User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire Page

Hey. I completely understand that Wiki is supposed to be neutral, and I've been doing my best to state the facts without putting any sort of bias on it. I re-read my entry and to be honest I'm having a hard time understanding where the problem lies, because all of the events are described are just facts of what actually goes on. I'm new to Wiki so if you could tell me where the problems are I'd be more than happy to fix them myself. Crimmels (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been kinda busy dealing with other things. It's little things like "In one season demand rose to the point that the small brewery was insufficient, so Scott expanded to a much larger 12 bbl system." - do you have a source for that? If not, it can't really be included. And text like "Patrons must be at least years old 18 to attend and must have parent/guardian supervision if they are under the age of 21." - Wikipedia isn't a guide. If people want to learn more, they can go to the official site(s) and look at things. My other big concern is having all the different sections like that. Why is the Swashbuckler Brew Pub notable enough to have its own section? By giving it its own section - and four subsections - it seems like it's being made out to be a lot more important than it is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything that I've added to the article can be found on the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire's website. There is going to be an article published in Leisure Times Magazine sometime in the next month or so that provides a history of the Faire, so when that is published I'll add that source as well. I'll definitely take out the "guide" parts, but each section is pretty important. The Swashbuckler Brew Pub is, if anything, being underestimated. It does a huge amount of business and almost constantly has incredibly long lines on any Faire day. Crimmels (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but your expansion of that section is turning it into an advertisement of sorts. Are you a conflict of interest to the PARF? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I am. The PRF understands the goals of Wikipedia and wants to conform to those standards while providing more, non-biased information about the numerous events that take place on grounds and in the mansion. Other Renaissance Fairs have more detailed entries, so it would make sense to provide more information on the PRF. My descriptions of events are very cut-and-dry, and I'm failing to see what the problem is. Constructive criticism, instead of general statements, would be appreciated. Crimmels (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm editing the article now. In doing so, I've noticed that you jacked a bunch of text that is, more or less, directly from the official site. Given that the PARF site has a copyright on the bottom, that is a violation of Wiki copyvio rules. Consider what's here:

from the article: "The Faire also hosts The Celtic Fling’s Highland Games, officially sanctioned by the Mid-Atlantic Scottish Athletics Association. Pre-registered participants – both men and women – compete in judged events including the Scottish Hammer, the Sheaf Toss, the Clachneart and the Caber Toss. The athlete with the best overall combined performance earns the title “Athlete of the Day” and an automatic berth in the East Coast Championships."
from the site: "The Celtic Fling’s Highland Games, officially sanctioned by the Mid-Atlantic Scottish Athletics Association, add to the thrill of Saturday’s competitions. Pre-registered participants – both men and women – compete in judged events including the Scottish Hammer, the Sheaf Toss, the Clachneart or “Stone of Strength, and impressive Caber Toss involving an 18-foot tree trunk weighing up to 150 pounds. The athlete with the best overall combined performance earns the title “Athlete of the Day” and an automatic berth in the East Coast Championships."

Copyvio. I'll be removing it shortly, along with lots of other stuff. You have to remember that, just because it's mentioned on the PARF site doesn't make it notable for inclusion here. The PARF atricle is not meant to be an advertisement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Since we're dealing with content, we should probably move this discussion to Talk:Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire. I've started a thread there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alert to Tvor65's dual attempt at edit war

HA - I have just reverted Tvor65's deletion of my edits in the Reception sections at IBDP and IB. There were no objections to or discussion of these edits prior to Tvor65's wiping. I was unable to negotiate a WP:TRUCE with this individual and her edits are malicious and not in good faith. Your opinion, please. ObserverNY (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please see my reply on one of the talk pages. The section was getting way too long and contained irrelevant information. I condensed it considerably (see my edit), trying to keep it balanced but short. If ONY took the time to actually look at my edit, she would notice that I was not "wiping" her edit but rather condensing and rewriting the whole section. As I said in my comment, if everyone else is fine with the stuff she reverted to, I am not going to waste any more of my time.Tvor65 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

About citing sources

The whole Hey Arnold! page is full of information that doesn't cite a resource. You would have to blank the whole page to get rid of all unsourced content. 71.48.10.137 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we shouldn't be making it worse by allowing more unsourced content in; we should be trying to also find sources to back up the rest of the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits

I would like to know why are you reverting my edits for no reason ? Instead of deleting it you can help by adding a neutral statement conforming with NPOV --Gnosisquest (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert without a reason; I explained it on your talk page before. Fact is that you've been trying to push some sort of POV for weeks and weeks, and more than three editors have undone your edits. Changing phrases like "According to the traditional sources" to "According to some traditional sources," and adding in things like "According to other sources", you're adding in weasel words. And that's not acceptable. That's just one issue among many. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So how would you like me to edit it ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For starters, you could stop your tendentious editing, but maybe that's me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that my edits conform with NPOV.There is not a single edit which I have myself put on that page.For every view that I intend to add there is an opposing view present.I dont see any harm in adding that statement.Please allow me to add it we can modify the statement in such a way that is acceptable to all.--Gnosisquest (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the editors on wp abstain from reverting edits only to satisfy their (communal,racial) desire ,but follow the rules set up by wp. Giving appropriate reasons while reverting and trying to reach a conclusion with the editors concerned would be the best thing to do. --Gnosisquest (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself on that part, but I promise you that my opposition to your includes are not based on any personal viewpoints. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Erikupoeg

I have reported the ongoing issues with User:Erikupoeg - [here]. Thank you for your participation.--Rubikonchik (talk) --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi could you please sign the "users certifying the basis of this dispute" section? There are also diffs where you asked User:Erikupoeg to become more civil, more than one as far as I rememember... Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But.. what if I don't really want to? Aren't you sort of WP:CANVASSing? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange answer from you, who indicated me what to do in the first line as far as the actions regarding Erikupoeg are concerned, and secondly has on numerous occasions, as far as I remember, tried to calm User:Erikupoeg. You may certainly do whatever you want, but it was quite logical to me for you to sign, I don't see any problem with that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikonchik (talk • contribs) 12:55, August 3, 2009

You asked me how to do something on Wikipedia, and I told you. That's not endorsing your actions. And I did actually try to offer another solution, but you asked again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Aisha

You are quite right, Gnosisquest's behavior is unacceptable. In actuality he's been disrupting the article since April 1; he was only stopped for a while by article protection that was renewed several times due to his edit warring. He's a single-purpose user whose only edits have been to add tendentious material to this one article. At one point I put a note on WP:ANI about it, suggesting a community article ban, but no other admins responded (perhaps that was the wrong place to discuss it). I had thought that the compromise we struck out at the article had worked, but he's gone right back to his old tricks. Something further needs to be done. Perhaps another note on ANI about a ban, perhaps it would be better to start a report on WP:ANEW. Enough time has been wasted dealing with him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaded, I actually share your opinion about an RfC, but it is the appropriate next step in the Dispute Resolution process. Following the formal process more-or-less requires that an RfC be filed before more drastic steps can be considered. On the other hand, the behaviour now seems disruptive enough to justify another WP:ANI report, and a community imposed article ban would be much faster than the formal DR process. Hmmm, I just said "ANI" because that is the venue I am most familiar with, however, I think Cuchullain might be right that "ANEW" would be more appropriate. Good luck with this, Doc Tropics 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I've started a thread on WP:ANEW about this. Let's see where this goes. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your report was extremely well formulated and provided an excellent selection of relevant diffs. All I could add was my own (informal) analysis of the editing pattern. Well done! Doc Tropics 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Whatever the venue, I hope others will see that this has become a problem that ought to be rectified without jumping through a lot more hoops. I would really like to see a community ban on the editor, which would allow any passing admin to take appropriate action if and when Gnosis continues his disruption in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(snicker). This is a level of clueless tenaciousness above and beyond the call of duty.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's.. wow. I sort of feel bad, actually... eh. I'll get over it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I found you through a Japanese Translator userbox... I need help in translating a very important scientific source related to the article trigeminal neuralgia, which is written Japanese. In fact, it is the only study on the use of opiates in TN patients specifically (while others exist for neuropathic pain in general) in the world, and it is only published in japanese. Could you help at all? Thanks in advance! Greldon (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... wow. I'm not really sure I have the vocabulary to make any sort of sense out of that. Not really sure I could do it in English either, heh. The entire paper is handwritten Japanese? Urgh.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with archiving

Hello Helloannyong, If you have a moment, could you check out the discussion over at the talk page for IBDP? We need an expert opinion on using a bot for archiving. Thanks, La mome (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So responded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, sorry I left you out when I posted on the IBDP Talk page. Thanks for your help with regards to archiving, and also for so often being willing to give us an additional opinion--it really does help! We really appreciate it. Thanks! Regards, • CinchBug • 21:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mepham

hey. u deleted my update on mepham high school, im a student there and i know for a fact that what i wrote was true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly332 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Find a bunch of reliable sources and we'll discuss its inclusion - until then, it's all hearsay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad.

Sorry, I thought that I could attribute myself to code that I wrote and released for Wikipedia. I have removed the line that contributes me and submitted it for approval (live). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamDecaf (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the draft of COSC MOS, "While there's nothing inherently wrong with including sample code, excessive amounts of it can detract from the content of the article itself; avoid writing sample code unless it contributes significantly to a fundamental understanding of the encyclopedic content." And Wiki isn't a code repository. If the example were only a few lines it'd be one thing, but the example given here fills up the page. And I don't really think it's necessary; the external links section has more than enough samples if people want to learn more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I know

Your a good person, I like you. btw are you Japanese? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I said it on the Asmahan page, but I'll say it again: American. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit question

Hi HelloAnnyong. I hope you are well. I know we don't see eye to eye on external links, but I think the one removed in this edit was helpful and encyclopedic [1]. I don't see why a video of the event, the subject of the article, wouldn't be useful to include as an external link. We include pictures of subjects in our articles, and I think our readers would benefit from being able to see what the event is like. Also, I wasn't sure about the category removal. Is it not a rennaisance fair? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I'll address the category first: I removed it because it's redundant; the Ren fair infobox has the category included in it. As to the YouTube link removal, I did that per WP:YOUTUBE. If that were a link to a direct video, or even to a collection of Sterling videos, it'd be one thing; but there's a number of videos on that page that aren't related to Sterling, so it kind of seems like linkspam to me. But I'd be willing to accept some links there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Need 3O for YouTube (sources)

Hi, HelloAnnyong! I have a disagreement with another editor re: using a YouTube interview on Steven Erikson. In my the interview is great, but it's best to find other sources first. If you have a chance, can you swing by to have a look? No hurries on this at all. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Are Concept drawings suitable for an article in wikipedia? Blackash (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Um.. that's a good question. If you drew it yourself and you're uploading it so that anyone here can use it, then that's okay. Whether or not it belongs in an article is another question. What is it a drawing of? Is it your own invention, or is it someone else's? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A concept drawing has been upload to the tree shaping page, of a play ground idea.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping Wouldn't it fall under the original reseach? Blackash (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... where on Tree shaping is it? Or can you just give me a direct link? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kinderforest.jpg Blackash (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of Initialisms

Hi HelloAnnyong. Please weigh in on the capitalization issue in the IBDP article. WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

AfD -- IB

Hi. The pages you submitted for AfD are subpages of IB World School, which should be submitted as well. I don't know how to submit an AfD, so thought I'd let you handle it. Thanks by the way, for getting the process going. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave a note on there saying you want to add it in, and then I'll add it to the list at the top. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Btw -- I don't consider raising the issue of incivility a personal attack, but will go work elsewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It just turned into a bunch of accusations, and it wasn't going anywhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clang not a static analysis tool?

Full argument given on discussion page of List of tools for static code analysis, in summary: page for Clang Static Analyser hosted by LLVM, explicitly states that the static analyser is part of Clang (here). Though that's re: whether Clang counts at all, maybe it's just the external link that you found inappropriate, and the correct course is to modify the Wiki entry on Clang and add a wikilink? 86.175.26.126 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arab Sites

yeah, i just found out about that... its pretty hard to track something that ceased over 2 years, on Wikipedia... cheers, and thanx for the Message.. Arab League User (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IB Diploma Talk Pages

Hello HelloAnnyong,

Although technically you are correct I have to tell you that the talk pages consistently break wikipedia policy on civility, harrassment and ad hominem attacks. There is a banner at the top of the pages - it has been there for some time - and several editors have been warned repeatedly about their comments by several editors. TBH I am fed up of trying to input into these documents because of the disgusting behaviour of editors and consistent rudeness. However, as it appears no one wants to play nicely and have reasoned discussions I will simply leave the pages and let you get on with it. Good luck. --Candy (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. But I think it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, especially with these editors. Might be better to quash the conversation early by leaving a comment right in the dialogue that states that they're veering off-topic. By and large I think the conversation does tend to be relatively decent, though some bitterness between editors is definitely harming that. Maybe an RFCU or WQA or something is needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY has created a hostile environment on the IB series talk pages and makes it impossible to edit on those pages. S/he was already blocked for 3RR and edit warring and has attempted to out 2 other editors, including myself. You'll also remember that s/he deleted entire passages and was never reported for that. As a result, s/he continues to disrupt editing on the IB pages. I am seeking advice as to how to proceed next. Please advise. I've posted the comments below on her/his talk page, but s/he keeps deleting items posted on her/his talk page that deal with her/his incivility, outing other editors and edit warring.

(removed huge list of diffs; see edit for full list. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for any advice you can provide. La mome (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'kay, um, that comment is really disruptive, so I've removed the diffs. I saw the comments you left on Observer's talk page, but per WP:TPOC, Observer is allowed to remove your comments on their own talk page. Having said that, the diffs are there in the history. You have a couple of options. One is to escalate, perhaps to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, mostly for tendentious editing on a longterm scale, which to be honest, would not be unjustified. Another is to just step back for awhile and cool down. After months and months of battle, there is so much bad blood on that page now that I really don't know how to handle it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. La mome (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried the wikiquette awhile ago, to no avail. The RfC for style was pretty useless as well, so I am doubtful that the RfC/U will do anything at all. I don't really have the time to go through the diffs and set it up the way it is supposed to be set up. It also requires input from other parties and I don't think that others are interested in wasting time with something that will not result in sanctions for incivility and tendentious editing. So everyone will have to continue to put up with the unfettered sniping on the IB talk pages. Kind of reminds me of Sartre's No exit. Thanks again for your advice.

Cheers- La mome (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think RFCUs tend to go a little better since they're more structured, but yeah, the RFC for style was a bust. If it gets particularly bad, the next step is WP:RFM. I think there's a long enough history of bad faith editing, POV pushing and the like to justify that step. But for now, I think it's probably best to take it one day at a time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well, isn't this a cozy little discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm allowed to express my opinions. A user came to me and asked about how to handle a situation, and I gave advice. I would have done the same for you or anyone else. HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are so inclined and if you have the time, could you please stop by the IBDP talk page? Thanks La mome (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Is it appropriate for editors to repeatedly mention other editors' professions? La mome (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not repeatedly, no. If you've offered up the information already, then it's not really WP:OUTING. But I don't really see a reason to repeatedly state, "UserX works as a PositionY." And even though turnabout is fair play, it would probably make the situation only worse to turn it back on the other user. Ideally both users would stop making mention of it at all. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for trying.

La mome (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. If anyone ever decides to follow official channels about Observer's conduct, that comment can be added to the evidence pile. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominating for Deletion?

Hi, how would I go about nominating a page for deletion? I read the wiki guide, but it doesn't seem as easy for me to understand than I suppose it should. Any help? C2SP (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to get the Malwarebytes article? 'cause it does fulfill notability for products... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It may, but does the article fulfill the standards of an encyclopedia? I think that most of what is used as refs are not noteworthy enough to warrant using them and that the topic has been written very poorly with not enough substance to warrant the page's inclusion at this time. Thoughts? C2SP (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. At least three of the references fill WP:RS, and because there's more than two, it fills most notability criteria. I just don't get why you're trying to bring down the article. You're pretty much a single purpose account here, as all of your edits are about this one article. What's your vendetta against it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply, principal. I landed on the page randomly as I always do, and I wanted to make some real improvements, make it balanced and less like an info-mercial. I came when others where debating its NPOV status and I watched that battle lose unjustly, so I have become quite concerned with the current state of Wikipedia as a whole when people appear to have the ability to sneak on Ads and then win the fight to keep them going. In the past, I was primarily attracted to politically-based entries, as that is my "cup of tea", but this one really stings as it is so obvious to me, yet I appear to be one of only a few others who see it for what it really is -an AD. Am I crazy? C2SP (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it reads nearly as much as an advertisement now. An article describing what the product does - that is, to detect and remove spyware - is not an advertisement, it's a description. If we said "it will remove everything ever!" then yes, that would be going too far. And perhaps the Reception section should be cut down, but that's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and mark the article for deletion. But right now, there are a total of five sentences about the product that aren't based on reception. Using specific examples, can you show me what in those five sentences is turning this into an advertisement? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure can:

remove anything they are able to find - Strictly Ad material. How can anyone in their right mind claim that any software, ESPECIALLY, a security software can remove ANYTHING it finds? What about the 67 rootkits it couldn't find and what if it found them, do you think it could remove them? You don't know? Either do I and either does anyone else, therefore, that is either AD material or straight-up POV.
Preston Gralla wrote that "Using Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is simplicity itself" - that sounds a lot like a movie review or something, "NY Times gives the movie two thumbs up!", "Utterly Hilarious!", etc.
News organizations have also picked up on Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, having mostly positive things to say about program's detection abilities - Have you checked the refs here? Neither are from News sources, those are both blog entries at best. Not the NY Times, not the BBC, not anything News related at all.
that finds and removes malware. - This is redundant info echoed in the software info section.

Thoughts? C2SP (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the "simplicity itself" one, that's right there in the source. It's a quotation and it's cited, so it should stay in. If you look at video game and movie articles, you'll see that they put glowing reviews like that in. Your news organization one is in the reception section, so I'm not going to count that. And having something be redundant in the lead and the software section isn't a problem - the lead is supposed to be a general overview of the article (see WP:LEAD) so there's bound to be some redundancy. The article on Japan, which is a featured article, mentions the four main islands of Japan in both the lead and the article itself - should we remove it there too? As to the first one, it's true that the source doesn't directly state that, so it should be changed. But really, I think you're nitpicking a little here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to make the point that you said, If we said "it will remove everything ever!" then yes, that would be going too far. and on that article it states, remove anything they are able to find which is exactly the same statement, yet you did not comment on that. You also used the word WE which is a bit confusing. What did you mean by saying, "If WE said..."? C2SP (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First, you don't need to use bold tags. If you put text between three apostrophes - like '''this''', it will bold it for you, as in this. Second, I used "we" as Wikipedia editors as a whole. As to the quote, I think there's a difference in saying "this program will remove everything that has ever plagued your computer" and saying "remove anything they are able to find." It's a question of tone. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Onward, A question of tone? How does one present tone through text actually? Or did you mean, that it was a matter of opinion? C2SP (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because let me tell you that if the phrase remove anything they are able to find was a tonal piece then that would mean that the phrase was meant to express emotion or set a mood. So, what type of emotion or mood was it meant to express/set? Well, let's see:

remove - action oriented, needs meaning, so we have...
anything - oh, there it is, so it can remove anything, but we need more...
they are able - thus assuming to be capable of removing anything, but anything of what...
to find - oh, so the tone would be like an AD meant to assure me of its effectiveness.

Now if you think that it is all based on a matter of opinion, then who's opinion am I supposed to base the validity of this phrase on? Mine? Yours? The Authors? Let's see:

Can *I* assure us that this statement is true? NO.
Can *you* assure us that this statement is true? I suspect NOT.
Can *the author of this phrase* assure us that this statement is true? S/he hasn't yet.

Thus, no matter how you look at this phrase it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, because it is indeed either an AD or POV. Final thoughts? C2SP (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Final thoughts is that I don't want to play a semantics game with an WP:SPA anymore. I changed the text to "Both versions scan a user's computer and remove malware if any is found." Hopefully that's acceptable to you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no reason for name calling. Everyone has their interests. Just wanted to stop by and say thank you, though I would have personally added attempts to remove but whatever, what you put was better than before, and it looks like the article is now under review, so I suppose I can now turn my WP:SPA status into whatever it may be once I begin logging some history in other places. Thanks for listening to me, I thought it was nice. C2SP (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackout Ripper

Thank you for your third opinion on this article. Unfortunately the person who put the content we both objected to is still insisting upon putting it back over and over. If you could watchlist it and help out it'd be much appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? It looks like Albsol88t just got blocked for ban evasion. Still, I'll keep an eye on the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP got banned as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. New user Longuniongirl (talk · contribs) is clearly (per WP:DUCK) the same editor returning after the block to restore same content and edit war on other articles as well. I'll contact the admin who did the recent block, but we may be playing whackamole for a while with this person. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

IB Diploma Programme, again

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Could you please visit my talk page, read and comment on my recent section about the IB Diploma Programme.

Many thanks, --Candy (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - I resent your comment that: "Without someone watching, the articles are just going to turn into garbage, basically undoing months of work." Your implication that I would vandalize the articles I spent months battling to include pertinent facts is offensive in the extreme. Prior to my arrival, there was no Special Needs section, there was no Application and Authorization section, there was no Reception section, there was no early development section .... and whether you like it or not, the Recognition section was not in table format. Calling all of my contributions "garbage" is pretty darn "lewd", if you ask me. ObserverNY (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um.. that's one of the strangest uses of lewd I've seen in awhile. But I've seen this sort of thing before - a handful of active users give up on an article, and a bunch of POV pushers move in and change the article. It happens, and I'm allowed to believe that it could happen here too. I'm not saying that you specifically would be the one to change the article for the worse, but I've seen your edit history - and I know your POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones

Do tell, what is YOUR motivation for coming over to the Van Jones article? Hmmmmm? Can't stand that I can work with a bunch of highly diverse editors with highly diverse POV's on a highly controversial figure and contribute positively to the article? ObserverNY (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ha, I didn't even realize you were a contributor there. I read about Jones in the news this morning and went over to the article. That's all. And just as a follow-up to your message, can you explain to me what a "3RR editor" is and why I am one? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You mean you don't "recall" responding to the request for a 3RR at IBDP and responding? I hear gingko balboa is good for memory loss. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Sorry, HA, could not resist.) My, how silly of you, ONY. Nobody "requests" 3RR. It stands for three-revert rule, something you specialize in breaking on a regular basis and were blocked for a few times already (which is probably what caused this repeated Freudian slip on your part). So if anyone is a "3RR editor", it is you, not HA.Tvor65 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I responded to a 3O (third opinion), not a 3RR. You might want to take some of that ginkgo biloba - that's the proper spelling of it, btw - so you can remember the difference between Wikipedia rules and projects. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that lovely. What a crime. Like HelloAnnyong had no idea what I meant. You people are really sick. ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Er, I don't know how how that's "sick." I recommend you read the definition of 'sick', as you seem to keep misusing it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you look up the definition of stalking. I buy your "Oh, I just read it in the news this morning" story - about as much as I buy Van Jones' "apologies". ObserverNY (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

*shrug* Think what you want. I have better things to do than follow you around. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Oh that's good. Because now LaMome is tracking my conversations with other editors from Van Jones - see Candorwein's talk page. Personally, I find that downright creepy! ObserverNY (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

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#Reinstating_the_Updates Roman888 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from NDepend

Hello HelloAnnyong, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to NDepend has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(rm prod contested after deletion; flag as unreferenced)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Midland Community Center

Greetings, HelloAnnyong. Regarding the "advert" tag you added to this article: would you be so kind as to detail sections that you consider objectionable? Is is primarily the list of facilities and programs? Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I left a note on the talk page. But basically, the programs and facilities sections don't need to be there. There's also synthesized text on the page. For example, "The city averages 141 days each year below freezing,[6] so the MCC had always concentrated on indoor activities." The reference is to some page that lists average temperatures over the course of a year. Aside from the second half not having a source, there's nothing to connect a weather page to the facility. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR Comment

Please see the discussion regarding your comment that I violated 3RR on Kitchen Nightmares. I did not do so, and would appreciate your withdrawal of the comment. Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you're right. I mixed Sept 4 and Sept 6. Sorry. So stricken. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, belatedly. I didn't realize you'd responded on your own talk page. Drmargi (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tonight was the second shot you've taken at me over something related to me you've misread. I know you don't mean anything by it, but please read carefully, and consider how Roman will use comments such as your erroneous assertion I was attempting to discount Wizardman's comments. I did absolutely nothing of the sort, as a careful reading would make clear. Drmargi (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a shot at you, but this time I think it was just excessive to mention that the person has never edited there before. Perhaps I read more into your first sentence than was needed, but unless it's something obvious like the person was canvassed or that they just registered an account here, I see no reason to say "Oh, you've never edited here before, so here's the problem." Anyone can look at that talk page and piece together that this argument has been going on for a very long time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, though, I'm really getting sick of this argument. It's gone on way too long, the RFC isn't working at all (I've noticed that with RFCs before...) and Roman shows no desire to work with us. And now that a stranger to the article has cast a vote for the other side... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And this kind of nonsense isn't going to help. We share the same perspective on this, and we need to present a unified front; that means we can't work against one another. We have to think about everything we say in terms of how it fuels Roman, and frankly, this little digression made the whole thing worse. Moreover, it could have been handled on my talk page if it needed comment at all. I get that the real worry is that Wizardman is on ArbCom, but he's still an editor, and because he's a powerful one, it supports our position to be sure he's got all the information at hand, particularly when he responded to Roman's endless stream of diversionary baloney but not the key points of the argument that lead us to take the action we did to begin with. You read my opening comment as somehow patronizing. Consider it was meant to be helpful - that was my actual intent. It's one helluva stretch to read the idea I was dismissing his position or suggesting it be disregarded into so benign a comments as I wrote.

Roman's level of activity has begun to increase. That's a good sign, believe it or not - he's getting frustrated that we aren't responding to him, and is attempting to draw us out. This is where extinction begins to show signs it is working. The less we say right now, the better. Drmargi (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Madchester, who lead the charge on the UK article, just weighed in. Drmargi (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems that Madchester's comment has caused more of a stir than our discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm treasuring the anon IP that's suddenly remembered how to use a talk page, sprouted an identity but not logged on under it, and restarts and edit war. Goody. Drmargi (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

If you want to say something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think it would come to that... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ONY should have notified you

See here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PODS

Thank you for adding to the PODS (company) article. Looking forward to seeing any fixes you feel appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 (talk • contribs) 21:03, September 9, 2009

I was trying to add additional references to the article. I didn't realize these were inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.154.165 (talk • contribs) 18:20, September 10, 2009

You blanked out the first person's comment here. Don't do that again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ONY at AN/I again

Notifying as some of your comments are in the diffs here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Postponed

Due to User:Arab Cowboy's vacation, he requested that the case be postponed until October 9. Does that work for you? hmwith☮ 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've discussed this with other active users in the case, and postponing it will not work for everyone. The arbs will not make a decision until the user returns, but the case can resume normally otherwise. Thanks for your cooperation, hmwith☮ 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Block?

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock lifted.

Request handled by: –xeno^talk 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm trying to figure out why I'm unable to edit anything here. There isn't an IP block for this address, and I don't have any blocks on me. I can promise you up and down that ObserverNY wasn't editing here in my house. I recently looked at ObserverNY's user talk page, so maybe something's getting jumbled along the way? Does this have to do with the software updates that are going on? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bump...? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki-wide issue, nothing to be concerned about. –xeno^talk 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as such. Thanks for looking into it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, it happened again? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've cleared the autoblock and disabled the autoblock for ObserverNY. –xeno^talk 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Delmonico's

See [2]. I think it's a step forward for this editor to go to dispute resolution, but my comment speaks for itself.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, don't you think it's a little soon for Medcab? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a step up from his edit warring over an issue that I think is totally ridiculous. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

TWalters82

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Why was the information under the heading not moved to another section, as it's important information about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 (talk • contribs) 11:11, September 22, 2009

It's not important information; it's just cruft that you keep adding to make the company seem better. In a way, you're pushing a POV by adding it, and it really doesn't belong in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

HelloAnnyong, is there anything that can be done about Fluffy Bunny loves NLR and PODs Watch who continue to vandalize my usertalk page and the pages which I've edited? They have been nothing but destructive since the PODS article was created. Another sign of this destructiveness, is the fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PODSContainer.JPG has been flagged for deletion by PODs Watch, which is the same image you've helped move about the page and there's never been an issue. Other similar pages, U-Haul, ABF Freight, all show images of their containers. --Twalters82 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Um.. well, Fluffy Bunny has been warned about vandalism, so if it continues, report it to WP:AIV - but do it the right way this time; follow the examples when you edit the page. As for PODs Watch, they are allowed to mark your image for deletion, so don't remove the message on there. If they harass you, warn them, and if it doesn't stop, report it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost third opinion.

Hey there, I have this situation which isn't serious enough for real arbitration, and I'm looking for someone to help. I picked your name out of WP:3O pretty much based on the Arrested Development reference and nothing substantive.

Here's what happened. I edited an article on TJ Fisher. I deleted lots of bad content:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TJ_Fisher&action=history

Then I wrote about the issues on the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TJ_Fisher

I'm not looking for this to be settled like a dispute, I just want to ask a third party whether I was out of line here. I don't really feel that I did anything wrong, but I don't want to be mean to people, you know? What do you think? Want to join my group for blue men? Conical Johnson (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I'll take my Cornballer and leave a comment on the talk page over there. For what it's worth, the old version of the page was total fancruft and I think you did a pretty good job cleaning it up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to post where she got mad:

user talk:Conical Johnson

and I responded:

User talk:Boolalah Conical Johnson (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a less than civil message you got, but your response on their talk page was okay. I can understand them wanting to blow off a little steam, but they haven't reverted the article or vandalized your talk page or anything just yet, so I'd leave it alone until things start to escalate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your assistance with this. She has decided to make this an edit war, in addition to leaving gigantic incomprehensible blocks of text on my talk page every day. I don't want to get you more involved in this than you want to be, but it would be helpful if you'd be willing to take a look at her recent edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TJ_Fisher&diff=317204719&oldid=317177052

She insists that the street this woman lives on, the car she drives, and somebody's opinion of her "outrageousness" is really notable. I disagree. What do you think? Talk:TJ Fisher#Undue weight Conical Johnson (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I did a pretty big rewrite of the page, so hopefully it's better now. I'll keep an eye on it as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Message concerning status of ArbCom case

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Case workflow management. Let me know if you need assistance, hmwith☮ 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been an update in the status of the case. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Questions. hmwith☮ 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Well, I did not have the English translation when I first made those edits (I came to know about it in Italian). Paramount Leader and Supreme Leader are more or less the same. But if the style adopted in English is gonna be "Supreme", like for Iran, let's change it. Regards. --Againme (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

Hello, it's been a while and User:Erikupoeg is back deleting all images from all pages related to Sofia Rotaru, and then nominating them as unused images to be deleted. Call me this not a bad faith editing and I will send you a bouquet of flowers...--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3O Removal

Please don't remove 3O requests without actually giving an opinion on the issue.--Otterathome (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my edit? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not an opinion on the issue, that is 'this can be discussed at a AFD/DRV instead'.--Otterathome (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. HelloAnnyong did it to me too. -- Rico 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan

If you want to take photos in the city, it would be great if you just wait a bit till after the weekend, so we know which goals are left over which we should be focusing on for the future. BTW, if you want to participate in some of our other meetups and events, check out WP:MEET/NYC; the next one should be in November.--Pharos (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll hold off for now. Just trying to save people some time, but that's cool. ANd yeah, maybe one day I'll make it out to one of the talks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Webster Hall

Nothing, address issue and I listed it because the two images aren't that good, and a daylight view helps.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sounds good. Mostly it just caught my since it was a redlink, but there's a Webster Hall article. Good luck with the pics - and sorry I won't be there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes and References

Hi. Back in March, you asked me, in reference to my Bridget Marquardt edits, if it was becoming the norm for the list of footnotes to be called "Notes" instead of "References". I responded that my observation was that footnote lists were called "Notes", and sources not formatted as linked footnotes were called "References." I believe that's true, but I think I erred in assuming that footnote lists are always called that. From what I've been told since speaking with you, and what I've continued to observe, footnote lists are called References, unless an article has both a footnote list and a non-formatted list of sources. Only in that latter case is the footnote list called "Notes", and the list of sources called "References". Otherwise, the footnote list is called "References", I think. Sorry for my error. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, that's alright. To be honest I've been using References more than Notes; it just seemed like what most people were using. But thanks for following up. :] — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

You're being abusive. I put information that is true and has sources... You rollbacking it is abusive. --0kayD0ck ^Talk2Me 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check the history page; I didn't remove the text the first time, Darrenhusted did. I just went back because I agreed with him. And your edits didn't have any sources; all you did was add in a bunch of original research. For the part sourced by "Saw VI Photos", you reference a bunch of pictures and then explain what's in them. That's not citing - that's coming up with your own interpretation of what's in them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation help

As i don't know Japanese and you are listed as a translator, I thought I will contact you from a randomly from a list of Japanese translators. Is it possible if you can help which is why I am contacting you, on the Honorific nicknames in popular music, an editor want me to translate the sources for the Seiko Matsuda entry which I taken it from the article of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Park (talk • contribs) 20:30, October 13, 2009

Um.. translating all of those sources is a pretty heavy undertaking - one that I simply don't have the time to do. If you want them _all_ translated, I'd recommend something like Google Translate. But I see that you're trying to validate the nickname "Eternal idol" for her, right? (I'm assuming you translated 永遠のアイドル to mean "Eternal idol", which is pretty good.) I can tell you that this page does mention a survey that was done in Japan, and it says that she was the undisputed champion. And this article also says "Seiko Matsuda, called the 'eternal idol'". Hopefully that's enough for you to go on? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as I understand that you are busy. Forgot to ask you to "flick through" and pick out the a sentence where it says "Eternal Idol", which is what the editors want. Donnie Park (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

APBT

I don't understand why I'm not objective regarding the APBT article? I edited the history of the APBT using references from official sites like the UKC or ADBA?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K84m97 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because of text like "THIS IS IN FACT WHERE THE "PIT" IN THE AMERICAN Pit Bull TERRIER NAME CAME FROM NOT FROM FIGHTING OTHER DOGS." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but you removed almost all which I added. I will look for the book where is reference for the APBT name. "PITS" were the rings where the rats and dogs were taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K84m97 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove all of it, just your last two edits. At the very least, the text you added came directly from this source, which is almost certainly a copyright violation. I'm also largely unconvinced that that site is reliable, as it appears to be a self-published source. Since the information on the page is unverified, we can't take it to be factually accurate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker but I have a lot of knowledge regarding APBTeriers. If you wish I can give you the book and the edition, or I can send a few scanned pages to you if you give me an e-mail address.k84m97 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What does the book have to do with this? The biggest problem with your edit was that you copied and pasted from a copyrighted source. Do you run that website or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I said that in the book "History and origins" by Wilfred T. Brandon, first published in 1956, you will find references for all my statements.k84m97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't see where you said that, but whatever. Can you give me the ISBN number for that book? I can't find any information on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will get back the book and I will give you those information, however, as I said I can send you scanned pages from the book..k84m97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Also you can find facts about it in "Colby's Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier" by Louis B. Colby isbn079382091X (isbn13: 9780793820917). Colby brought in the USA the most famous pit-dogs from England. Another useful book is written by Clifford A. Ormsby: "The Staffordshire Terrier" Publisher: F.A. Owen Publishing Company (1956) ASIN: B000YA6X2A. Ormsby was the founder of the X-Pert line and was a judge. In this book you will also find a chapter "History and origins" by Wilfred T. Brandon a friend of Ormsby.k84m97 (talk)

(outdent) Okay, but you're still not getting this. The text you copied in was taken directly from a website, and that violates copyright laws, so it is not allowed in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there was any copyrights, but you are a good English speaker, so you can reformulate and re-post to improve the article. Give me an e-mail address and I will send you some scanned pages from the first book mentioned.k84m97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Summary removal of disputes

Please don't remove the dispute I added to the 3O again. Thank you. -- Rico 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the 3O guidelines. One, no signatures. Two, requests are supposed to be short and neutral. I've been giving third opinions for three years now, and I don't appreciate your tone. By the way, blanking my comment on your talk page wasn't the most civil thing you could have done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of being incivil when it's not true. "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" -- Wikipedia:User page Thank you. -- Rico 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, but after the way that you've been coming after me for merely helping out on the project, it seemed to be a way of shrugging me off. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and you can read it again and again as many times as you would like, this policy is a result of consensus. You can define what it says as "a way of shrugging [you] off," but that is only your definition.

If you consider the summary removal of disputes -- three times within 24 hours -- helping, then that's just your personal definition of helping.

The way Sillysabre's dispute was entered was not neutral, because it redefined the dispute. -- Rico 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Rico 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't reverting on the 3O page. I was neutralizing per project guidelines and cleaning up the page, just as I have done in the past and for far longer than you. Read the 3O guidelines before you go throwing around claims like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed (reverted) my addition of a dispute three times.[3][4][5] Call it "neutralizing" if you want. You removed the same content three times, hence the 3RR warning (which you have edited). Years ago, we considered this kind of thing vandalism. It's still an edit war. -- Rico 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Link spamming?

Hope I'm adding this to the correct place - haven't sent anyone a message here before. I have added the ohaguro link only to the ohaguro page, and the information is relevant. Please read it before you decide that it's link spam. There isn't much about ohaguro out there and the info is valuable, in my humble opinion. Why do you consier this to be link spam, and why do you feel it's been added to more than one page? Kakiemon Tiger (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, but basically I can see that you've gone around adding links to that same domain on multiple articles. Even if it's not the same link, you're still using Wikipedia as a place to advertise that site in some capacity. I don't know if you're Collia-Suzuki or if you run her domain or what, but you still shouldn't be adding links around like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just getting the hang of this. The content of the linked page isn't the problem then? It's that I shouldn't link to a single domain more than one time on Wiki? I don't get how it's advertising, but I'll read more of the help files here. Didn't even know how to leave my signature until today. Kakiemon Tiger (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, alright. There's nothing that says you can't link to a single domain more than one time on Wikipedia. But having said that, there's nothing particularly notable or usable about that link. Take a look at WP:EL - it's the guideline for external links. Under the ones to be linked, one of the criteria is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". The thing is, I'm not really sure if any of the text on that link is acceptable. It appears to be from a personal site, and per WP:SPS, we may not be able to accept that. Collia-Suzuki doesn't seem to be particularly notable on the topic; what makes her notable? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't think the content can be integrated because it's copyrighted on the web site at the bottom. On the web site it says she gives talks at a museum of Asian art. Would that make her notable? Thanks for the link directly to the section on self-published sources such as web sites. I just posted a link to a Hokusai site and don't know if that counts as self-published or not. So much to learn!! Kakiemon Tiger (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Her notability would be based on, say, if she was a professor or an academic, or a journalist or author who writes about the subject. It seems that she is an author who has written on the subject, more or less, so I suppose it's okay for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm getting it now. I still get lost trying to find my own account info here! Thanks for the help. Kakiemon Tiger (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's okay. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. And sorry I came down hard on you from the beginning - I didn't realize that you were brand new. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI

dude.... do u even red what i say ? like people on here make no sence... it says plot ? so why put the whole story there.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanman32123 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you're indef blocked for vandalism. Nevermind. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be more balanced and neutral

Hi!

I've reverted back my edit to Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware; the edits you made look like it's just an advert promoting this product, while the changes I put in start to balance this out and give a more neutral and objective view.

The changes I made are all fully referenced' (see citations in the article). If you feel that the article is critical of this program, you should probably check the references - in one set of 3rd party independant tests, it had a 100% failure-to-detect rate, and on another it had a 42% failure-to-detect rate. It's misleading to delete this, as it is a highly pertinent fact about this software.

Please feel free to edit the changes I've made (that's what a wiki's all about, after all!), but please don't just delete them as this is not constructive, and can amount to vandalism Cupids wings (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, your version as balanced in the opposite direction. And another editor agreed with me that your version was too biased. Let's discuss it on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw character pictures

Am I allowed to add some pictures to the Saw character pages (esp. the 'main' characters). Screen shots of the characters in the movie, or promotional shots via Google Images, etc?

I think it would add a lot to the pages. I noticed Amanda Young has some good pictures, so last night I added some to Jill Tuck's page. I don't want to add pics to all the pages and then it get reverted because of some rule I missed. Thanks --Micwa (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. to be honest, I would avoid filling the page with screenshots and things like that. Maybe one or two if there's something in the film (or whatever) that would be greatly enhanced by having an image, then that would be okay. But to have an image for every character would be total overkill and would wreck the flow of the page. In fact, I'd say that character images would be better suited for the character articles (or sections of the List page). And of course you have to be extra careful of WP:NFCC here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah mostly just the character page of the main cast. This page is already long enough. I think Mark Hoffman, Peter Strahm, and Jill Tuck's section are way too long, since they already their own page, so I tagged them. From what I understand about the non-free media use is that you can use screen shot from the film that wouldn't adversely affect the movie owners right. Copyright laws if very confusing and sometimes silly. Thank you. --Micwa (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on La_Belle_Epoque

I asked for a third opinion yesterday on La_Belle_Epoque. I think the redirect should go to the disambiguous page Belle_Epoque. The other editor User:Softlavender thinks it should go to the specific article Belle Époque. You provided the third opinion and set the redirect to go to Belle_Epoque. User:Softlavender has since undone your update. So do you want to weigh in on this or should I ask for another third opinon (guess that would be a fourth opinion)? I don't wish an undo undo undo battle with User:Softlavender GloverEpp (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. I opened a thread at Talk:La Belle Epoque#Redirect discussion and left a note on Softlavender's talk page about it. After this, the next step would probably be a request for comment, not another 3O. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Canisius fight song/alma mater

Hey, I saw that you deleted the lyrics to the Canisius College songs, and your notes referenced a general guideline regarding lyrics. In this case, there is no indication that these lyrics are under copyright, so why eliminate them. I plan on reinserting, unless you point out something I'm missing. Cheers --Cjs56 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on ANI last night about a user (Mizzoufan1) who was going around and adding fight song lyrics all over the place. Several users agreed that song lyrics fall as a copyright violation. Just because there isn't an indication of the copyright doesn't mean there is one; afaik, you're really only supposed to include text that has been specifically stated as being okay to copy or whatever. There's also a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#School songs, school hymns and fight songs. On there, it says "It is recommended that school songs without appropriate references where the copyright status is unclear should be deleted." Since you said there is no indication, per the guideline it would be better to err on the side of caution and not include them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)