User talk:William Graham

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Re:Spammer
Thanks for the warning. I have gone through and reverted most of their edits. I'll write them a stern note, and if they continue they might have to be blocked from editing. - SimonP 17:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spamming
openDemocracy is a not-for-profit organisation which operates under a creative commons license as Wikipedia does. http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/creativecommons_2596.jsp

It is not a commercial site and has several links to Wikipedia. We are big supporters of the Wikipedia project. Please see here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-accountability/wikipedia_2882.jsp

I was not aware of any problem with Wikipedia before and had not been informed of your message in August. I hope this will not mean openDemocracy links cannot appear on Wikipedia as there are usually several links to online publishers such as the BBC, CNN and Washington Post attached to articles and current events.

Please inform.

Regards Maz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.187.149 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User 130.76.64.16
Thanks for the message about User:130.76.64.16. I now warned him again on his talk page. He had enough warnings now and could probably be blocked. But I'm not an admin, and if the problem persists, he should be noted on a page like WP:Vandalism in progress. Kefalonia 17:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Plattsburgh
Hi William,

Thank you for the response. I graduated Plattsburgh State in 2001, and have recently been updating the things I know. The PSTV entry was made by webmaster of PSTValumni.com. I recently tweaked some thing in the WQKE section, especially concerning the former call letters of WPLT.

I discovered Wikipedia a few months ago, and I love it! Good luck with the new semester.

--Ian

Eduardo Saverin
Thanks for reverting me. I went to facebook.com, didn't see his name, and just reverted out of habit. So again, thanks for doing some more research and reinstating it. I'm just so used to seeing BS put into that article. Mike H. That's hot 07:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out
It'll probably be a user conduct RfC, then wind up in ArbCom. Thanks for reaching out with your support, and I'll keep you posted regarding any moves towards this end. Have a good day! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's very easy when the behavior is so obvious. Thanks for your support. I'm gonna relax for a while, if you think of anything to add that will help others come to their best informed judgment, go for it! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern
Thanks. I've added the heading for some of them (others had them added by other editors, or are too short to merit it, IMO), but I'm still not very adept at the template thing. If you know how to do that, I woudl recommend that you do so. Thanks. :-) Nightscream 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC
You might as well go to WP:RfC, and read up. Chech my userpage...I generally hate RfC and don't like ot talk about it or be much of a part of it. RfC is just a semi-formal discussion with evidence to back it up so as to get a "consensus" on what to do. It is not really binding...so the user in question could just ignore it. Still, it will carry weight if this has to go to arbcom. Anyone can comment...as the point of RfC is to include the accused...the accusers and outsiders. Hope that helps. Voice of  All T 16:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting My Board From Keith Olbermann
There is no rational basis for deleting that link line for Olbermann. It is a valid reference. I understand your "literal" interpretation of a problematic rule, but that rule needs to be altered as well, becasue it leads to this sort of problem. It is easier to destroy than build, what you are doing is wrong. Thank you.

facebook
I kinda foolishly started over the facebook voting debate at Talk:Facebook_(website) (because there were some comments like waffle iron's that weren't clear whether or not they were voting and for what). I have now realized that not everyone who commented before may have had it on their watchlist so I am sending this to anyone that commented earlier and has not yet (re)voted. Sorry. --L1AM 07:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
FOr reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Pilotguy (  talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 21:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Articles
Please do your research before marking AfD, as you would've found Pure Pwnage's all ready voted keep twice. Thanks. 72.150.8.234 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

More like do your research about the topic rather than just taking one look at it and then marking it as non notable fan cruft with zero evidence to back it all up. The show, like any other show, is popular and well known with their own comic strip and such. I fail to see your justification for labelling it cruft and non notable, especially after it had already been voted to keep the article and not delete it. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 129.128.67.23 (talk • contribs).

He's just left-handed, and left-handed people can make silly things happen! :) --84.249.252.211 22:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Edits
William, please research and cite specifc concerns with "weasal words" and citations' validity before removing them from the article. Further incidents will result in reporting to Administrators and possible blocking from Wikipedia.Straightinfo 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are aware, reverts of simple vandalism are not counted for 3RR rule. Straightinfo 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As we've discussed, straightinfo, this isn't vandalism, it is a content dispute. The concerns with the citations etc are being discussed on talk.  --He:ah? 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 64.223.121.83
William, do not edit my talk--Further, in a piece written for TPM Cafe.com --

Keith Olbermann
What do you propose we do regarding Rcox's edits to the Keith Olbermann articles? -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:01, 17 April 2006 (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 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:RCox
I pretty miuch figured out who RCox was the minute I saw his username. OlbermannWatch is a nasty place. One time I had the nerve to disagree with one of their posts and said so, and I still bear the scars! ;) I guess we have no choice but let OlbermannWatch solve their own problems. If RCox keeps up his incivility, there's always Rfc, and if necessary, ArbCom. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, if he brings up a blog I had against him last year, it is true yes. Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the wisest, but what OlbermannWatch had to say made me furious, and I felt like I needed to respond. Hopefully, he won't bring that up again, but something tells me he will. Hopefully, it won't become a huge deal. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal tags
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as,  ,  ,  ). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the  tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Especially when putting a tag on a page.. And Don't forget to notify the page creator User:Apescum. Personally I am a Inclusionism--E-Bod 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ps i sugest you use Template:Nn-warn to tell the creator of articles that their article will be deleted--E-Bod 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Misspelled name
I don't think Rabinic means what you think it does. Thanks for coming out though. RabinicLawyer 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Determined" to be unhelpful
I extensively documented my findings. Nobody else did. They just deleted.

I believe Italic textthatItalic text qualifies as vandalism.

Thank you!

Mike Church

aka pensive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter S. Levine Huckiss (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 April 2006.


 * I am going to look into this issue but didn't i just warn William Graham to use an edit summary. Don't revert withough explaining becose it's taking me longer to evaluate the siduation.--E-Bod 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Template:Behave is a more appropriat friendly warning template. Anyway i don't see how using a Clear Vandalism warning is aroporiat Remember WP:Bite--E-Bod 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
 * After a new user adds such a long edit a revert is harsh. You can see in thier edit they used an extra "[" for ouside links and he/she hasn't figued out how to make Italic text properly.  If they like to joke let them know about uncyclopedia and if you don't know about it i can rest my case.--E-Bod 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

list of newspapers in the US
Thank you for reverting that. the_ed17 (talk) Use these!  17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you revert the Ancient Greek article?????? And can I revert things even if I am not an admin? the_ed17 (talk) Use these!  19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio tag
Hi. You recently tagged Staghorn coral for speedy deletion as a copyvio of this site. I believe that site is in the public domain and as such it may be copied here. I think it is best to analyze this case with more detail before deleting it. I have added a hang on for this purpose. Joelito (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann Links
As I've said on the discussion page, I absolutely agree with you that NO such fan forums should be listed at Wiki. However, I think it grossly unfair that if one is going to be mentioned, that the rest should be excluded. Thus, I came up with a compromise: posting the remaining sites that were being left out of inclusion. As I said, I do not see anythign special or unique about any of them. They all look like your average message board/fan forum to me. And no where else on any of the pages of news personalities or news networks could I find similar links. I did go to Cabal on this, I was overruled and told that since there couldn't possibly be that many sites for such an obscure personality, that Ko.org should remain. I then contacted someone else at Wiki, who told me that they agreed with me--it should be all or none. So that was my split decision: if one was going to be here, then all should be. I've labeled them as fan forums and put them under the external links.

William, were you aware that the list was the result of days of discussion resulting in a consensus, at long last? CuteGargoyle 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you decided to move the discussion over to my talk page, I've responded to you there. CuteGargoyle 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This has now been arbitrated at the highest levels of Wikipedia and the decision is to let the link to KeithOlbermann.org stand, William. Please refer to the talk page of Keith Olbermann's article and stop deleted the link, which I will now put back  --DoctorMike 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the cabal is a non-binding decision and two more Wiki users chimed in, whose opinions are as valid as the Cabal's about this and they agreed it should be removed. If there had been a mediation or arbitration decision, those would be on the discussion page for the Keith Olbermann page and its not so this is simply not true. I also believe there's been some confusion about the difference between www.olbermann.org and www.keitholbermann.org. They are not the same site. One is rich in content and does not have a message board but links to all the others. www.keitholbermann.org is a message board site owned by Dr.Mike that he believes should be listed over all the others. As I explained yesterday, it is not the most visited site, it's not the site with the most posts or members, and it is not the oldest site. By any measure, if one message board is going to be included over all the others, in the interest of fairness, it should be the largest and that is the one at Democratic Underground. I've got no dog in this fight, I don't post at any of those sites, I had to go to Google to even find them all, but I wanted to double-check some of the claims being made by DoctorMike and I found some real whoppers in doing so. He first said that his was the only message board. It's not, jsut as prior posters have said. He then claimed it was the most popular. It's not. He then said that all the other moderators of all the other boards had agreed his site and only his site should be listed. I don't see any evidence to back up that claim either. He also said he treated all registerd users with respect. His posts to me prove otherwise on the Keith Olbermann discussion page. I understand his passion about his site because its his site. But a wiki page should not be about reason but fact. It should be to present any one who comes to Wiki with the best possible reference guide to a subject. Inclusion of www.olbermann.org which is rich in research on Keith Olbermann fits that definition. A link to a message board site (www.keitholbermann.org) that isn't even the most popular of the Olbermann message boards does not fit that definition. JeffBerg

Waffle Iron, this is just what I was worried would happen. Because you decided to edit without regard to the very precarious compromise which took days and even weeks to reach, we've got this mess on our hands. You still have not reinserted the list of links on the KO page, which is a change which is most likely to satisfy all parties who are willing to compromise at all. CuteGargoyle 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 1.4 years have passed and users are still finding this highly insulting archive of slams against keitholbermann.org, which, if you are to google Keith Olbermann today, is the #4 rated site... ahead indeed of even MSNBC's official "Newshole". DU doesn't even show on the screen. Keitholberman.org is a truly unique Olbermann resource: Every single topic that Countdown has discussed for almost two years is archived and searchable. Want to know what the #4 story was on Nov 17 2006? It is there. How about January 7? Ditto. Every episode, not one missing. Every interview he has done is filed under Olbermann Discussion. Democratic underground (if you are a paying member) has some active discussions, but no one else has been as systematic, professional and thorough an archiver of the works of Keith Olbermann as KO.O. So many narrow minds get wrapped around the type of software used rather than the content. Like a wordpress blog is somehow inherently different or superior to a phpbb forum. It isn't the word processor, it is the words stored therein. The discussion was NEVER what JeffBerg characterized it as--"I wanted mine listed first". Nonsense. It was that the poisonous and vile right wing haters inserted links to their insane blogs and deleted references to any positive mention of Olbermann. We started a small war, and the solution is no fan forum mentions at all, and I am cool with that. KO.O. is what it is, and that is an awesome forum which googles as well as wikipedia for this topic, thank you. Still a Dr. named Mike -- although my contempt for Wikiality has caused me to stop using any account with same.

Explanation
When listing something as violating NPOV, please discuss what the issue is on the talk page. Please do not just place the POV tag and then leave. Thanks. -- Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark)  03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't the person who removed it, but if you were writing it up, I apologise. -- Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark)  03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise there were so many edits to a relatively obscure figure at this hour. Oh well... no hard feelings. -- Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark)  03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Semicolon syntax was proper
Re: Your edit (diff)

The original code was proper, and the recommended way here. "Proper headings" are to be used only if you want them to appear in the TOC. Too much unnecessary subheadings lead to cluttered, page-long TOCs.

The semicolon syntax is used to make a non-sectional heading that won't appear in the TOC, because it isn't navigationnally useful. We usually don't need to have the detail of the External links section described in the TOC. Specifically, please also see External_links.

-- 62.147.36.103 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Joycelyn Elders quotes
OK, that wasn't evident in the wording. They appeared to be extraneous quotes by the comedians themselves. However, there's another problem, your "verification" by watching the show qulifies as Original Research. Technically, we need a third-party source to cite quotes.--WilliamThweatt 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if you can prove that it was indeed said, whether it be on CNN or ComedyCentral, otherwise all we have is your word--and that is not how an encyclopaedia is compiled. I quote from the No original research policy: "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library."  You have to be able to point to a written transcript (published by somebody other than yourself) of what was said.--WilliamThweatt 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all I was asking for. Very thorough and commendable work.--WilliamThweatt 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyler Drumheller
William,

Please discontinue your reverting of my edits to the Tyler Drumheller page. Mr. Drumheller is making he said/he said claims against the administration and his political donations go straight to his credibility. The link to open secrets dot org is relevant to the article so that readers can correct for a possible bias.

--Bagginator 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show logo
Nice grab. Definitely looks better than the screen cap. Cheers, JDoorj a m    Talk 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television
Please don't randomly cut fields from infoboxes, as you did with this edit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for explaining it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Employee of the Month (2006 film)
I've put back the film infobox as I couldn't see what was copyvio about that part of the article. I do agree with you concerning the rest. (Pally01 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Comment from anon
William-If you only knew what you think you know. Thanks for your advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.139.62 (talk • contribs).

McCain-Lieberman Party
Hello. I am new to the Wikipedia world, but I was anxious to get started with the McCain-Lieberman Party concept. It is a term used now by many political junkies and political scientists, but in a casual way. I know from conversation and blogging that it is frequently discussed. The exact nature or definition of the subject is often vague to people who are not regular political junkies, that's why I think it's important to not delete this article. I know from the Sitemeter records on my old blog that after Lieberman lost and Brooks wrote this column, many people googled the phrase. However, they were met with countless blog entries that are vague and not neutral.

This isn't a phrase that is simply secluded to David Brooks. After he used it multiple times on television and in speeches, it became part of the political science colloquial conversation. For instance, I had the good fortune of having lunch with Mr. Brooks, Clarence Paige, and a few political scientists at the University of Illinois and during that conversation the phrase was used multiple times.

The article is not meant as a prediction or a "crystal ball." Rather it is simply to define a term that is becoming more frequently used. Simply google it as proof.

This topic would be a very important contribution to Wiki. Please reconsider your nomination for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onemanbandbjm (talk • contribs).

Farrell's campaign
is one of the top house races in the country, and if the Hartford Courant thinks the Lieberman campaign is getting in her way it is more relevant than one talk show host offering one opinion about Lieberman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.245.70 (talk • contribs).

WP: 3RR
I know you are not talking to me... -- Renice 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair
Hey William, have you researched anything on this topic? The article is too long. You simply are simply reverting; are you sure you can deny any changes on your own authority? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.87.5 (talk • contribs).

What do you have against the name Charles
Are you upset at Richard Charles Kyanka or something? --TIB (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TFN
thank you for taking care of the TFN article. if you're able to lock it for vandalism, that would be much appreciated.03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) oct 26, 2006

What do you have against our troops?
Oh, you self-identify as a "goon". That makes it allright to spew your hatred I guess. Morningmusic 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

gb2gbs Ggnext 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Plattsburgh!
Hi,

It's Milchama. Plattsburgh State class of 2001. I'd like to know if you would like to help me get an item undeleted.

Master Exploder was deleted. However, it is now up for deletion review. You can comment at Deletion_review. I believe that the vote, while in favor for deletion, was too close to be closed at the time. Thanks. Milchama 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

about hehe dubya's alternate pic
well, I'm pretty sure that I didn't have to add that one there. hehe --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? ·  help! ) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe A. Kelly
Hi, I removed the speedy tag you placed on this article because it seems to me that the article asserts a modicum of notability. In any event, there is sufficient doubt that I think a deletion request would be better served by opening an AfD, or possibly prod. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You've just dared to AfD an article by Billy Hathorn — you're in for a lovely treat —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dailyshow logo hires.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dailyshow logo hires.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Andrew Hampe Talk 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing
Thanks for the heads up. Guess I should check before I start making so many changes.Konczewski 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie Grubman
Yes, well, I'm near the point at giving up because no one, not you, the author, nor two editors have given reason why this person is notable. Its clear to me that people just write up articles on whatever they think is relevant for an encyclopedia when its clearly not at all prudent to do so. There is no assertion of notability apart from committing a felony, which is in and of itself, not notable. There is also only one reference for the whole article which is quite poor. JD 3 Aug 2007

The UK's third city
I'm disinclined to assume good faith with User:62.249.253.204. The same user was behind at least two other IPs this morning (79.65.152.10, 79.73.145.200), tagging mentions of Manchester with the same phrase. — mholland (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Type punning line height hack
Hi! I noticed your edit here increasing the line height in a &lt;code&gt; snippet. That's a cool trick, and it should really be incorporated into MediaWiki's definition of the &lt;code&gt; tag, so it doesn't have to be done all over the place by hand. I don't suppose you know how to make that happen?

I'll post over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming Languages in the meantime. --Quuxplusone 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tammy's Request
See Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. --YbborTalk 02:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please post to top of my discussion page
Thanks. Lycurgus 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for informing me.. I'll use that from now on.. Sniperz11talk 18:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops!
Thanks for fixing my mistake. Not only did I not realize that I had basically razed the Glenn Greenwald:talk page -- I'm not even exactly certain how I did it in the first place!--Nbahn (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:68.236.180.229 spam
I don't anything about the value Broadwayworld.com links but if they aren't useful links, I'd suggest adding to the blacklist. Making the links dead is the best way to stop spammers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Meet The Robinsons
Thanks for your contribution to the Talk page and article on this. However, many editors have tried to cut down the summary of this complicated plot. I'm sure you're right in thinking it could be shortened more. However, since we've done all we can, could you show us how you would do it? Otherwise, there will never be progress! Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This Is Fake DIY AfD
The recent AfD on This Is Fake DIY was recently closed as "No consensus", and a new one has been re-opened at WP:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination). As an editor that participated in the closed AfD, you may wish to repeat your comments at the current one. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Superbad plot discussion
William, thanks for the link to WP:PLOT. According to the policy, Wikipedia articles...should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot (my emphasis). Therefore, a detailed summary is expected in addition to other examples of context and significance. I agree this should not be an indiscriminant collection of facts, but I think you've scaled it back to the point were several key plot elements are missing. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines states plots should be between 400 and 700 words and they should be comprehensive. I invite you to review my list of specific points on the article's talk page and comment as you see fit. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Facebook to Featured Article status
I am currently working on improving Facebook to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Some comments by other editors have been left at the peer review, Peer review/Facebook/archive2, so feel free to address those issues, also. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Editing comment
Sorry William! I thought it would be a helpful addition... I still don't really know how to use the talk pages properly, so I usually avoid them altogether... I only just learned how to sign my post! Jmckinley (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq invasion
You reverted great deal of original research within this article, which would be fine, but you did not also add the required reliable sources, see wp:or. By doing this you violated WP policy, I assume inadvertantly. Please just revert your error now.

I don't want to nominate this article for deletion. I have deleted the part with OR, a year after raising this issue in TALK. Raggz (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please can you explain
Why adding external links regarding the artist in question and there latest release or interviews is spamming? I actually posted what I was doing onto a wikipedia policy discussion and asked for their opinion, to which no-one disagreed with its relevance.

Please explain.

Secondly, at what point did I admit to working for Clash Magazine? A magazine which you will find is based in Dundee, Glasgow and London. Pretty far to commute for me. Considering I live in Newcastle.

I await your reply.

And if any of my posts are removed. I will be contacting relevant administration to find why the posts of sites like NME, DiS and others were not. - Dirty Volvic (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken
But can you now explain to me why a variety of other reviewing websites and magazines are allowed to have their countless external links remained untouched and their littering of ratings- undeleted? - Dirty Volvic (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may interrupt, I haven't seen anyone make an assertion that print publications in question don't meet WP:RS, if introduced into the prose as citations - It's concerns about a potential WP:COI by a particular editor (yourself, Dirty Volvic) that prompted the reverts. That said, you'd probably stop running into this problem if you added new and relevant prose on the articles in question based on these sources, rather than simply dropping them into the External links sections. If you're curious about the syntax, check out WP:CITE. Copied at User talk:Dirty Volvic. MrZaius  talk  12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Browser Sync
==Proposed deletion of Google Browser Sync== A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Google Browser Sync, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Article about a discontinued Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jmundo (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Google Browser Sync
An article that you have been involved in editing, Google Browser Sync, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Google Browser Sync. Thank you. Jmundo (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls
The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Deletion review. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tyler Drumheller -

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wii at E3 1.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Wii at E3 1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wii E3 2006 (front left angle).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Wii E3 2006 (front left angle).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

William can you help me please?
Hi I am wondering if you can help me with my personal research regarding the NICE association. I have dyslexia so understanding all publications etc is very difficult for me. You seem to be close to an expert on it!

You knowledge could be a great help to me. SezmoG (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics countries has been nominated for merging
Category:DC Comics countries has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics prisons has been nominated for merging
Category:DC Comics prisons has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST
-- Environment of New York City Task Force

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

SafeSport
Hi. Thanks for your suggested name change on SafeSport. I think it deserves a cat. So that for example those banned by SafeSport can be reflected in a cat. But as an IP, I can't seem to get that done. Perhaps if you have interest you will have better luck. Cheers. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4579:21B2:C90:D3D5 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Tags
I saw you added tags to Jerry. I hope these cuts address your concerns. I feel like this is pretty basic info, and I'm not married to any of the text so feel free to make whatever changes you see fit. Could you either remove the tag(s) I've addressed, or say what else you think is promotional on the talk page? Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Zscaler‎
I removed even more fluff from the Zscaler‎ article. Do you have any concerns with removing the banner? Brandon (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
I see you edited the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity before. FYI, I added this to the VIP webpage:

As of March 2024, the current members include, William Binney, Dick Black, Marshall Carter-Tripp, Bogdan Dzakovic, Graham E. Fuller, Philip Giraldi, Matthew Hoh, James George Jatras, Larry C. Johnson, John Kiriakou, Karen Kwiatkowski, Douglas Macgregor, Ray McGovern, Elizabeth Murray, Todd E. Pierce, Pedro Israel Orta,  Scott Ritter, Coleen Rowley, Lawrence Wilkerson, Sarah G. Wilton, J. Kirk Wiebe, Robert Wing, and  Ann Wright.

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)