User talk:Bobby1011/Archive3

/Archive 1: First Entry – 4th Feb, 2006
/Archive 2: 5th Feb, 2006 - 18th Feb, 2006

Vandal[edit]

If this vandal on your user page does not stop, I would put the following code on WP:AIV.
{{vandal|Jeeper peeper}} repeated (4times) penis pictures on [[User:Bobby1011]] -- ~~~~.
I hope he stops. =) -- Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted the administrators already. Administrators Noticeboard ((bobby1011)) Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sprotected the page; if someone doesn't unprotect it within 24 hours, leave me a note and I'll do it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected now —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:55Z

Deletion[edit]

Thanks for the helpful comment. I appreciate any and all help I can get. You made a good point. VincentGross 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange rates in It's Time article[edit]

Hi. Do you have a reference you could add to It's Time for the echange rates quoted? I found them surprisingly high, and can't find on online reference that old. (I also asked on the talk page) Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next answer on my talk page, below your response. It's easier to keep conversation threads on one page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bray Deletion[edit]

Hey Bobby, I do not know if you knopw this but,your deletion notice on James Bray's page has been removed by the author. I could put it back, but he will probably just delete it again. What course of action do we have? (Steve 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Student Linguistics in IIT Kharagpur[edit]

Shouldn't this just be speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really valid. CSD G4 is reason enough to delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me a party to the case in consideration. The first time the page was put up, it was by me. It was debated and finally deleted (not that I was offended by it). I wanted to know who recreated this page and why? I want to know who was the person(other than me), intersted in the topic so much that he recreated the page that has once been put for deletion.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism[edit]

Quote: Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits. How many hits would you say make it notable?--Echo was a groupie 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be rude--I just wanted to know if there were a certiain point at which you wouldn't have tagged it for deletion.--Echo was a groupie 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name: Huh-Hum[edit]

Hey. Can I get you to withdraw your nomination so this AfD can close? Just strike out your nom, or say you withdraw it, or say "withdrawn" in morse code, or something .. :)

Thanks, and thanks for helping keep Wikipedia tidy too.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry I ran over your stub for the Athenian guy. The article was a typo of his correct name, so I redirected it to the full article. Anyway, if you've wandered off for the night, I'll probably close it anyways, since your Keep vote is an implicit withdrawal, unless someone complains about that concept. Cheers!

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. Bobby1011 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia[edit]

Hi there. Re your note, I have to admit that I have never tried to edit on the German Wikipedia, mostly because the reaction you described to less than perfect German was what I would have expected - and can do without. I've had contact with a couple of very friendly German/English editors who work on both: User:Kusma, who also runs the German Portal on the English Wikipedia - worth a look if you don't already know it - and User:Longbow4u. They will have a lot more experience of how it works over there than I do. But don't give up! All best, Staffelde 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-stalinism[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your invaluable advice and help on getting my first wiki article off the ground, which is helping to plug a gap in the political wiki articles. Regards Brother No. 1 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. Happy to be of help. Bobby1011 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD[edit]

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the conspiracy AfD[edit]

Yeah, I'll have to stop answering. I just ...have trouble not answering when someone asks me a direct question. Ought to see a shrink about it. Weregerbil 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My native language is Finnish . Weregerbil 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory[edit]

"What is he trying to demonstrate?" Hard to tell. I think he sincerely wants to correct what he thinks is biased coverage. At the same time, he may, as much as anything, object to the other material being called 9/11 conspiracy theories. The argument about conspiracy theory in article titles goes way back, with a small minority wanting to ban the phrase entirely. User:Zen-master persued this for months, and is currently under a one-year block for edit-warring about it (that's an extremely abbreviated account). It may be that Striver, with the best of intentions, wants to accomplish the same thing. Rather than try to remove conspiracy theory from titles, he could be trying to add it to other titles to make things fair. So, that's the gossip and speculation. Basically, I take him at his word. I think he's wrong, but means well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think he is violating WP:POINT. It's probably not a copyvio, for reasons addressed on the AfD page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusion[edit]

Hey Bobby. Thanks for helping me with the Disillusion article. I wonder if you could help me with completing the band's Wikipedia page. I wanna make a page for each record they released and on the band memebers (well, atleast Vurtox, since he's the mastermind...). I am also wondering if it's okay to take the band's biography from their site and put it on Wiki, I dont know if it violates any copyright or anything.

So, if you can help me with completing the article, I'd be much grateful. It's too much for one person :-).

Thanks, SCMugen.

Kill the Scientist[edit]

FYI: I totally agreed with your initial thoughts on this one and view independant artists in a different way than mainstream artists. A perspective those not emersed in any DIY culture can utilize (unfortunately). Madangry 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to make sure that we're on the same page, have you read WP:MUSIC? Refer to the part about For performers outside of mass media traditions. Music not recognised in the mainstream is given special consideration, and much leeway is granted to prove notability. Now I'm no expert on this band, so I'm not going to vote keep until it is shown, in a manner that makes it understandable to me, that the band meets any one of the criteria from that section. Ofcourse, if they meet a criterion from another section, then that's just as good. If they're a feature in prominent magazines, show us, or at least quote the issue number and page etc. so that it is conceivable that we could check it out if we wanted to. The biggest problem facing indie bands and labels on Wikipedia is the fact that the onus rests on the author to prove notability, not on the AfD nominator to prove otherwise. Bobby1011 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wiki[edit]

Thanks for your message. Sehen Sie mal hier bei meiner Benutzerbeiträge, dass ich eigentlich nicht so viele Seiten bearbeite. Back to English. I don't trust my German enough to contribute on a significant scale to the German Wikipedia, but if I ever have any desire to change something, I consult meine Mutter, who is the user Mmounties. She is pretty awesome at both German and English (as you might be able to tell from her considerable German-English page translations). If you ever have any questions concerning translation, you may want to ask her, but if you do not feel your German is good enough to make any good contributions to dewiki, I'd just stay away from there. Just think about when you see non-English speakers editing Wikipedia and making common grammatical or spelling errors that we have to go around and clean up. It's the same for them, only they have less janitors than we do :-D. Also, I'm not too bad at the language, so if ever you can spare my mom (although I'm sure she'd be glad to field any questions), just ask me. In the meantime, be sure to check out the German portal on the English Wikipedia. There's a bunch of interesting things to do over there. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobby. Way to go! Don't let anyone discourage you. I think it's great that you're trying to contribute in the de-wiki as well. Sure I can try to help you. How about, for now you create a user:subpage when you want to change/add to a German article and copy/paste the German article in there. If you save it first and then make your changes on your subpage, save it again, you can leave me a message on my talk page and I can go to your subpage and check the differences between the two versions showing what's there and what you propose. If you propose a new article there would obviously be no "original" version. That way we can clean up anything that may need cleaning up before you go live on the de-wiki. Sound like a plan? If I'm not around you can go to the WP:GSWN and leave a message on that talk page. There are some more people working mostly with de:en translations who check in there frequently. --Mmounties (Talk)

16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that - don't let anybody stop you. That said, it is typical for wiki that all you write will be rigourously edited. The nature of the beast is a teameffort - some people can contribute the original thoughts others are good at putting it into form. The tidy-upper would be lost without the original thoughts he can give a work-over:-).

Agathoclea 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your voting![edit]

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Hey, I have posted a policy change proposal on the Wikipedia talk:Editing policy page. I would your opinion and all Wikipedia members with accounts. Please. (Steve 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

listing things for prod[edit]

hi whan listing things for pord could you please add a reason like this {{prod|reason}} as this helps pepole when reviewing the prod list, thanks Benon 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, my .....[edit]

.... you ARE quick!!! I only just posted this one!!! Seems like you're pretty good at copy editing too. Want to become my regular editor? I try to clean up my translations pretty much, but translating isn't the same as just speaking in the language. The constant switching back and forth tends to mess up my grammar. Thanks for the help! --Mmounties (Talk) 04:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. But you're right. As long as I can flip the switch in my brain I'm pretty good. If I can't do that and have to go back and forth, I short out (so to speak) Btw, I find I do better translations by not using a dictionary. There's the odd word or two (especially in the religious area) that I need to ask someone else about, but I find it's better than constantly trying to look things up... But I really meant it. There certainly is a need for a copyeditor on our project. If you check on the requested articles and the missing articles project pages you can tell the monumental amount of work you would have even if you decided to just proof-read, never mind translate, though having as good a command of the German language as you do, you might want to try your hand in that as well. It would also help you to expand your vocabulary and keep improving on it. ...just something to think about... --Mmounties (Talk)

05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possum Game[edit]

Hi. Thanks for closing the AFD on Possum Game. I came accross the article and it was an obvious speedy candidate, so I deleted. I was trying to figure out what I need to do to mark the AFD discussion closed, but you beat me to it. --Martyman-(talk) 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glyconutrient[edit]

You closed this AfD early, and noted there was a consensus to redirect.

a) When closing an AfD early, you should note the consensus was to "Speedy (x)."

b) There was no consensus to speedy anything. AfD's are to run for the full five days unless there is a clear consensus to "speedy (x)." That doesn't mean 3 opinions; it means more like 10, with no opposing.

c) Are you a Wikipedia sysop? In general, sysops close AfD's.

I've re-opened the AfD you closed. There's no reason to create a procedural abnormality; there is no hurry. Once the article is on AfD, it gets its 5 days.

-ikkyu2 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possum game AfD[edit]

I'm also concerned about the Possum game AfD, which you closed as a speedy delete. You stated, "The result of the debate was speedy delete".

In fact, this is not true. There was one opinion cast by the nominator, which was Delete, and one other opinion cast, which was delete. There was no consensus to speedy delete, and in fact you are not the Wikipedia user who deleted the article.

These procedural irregularities throw a cloud over AfD. Please consider not closing any more AfD's in the immediate future. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Good Grief to this, so you will know that I think you've inappropriately closed a large number of AfD's. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the example of Good Grief, the users who left more than comments pointed out that the precedent has long existed that episiodes are included. I didn't think at the time that further discussion was going to develop. Bobby1011

Right, so just let it go for the full 5 days. No harm done and everyone gets a chance to have their say, and no one can say "This was closed irregularly; therefore AfD is not a place where an article can get a fair hearing." -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the above concerns re-stated with regard to most, if not all of the AfD's you closed today. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions that I closed today were for articles that had already been deleted. What's the point of leaving them open? To debate about an article that no longer exists? Bobby1011 08:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As you're probably disingenuously aware, your teenaged Australian admin friends deleted those articles out of process. Your closing the AfD instead of them merely adds an extra layer of out-of-process to wade through for people who care to see Wikipedia policy followed, not flouted. Let the deleting admin close the AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artikel in der deutschsprachigen wikipedia[edit]

Hallo Bobby 1001, ich habe Dein Posting bei Mmounties gesehen hinsichtlich Deiner Sprachprobleme mit Artikeln in Deutsch. Im Moment werden in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia teilweise - leider - fehlerhafte neue Artikel sehr schnell gelöscht, ich hoffe, dass Du davon noch nicht betroffen warst. Solltest Du unsicher sein mit einem Artikel, schlage ich Dir vor, dass Du Dir eine Unterseite einrichtest und die Texte dort erst einmal parkst. Du kannst mir dann am besten hier jeweils eine kurze Nachricht schicken, ich schaue mir die Texte dann an und korrigiere sie, anschließend kannst Du sie dann in der deutschsprachigen wikipedia einstellen. Viele Grüße aus Berlin --Lienhard Schulz 11:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS ich kann allerdings lediglich deutsche Texte korrigieren und nichts übersetzen, dafür ist mein Englisch viel zu schlecht.[reply]

RFC[edit]

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Small Verweigerte Rückkehr7.JPG[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Small Verweigerte Rückkehr7.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

Regards, Dethomas 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging[edit]

These images also require source and/or license information.

Regards, Dethomas 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF[edit]

You voted for Rum Rebellion. It has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc[edit]

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Geoffclark.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Geoffclark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Sherool (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fettes Brot[edit]

I have finished the tranlsation of Fettes Brot. You might want to give it a look over. - Rainwarrior 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Small_Verweigerte_Rückkehr6.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Small_Verweigerte_Rückkehr6.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 04:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Barnstar[edit]

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Minor Barnstar for identifying an article desperately in need of a tag, Echinodorus virgatus, and placing that tag right where it belonged. KP Botany 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for realizing that tags sometimes serve a purpose. I'll look at and try to clean up some of the editor's other articles. He did add lots of articles, though, and created a list for them. KP Botany 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish subversion[edit]

Hi, the Afd tag is still on the article. Benjiboi 09:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a while since I've closed an AfD. Bobby1011 09:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit article talk page I tried adding results but don't know if i did it right. Benjiboi 09:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the talk page. Bobby1011 10:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under article milestones. Benjiboi 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't know how to use that particular template. I see now what you've done but I don't know how to get it show the part about the AfD. Bobby1011 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about switching it out. Benjiboi 10:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jewish subversion. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will ^(talk) 11:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now? Users debate on whether or not to have another AfD? I don't like the article and I see the POV that your complaining about, but there was no hope consenus in that debate. Bobby1011 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby. The policy for deletion (WP:DPR#NAC) states that xFD closures by non-admins should only be carried out in unequivocal circumstances ("Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator."). With that in mind, I have reclosed the AFD. Neil ☎ 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenthal[edit]

You have managed to lose the edit history of the article originally named Frankenthal, besides giving it a defective new name. This is not an improvement.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. I guess I mucked up that move. Bobby1011 12:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back to where it was, which seems to work better.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to work in a disambiguation so that the article on Hans Frankenthal is accessible by serching Frankenthal. Bobby1011 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it right this time. Bobby1011 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't - you now have Frankenthal, Germany and Frankenthal, Saxony - like Saxony isn't in Germany. 95% of all links are to Frankenthal the town in Rhineland-Palatinate, which is why the article was set up that way. Please just put it all back how it was and then add a link at the top of the three articles to Frankenthal (disambiguation).HeartofaDog (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]