User talk:Thirteen squared/Archive 1

RfA
Hello, and thanks for commenting on my RfA! I see that you commented on my answers showing inexperience. For future reference and curiosity, if there any way you could point out what implies that? Thanks in advance. hmwith talk   03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think EVula's response (neutral as well) on your AfD said it best and sums up what I think pretty well. --132 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to this, I also worry about the lack of time spent on Wikipedia due to wikibreaks. You said that, before, you edited off and on for a few years. Is this constant editing? Or did you edit a lot for a month or two and then leave the project for two or three months? Without seeing the IP edits, it's really hard to tell and your account hasn't been around enough to see what the pattern was either. I usually won't support a request for adminship if there are long breaks in their editing history because I want a consistent admin who's not labelled as inactive for a lot of their time spent here. Since you have no way of showing whether or not you would be active the majority of the time, it makes me very hesitant to support. --132 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging
When tagging articles, please check to see if a date parameter is necessary. You neglected to include one in this edit, but it has since been added. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh. I added it; I just didn't add it right. --132 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Mary-Kate & Ashley
Thanks for the rewrite on that - if you're familiar with it - was it ever a TV series? It appears that it was simply just a series of direct-to-video releases with no TV connection, but that's just the movie side. I'm just trying to get the right infobox & tags on it, but can't find any TV links! Thanks... SkierRMH 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure I already responded to this on your talk page, but I figured I'd mention it again for those who come to mine and for my own records. The bulk of the series was direct-to-video with one aired TV special (the one with the murder at Sea World that was invented by the owner, knowing the girls would investigate and eventually get the family to go on a vacation; I'm not sure if the cruise was part of that or if that was a direct-to-video too). --132 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Al Leong
Thank you for your input and suggestions. I would like to think that I would be coming here to thank you had your opinion differed from mine. Unfortunately, it's more than likely I wouldn't have. - Tiswas (t) 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Wine Welcome
Thanks for joining the The Wine Project. Please see the project page for general instructions and announcements, including details of our latest projects. Also, be sure to visit the Wine Portal. Again, welcome.-- Char leen mer ced  Talk  17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project activity
This is a friendly note to let you know that you have been moved to the Inactive members page of the Wine Project. Users are moved to this page when two months have passed without any Wikipedia activity or 3 months have passed without any contribution to a wine related article. The intent of the Participant list is to function as a resource for other editors wishing to get in contact with wine project members for comments or question on Wikipedia's wine article. The goal of this process is to try and maintain the WikiProject Wine/Participants as current and up to date as possible with active and contributing members. Please note that this is not intended to be a negative reflection on your Wikipedia or wine related contribution and it is well known that sometimes outside life can take editors away from Wikipedia for some time. You will always be welcomed to rejoined the Wine Project should you feel that the time is right. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk or on the Wine Project talk page. Best wishes. AgneCheese/Wine 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple
This "IS" a television show that "WAS" filmed...see the difference? If you don't, go ask the people over at WP:TV who have made this the guideline for all retired television shows

Sorry for bothering you, but can you point me to where this policy is? I tried looking in the TV WikiProject style guidelines as well as the Manual of Style, and I couldn't find a guideline saying anything of that sort. RJaguar3 | u  |  t  03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. However, it's still just basic manual of style and complies with basic grammar rules. If you posted at WP:MOS, I almost guarantee they'd tell you it should be "is." I think the only time it can change to "was" is if it is no longer aired anywhere. Since Legends of the Hidden Temple can be viewed on television, it cannot be changed to "was." Think of it this way: "was" is used for things that don't exist anymore, "is" is used for things that still exist. Ignoring the fact that it is no longer produced, does LofHT still exist? --132 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
 * Also, the whole Legends situation is very complicated. The show is technically still on Nickelodeon Games and Sports for Kids (take a look at the edit history of that article to see just how complicated the whole situation is), even though that channel was supposed to have become The N on December 31, 2007.  Dish Network still airs the automated feed of Nick GaS, but it is not available anywhere else.  So there is question as to whether it really still should be considered as "airing."  RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hi dont get mad but how do u do these type of things on yo pg?

teach me bro
how do u do the things u do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginosboy08 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I'm a chick. ;-) Second, I've just been editing on Wikipedia for practically forever. If there's anything specific you want help on, feel free to leave me a message and I'll try to help you as best as I can. --132 17:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic places
The University of Evansville is unambiguously listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, there's no reason to remove a Wikiproject tag from talk space -- those are used to coordinate article improvement efforts. As such, I've reverted your edit and wanted to let you know why. &mdash; Lomn 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are reasons to remove Wikiproject tags and usually, if they are added, they also come with a note that says "If this isn't relevant to this article, please remove it." or somesuch. Also, sometimes they're added in a dishonest way (LGBT tags on articles about straight people) and absolutely NEED to be removed. So your statement about "no reason to remove" is blatantly false. I'm glad UE is listed "unambiguously" there and, yes, that gives it reason to keep the banner, but you really could have left it at the first line and not expanded. I'm not out to disrupt the project, despite how both of your comments to me here would imply, and a simple reminder would have been sufficient and, indeed, preferable. 132

ENGVAR
Additionally, as an FYI, Wikipedia is not an "American encyclopedia". The overriding rule for subjects that are not strictly American or British (such as the Department of Defense versus the Ministry of Defence) is do not change the existing convention. A pattern of such edits is seen as disruptive. &mdash; Lomn 19:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

About this: This is not an American encyclopedia. We do not use American spelling on all articles except those with British connections. Instead, we use whatever spelling the article's original author chose. Please read the official rules on that topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A very late reply, but I feel I need to address this as it makes me appear to be a rampant spelling changer eager to cause mass disruption with the project.


 * First, that's a guideline, not a rule. It's semantics, yes, but if you're going to accuse me of not following "official rules," you might want to make sure you know what the "official rules" actually are.


 * Second, I know at some point I was told that American English on non-specifically British/American articles was preferred. It's irrelevant considering the guideline (not a rule), but true nonetheless.


 * Third, that was the one and only time I had ever changed the spelling on an ambiguous article before or since, and it certainly was not a "pattern", so, really, there was no need for one person to jump down my throat, let alone two. Seriously, this reaction to changing the spelling of one word (not OR, not vandalism, not a personal attack, but changing the spelling of a word!) was uncalled for. A quick note from one person that simply brought the guideline (not a rule) up to my attention would have sufficed. --132 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares - Trobianno's Restaurant deletion (again)
Hi,

There are numerous sources of this restaurant closed from the state seizing it for taxes. I just named ONE source...and if you call the restaurant..the phone number has been disconnected.

Do you want me to list more sources? I admit the 'Net is not the BESt source..but it's all I have without walking to the restaurant myself and taking a picture of the NOW empty building.

Let me know what I can do to ensure that this info is updated correctly.

Thanks for helping me.

-Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianomanx (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just realized I never replied to this and for that I am very sorry. Chances are high that Trobianno's is closed, however blogs, blurbs, and "rumor has its" are not reliable sources. A picture taken by yourself would be original research. What if they moved? What if they plan to reopen? We really only care about what can be verified, not necessarily what is true. This is why we need to have cited, reliable sources for any closed restaurant. Thanks. --132 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Davies
Hello, Thirteen squared, in an edit of the Ashley Davies article, you stated, "...neither source says either of these things, it puts her and her homosexuality in a positive light, but it doesn't actually praise it so highly that it should get this wording."

But, in response to your edit, I point out that the AskMen.com reference does state her as an icon; it is not simply talking about the actress, and it is clear that it is speaking about gay youth in regards to her iconic status. Is it the fact that it does not state "LGBT icon" that you have a problem with wording it that way in the article? The AfterEllen.com reference also -- while not stating the exact word "notable" -- is still pretty clear about relaying how notable this character is. I mean, why remove that from the lead (intro), but let it stay in the Cultural impact section? Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that I have replaced that part about her being an LGBT icon, though I did not add back the rest of what you removed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to just keep the wording that is used in the cited article, otherwise you're drawing your own conclusions from it, which is considered original research. --132 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as can be told from my edit summary previous to this one, I'm for this suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Cultural impact section states what the cited article states about that, which is the reason I'm sure why you left it in the Cultural impact section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct! :-) --132 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares
I'm glad to see you have concerns about the nature of some of the recent edits made to KN by an unregistered editor. I'm uncomfortable with his rather aggressive, versus bold, approach to his edits as well as his lack of willingness accept having his own work edited. Most troubling is his failure to register. Let's keep the discussion of questionable edits going, and perhaps he will moderate his tone a bit. Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. --132 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. Fox has now removed the Casa Roma episode from the schedule, so I've taken it off the grid. They've got a two-hour Bones this week, and Hell's Kitchen starts next week, so I suppose they'll either deep-six the episode or save it until next season. I can't see leaving it in the table with TBA until we know something definitive. Drmargi (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

re: edits to Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School
Hello 169!

I recently saw that you removed a number of fact tags on this article, and while you gave a reason for it, I have been unable to find the relevant policy that governs this situation. The policy on verifiability, to the best of my knowledge, does not grant exemption to school alumni. While it is true that one needn't verify the notability of the subject that is already a subject of an article, I do believe that there is still a requirement to establish a reliable source that confirms that the person is question is an alum of that particular school.

I am far from the world's leading expert on policy, and if you know something I don't about this, please drop me a note letting me know so that I don't bother people again.

Thanks for your work on the project. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even thought about the issue of whether or not they went to the school. That does pose a problem them. I agree, there should be fact tags for that issue. Thanks for bringing this up. I probably never would have thought of it otherwise! --132 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bachelor TV show Racial critism
I did source it. You called it unreliable. I have to disagree with you from the perspective that it is a common consensus and/or opinoin and not original research. How do you show something that has that many potential sources? If I source one particular "blog" or "FAQ" site it would be discredited as unreliable, and I would agree, but the Google search, though not typical, in this case IS credible since it shows HUNDREDS of sources all showing the same critical opinion of the show. It is what it is, sorry if you are a fan of the show and do not want the show spoken of in such a manner, but there are ZERO minorities of note in 12 versions of the show.... and you think they would not notice that, especially in in the Obama Age? Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The source was entirely unreliable and completely inappropriate. Please see this article to see what a reliable source is and what it is not. A Google search is the epitome of an unreliable source, despite your personal opinions on it. If you do not agree with this or feel differently, please take it to the talk page at reliable sources. You also may want to brush up on verifiability. Wikipedia is is only interested in what can be verified with reliable sources, not what may or may not be the truth. --132 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please remain civil and assume good faith. Do not presume to know why I keep removing it. It has nothing to do with me being a fan on the show. In fact, if you had taken a look at the talk page for the article, in the most recent discussion, you would see that I replied in November with support for a criticism section. I simply want to uphold Wikipedia's quality standards and won't include it unless it is accompanied with a verifiable, reliable source. As an editor here, you should too. --132 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I will re-add it to the article with numerous sources. And I always remain civil and I also generally assume good faith, which is why I approached you in the manner that I did. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So long as they are reliable and verifiable, that is perfectly fine and it won't be removed by me. I felt you were dancing on the line of civility with this phrase: "sorry if you are a fan of the show and do not want the show spoken of in such a manner." Since you only pushed it, but did not outright violate it, I reminded you of the policy instead of leaving you a warning. However, you did not assume good faith with that statement, but I decided not to warn you for it since I felt you were frustrated and not malicious. --132 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

17/18 Kids and Counting
According to TLC the show HAS changed its title. It has been advertising the new title for the past week. So your "reliable sources" aren't really so reliable after all, are they? Thank you for screwing up an article, one about a show you probably wish wasn't on the air because the family is much larger than you would like, just because you can. Quidam65 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and remain civil. I left a warning on your talk page, but I will actually address this here. I have no feelings for or against the show. I've never seen an episode. I'm more of a J&K+8 fan, myself. How you came to the assumption about my feelings toward the show, I really don't understand. If you had taken a moment to look at the page's history and the page's talk page, you will see that I hold no ill-will toward the family or the show and, indeed, I have kept it on my watchlist to protect it from vandalism and people who would like to insert criticisms about the family or the show without proper citations with reliable sources.


 * I get that you don't like that I changed something you were probably proud or excited to change, since you clearly felt like it was time to change it. However, by editing this encyclopedia, you acknowledge that you do not own any of the articles and, thus, have to be willing to have any and all of your edits be tweaked, changed, torn apart, or completely removed if they don't comply with current policies or guidelines. You decided to preemptively "move" the articles based on advertisements. Yes, it will change. Yes, the article will need to be moved. It will be moved, but the move needs to happen when the title is officially changed through the airing of an episode with the new name. What if TLC decided not to air it? Yes, it is extremely unlikely, but it is possible. Because of that and other reasons we need to wait until it actually airs before we make drastic changes and full-scale moves. I requested the page be protected until the change is 100% official (the episode airs) and it was granted. We will change and move the article once that episode airs. Thank you. --132 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Table in 18 Kids and Counting
I figure you've got it on your watchlist, but just in case you don't, I have started a thread about the recent change you made to the table in 18 Kids and Counting. Respectfully, Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Me
I'm being "inflamory" for expressing my opinion. Nice to know that a person's opinion is regarded a such on this site. I didn't know swear or insult anyone, you guys did that all by yourselves. Can you say "lost cause" with that table? Probably not. 76.68.221.250 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop assuming bad faith. It's getting old. --132 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been arguing over something that has no basis in the current guidelines and policies. You are arguing against using a tag as it is supposed to be used and yet you make inflammatory claims that myself and others are assuming that readers are lazy or stupid, which can't be further from the truth. We want to use the resources that Wikipedia gives us. One of those resources is a tag that lists ages. If you don't think we should be able to list ages, then take that up on the tag's talk page and get it changed. Until then, you're arguing at a brick wall. We're using it how it was designed to be used and will continue to use it in that way until we're informed we're using it wrong. --132 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no faith, I wasn't brought up in any church or religion, so you're out of luck there.76.68.221.250 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely you've heard of a dictionary? It has nothing to do with religion. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but I have no faith left in the idea that maybe, just maybe, you'll act in a way consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. --132 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per your most recent edits to Jon & Kate plus 8, the same information can appear on multiple articles. There are no issues with that. The box is in no way violating any policies or guidelines. If you feel it doesn't belong, taking it to discussion on the talk page and gaining consensus is far more preferable than reverting your revert. You need to realize that acting like you WP:OWN the articles is not going to gain respect. You make good edits, a lot of them, but when you make inappropriate edits and get reverted, you act in a way completely inconsistent with civility and Wikiquette guidelines. Please reconsider how you interact with the other editors. Thank you. --132 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

eGuiders
Hello, Saw you that you added and then shortly thereafter removed a speedy deletion tag from eGuiders. I'd ask you to refer to the sources listed within the article for evidence of notability and also the Wikipedia pages of those personalities associated with the site. All of them are highly notable. Also, feel free to cross-check with the less reputable Ovguide. Thanks so much! BigBrightStars (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I didn't replace the speedy tag again after I removed it. ;) --132 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

redirect you created for united way of central indiana
Please don't do that. Yes, I work for this nonprofit. Yes, I was extremely careful only to add content which is purely based in fact. No opinions or posturing whatsoever. Those are facts, pure and simply.

Now, what you did, by redirecting to United Way of America is INCORRECT. Every local United Way, including mine, operates 110% independently of the national organization. The national organization is the one you see on TV during NFL games. That has nothing to do with us -- except that by adhering to standards of excellence, we are fortunate to share the United Way brand. I was clear about our relationship to United Way of America in the article itself. I wish you had taken the time to read it.

To redirect to their page implies that United Way of America's priorities and programs are our own, and that is FALSE. You are causing potential confusion, and you need to rectify it.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep Wikipedia top-notch, but you're mistaken here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedway-centralindiana (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the page needs to be deleted on the basis that it does not meet the notability criteria for organizations. Despite your protests, this individual organization IS a part of the larger organization, even if it functions independently. The best option is for a redirect. --132 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, you are in violation of COI to create articles, edit them, and attempt to promote your own organization. The article can be deleted on that basis alone and your account can be blocked for it. Please be more careful about what articles you contribute to in the future. Thank you. --132 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're still wrong
Sorry, but UWCI is not part of UWA. It just isn't. Period. I'd rather that you delete the redirect if you are unwilling or unable to grasp this point. I realize that from the outside, sharing a logo might imply that. But that's just not the way it works. UWA does not dictate policy of any kind to local UW's, except that they have to adhere to standards of financial transparency and such.

I read the COI policies, and disagree with your interpretation. Putting facts out there for those who wish to consume them is different that being overtly promotional. Me saying that UWCI exists is factual and serves the greater good. Me saying that UWCI is the greatest thing since Linux is opinionated, promotional and clearly unfair. And of course it would violate COI. More than 1 million in Central Indiana do comprise a significant population of interested parties.

But that's the last I'm going to say about it. I have better things to do than argue. I know you're not going to change your mind.

As I said, I am formally requesting that you delete the redirect as it gives a patently false impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedway-centralindiana (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I deleted the redirect myself. And no, I didn't add the content back to the page. Actually feel free to delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedway-centralindiana (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I did read the article before redirecting it, despite your claims to the contrary in your first message to me. I have never once requested speedy deletion, made merges, or created redirects for any page that I have not actually read and the majority of them I do some quick research of. Your accusations of my editing and "you are wrong" are based on baseless assumptions and they stem from having your article, which you have admitted to being an owner/member of, blanked and redirected.


 * This is exactly why we strongly urge all users to follow WP:COI and not get involved in articles on subjects they are involved with. Issues against COI do not solely stem from saying your organization is the greatest thing in the world, they also are there for users who feel like they "own" the article or can't take changes to it, which is what you are doing here.


 * You failed to explain on the article or in either of your two messages how your organization is so vastly different from UWA that it should, not only have the redirect removed, but, indeed, have its own article (which still would not pass notability issues and would have to be deleted). --132 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My Adventure with Green Day
Actually I spent alot of time typing that up from the book. I can assure you its not a copyright violation as it was originally published as a magazine article by Lawrence Livermore for a magazine and company that no longer exists, although the album Kerplunk is copyrighted, they would have no legal presidence to copyright something already in the public domain (it cannot be done). Also I e-mailed them before writing this article or do I need to screenshot the response from Lookout! Records?

Secondly I do not see how you can delete the story under the basis of "its not appropriate for Wikipedia" when it is not in violation of any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Had it been copyrighted material yes, but as it is not I should be able to post it. I will get authorisation from an Admin before reverting the edit back. --UnTrooper (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, Wikipedia suggests using a plot synopsis to convey the information in a shortened form. Third, did you write the story? No? Then you don't have rights to it. To include it, you need far more than a simple email to yourself. In fact, IIRC, you have to actually have the creator contact Wikipedia directly to include something like that. Please read this page concerning copyright issues. --132 20:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the owner is the now complete owner of Lookout! Records, an E-mail from them should suffice. You did not give me time to finish the article, Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedia of information. Examples of such things include All your base are belong to us includes complete transcripts because the article is based on the transcript. So an article on a short story would follow suit. In the end it will be the admins decision so it is pointless arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnTrooper (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think a merge and redirect may have been preferable to outright deletion. I think the intro you had and a short blurb about the plot of the story would have been fine on the album's article. I just feel having an entire short story, word for word, start to finish, is completely inappropriate. This isn't a publishing agency; it's an encyclopedia. You should have information about the subject (who?, what?, when?, where?, why?), but not the subject itself.


 * Since I'm not sure you were reading the messages on the talk page before it was deleted, I'll say it again here in case you're watching this page. It is not my job to go around Wikipedia fixing every problematic article on Wikipedia. It's no one's job, not even Jimbo Wales. It is completely unfair and borders incivility to suggest I should be required to do so simply because I disagreed with you and felt having the entire story should not be included. You don't own articles, even ones you create. If you don't like having your work edited mercilessly, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. --132 14:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Solitaire article
You have deleted my contribution. Please restore it. The work copied is out of copyright and part of project Gutenberg. It was properly referenced. Therefore it is NO copyright violation. http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Copyright_FAQ

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/21642

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Herring-Bone_(solitaire)

If you still are of different opinion, let me know.
 * I will not restore it. You lifted the entire thing, rules and play. Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not a guidebook, instruction manual, or a place to find "tips", it needs to be drastically summarized to be encyclopedic in the least. You need to worry more about finding reliable sources and establishing notability before you worry about restoring the rules and play of the game, otherwise it is a good candidate for deletion. --132 04:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you feel so strongly about it, why not delete the entire list of solitaire card games. They are hardly enceclopedic, mostly of poor quality and the whole list contains about 50 articles with plain rules that violate WP:NOT and WP:N. Most rules in this section have not even any historic background and most have not even a source. Please police them all in the same way.

My source is reliable and cross validated - your argument is invalid. If there are ways to summarize, I do that. If the original is brief and to the point it cannot be summarized, just rewritten. By rewriting you modify and/or loose. I doubt that you have scanned this section of the Wikipedia in depth. It is not a very enceclopedic section at all. I do not know what you mean by "lifting". If you mean copying of uncopyrighted material, that is true, but also legal.

I am curious what you think about the other articles in the list of solitaire card games. I think they are pretty bad for Wiki standards. Either we slowly improve them or they should be all deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzlbt (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight: because there are other crappy articles on Wikipedia, you feel you should be able to create more crappy articles on Wikipedia? That defies all logic and, indeed, it is possibly the worst reason for inclusion. If you are not here to uphold Wikipedia's standards and contribute positively to the project, why are you here in the first place? I think a better place for you to edit would be a wikia on solitaire. Their standards are lower and, I'm sure, your articles would be more than welcome there. If you want to continue to contribute here by adding new articles, you need to learn how to verify the notability of a subject and cite the relevant reliable sources.


 * Making the statement that I should be patrolling every crappy article about solitaire simply because I'm patrolling your crappy article is completely unfair and borders incivility (and possibly crosses that line). No one, and I literally mean no one, on Wikipedia is expected to fix or delete every bad article on Wikipedia and that includes Jimbo Wales, himself. I keep an eye on the pages on my watchlist, patrol new pages, and use the random button to see if there are articles I can contribute to. That's more than what's expected of me, as a regular editor. --132 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me that it wasn't possible to summarize the game play in that article. You went from the original wording to a summarized version and it doesn't appear it was too difficult for you to do so. You still need to remove all of the "you"s though. --132 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think that my summary is crappier than the original Gutenberg text (yes, I can admit that). Otherwise I would not have started the article like this. Your argument that this whole solitaire section should move to wikia is good. I completely agree that solitaire rules are not a topic found in a traditional encyclopedia, but there are also no blackberries, and other commercial devices listed in a traditional encyclopedia. So Wikipedia is way out of the traditional path already. We both will not be able to solve this. So let´s leave emotions out of this and go back to business. I have not created this article new, I rather filled in a red link, researched, found that the original print published name for the game. After a month or two I would have added some text and some images. maybe someone had helped in-between. It would be rather better to start with a high quality article, but if you do so others will modify it and delete sections, leaving a bad feeling. If you start with something that you consider improvable, and others improve it, this is psychologically much better. Anyway, if you would copy and paste parts of my copyright free thesis to Wikipedia I would be honored :-) Solong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzlbt (talk • contribs) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading
It's not policy, but this might have helped to defuse the conflict with Toounstable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned that on their talk page with the followup to the template: "I wouldn't normally give someone who's been around for more than a few months this warning..." I know about the page and, believe me, I definitely understand why you shouldn't template the regulars, however, in this case, the user was adamantly refusing any sort of relevant discussion and reverting anything that didn't keep the article in full (including an admin who reinstated the redirect). I truly felt like the user thought they "owned" the article. In fact, I didn't leave the warning until after several incidents and it wasn't until after I left the warning that they really left anything on any talk pages that resembled a discussion, as opposed to defensiveness. *shrug* It at least got them to talk. --132 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That it did. Thanks for the explanation. Wronkiew (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Campus studios
Sure. I think that producing a film significant enough to have a Wikipedia article counts as claiming notability. You might think that is an extremely weak claim. If you did, I would agree with you. But I thought it was borderline enough that I wasn't comfortable speedying it. I wouldn't make a big stink if another admin did speedy it, but I thought it should be kicked up to either PROD or AFD. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. That makes sense. Thanks! --132 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Monica Ramos
just heads up that I declined this speedy because I think Ramos has graduated from the Royal Academy of Music in Stockholm and played in the Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra avoids an A7. Suggest AfD if you really think it needs to be gone. StarM 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate
It's like banging our heads against a brick wall. Why is nobody getting this but us? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand confusing the two since they're so intricately entwined, but that doesn't make it any better. It's just immensely frustrating. It's like telling someone the sky is blue and showing them all the data and research and they keep insisting it's green. --132 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also find it interesting that this particular user hasn't made a single edit in almost a year and then they came to that page and refuse to give up the point. The user is clearly rusty on policies and guidelines and, yet, when shown why and how they're interpreting them incorrectly, they insist they aren't. Ugh. I've got to leave to go eat dinner. I might be on again later tonight, but I probably won't be back until tomorrow. If you're online, I expect you'll be able to continue making the point for me in my place. :) --132 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I disagreed with both of you on the inclusion of controversy in the article, but that didn't begin until AFTER the time stamp on these comments. Was this in reference to me with some time zone differences, or is this about someone else? Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, no, no. Not you at all! It was about another user who kept using the same tired and refuted arguments over and over again and just wouldn't budge. It was like talking to a broken record. You did something different all together. You discussed. We may not have had the same opinion about the topic, but at least discussing it with you was pleasant and we were actually able to get somewhere. :) --132 16:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just wanted to make sure. If it was about me, I would have wanted to address how I could better discuss the differences.  The thing that threw me off is that I too, hadn't made edits in some time (8 months) before I came back to edit...starting off with this article.  Sorry for the confusion! Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I read the talk page for Jon & Kate, and you two are absolutely 100% correct in every argument you make. You both rock. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You and I were both wrong. It's not "8" or "Ei8ht". Here's where I saw "Eight" not "8". http://www.tvguide.com/News/TLC-Introduces-Kate-1010289.aspx, (TLC announced the new title Kate Plus Eight, which replaces Jon & Kate Plus 8 starting Nov. 2.)

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/09/29/kate-gosselin-jon-gosselin-kate-plus-eight/ (Well, it’s finally happened. TLC has yanked Jon Gosselin from Jon & Kate Plus Eight — excuse me, “adapted to the changing Gosselin family,” as this morning’s press release says — and henceforth, we can watch the new, new, new Kate Plus Eight.) TH43 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears we're getting mixed messages. The source I cited and many others are saying "8" while many others are also saying "eight". So no, I'm not wrong, it's just more complicated than previously thought. We'll probably need to list both since there's so much conflicting info about the title. Rest assured, once the title officially changes, TLC will update their site and that's the name we'll use. --132 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks!
RE: Speedy deletion of "Troop15" I'm just starting on wikipedia and therefore don't know all of the rules yet. ~DR~ 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drock493 (talk • contribs)


 * That's all right! And don't worry, we don't expect anyone to know all of the rules ever, not even administrators. That's why we have the policy of assuming good faith. If you need any help, please don't hesitate to leave me a message! :)

Badr (satellite)
Hi. I have created Badr (satellite) because there are loads of that family's satellites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AimalCool (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have no idea what you're talking about. I think I might have an idea, but I'm still very unsure. You need to make it clear in the article what the article is about. Then, it needs to be able to pass WP:N. I can help if you need it. Can you better explain the topic? --132 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinions
Hi 132

I'm impressed by the work your doing over at Jon & Kate Plus 8 having been drawn to it via the WP:3O request for another opinion. I could see that consensus had been reached but just wanted to say how impressive your assistance was in achieving it. Obviously that seems to be because you've been here a while, but there are plenty of other editors I've come across in my 6 months who have been here just as long and are rude and unhelpful, or don't take the time to explain things.

If you ever get bored we could do with some more opinion givers!

Keep up the good work, Bigger digger (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Weeki Wachee Springs
I considered reverting 66.108.169.20's changes last night, then didn't: Would you consider re-instating that change? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's two edits. Last one alone looks questionably, but if you look at them together, it's a reasonable change.
 * It's certainly WP:GF, not vandalism.

Keeping tracerco on Wikipedia
Hi Thirteen Squared, what addional information do you require on the Tracerco entry to keep it on Wikipedia. Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keayp01 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Beliefnet
All I was saying on Talk:Beliefnet is that I think that liberal bias claims are credible because the owner Steven Waldman actually was a liberal Jewish political operative in the Clinton administration. I meant to say that he probably deserves an entry too. ADM (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's called synthesis. You've taken a liberal founder and tried to apply his leanings to the site, despite there being little to no evidence that there is actually a liberal bias outside of your preconceived notions. This is a form of original research and can't be included, especially without a reliable source that actually links the two. --132 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. If you want to talk about ways to improve the article, then I'll discuss it with you. Otherwise, please drop the general discussion. --132 16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8 DVD Section
First, when did I get a sex change? Love how you assume I'm a man. Nice.

Second, does anyone besides me check facts? I was the one who added ALL the release dates for the DVDs and until now, one one was interested. Why now? Maybe I should delete them all together and be done with it. Then I won't have people thinking I'm a guy and that I'm unreliable. Sound good? R7604 (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I chose "male" because I didn't know your sex and I hate using "they" so back off. For the rest of it, please take this to the discussion at WP:ANI or Jon & Kate Plus 8, not here. Thanks. --132 00:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, this message, while I didn't stress it in the ANI report, is part of the overall issue with your behavior. Instead of taking disagreements to the talk page of the article, you harass individual users on their individual talk pages instead. That is not good conduct. Issues with the article should remain on the article talk page, especially when there is more than one user "against" you involved. You need to keep conversations directly related to the article and its content easy to find for editors of that page, not hidden by sneaking it in elsewhere and singling a user out. --132 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In a Nutshell
Why are you bothering me? Why are you bother the DVD section after all this time? Where were you when I put the dates AND the chart? Why do insist there is only one date for the DVDs when that is not true? Why do you insist on butting in without checking facts?

There's your "nutshell"? R7604 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not "bothering" you. You chose to act again basic etiquette policies and I called you out on it. I didn't give a flying fig about it before others changed it (and I agreed with them) and then you refused to bother discussing the issue. I do not insist on only one date. If you had bothered at all to read my reasoning behind why I keep reverting that, you would be aware of that fact. I don't insist on butting in. I insist on upholding community standards, which is why I took it to WP:ANI in the first place. Now please stop harassing me on my talk page and take your grievances about the section the appropriate page (ie: the article's talk page). Thanks. --132 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto
"wikipedia is not static, it is dynamic, consensus changes...also, discussion and consensus building are core principles here, if you don't like it, leave".

Not only that but you're a buttinsky. Where were you back in April when I created the table or before that when I put the mutiple dates in? R7604 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remain WP:CIVIL and do not start personally attacking me simply because I disagree with you. I really didn't give a flying fig about the chart back in April (which is why I didn't change it), but agreed with others when they changed it. Again, you do not own the page or section, which means you have to discuss this issue with the other editors, which is why the page got fully protected, because you adamantly refuse to discuss it and come to a consensus. Now please stop bringing these issues to my talk page and keep it to the article talk page, where it belongs. --132 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird Al - Religion
I noticed you removed the category "Christian" from Weird Al. I did the research and posted the following in the talk page:

Someone stated earlier that "Yes" in response to his being Christian could also be a smart ass remark to "What religion do your consider yourself to be?". In "Ask Al" Q&As for July 5, 2003 - he responds to the question, "Will you identify for us the people on the cover of Poodle Hat?"

Well, let’s see… the guy with the poodle on his head would be me. The very pregnant woman with the sunglasses is my wife Suzanne. The guy in the surgical scrubs is my friend Joel Miller. The woman in the foreground with her legs crossed is my first-cousin- once-removed Tammy (who also played Queen Amidala in my video for “The Saga Begins”). UH Jeff, the guy that screens my fan mail, is the guy wearing the NY Yankees cap way in the back. Steve Jay’s son Ian is the really tall blond bicycle messenger. Tracy Berna, one of the writers for the Weird Al Show, is the waitress with the beehive hair-do. The Boy Scout is Dylan Bostick, the oldest son of one of Suzanne’s oldest friends. Bermuda’s wife Leslie is in there too. Plus there’s my mother-in-law, my father-in-law, my electrician, a couple from my church, the owner of my favorite ice cream shop, my aunt’s boyfriend… I think we got maybe 2 or 3 people from the casting office, but the overwhelming majority were friends and family members that just wanted to come to the shoot.

While I don't think it matters, the evidence seems to indicate he is currently Christian.

References are: http://www.weirdal.com/aaarchive.htm#0795 (July) and http://www.weirdal.com/aaarchive.htm#0195 (January) respectively.

While I didn't feel that that his religion enhanced his article, the evidence is there and so I feel the category should stand. I'm going to reinstate it and add the references previously mentioned. DigitalShepherd (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine and thanks for finding that information! --132 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, by the way, please do not use "Undo" unless the edit is obvious vandalism, which my edit was not. To revert an edit without using "undo", you would go to the page history, click the date of the previous version of the page, put something in the edit summary box, and then save the page. Thanks. --132 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, still cutting my teeth. Thanks for tip! DigitalShepherd (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. We were all new at one time! If you need any help, please feel free to drop me a message. :) --132 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind
I added my own two cents at Tom Harrison's talk page regarding R7604's editing behavior. I just thought he should know that it's not a personal issue, and that this is a pattern of long-term behavior. Hope I helped. Cactusjump (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't mind. I'm glad Tom will know it's not just me that's frustrated by this and that it's pretty widespread. Thanks for piping in. :) --132 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, she's back and changed the table all over again. Cactusjump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Cactusjump (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh for sure... --132 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Urban Decay cosmetics cleanup- thanks!
Whew. That article now looks like it is in good hands, so I'll take it off my watchlist. It was a random page hit so far out of my range of interest or expertise, all I could do was tag it and wait. Nice job, thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh...my... I've been making an effort to go through brand name articles and clean them up. They have a tendency to get spammed, but, I think, Urban Decay makes the number one spot for excessive promotion. I have never come across an article that spammy before. Sheesh. I'll definitely be watching that article like a hawk. --132 01:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dutchess County Fair
I removed the prod. Clearly this is a notable county fair from the numerous citations in the New York Times alone. I promise to fix the issues ASAP. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what sources or citations you're talking about as there are none currently in the article. As for your edit on the talk page, a Google search cannot establish notability. As for your search? Only one of the first ten hits was actually from the New York Times and the article was written in 1886. I'm fine with giving you a bit of time to improve the article (that's why prods can be removed by anyone!), but I will most likely AFD it if there are not significant improvements in the next few days or so. Just let me know if you need any help. --132 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try to clarify as I was way distracted when writing that note and I've had a chance to look into this further:
 * A Google search doesn't verify notability. The most recent article I've found is from 1991 (here). It may help pass, but I'm concerned it may be too promotional in nature, as opposed to informative. Either way though, I still think it needs more sources and not just from the New York Times. --132 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

middle initials of presidents
You recently removed the reference to Mr. Obama's middle initial from the Indiana State Fair article, with the edit summary: middle initial only used in cases where there were multiple presidents with the same name. Perhaps you failed to notice that right next to this was mention of John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, neither of which has another president with the same name. I don't disagree with your edit, just your justification, Mr. Obama's middle initial is not commonly used in mainstream media, while Mr. Kennedy's and Mr. Roosevelt's are commonly used. There is no standard for referring to presidents, but we generally use the form that the president is most commonly referred to, like Gerald Ford instead of Gerald R. Ford or Jimmy Carter instead of James E. Carter. --rogerd (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I totally didn't notice that. The only reason I changed Obama's was because it was just recently added. I didn't even pay attention to the other names in the list. :O Whoops! --132 23:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Hi. I'd like to thank you for your helpful notes on my editing debut. I've been reading Wikipedia for years but as you can see I've only recently registered and tentatively tried my hand at a bit of editing etc. I'd actually been rather wary of this as I often read the discussion pages and I'm aware of just how impatient some users/contributers can be with new, less experienced users. So, thank you so much for making me feel welcome and I may well be back in the future for a little more advice.

Thanks again, SolomonTrim (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SFA or ??
You seem to be thinking what I'm thinking. I've noted certain interesting commonalities on two user pages. Hmmm... A certain amount of diligence in monitoring the discussion would seem to be in order, since this is an angry editor determined to win at any cost. Did you alert User:Parsecboy? Drmargi (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Since they hadn't actually reverted the page, I decided to hold off. If they do revert though, I'll definitely report. --132 06:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just gave him a heads up in light of Roman888's latest. I'm going to keep my head down for the moment. Go take a look at Sophisticatedcat's edit summary and see if you notice a difference in the command of English in the few related to KN versus the rest.  I have this sense we have SPA, account sharing or sockpuppetry going on, but it's a touch tricky to get a handle on it.  Drmargi (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow I sounds like a little clique of people have gathered around. Does that sound like someone is using a the same account to boost their argument for vote consensus?  My guess is that Drmargi has 2 to 3 sockpuppets followers. Sorry for making this unwarranted accussation. Roman888 (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. You clearly don't get it. When we're coming up with thoughts of sockpuppetry and SPA, it actually has some basis in reality. That is, the brand new accounts clearly know how to use Wikipedia and immediately goes to vote on the issue on the talk page and makes zero other edits in the Wikipedia space. Unlike our accounts which have literally been around for years and edit a wide variety of articles and pretty much the only article that lines up is Kitchen Nightmares...oh but wait, it's totally not possible for two strangers to have a single interest in a television show so of course it's the same account. Silly me. All this time I thought I was a unique individual. Bad 132! Bad! This is getting ridiculous, especially over something so frivolous. --132 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

More canvassing overnight, I see. There also are now a couple new edits by Mr. SPA - go take a look and have your sense of things affirmed. Drmargi (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised at all. I think we're going to eventually need to take this to formal arbitration if the user doesn't settle down. I just don't think this user is going to stop until some "formal" process is done (and they'd try to vote through the whole thing). Then again, I also have a feeling that, even though the decision would be binding, if it wasn't in their favor they'd just keep it up. It's a toughie. --132 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He's pretty angry and very retaliatory. He tried to do me for edit warring the a couple days ago and got nowhere.  This is all about his grudge against me, who he's decided is keeping him from putting updates he wants on the UK article. I just looked at the timing of Roman888 and Mr SPA's activity, what little there is.  Very revealing.  Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been very careful about not naming who I believe is behind any possible SPAs. It was rather interesting (and revealing) when Roman got super defensive about it and started projecting that blame onto us. It sure seems mighty suspicious when he assumes I'm talking about him. --132 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We neither specifically identified anyone. I'm with you; I find the frenzied energy and over-sensitive responses very telling.  Drmargi (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Go and read the guidelines before making all your unwarranted accusations.  - Deletion process. Didn't I post in your discussion page asking for your opinion? DrMargi, you make it seem like I have a grudge against you.  You really must hold me in high regard.  I don't really hold long grudges, because I think its petty.  Anyways I appoint both of your Sherlock and Watson because of your fantastic deduction skills.  I think you should both start your own detective agency.  Maybe you can solve half the world's crime rate.  Roman888 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That page is for articles, not the information in the articles. Try again. You sent me a message after you were called out on sending me a message. Try again. As for the Drmargi stuff, I'll let him reply. I see it as kind of grudge-y, but you haven't done anything to me personally (other than left a ridiculous amount of sarcasm here and on other pages) so I can't judge there. --132 03:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't merit comment. Interesting, though, that the tacit assumption is that I'm a man.  Drmargi (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Everyone thinks I'm a man too. Apparently our usernames are pretty masculine. :P --132 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's TOO funny! Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Say whatever you want about grudges. I hold no grudges against DrMargi. Life is too short to hold grudges forever. You all are trying to distract from the issue of the updates whether they are sourced properly or not. One of the flimsy arguments was that the some of the references were from blog sites. So those that mean that all the updates should have been removed. So we have this analogy - My right hand is injured, so I have to also cut off both my right and left hands. Try to look at the references for some of the updates before you make any more comments, otherwise I think your buddies with the serial reverter here. Some of the references come from genuine, mainstream online media websites. You see someone is damn lazy and wanted to get rid of the updates altogether, even the ones with good references. You can get rid of the updates which have blog references, but keep the others. In another matter, my discussion page was vandalised and I supposed this is the company which one of you are keeping. It doesn't matter, but I made a few arguments in support of the updates.Roman888 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actions speak louder than words, Roman. Time to let it go. Drmargi (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Roman, you clearly did not read through the discussion we used to reach consensus at all if the only reason you cite for our removal is "blogs". If you'd actually read the discussion, then you'd see all of the following were used to support deletion: original research, verifiability, reliable sources, indiscriminate information, and journalism. Your argument about "blogs" pales in comparison to the myriad of other issues involved in leaving the information in. Also, lol forever at accusing us of vandalism. At this point, you've dabbled in WP:NPA and have definitely breached WP:CIVIL. I highly suggest you discontinue these accusations and just discuss the matter at hand (ie: the inclusions). Also, my talk page is not to be used for discussion of the article, so please discontinue leaving any messages about the article here. Instead, leave them on the article's talk page. Thank you. --132 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating the Updates for Kitchen Nightmares
Hi, I am in the midst of gathering everyone to give their comments on reinstating the updates for Kitchen Nightmares. I would appreciate if you come and give your comments on whether to keep or remove the updates here: Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares Roman888 (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body article
Hello, Thirteen squared. I am more familiar with your screen name than I am with your editing, but I know that you are active with film articles. Would you mind commenting at the Jennifer's Body talk page? An IP there is simply not getting something in regards to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic...and how Wikipedia works at large. Flyer22 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Walt Disney World College Program
I'm interest conflicted for this article so I'm not going to edit it anymore. -- A3RO (mailbox)  09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8
Thats ok then. I was worried I had been reverting some good faith editing, especially as I had just slapped a MOS warning on the users talk page. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They have gone back and reverted Plus your revert (or should that be Rev8s). I don't know anything about the show at all so I am not going to get involved. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Title
For now I'd stick with TV Guide, they're reliable about stuff like that. What source did you look at? TH43 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone one else will jump on the bandwagon and realize it's "Eight" because I did see a place further down on the main page where it had been changed back to "8", again. I edited it back to "Eight".

Oh and the link doesn't work, maybe you can find another from TLC? TH43 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I did *not* say it was not a "valid source". Go back and read what I wrote, again. TH43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Good because I never said TLC wasn't a good source, it's their show, they know the title. TH43 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Chuthya (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus Eight
Thank you for pointing out the WP:MOSTV guideline on tense. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. I've self-reverted the article changing where appropriate "was" to "is". I've kept references to the end of the show. In view of the fact that Jon has barred the production from filming his children and from the property and that TLC has voluntarily halted production, it seems unlikely that the show will continue. If that changes the necessary edits can be made to update the information. FYI, if you had notified me of WP:MOSTV after the first revert or in the edit summary it would likely had avoided this whole situation escallating to WP:ANI. Please keep that in mind in the future. My Best, Chuthya (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still issues with the page. Under broadcast in the infobox, it should still be listed as "present", not through 2009. Putting 2009 down before TLC has made a statement regarding the end of the series is the exact same reason we aren't putting the Gosselin's marriage dates down. It is original research. Further, according to TLC, production has not been halted; filming, on the other hand, has been suspended (and there is a difference between production and filming). Since TLC is our highest level source, we need to use what they say, not what the tabloids do, which means the status in the infobox needs to say "Filming suspended" and the lead needs to convey that as well.


 * As for my edit summaries, I don't know if you're aware, but you're only allowed a very limited amount of space. I wanted to get my point across in as few words as I could, which limited what I could squeeze in there (and, obviously, I couldn't even quite get what I was shooting for). Instead of reverting me and calling me a vandal (because, quite clearly, the edits were not bad faith in the least), you should have immediately come here or to the article's talk page to discuss the concerns. The false accusations are what primarily caused the escalation; this is why assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I do want to thank you for coming here to discuss this civilly. I only wish it had occurred far sooner than it did. --132 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Duggars
Hi!

If you know how to put Jordyn's age back in, could you? Someone's been playing around with the table with the kids and I can only put Jordyn's birthday. I'm not sure how to configure it to show her age, for a baby under two years old. Thanks! TH43 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed! The main infant age template had gotten vandalized. I reverted the vandalism and restored the tag. :) --132 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put something similar, but Jordyn's page was still messed up. Thanks! TH43 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandal on Jon & Kate Plus 8
Hi, I couldn't help but notice that you've been having some trouble with an ip vandal on Jon & Kate Plus 8. Should you need to take further action, please let me know and I will add my voice of support in it. The ips are a sockpuppet of banned user TH43. The user was banned for repeated vandalism and removal of sources from Law & Order articles. He keeps coming back and vandalizing the Jon & Kate and the Law & Order articles and I plan on filing a WP:ABUSE report soon if he continues this action.

Thanks in advance for letting me know about any action taken against the user. I hope this information provides some insight into who this user is. Redfarmer (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:DUCK, it's the same user as R7604 (which would be the original account, I believe). I brought this up to admin Tom Harrison a few months ago here. R7604 was repeatedly blocked again and again on various IPs and accounts for similar issues (you can see the zillion messages about it on that admin's talk page). Thanks for letting me know about the IP. I wouldn't mind helping out with whatever since I was involved very early on. Thanks for letting me know. --132 04:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right. I wasn't aware of that account's existence, probably because they didn't edit any of the pages I watch on a regular basis, but they certainly pass the WP:DUCK test. Same condescending attitude, same refusal to discuss edits, same edit warring, same refusal to see anything from anyone else's perspective. Since I've already had a sockpuppet investigation initiated on TH43 and it's archived, I'll go ahead and leave TH43 as sockmaster and tag that account as a suspected sockpuppet. Thanks for the heads up. They've been doing this longer than I realized. Any other ips you know of we can tag? Redfarmer (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Going off of Tom's page, here are others:, , , , and (yes, he really tried to copy Tom's name). The user is incredibly frustrating. I have little doubt that we'll be seeing a new account soon. The user is like the poster for WP:DISRUPT. --132 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The new account has arrived: User:RubyP. Already filed a sockpuppet investigation. Redfarmer (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew it had to be coming soon. Thanks for keeping me updated! --132 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you may want to keep the admin, Tom, updated about this as well since he was so involved in the issue. It would be good if he knew what was going on as well. --132 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bento
Sorry if you felt I was messing with the format of you vote... The Ogre (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. :) --132 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

grmike here some discussion is needed regarding the issue of sasha baren cohen
i don't have seniority here like you appear to but i have been a valuable member of wikipedia for some time. the issue of antisemitism is clear as it applies to cohen. this is not debatable the Anti-Defamation League has in the past condemed Cohen for his speach and language as it applies to anti semitism. what i did on a talk page is not out of order and i am fully within my rights according to the link you provided when making the statements that were removed. someone must hold either you or the encyclopedia accountable for refusing to acknowledge the anti semitism displayed by Cohen in his numerous acts. a talk page is where this kind of discussion takes place. if the warning is not removed and the discussion is not allowed to happen I will take this to every discussion panel until I receive a more coherent, just response. you're decision to threaten me with a ban for something you deem a blatant attack (when the other editor who last removed my contribution called it a source of discussion that shouldn't happen on a talk page (ludicrous)) is actually you being derelict. what is most ironic about this whole incident is that apparently on seach engines like google wikipedia is given precedence, the first result when freedom of speech is ssearched. the freedom of speech issue is something that wikipedia better smarten up about because the more editors that are lost (tens of thousands last year) the less credibility is given to the site. it's clear that in the future that could be the major hurdle the site will have to overcome in order to keep its place at the top of search results, and thus relevent to the group it seeks to inform. Grmike (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike
 * the removed section has everything to do with the article. the article's subject is Cohen and the section was added to his talk page in order to facilitate dialogue between me and anyone who would remove the additions pertaining to this issue at their discretion.  maybe i wasn't cogent enough for you. issue number 1 : whether he's an observant Jew.  issue number 2 : whether the anti semitism displayed by him in the entertainment industry, and that was acknowledged by Jewish people at every level Judaism as well as the ADL is relevent enough to be included at any level within the article or its talk page.  inclusion as it pertains to the talk page shouldn't even be up for discussion as the talk page is the outlet for discussion.Grmike (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike


 * You are discussing Baron Cohen, not the article. Can you not see the difference? Here, I'll help. If you were discussing the article, your messages would be something like "Such and such a statement needs a source." or "Should we be linking such and such external link?" or "Can we discuss trimming down such and such section because it is adding undue length to the article." You're not doing that. You're ranting about something you disagree with Cohen over and you're doing so in a very inflammatory manner. You aren't bothering to find sources for any of your extremely biased statements and the closest you've come to discussing the article is basically "We should discuss, at length, the merits of this NPOV issue that I can't source, but I think is true because it might be tangentially related to some random, one-sentence statement within the article." Sorry Charlie, but that's not going to fly.
 * Further, many of these allegations you are making, including that of supposed antisemitism, are blatant violations of WP:BLP with no support through reliable sources. You are spouting libelous statements with zero support outside of your own opinion. By policy, statements such as that are to be promptly removed from talk pages.
 * Even further, a similar discussion was made previously over his level of observance, and it was done in a far more respectful manner than you are doing, and the result was "find sources" not "rant more." You have not shown sources for any of this information. You're going off on this issue, just to go off on it. You may be frustrated with something he has done or said, but that does not give you the right to explode about it. At least not here. You're more than welcome to start a blog or something about it.
 * I want to thank you for bringing this here to try to explain to me where you are coming from. That said, continued pursuit of this subject in this rage-y manner will lead to a discussion of your behavior at WP:ANI. (Edit conflict: at least you've saved me the effort.) --132 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the matter immediately above is under discussion at ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. --132 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Suleman
You're welcome. For a BLP, I'm surprised how some edits has gone unnoticed. Thank you also for watching. --Jmundo (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised with such a high profile person there aren't more people watching it. Lord knows that's an article that needs it. Thanks again. --132 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The main page of the article on User:Thirteen squared could be improved if it included some information on the etymology of Nadya Suleman's last name.  (It happens to be very similar to the last name of another high profile individual (not yet in the news), as well as a high profile individual from 1945, over 50 years ago.)  And while I am on the subject, I think I have a pretty good idea what Thirteen squared's real name is.  All of these things, taken together, should be noted on the main page of this article.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at found my name on the whitelist accused of vandalism that the accuser has since apologized for and retracted it regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Also, lol, my talk page is getting looooooong. I didn't really notice that until this message. I think I'm going to have to finally cave and start archiving. :S --132 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to the dark side. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I will get on that after lunch. :D --132 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. It looks so sad and bare. Also, LOL at 84,800 characters! o_0 --132 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. Your wiki appreciates your sacrifice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Appalachian Trail
Your "how to" tag is much appreciated - that is an issue which has come up before on the article when I've removed excess detail and been over-ridden. It would be helpful, however, if you could back it with a short item on the Talk page, pointing to one or two spots that you specifically think are problems - sort of what you did in the Edit summary, but more visible. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming here. I have addressed my concerns on the article talk page. That said, I'll no longer be editing the article or participating in discussion. Rjanag's removal of the tag without either giving me a chance to address your requests here or contacting me himself took me off guard and made me feel a bit uncomfortable. I may be totally off-base with those feelings and the intent behind the removal, but it still didn't sit well with me and I'd rather just avoid the issue all together. --132 17:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it makes you uncomfortable, 13; this is exactly how WP:BRD works. After discussion we can all decide on the best way to handle the tag. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly I misunderstood why you removed the tag. Thanks for clearing that up on the talk page.


 * With regard to your edit summary here, perhaps you need to read the intro to BRD again, as it says to use it with care and diplomacy, acting in a way that is considerate and patient. I reacted to your revert by feeling uncomfortable. Whether or not that feeling was justified, telling me I was being touchy is neither considerate nor patient.


 * I removed myself from this discussion with my previous two messages. Please leave me be. --132 18:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman888
Did you see this? We knew our little tendentious friend had issues, but holy cow. Drmargi (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Teens Run Modesto Speedy Delete declined
Hello, I am a Page Patroller and declined your Speedy Delete. I attempted to do a Temp Save just about the same time you DB'ed the article as I knew it might get a SD nomination. I will copyedit the article and bring up its status. --Morenooso (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't ever give a Page Patroller a warning. I did not create the article and within my rights to decline your nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally when a Speedy Delete nom is declined, you cannot re-establish it. You need to review the rules or else I will cite you. --Morenooso (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge you understand on this your talkpage. I have it under Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning is automatic. I cannot control it with the program I use. Additionally, while I assumed you were the creator and readded it, by the time I tried to remove it, you had already done so and I had an edit conflict. That said, it still needs to meet WP:ORG, which it currently doesn't. A high school club will almost indefinitely fail that test. I have since replaced the CSD with a PROD tag. Feel free to fix the article before the PROD expires. If you remove it without establishing notability, I will AFD the article. --132 04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You better control it or you will be reported. --Morenooso (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll report me for not agreeing that the article establishes notability? --132 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can be reported for edit warring and re-establishing a Speedy Delete after it was declined. Removing Maintenance tags and issuing a warning in non-WP:AGF is not WP:CIVIL. And yes, I disagree. I am a Page Patroller and will establish its notability
 * Additionally, you have no right to remove the UnderConstruction tag. You can establish other tags but removing it is a warning that could be applied to you. If you don't fully understand the SD rules, you shouldn't be reverting and re-establishing Speedy Deletes. --Morenooso (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove that tag? Everything I did was automatic per my program and never replaced text (at least as far as I'm aware). Nor did I mean to replace the Speedy as I've already stated above. Your excessive amount of messages here led to a delay in, literally, everything. Every time I tried to explain something or change things, I kept getting an "edit conflict" message. It would have helped immensely if you just stated your viewpoint and let me explain mine because, really, everything past the first message was unnecessary and would have been addressed if you had actually let me respond. I feel you're just trying hound me at this point. --132 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I decided to go ahead and just check whether or not I removed the "under construction" tag, under every single edit of mine on that page, and that would be a negative. Your accusations here are baseless. I've filed the AFD. Fight it there. Not on my talk page. --132 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

apoligise
Hi. I want to apolgise for trying to add a pescetarian forum to the pescetarian article. I seldom come here to edit anything. If you have any suggestions on how I can let other pescetarians know that a forum exists for them, please let me know.

Jemdude

Cute Overload
Hi there. Not sure if you are still following this article, but I wanted to advise you of the proposed deletion of this article now pending, as I see you are its most recent active contributor. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bath bomb
Hi, you're doing some sterling work to the bath bomb article. But does the caption for the picture need a link to Lush? It seems a bit commercial to me. Also, just trying to get past an automated edit filter that won't let me post. Brammers (talk/c) 09:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, I'm back and forth on that one. The only reasons I added the "LUSH" caption was because it, well, is LUSH, there's an article for LUSH, and because the user in question actually tried to caption the original photo as their own product, which it clearly is not. It can go either way though. There should probably be a link to the LUSH article somewhere on the bath bomb article, but the caption doesn't necessarily have to be it. --132 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's true. Looking at it again, you're right. And unless the article is ever expanded to include a history section or whatever, I think the caption is probably the best place to put the link. Brammers (talk/c) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

TH43 Socks, Redux
I've opened an investigation of TH43's latest socks at Sockpuppet investigations/TH43. You're welcome to go and add any evidence I may have missed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars (book series)
Thanks for the assistance! -- Crazysane (T/C\D) 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) --132 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cooking for Engineers
I've responded on RSN. I expected to say never, but ended up with a slightly different opinion. I think his site is notable enough for an article, which I'll start in userspace. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinchilla
I understand your concerns and I've contacted the creator of the photo I uploaded to inquire about the possibility of any alternate shots - hopefully though, it is a nice image. See you around. Connormah (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I've been looking for a new image - the background for the current one isn't that great - I can't really see it too clearly without enlarging the image and having a good look. I'll keep looking, though! :) Connormah (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one - that should work, if you're willing to upload it. The current one is good, but I find it a bit dark, but yours is much better. Thanks! :) Connormah (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - you should probably upload it Commons, though - Commons:Upload should do the trick - just follow instructions there. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what your saying, but if Anne Hathaway sang in her movies and got payed for it, then doesn't the mean she also got payed for singing.

And as for Zac Efron, didn't he get payed for acting, singing AND dancing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disney09 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Milo and Otis
With all due respect, if the problem was the introduction of a wordpress blog (which was only there because it contained a video link), why did you revert the whole edit, instead of deleting the link and saying without source??? I was trying to introduce NPOV in the article that currently reads like the director killed animals for fun and directs an animal concentration camp. I take a big issue with reporting allegations that have not been proven, without at least an equal balance on the other side. Shesh, you wiki editors are really a nice bunch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.231.37 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be trying to push a certain POV on the article. Please see WP:RS for why info has to be sourced to be added. It also works the other way around. You tried to remove information that was backed up with reliable sources. If it's not true, surely there's a source, and that information should be included alongside the allegations. Just removing it full-scale with an edit summary saying it hasn't been proven and that it's slander (which, obviously, you don't even know what that means) isn't going to cut it. You're going to need to cite your sources or provide a legitimate reason for removal, otherwise you will continue to be reverted. --132 04:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, take a look at the very last statement in the section, in which it says that the film depicts no animals being harmed. --132 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Slander: any defamatory words spoken about a person? Which meaning of it I do not understand, and you clearly do? Has occurred to you that the simple reason that evidence against the allegations cannot be found because it is not in English??? It is extremely difficult to find even the original evidence of the allegations (and this is still officially only an Australian newspaper article, everything else cited in the page is "hearsay"), let alone anything affirming the contrary, I still find the article defamatory and totally unbalanced. I edited it a first time leaving the allegations but removing anything too inflammatory. I do not care what happens to it, but I am very sorry that people seem to take so little regard of the reputation of other people. I have written to Mr Mutsugoro. If he really cares, he will probably edit the page himself or find other ways to control the page. And, maybe the movie said "no animals were harmed", because no animals were harmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.231.37 (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then find it and source it. It doesn't have to be in English to be considered a reliable source. The allegations still exist and can be sourced, whether or not it actually happened. We don't not include information just because it might be considered negative. Also, slander is spoken word, not written. Don't go throwing around legal terms unless you actually know what you're talking about. Also, throwing around legal terms on Wikipedia can be grounds for getting yourself blocked from Wikipedia, so I suggest you knock it off. --132 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Park Racecourse
It is technically outside both Evansville and Henderson city limits. It is on county land outside Henderson's city limits. Too many people assume that just because a place has a certain postal address that it is located in that place. Every place in the United States has to get mail from some post office. Most places that are on county land get their mail from a near-by city post office. Many big-city suburbs (separately governed) get their mail from the central city post office. If you would check a local map, you will find that this particular location is outside of the Henderson city limits. Backspace (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand city limits, but we don't use city limits to designate locations here, we use the city they are most commonly known to be in, whether or not that corresponds with technical city limits. The vast majority of people wouldn't type "Ellis Park, just outside Henderson, KY city limits" into a Google map search, they would type "Ellis Park, Henderson, KY" instead. --132 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another popular option is to just state what county it's in, and what state, which avoids the city limit thing altogether. --132 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice
So is this what you mean when you say act civil? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs don't make a right. I never said they were being civil, but making excuses for why you were uncivil isn't going to help your cause. --132 17:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of a reference
I discovered (through my watchlist) that you have been going through and systematically removing all links to www.floridasprings.org, identifying them as spam. I won't comment on the links you removed in the external links sections, because I am not much concerned about them. I am concerned, however, that you didn't really look at what you were removing. That link is to a page operated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (as clearly noted on the footer of each page), not a tourist board or a commercial company. One of the links you removed (the first one I reverted) was added by me in February 2008, when I extensively expanded the article to which it was added as a reference. That was probably the first appearance of floridasprings.org in Wikipedia. It is possible that another editor discovered the link from that article and added it to others, but in any case, your mass-reversion was inappropriate and I have reverted several of your removals where the link was being used as a reference. Please don't assume that all links to a specific source (even if added by one person) are spam. Before you revert, take a look at the site first, especially if it is a .org domain, which means that it's not a commercial operation. As I said, I have not gone through and reverted every one of your edits, but you might want to consider reverting the ones that I didn't.  Horologium  (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I removed a valid reference. I did check all of the links being used as references and I thought all of them were dead pages and, given the severity of how often floridasprings.org was being abused, there was little to convince me to keep them. If I didn't catch that one was live, it was purely accidental. Also .org domain names mean absolutely nothing because it's not regulated, even though it should be. Anyone can register for them for 10 bucks a year at godaddy.com and yes, it can be a commercial operation because, again, they aren't regulated. --132 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, not saying this particular site isn't what would traditionally be considered a .org website; I was just commenting on your assessment that a .org domain means it isn't a commercial operation. --132 18:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)