to vote? Thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedia community, and giving me the options of what I can do if I need help! User:Wikipedier


 * I've responded on your talk page --T-rex 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And you've made you're best effort to help me, which is the most important to me. Thank you T-rex, and I hope you have a great New Year. User:Wikipedier

Fair Use
Can you explain the fair use policy in laymen's terms to me, I don't really understand the WP page.

And when searching the internet for images, how can I tell if the image is copyrighted or not? Shakam 06:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use is when you are allowed to use something (such as a photograph) with out actually being allowed to use it. On the internet the most common use of fair use is album covers being used as a pictoral identification of the album.  The album artwork is still fully copyrighted by it's designer/photographer, and only licensed to be used by the artist/record label, however anyone can use it in reference to the album, because it can be used to describe and talk about the work.


 * I'm assuming that this is in question of Image:Megan alatini.jpg, which can not be used qualified as fair use for the Mulatto article as it is unreasonable to expect that a different free equivelent can't be found. The fair use rational is strong for the use of the image on the Megan Alatini article, although even that is a bit questionable.


 * As for searching the internet for images, unless it says other wise it is a pretty safe assumtion that the images are copyrighted. However even a copyrighted image can still be used on wikipedia if it is immpossible to find a free image that would fullfill the same purpose (although try to avoid having to claim this).  Hope this helps --T-rex 06:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It helped with explaining, but it didn't really help with how to get a reasonable image. It sounds like, well there isn't really a right way or a wrong way. But thanks anyway. Shakam 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A decent way to find free images is to use this ( link ) however, you'll find it is a bit limited --T-rex 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Gravity bonus tracks
Dude. All of the bonus tracks I have added are correct. Look up their website, go to the boards and look at them. EMI versions are sold ONLY in Christian stores, Switchfoot is on Sony, they use EMICMG to distribute the albums to Christian stores, everywhere else is by Sony. The acoustic version of American Dreams is available EVERYWHERE EXCEPT CHRISTIAN STORES. Stop changing it. I'm right, you're not. Look it up before you change stuff because if you'd take the time, you would be able to see that I am right and you're taking off valuable information. There is no use listing these exclusives if you do not list the correct information. Kevin87 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not everything is correct. American Dream acoustic is not avalible everywhere, a large number of places but not with every purchase (it depends where you get it).  Revenge comes with all of the EMI printed disks, which although largly found at the christian retail places is not exclusivly, and as such Revenge appears to be added with the particular imprint of the disk rather then the retailer.  Comments such as "I'm right, you're not" are not going to change things, insisting that you are right does not make it so --T-rex 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You say I'm vandalizing when I'm adding correct information, it is also vadalism by removing correct information. Insisting I am not right does not make it so either, and I have not said everywhere. I have said only mainstream retailers, Sony is who distributes the album to all mainstream stores, not EMICMG, they would only distribute it if a major mainstream label was not doing so already.. The American Dream acoustic is available at all mainstream retail, because it is the Sony exclusive, all of the weekly ads listed it, meaning all mainstream stores offer it but it was a limited time only download if it is listed on the packaging and all of the digital download outlets offer it as an album only exclusive or individual purchase. Revenge is a CBA exclusive, meaning only Christian retailers, and was also available with the pre-order on Switchfoot.com. Do you want a reference?
 * Do you want a reference?
 * "CBA exclusive – CD includes a link to download a new unreleased Switchfoot song." Kevin87 06:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the infromation was correct it wouldn't be vandalizing, however as it is wrong it is. Reread everything else you wrote above, you disprove your own points.  American Dream (acoustic) is only available "if it is listed on the packaging" or if "the digital download outlets offer it" which clearly isn't everywhere.  Revenge is not exclusive to CBA if it "was also available with the pre-order on Switchfoot.com", (as well as a few other more indipendent outlets, online and not)  I already have references, don't worry about that --T-rex 06:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disproved nothing. After so long, all of these tracks will not be available anymore. they are exclusive tracks and only offered for a limited time and not all of them sold in the specific stores have them, you have to looked for the specially marked ones because they sell the exclusive version and the normal version without any exclusive songs. And yes, the pre-orders from Switchfoot.com are the Sparrow editions, I know because that's where I got it. I pre-ordered off switchfoot.com, it is the Sparrow copy. The album comes with a card in it that directs you to a website to download the song saying it's from Switchfoot and Sparrow Records. I also put Revenge as being available exclusively to CBA and that it came with the switchfoot.com pre-orders in the very first edits I made, which you deleted. i think it's funny how you act like you own these swithfoot pages yet you continue to not allow correct information. look the stuff up and you'll find it's correct. it's not hard to find the things i have been saying and not from just random people but from actual official sources, that's where i got mine from. Kevin87 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. I understand how digital downloads work.  Here's and example of an non-christian retail outlet not offering the American Dream (accoustic) download (Walmart.com).  Here is an example of a non-christian reatil outlet offering the EMI version of the disk with Revenge inculded as a download (bandfarm.com).  These wern't hard to find at all. --T-rex 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misreading everything I am saying. Sony distributes to the mainstream, the Sony copies have American Dream acoustic. Therefore only mainstream retail offers it. Bandfarm is Switchfoot's official store, Switchfoot.com is selling the CBA version because Sparrow only distributes to the mainstream when the artist doesn't have mainstream distribution. It has the Sparrow Records logo on the album, therefore is the CBA version, if it was the mainstream version it would have Columbia Records logo and the album card with the link would not say it's from Switchfoot and Sparrow, it would just have the link and directions for the mainstream bonus track. American Dream acoustic is not available in Christian stores, Revenge is only available in CBA stores and switchfoot.com because switchfoot.com is selling Sparrow copies, that would make it CBA still. All of these songs are exclusive to the retailers and each retailers sales two copies: one with the exclusives and one without. you have to look on the packaging to see if it includes it and all are only available for a limited time. but hey, if you want to list incomplete information, i give up. Kevin87 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So by that logic the walmart version that has neither American Dream (acoustic) or Revenge must be neither from EMI or Sony. Also I have no clue what you mean by "CBA" you appear to be using it interchangably for "EMI" --T-rex 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * CBA IS EMI. CBA stands for Christian Booksellers Association, meaning Christian bookstores. EMI distributes the album ONLY to Christian stores. Sony distributes it to the mainstream. Switchfoot.com is selling the CBA exclusive. You're twisting the things I say into something that fits solely into what you want. Every single one of these tracks are available ONLY on SPECIALLY MARKED copies. Not every single copy has it. You have to look on the packaging shrinkwrap and see if it lists it. That is why it is EXCLUSIVE, not just a simple bonus track as you have them listed. Wal-Mart DOES sell the ones with American Dream acoustic because I have seen it, and it also offers an alternate version of The Shadow Proves The Sunshine. Best Buy offers American Dream acoustic along with the two bonus tracks included on the album. Circuit City has C'mon C'mon acoustic on the album and also has the card for American Dream acoustic inside the album. I have seen them all. FYE, Coconuts, and Target also list them on the shrinkwrap like all the others. I have seen them all The only place that lists Revenge is Christian stores like Family Christian and LifeWay. A mainstream store does not stock the EMI versions, because EMICMG is a Christian music distribution company. The only time they distribute to mainstream is stuff that is only on a Christian music label such as Sparrow Records, Switchfoot used to be on Sparrow but left for a mainstream label, they left for Columbia, a mainstream label, which distributes it to mainstream stores like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Circuit City, K-Mart, FYE, and everywhere else BESIDES Christian bookstores Kevin87 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * EMI is not quite the same as a christian bookstore, but yes I understand Switchfoot's unique label arrangment. What I've been disputing is the implication that switchfoot.com is not a christian bookstore.  Again you saying something doens't make it so, please respond to that walmart link rather then trying to argue what I already know... --T-rex 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

actually, when EMI is using EMICMG, which is their Christian distribution, then yes, it's exactly the same as Christian bookstores. as for walmart.com, nobody lists the download online. christian stores don't list Revenge online, only the distribution sites list them. you can buy it online and it will still come with them because it is only mentioned on the packaging. i have seen the physical walmart copies, they do have them. you can buy it from amazon and it doesn't list it, but it would still come with it because it comes from Sony. the only place that does list it is Best Buy, and they only list it on the exclusives page and it says only Burn Out Bright acoustic and C'mon C'mon remix are the Best Buy exclusives. Sony says so themselves on their distribution sellsheets, "The first 250,000 units shipped will include "American Dream" (acoustic) as a FREE DIGITAL DOWNLOAD TRACK." Kevin87 07:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Experience on Commons
Hi. I've added a clarification and a link to my Commons account. Let me know if you have any extra questions. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for doing that. As you stated you still don't have too much image experience but, there is no reason to sell yourself short --T-rex 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Between the Trees
I have added a "" template to the article Between the Trees, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Fram 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll be removing the prod. The main criteria to WP:MUSIC is significant press coverage which I feel they have recieved. They also appear to meet criteria #6, as from what I hear they are pretty big in the Florida (espessially Orlando) area. I can only find one 2007 article on the band but even thay lists that they have made it onto some minor charts. If you still feel the article should be deleted, I'm going to suggest you try AfD. thanks --T-rex 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Switchfoot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Switchfoot.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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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. ShadowHalo 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * alright, will do --T-rex 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominating you to become an administrator
Hi T-rex, I am nominating you to become an administrator of Wikipedia for you experiance on the encyclopedia. Congradulations!!!!! Can you please leave me a message on my talk page if you accept the nomination or not. Everyone is also welcome to decline adminship. Adminship does not equate to the value that you have or that any of us have to Wikipedia.

Wikipedier (talk)

Well, as early March is nearly here, I'm afraid to tell you that I have no choice but to withdraw your nomination per this discussion. I recently nominated ProveIt, and even it it turned out I failed to give a thorough nomination, his RfA still succeeded with a strong enought concencus. In the future, though, my nominations need to be more thorough, and I can't provide a thorough nomination. I still think you have the experiance and qualities that administrators have. You welcome new users and show them the ropes, like me. You know all about Wikipedia and it's policies. I perceived you as the official face of Wikipedia. If you are interested, I would recommend you nominate yourself. I think like ProveIt, many wikipedians would support you, because you've been here a long time and helped a lot. But you're the best one to determine for yourself if you're interested and qualified, I think. Just remember, if you decide not to run, Adminship is not a trophy.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to move your nomination from me for you. I'm sorry about the end results that happened.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your request, let me have the weekend to think it over, thanks --T-rex 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nominating me to be and admin on wikipedia. Although I am willing to help wikipedia in this regard, for now I think it is best to decline.  The process for gaining adminship is a complex and serious matter that I currently lack the time to put myself through.  If come early March you still feel as if I am well qualified I would be more likly to accept a nomination then.  Thanks however, as even the offer to nominate me is an honour. --T-rex 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Switchfoot
The article Switchfoot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Switchfoot for things needed to be addressed. Wikiwoohoo 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, if it comes down to images then I feel the article is in good shape regardless. I'm going to try to get a second opinion on the rfu tag placed on the main image, but if it comes down to it there are some half decent images avalible here and here --T-rex 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Format fix
Thank you for fixing the format for the article on The Vanguard School, Paoli, PA. I struggled multiple times on that in differnt articles, and failed to fix the particular problem every time. How did you do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The problem is that you started one of the lines with a space, the mediawiki software pretty much breaks whenever you do that --T-rex 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you T-rex, and I'm sorry that I forgot to sign my post. I remember that I always need to sign.

Wikipedier

Your GA nomination of Switchfoot
The article Switchfoot you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Switchfoot for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Wikiwoohoo 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thats good to hear --T-rex 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks T-rex! And congrats, it couldn't have happened w/o you either. Take care. -.phil. 09:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Switchfoot Barnstar

 * Ditto. Thank you for your appreciation, but you have done far more work than I have, especially lately. We all appreciate it. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –m y s i d ☎ 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitelisting Myspace blogs
Just ask any admin on the English Wikipedia to add it for you, and provide the reasoning why it's valid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that simple? well, ok, thanks --T-rex 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OhGravity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:OhGravity.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 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Appears as if it's been replaced by the identical Image:Switchfootoh!gravity.jpg, don't know why, but regardless I guess that leaves this image to be speedied (perferablly a few weeks ago). Will tag as such (and what happened to the old orphan bot?) --T-rex 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Bot Policy: "Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds." Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be some major bot disscussions going on that I've managed to miss. My bot has been rather tempermental recently, but I'm hoping to get it back in running shape soon enough, lets hope it doesn't manage to get itself blocked --T-rex 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Song lyric link
Hello! I noticed you reverted my removal of a link from New Way to Be Human. The site looks like it's hosting song lyrics without permission of the copyright holder(s), which would mean it violates the external link guidelines. Am I mistaken about the link? --Slowking Man 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not to link to it. As for copyright the site notes it although the site initself doesn't appear to be in any way official. --T-rex 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

link question
I don't know how to add topics, so I just edit here: I recently added a link to a lyrics site with Switchfoot lyrics. I received a message that said: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Switchfoot....Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites...". The link has been removed, but before I added the link, and now after the link is removed, there has been and still is a link to another lyrics site. How come one site is taken out for being "inappropriate" while others stay untouched. That is double standard and makes no sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.238.17 (talk • contribs)
 * The fact that there already is a link is what makes the duplicate link inappropriate. The current links have been added by more experienced editors who can find the best link for the job, rather then someone just adding the same site to every page they can find --T-rex 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Hello. I just wanted to respond to the comment you added about the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. A debate about whether or not a bracket should be used was actually discussed extensively during the prior year's playoffs. Although it is true that the NHL does not use a traditional bracket, and the teams are reseeded after the completion of rounds, the tree is a useful tool is describing the round by round conclusions which eventually led to the conclusion of the playoffs race. To remedy the matter, if you observe carefully, there are no lines connecting the first round to the second round. In all other series however, the lines do make sense, and they communicate to the reader how the NHL playoffs system works. I hope this helps clarify any issues you had with this article. Thanks! --<span style="color:#; font-family:Arial">Sukh17 <span style="color:#; font-family:Arial; font-size:x-small"><span style="color:#">T • <span style="color:#">C  • <span style="color:#">E 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking closer I see that the lines have been left out, although it is still rather easy to assume that they were there. I would probably wait until after the first round to put that up in bracket format... --T-rex 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the solution is not to re-fiddle the order of the first-round pairings. That was evidently part of the discussion last year, which I was pointed to and read about. When you re-order the first-round pairings retroactively to make them match the eventual second-round pairings, it makes it much easier to improperly infer those lines, like you say. If you just leave them as they are (1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5), it more strongly communicates, visually, the reseeding mechanism. 76.10.24.245 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

IP over Avian Carriers
Please stop adding the speedy-delete notice to IP over Avian Carriers. Obviously a lot of editors do think it's a valid and worthwhile entry (just look at the page history), so if you really want it deleted, you'll have to go through the normal AFD process. —RuakhTALK 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, will do, but there really is no need for that junk on this site. If that isn't a speedy canidate i don't know what is. --T-rex 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL
Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments. This particular discussion appears to be turning into quite the mess. --T-rex 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes well, that would be the case. I went to the Tfd and was suprised at how few had managed to find out about the later Tfd gone speedy gone review--I think that people should be notified about these things, but also, the Tfd seemed to go well, good thoughtful comments with good responses without everyone attempting to kill each other.  I thought that not only should you guys be informed, but that we could probably use you all.
 * I saw your comment there and was going to reply, but I have a hard time commenting before someone else edits. It's not just a deletion review for the template in the template space, it's a deletion review for the template in the userspace as the userfied version was deleted as well.  So, delete, this should be userfied probably doesn't make much sense.  I think people are confused about that in general.  People who think it should be userfied have voted all sorts of things--"undelete userfied version" "overturn and userfy" and then various deletes and keeps but the comments express that it should be userfied.  Adding that to the fact that people changed their minds in comments elsewhere, the closing admin is going to need some serious good luck closing that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks to be in the template space to me. On the subject of the images themselves, I think that free should be perfered to fair use, but at the same time I feel that if a group of editors wish to publically disagree with this policy then they should be more then welcome to do so. --T-rex 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I never knew you were a Switchfoot fan. It seems a few of you administrators are fans of Switchfoot. That's pretty cool. Sherlock32 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know any admins who are switchfoot fans, but there are a good number of people working on the article. Enough at least to bring it up to Good Article status. --T-rex 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootLogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootLogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. MER-C 09:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Meant to Live single cover.jpg
I have tagged Image:Meant to Live single cover.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. MER-C 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an album, cover used in the article on the album, if you really want a rational go write one yourself. I view it as more than self explanitory... --T-rex 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Be nice
You have claimed that my edits are nonsense and vandalism. However, they were done in good faith and I included proof as to the veracity of the additions. I request an apology. 66.177.5.252 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first time was in good faith. By the second, third, and fourth times you should have known better.  Again, I ask you to end your vandalism. --T-rex 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Okay, I'm sorry, but some of the stuff you remove from Switchfoot related pages is good information, but it can barely stay up there at all. There's some good links and information I'd love to see on those pages that you take down almost immediately. The most recent of which is the fact that the single "Oh! Gravity." was #1 on the popular site ChristianRock.Net for nine weeks. Why can't that stay up? I almost feel like I can't go near the Switchfoot pages with any new info because I don't know if it will be there tomorrow. We can't even talk it over on the discussion boards. If it's some Wikipedia policy thing, I'm sorry, but everytime someone brings that up it doesn't seem to explain it perfectly. I don't want to sound mean, and I understand that you're working hard at keeping those articles in good shape, you do a good job at that. I just wonder why we have to see so many things go from the Switchfoot pages. Certain music video links and a fixed up discography have disappeared too, and I just wonder why there's always so many reverts without discussion. Thanks for your time, and God bless.RoryS89 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
 * Well I can't answer for everything, but I can give you a responce to the ChristianRock.net charts. ChristianRock.net is a non-profit internet radio site, and is for the most part insigificant.  Posting how a song does on a single radio stations charts is rather insignificant, and just leads to further clutter as every editor then adds how it is doing on their favorite station of choice.  It would take something really significant to make it appropriate to mention a specific radio station in the article.  As for the video links, a lot of people don't like stuff like that on here.  I'm having trouble enough getting people to keep links to official sites like that sonybmg musicbox one. As for the discography I see nothing wrong with it.  Don't be discouraged and please keep editing --T-rex 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean by it being a radio station and all, but I was thinking of the charts and all. In some cases, that site is all that can be used if it's a Christian band whose music is only played on Christian stations, I just though that the info on Oh! Gravity. might have been notable. But I see what you are getting at. Sorry to get upset and all, I was just not sure of your reasons. Thanks for responding. Oh, and the disography, I just wondered why it turned into a little list of the album titles instead of the chart displaying the RIAA Certification and all. That's what I meant by that. But thank you again. God bless.RoryS89 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
 * Not sure what happened to the certificaions... they were there at one point, not sure where they are now... --T-rex 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for trying. Better luck next time... --T-rex 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine
I have no want to make a 3RR violation on a article that wasn't even on my watchlist; so I have to discuss with you about our mutual reverts in the "in popular culture" section of the article. It seemed that I think this article should be tagged with tag but you doubt it. I based on the tagging on point 5 of WP:HTRIV:
 * If a section ("trivia" or otherwise) has grown so large as to over-balance an article, consider:
 * Working the information into the article, and removing unimportant items.
 * Adding the tag to the section, inviting other users to help clean up.
 * Splitting into sections.
 * Forking off well-defined subsections into other articles, but be careful; see #Trivia articles. If you do this, please do not abandon the new article.

And the fact that the section involved is about half of the total length of the article, in which I consider it as over-balanced the article.

So your rationale is? I needed some discussion to improve the article. -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My rational is that the George Foreman Grill is better know for it's pop culture aspects, than as an actuall grill. As such the article is proportional to what is important to say about the topic. --T-rex 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an anon on that article again saying the removal of the trivia section is needed. Discuss there.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
This is very odd, and reproducible. It will need looking into. Rich Farmbrough, 08:34 18 August 2007 (GMT).
 * The text was there next to a category. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39 18 August 2007 (GMT).
 * I figured something of the sort. It not being my bot I figured I just let you take a look at it.  --T-rex 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DinoBot
May I please have a copy of the code that it is written in? Dr ea my <sup style="color:indigo;">\*/ <sub style="color:lime;">!$!  21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's python code based upon the pywikipedia framework. Let me make sure it still works before getting you a copy --T-rex 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!!
Hi T-rex. This is User:Wikipedier, who is now User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.. I have retired, but I just wanted thank you so much for welcoming me here, and I really enjoyed helping out the project in any way I could. Best regards.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm rarly here myself now. Glad I could be of help... --T-rex 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Misinformation on the Switchfootage Page
Fyi, student short films are rarely important enough to be reviewed, especially documentaries. They are submitted to festivals and are either accepted or not. Furthermore, E.E. Kennedy turned down several offers to sell the film out of loyalty to the band because it contained personal footage of the band members and their families. Therefore, the film was never reviewed. Thank you for no longer commenting on the documentary with misinformation. If you would like to criticize it with accurate information, you are free to do so. This would necessitate you having seen the film, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.154.2 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The film was accepted at multiple major festivals. Almost every film will recieve a review at a festival like that. If Kennedy had any concern over "personal footage" it never would have been shown to anyone.  Also it is not necessary for me to see the film to add what other people have said about it. --T-rex 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TRex, the film did not ever receive a single review. And that is a fact. If you have an opinion or would like to cite someone else's opinion, then you should frame it as such. And there is a difference between a film being screened as a thesis film at a festival (educational exhibition) and a film being released (for sale.) Another fact is that everything to lose was never "released" therefore the qualifier that it was a "miniscule release" does not apply. It was not released at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.154.2 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there is a differecne between a film festival and a DVD, the film was still "released". The fact that it never went to DVD means nothing --T-rex 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Darien Lake
Something I wanted to know from the DL discussion page - I'm just curious where you're getting your information from about B:TE being constructed for '08? Thanks! ClarkCT 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the ride itself is sitting on the back lot there, and I have seen it for myself. As for the announcment that they are building it, I believe that they announced that sometime around mid-august, but I don‘t have a link or anything to give you to confirm that... --T-rex 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I just wanted to see if you had a reputable source. While the ride is still sitting there, no announcements were made for its future. In fact I'm pretty sure plans are still up in the air anyway. Thanks again, no problem. ClarkCT 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalizm reverted, image is back to being used --T-rex 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia? I've been here well over two more years then you have...  I havn't edited the Jim Kelly page in days either... you might want to double check this. --T-rex 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended (though if you've been here that long, you'd recognize that it's a standard template message). However if you haven't edited the Jim Kelly article, please explain these edits . Note that unsourced contentious material (negative or positive) added to biographies of living people that does not cite a verifiable source should be removed immediately and without discussion. The material you've added twice does not have a source, appears to be original research and can easily be contended (Steve Young also played in the USFL, and one might argue that Jim Kelly would not even be one of the best QBs in the league today (see:Brady, Manning, Favre) – let alone of all time). Find a source, attribute the statement to someone and re-add it - don't revert and simply drop it back in as is. Thanks. --Yankees76 14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I would call that "contentious material" or even "original research" either. As for the welcome, I did recognize it as a template message, but have no clue why you would use a welcome template on a user page as long as this one. It should be rather obvious to the whole world that this isn't my first edit to wikipedia. As for the need for sources I don't think that is really needed here. It's not the type of statement that really needs a source to back it up and it's just a part of the intro to the article. If you really need a source just look at the infobox on that page and you'll see that Kelly has almost every passing record their is. Best I can tell you just have a problem with Kelly, and until you're able to convince me other wise, I'll put that line back in. If instead you really do care about having a source, you should just add one yourself rather than delete content --T-rex 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to nitpick my choice of template, that's your prerogative - I think it fits fine here whether you're a new user or not - it's certainly not out of line. The real issue here is that you're adding unsourced material that could be considered your own opinion to the biography of a living person which fails to satisfy not only WP:BLP, but also WP:V. Whether or not you think I have a problem with Kelly is just a strawman argument on your part - and I think my contributions to the article over the last 24-hours show you're basing that on nothing. I did do a quick search, and did not find any substantial, reliable sources that say Kelly is one of the greatest QB's in NFL history. Meaning that it's most certainly original research. Even still the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so if you insist on keeping these statements, attribute them to a reliable source. I'll give you some time to start adding some citations - then I'll pull it again.--Yankees76 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you're been here a long time, I'll assume you have at least a passing familiarity with NPOV. Any subjective superlative claim is inherently a mere opinion, and so it has no place on Wikipedia without a source. Someguy1221 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim (if you bothered to read it) is that he is the greatest USFL quarterback. In case you didn't know that is (was) a seperate league from the NFL. As for the more general claim that he was one of the better ones in the NFL the mere fact that he is in the hall is testiment enough to that. While your contributions to the article do negate my intial reaction some what your claim that every sentance in the intro to an article needs to be sourced is rediculous. The general claim in the intro is based upon the more specific claims in the article, which in turn are the parts that need to be sourced. If you want to have a ref on that line feel free to add one, but do not remove content from the article. --T-rex 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is without a source, it's just your interpretation the facts as they're presented there - which is the pretty much the defintion of original research. By your reasoning (that inclusion into the HOF is enough to say he's one of greatest), there's nothing to stop any other editor from saying, for example, that Jim Kelly is one of the most overrated quarterbacks in NFL history, and cite his failure to lead his team to a Super Bowl victory in 4 tries as the proof of that. We both know this probably not to be true yet the point could be made. However if we were to say that "In 2004 sports reporter and columnist Jonathan Rand listed Jim Kelly as the 20th greatest quarterback in football in his book Riddell Presents the Gridiron's Greatest Quarterbacks, we have attributed this claim to a reliable third party source who is an expert on the subject. Thoughts?--Yankees76 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While a mention like that would be a good addition to the article, it's a tad bit wordy to put into the introduction. If you want to add that ref to what I've been adding. I can't see the part on Kelly, so I don't know exactlly what the source says, but thats a fairly short list he's on there which would seem to back up the claim --T-rex 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to page 148 to read the section on Kelly - I'll be adding some info from the book soon.
 * I think claims like these should not be in the introduction though, unless it's a widely accepted fact or sourced very well (see Wayne Gretzky). While the source above is a good start, it's really just one sportswriters self-published book - and it's missing contemporary quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who have both won Super Bowls and obliterated many of the records set by the QB's in this book. Unfortuntely, I have not yet found a source for Kelly like The Official Encyclopedia of the NHL used in the Gretzky article, but this is closer. --Yankees76 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 148 keeps falling victim to the "some pages are ommitted from this preview" for me... And while Kelly wasn't as dominent in the NFL as Gretzky was in the NHL, I really don't think there is any argument about his dominance in the USFL. I can throw a ton of refs on that if thats what you really want, I'm just saying that refs should not be needed as the body of the article should be enough to justify any claims the intro makes... --T-rex 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. -- Quar te t  01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appear to have three reversions over a four day period. I'm not quite sure what part of that makes you feel as if you need to spam my page with templates. Perhaps the more imporant question is where are all you people comming from? Me and Yankees76 disagree over one sentance and suddently every editor on wikipedia feels the need to publically state that they disagree with me... --T-rex 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have 4 reversions since November 29, have reverted more than 1 editor and had your revision reverted by 3 different editors. Note that the above doesn't say you broke the three revert rule, it's intended to let you know that it might be wise to stop and work towards reaching a consensus with the other editors. -- Quar te t  18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm still no where close to the three-revert rule and still loving the fact that you feel the need to spam my talk page with templates. I'm willing to bet the other editors fell the same way as well. --T-rex 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm glad to see my message is loud and clear. -- Quar te t  03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DYTM.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DYTM.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) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of --T-rex 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Switchfoot
I added a contribution to the page Switchfoot, this contribution cleaned the page up from three major headings, which there was no need to have, to one major one, entitled 'Record labels' now, if there is any change in their status it can be put under there, instead of taking up there 'new album' section with nonsense about them changing labels, which has nothing to do with their new album. i did not add nonsense and i was not experimenting, i know fairly well what sandbox is, and i know that i did not need to use that. can you please give me a valid reason why that is classed a vandalism when it is clearly a valuable contribution?

Alex15alex (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that edit is that it is highly redundent to what is already there. At the top of the page you are breaking all the redirects for no apparent reason. And then on the bottom of the page you replicating the band history under the bizare title of "record labels". If you have something concerning the band's history in regards to their record labels or anything else, it should simply be added to the already pre-exsisting section instead of being listed elsewhere in the article. thanks. --T-rex 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, i didn't do anything at the top of the page, that wasn't me, someone must have added that between me editing the article and you undoing it. can i ask what is bizare about 'record labels', i f you don;t like the title, you can change it. yes record labels is to do with the band's history, but it is simpler to keep the label history in one section, 'record labels' the new album section at the bottom of their biography can't be filled up with things from 1997, so i have put it all in one article. also, there was no need for all those sub-headings with only a couple of lines of text underneath them, so i changed that too. So we can either sort this out between us, or go on forever undoing eachothers edit's, now i'm not saying that you either have it my or no way, im saying that we will both have to come half way into making an agreement. thanks, Alex15alex (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those sub headings are not needed, but the whole "record label" part is just repeating what is already in the band history. There is hardly even anything about record labels in there... --T-rex 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't experimenting on the Jon Foreman page! I think the page needs a fresh and updated image now and again, don't you think? Cdaughertyjr (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text
I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks as if this issue has been more than taken care of. --T-rex 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Foreman's Fall EP reviews section
Hello! I was just curious why you decided it better to remove the other reviews? They are all "professional" reviews, and offer more perspective on the EP. I see a lot of other albums with a lot of reviews too. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They really arn't "professional" reviews. Typically as a rule of thumb I'm only for including reviews that are notable enough on their own that the site/newspaper has it's own wikipedia article, and things like "The Album Project" don't and probably never will. --T-rex 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

oh ok. cool. thanks. what about local online newspaper articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * normally no, but it would depend on the type of newspaper it is. If it's something that specilizes in music and such I might consider it --T-rex 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Meant to Live single cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Meant to Live single 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) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.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) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootWAOT.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootWAOT.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) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SatudayRockAction.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) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Appetite For Construction Tour
There is absolutely everything special about this tour. The bands went on tour for a good cause, Habitat For Humanity, and raised over $100,000 to donate to that cause. It's tours like these that deserve attention, not some other tour of just big names. They weren't even on tour to promote their albums or their singles--they were on tour to make difference in local communities. If that's not considered "special," then I don't know what is. Switchfoot, Relient K, and Ruth are great bands, and are taking action in changing the world around them, and this tour, along with the song "Rebuild" are big steps in that direction. Please re-consider deleting this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.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) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg
I have tagged Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg
I have tagged Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SwitchfootLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)