User talk:Smashville/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian Martial Art

Thanks for going through his other pages and reviewing them for CSD criteria. I didnt even think of doing that for some reason. RogueNinjatalk 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm here! --SmashvilleBONK! 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov

At Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_24#Daniel_Malakov you wrote

I'm having an issue with the nominator's accusations of bad faith against admins for doing their duties as admins. And with the essay length responses. Be concise, please. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would kindly explain

  • Why do you believe that Wikipedia Administrators should be immune from legitimate criticism? Do you have any sources to support this point of view?
  • Why do you believe that a cogent set of arguments must, a priori, be concise? While brevity is the soul of wit, should not Wikipedia emphasize accuracy at its expense?
  • Since you entered into this discussion of your own accord, I do not think it out-of-line to ask the origin of your UserID "SmashvilleBONK!" which seems to connote a violence act. Do you believe that there is a place for violence among Administrators on Wikipedia, perhaps figuratively? Do the ends justify the means?

Eileivgyrt (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation... at User:Eileivgyrt; you have to admit it sounds edgy.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in 2007

  • i don't think reversion of vandalism is covered by WP:3RR, actually. cheers, tomasz. 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but I don't think alphabetical order constitutes "obvious" vandalism...although the edit summary kinda does show there's no intent of stopping. I'm only reporting User:Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • i see your point. thanks for your judgement, and i will take more care of it in future. tomasz. 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
        • There's never a problem if you're working in good faith, which you obviously were. It's also obvious he's making bad faith reverts... --SmashvilleBONK! 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wednesday Night Drinking Crew

Hello i was curious about the SpD set on the WNDC Article

The reason below is why I personally think it should be included, It truly is all that I say.

I am a representative of the MBAHA. Though this is my first entry and I'm not sure if im even doing it correctly or what needs to be done to establish this group in world history. Like I state below it is a huge part of the Myrtle Beach economy and many notable persons in the area are members, and they also start and coordinate fund raisers for High Schools and County affairs. Also it's 854+ members strong, their meetings usually involve around 175-200 members in attendance.

Please respond and let me know how i can improve the page.

  • This page should not be deleted because enough though it does not have a notable effect of the entire history of the world, it does for the population and economy of the Myrtle Beach area. It supports family, social, and personal affairs. You even must be apart of the hospitality industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivesecondrule (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, for starters, it didn't even remotely explain how it was notable. Honestly, though, I highly doubt this page would survive any Wikipedia deletion process no matter how well written. --SmashvilleBONK! 06:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, recreating it immediately like you just did is probably going to end up getting the page salted. --SmashvilleBONK! 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Not trying to doubt your knowledge of Wikipedia and it's procedures but seriously there is not one single organization or group that is localy operated listed on WP?? Also i really didn't try to recreate it but when i was editing it, there was a notice saying it didn't exist. I thought i was suspposed to click the recreate to enable my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivesecondrule (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There are tons, but you haven't even asserted that it's notable. --SmashvilleBONK! 07:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well there is alot that I'm not really able to put in at one sitting, especially since it keeps being deleted, can you at least post-pone deletion for a week or so?

But as stated how is being a "huge part of the Myrtle Beach economy and many notable people in the area are members, and they also start and coordinate fund raisers for High Schools and County affairs." not notable?

What do the other organizations have listed? They certainly contribute loads to the city and the people who live in it. By the way i do appreciate the speedy response and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivesecondrule (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WPPP-LP

FCC licensing is not mentioned here. What else makes it notable? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:OUTCOMES says that licensed stations are seen as notable if they have original programming...WP:WPRS has several debates over the notability of LP stations. CSD A7 says it doesn't apply to controversial deletions. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I won't push for speedy; and I'll wait until notability criteria can be presented by the author. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Landaluce

Why thank you! I don't often receive compliments...much the reverse. But I agree, when I saw her missing, I got to work. As a horse lover, Landaluce should not be forgotten.JiggeryPokery (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wenonah Article

Thanks for fixing it up. Try to keep me posted on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5dsddddd (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I can't guarantee it will get kept, but I think I gave it enough context so it won't be speedy deleted. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, Smashville, just before I got your message I was thinking "I better take this to AFD." Beat me there! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A7 and schools

Thanks for stating that schools aren't part of A7 - I've been trying to go over all the policies really carefully and I guess there's still a lot that I've missed. Pnswmr (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It was actually a recent change...so you can't really be blamed for missing it. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Powercore

In response to me not being the original author and such, please see this edit, where the original author indeed did request the article's deletion. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted your edit - sorry for the slow response! ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha...yeah...I felt kinda dumb when I saw that... --SmashvilleBONK! 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I Am Sorry, I Thought That Victoria Planned to release the album and i will quit now sorry. thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girls alouds biggest fan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Considering how many times you've been told to stop, I'm sorry if I have a hard time believing that. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I Know, But I Just Want To Create Sourced Articles

I Don't Mean To Be A Pain, but I Try to source my article like i sourced all my Victoria Beckham Articles , but I Don't Understand Why People Delete It. Also I Want To Be A Journalist, so your lucky to be one :P. So I'm Sorry if i've been doing something wrong x. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girls alouds biggest fan (talk • contribs) 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create sourced articles, then you need to abide by the rules laid down for notability and verification. You have been told why they are being deleted - they are not verifiable! And this is hardly journalism... ~~ [Jam][talk] 05:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seen as i am only 13, I think that it helps me improve my journalism :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girls alouds biggest fan (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 January 2008

  • Creating hoaxes isn't going to help you with anything. Also - I'm sure you didn't mean to, but your signature should absolutely not link to another user's talk page. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By relying on some blog written by some completely random person with no verifiable credentials? I'm afraid this isn't going to help your journalism at all, and neither does your persistent re-creation of previously deleted articles or the vandalism and removal of tags on those pages. ~~ [Jam][talk] 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

roller skating ninjas

why are my "roller-skating ninja" posts being deleted? this one you have tagged now is a link to another wiki article! if i can't use your own site to verify something that what can i use?! you guys are being ridiculous. "Shat" has its own wikipedia page... why are you deleting all of the time i am putting in to setting up one for "roller-skating ninjas"?!?!?! Briansantamaria (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You created a blank page. It's still blank right now. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

help, pls with something important

There really is the Pinsky Phenomenon in mathematics. I am not making it up. Refererences provided. So many researchers use it. Help me keep this. It is mathematically imprortant. AmeliaElizabeth (talk)

I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not under deletion consideration at the moment. I'd help...but math isn't my strong suit. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

James Barnett

Hey! Why do you keep deleting Ryan Davis' name from the article? He did break the story before anyone else. He even wrote the article in the Houston Voice about it. I'm not sure how you consider that not relevant to the story. Do you think Bob Woodward is not relevant to Watergate? TheatreKid01 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheatreKid01 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not even close to Watergate. It's an article about a person that you keep putting your own name into. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan wrote the very first article on James... http://www.houstonvoice.com/2004/12-17/news/localnews/school.cfm. Please explain how that isn't relevent? TheatreKid01 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the article isn't about him. Adding the reference is fine...adding the credentials and the name of the reporter is not. The reporter has nothing to do with the story. He reported the facts of something that happened...it wasn't investigative journalism and the reporter is not part of the story. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you say it wasn't investigative journalism? I actually sorta feel that is was... TheatreKid01 (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is...the story is the kid getting kicked out of school. Not the reporter reporting that the kid got kicked out of school. The kid sought out the press - he even contacted the ACLU - the reporter didn't discover anything. It's not appropriate to add his name to the article. Especially when it was continuously added by the reporter himself last week while he was trying to create a page about himself. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Smashville - Actually, James didn't seak out the press. Davis contacted him before he even considered going public. It was the notgeniuses article, reprinted the next week in the houston voice, that lead to further media coverage. In addition, Davis asked his readers to contact James' school and local media to force them to cover the story. I'm not the one trying to rewrite history here.

I updated the Ryan Davis page to show more notability. I'm not quite sure what else you're looking for not to delete it. Please advise. TheatreKid01 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary source in which he is the primary subject. I mean, if he's notable, then by all means, he's notable...he just doesn't look notable per Wikipedia standards. See WP:V. I'll help you look for sources, but since you have more knowledge of the subject, you are going to be more likely to find them. Please don't mistake my removals as point of view or rudeness or anything of that nature. Just - to me - it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia notability standards. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Smashville - Thanks for your help on this. I do appreciate it. I've already referenced a feature on Davis from The Washington Post. Also, I've linked to two of his appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Good Morning America, and Primetime Live. I've also linked to interviews from Radar Magazine (Print), The Advocate (Print), Fox News, and Broadway World (highest ranked theatre news site). I've also linked to a front page feature he received from Gay City News (Print), the most read gay newspaper in the country. That's quite a few sources and I'd hope some of them are considered reliable. If you need more, I can find additional mentions in the NY Times, or whatever. But, I feel like you still won't be impressed.

Mr. Davis has received these media mentions not from one project, but from several. So, he's not just "known for one event." The odd thing is that there are people listed in Wiki whose best credits are writing a song for Mr. Davis' White Noise. How can he not be notable, but someone who wrote a song for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasek_and_paul) somehow have this magical notability even with zero references or no real credits? 69.86.53.254 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is me, sorry - forgot to sign in. TheatreKid01 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the deletion nomination for the time being. You've at least cast enough doubt for me to give you some time to see what you can do. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Smashville - Thanks for your fairness. I'll be adding a little more to the entry tomorrow. I am curious, how do I make the reference list in 2 columns instead of one super long one? Is there a special tag? Thanks again! - TheatreKid01 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A mini-meetup in Nashville

User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. Good times are to be had. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Silky Sullivan

This article was almost the first I ever contributed to wikipedia and I'll admit I was more than a bit enthusiastic. I still am. It does need dampening down for wiki purposes, and I've occasionally looked at it with a mind to doing just that. But I can't. I'm too involved with the subject. Therefore to have someone else do it is a relief and I thank you. JiggeryPokery (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked Winners

I read your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing#Redlinked Winners. Have you finished doing the stubs on whatever ones you changed? Handicapper (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted all the redirects instead. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rescuing that Delta Classic article from deletion. I am now inspired to spruce it up a bit. [[D-free]] (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I looked at it and it didn't look like advertising...much less blatant advertising...then looked at your contributions and figured it was highly unlikely that you were spamming WP. --SmashvilleBONK! 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov: Follow-up

Dear Smashville from Nashville,

About two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."

In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:

February 9, 2008 Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Mikkalai's talk page

Re: this comment of yours. With respect, your distillation of the issue is really not an accurate representation of what's going on here. This isn't just about someone saying, "read the fucking edit summary", to someone else, nor is it just about threatening to block a user because they dared to post text to an article without including references. It isn't even just about a thinly veiled threat to cut a person's throat. This current reaction to Mikkalai is the culmination of a long string of events. Read the links given in the current ANI. Do a search in the ANI archives. Check the block log. This clearly isn't just a bunch of people overreacting to an isolated incident. -- Hux (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, I think I'm just gonna stay out of this one from here on out. --SmashvilleBONK! 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wimpy E. Syndrome

Atleast Swapgirl came to me nicely, unlike others. Thank you for the comment. Basketball110 what famous people say 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

True...some of them just cuss you out... --SmashvilleBONK! 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Steven Kazmierczak merge

Hello. I noticed that you had previously commented on the merge of the article Steven Kazmierczak into Northern Illinois University shooting. I just thought I would let you know that the discussion has been reopened here here if you wish to provide additional input since the one-week cool down period has expired. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote parameter in references

here in G. David Schine User:Spruce is removing the quote parameter from each reference. Can you take a look and decide if they should be included or not? Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual. [5]" Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article, placed in the reference, using the quote=parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person buy and reread the entire external article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. Once you buy the article you cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its the same reason why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey March 2008 Newsletter

edit 
WikiProject Ice Hockey Newsletter

Dear Smashville/Archive 2! You are receiving as you are a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey There's been many more new things going on at WP:HOCKEY; this newsletter will be sent every two weeks/months.


If you wish to not receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the newsletter mailing list. Thanks!

edit 
New recognized content

By The Pancake of Heaven!
There has been numerous new recognized content, so much that it's too time-consuming to sift through the "trophy cases" on WP:HOCKEY. Some interesting achievements:

edit 
Task forces

By The Pancake of Heaven!

We are working to create a new task force within the WikiProject to deal with topics related to the Pittsburgh Penguins. It hasn't been created yet; but it aims to expand articles based on former and current Pittsburgh Penguins players and articles. Good luck!

edit 
New Administrators

Currently 0 promoted admins! Be the first one at WP:RFA.

edit 
Featured Topic Drive

By Maxim

The original featured topic drive, initiated by Scorpion0422, has concluded succesfully. National Hockey League awards is now a featured topic, with 24 articles in total. Of them, 20 are featured lists, one is a featured article, and the other three are trophy articles that were too short to become featured lists. Eight users signed up to help out, shown here. The next Featured Topic hasn't been decided upon, and the ideas and organization for it fell apart. If you have any ideas, don't hesitate to share them at WT:HOCKEY.

edit 
Notes
  • More editors are needed to help out with the newsletter. The newsletter creator doesn't have an infinite nor perfect supply of ideas, and thus he might omit some interesting news.
  • Portal:Ice hockey is being considered for featured status.
  • Should Chris Pronger have been suspended for more than eight games for stomping on Ryan Kesler? Vote here!
  • Help Patrik Stefan -- one of the greatest NHL draft busts -- become a GA status article.

Note: You have received this because your name is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/List. If you no longer wish to receive this message, remove your name. MonoBot (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

100,000 seat sporting venues

I remember a few months ago, you were interested in starting a list for sporting venues with 100,000 or more sporting venues. I've started one in my sandbox. Let me know if you have any suggestions for the list. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Humph.

At least it was up for more than three minutes that time. Just make sure to sign User:Hersfold/April Fools if you haven't already. :-P Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Baptist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities

Are they seriously not getting this? If they had a good reason for keep, that'd be cool, but they're voting on something and don't even know what it is.... --Aepoutre (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Be patient. The admin that closes it will understand. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisting

Do you have some plan for how a second AFD on NASIOC could be conducted without involvement from single purpose accounts? These guys are active on the internet, and they care about being in Wikipedia. We should assume they'll show up anywhere this is discussed- they had no trouble finding the deletion review. I don't think there's any hope for a clean AFD. All we can do is try to see through the mud the best we can. Friday (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think once they realize we're not out to get them, they'll cooperate. If they have in fact found the elusive nontrivial secondary source, I think it would be very spiteful of us not to relist it. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I mostly just lack confidence in AFD being a good forum for actual rational discussion. If it turns out that a sourced encyclopedia article can be written on this topic, I'm all in favor of someone writing it. We don't need a formal discussion to decide that. I guess I just see no way for the deletion review to not be the same kind of can of worms the AFD was. It's already attracted a few apparent single-purpose accounts- some of the same ones we saw at AFD. Friday (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually thought about working with them to write a new one...except for the fact that the page was protected from recreation...and the more I thought about it...I dunno...I mean, obviously I don't disagree with you...but I don't know that the article really got a fairshake...it was sockpuppeted for about 6 days before anyone noticed it...so really they only had about a day for anyone that wasn't a sock to try and help them...but at that point, they had already felt like it was a witchhunt... --SmashvilleBONK! 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You participated in the last ANI ivloving editing at these articles, would you like to comment on what is now the fourth ANI? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [ANI is here]

Thanks for the heads up! --SmashvilleBONK! 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

I've put a CSD tag back on; the information still on the page is copied from http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/site/345/default.aspx . Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone puts copyright info into a pre-existing page, we just remove it. We don't delete the page. --SmashvilleBONK! 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

VPPPA

I have permission from the creator of the Web site to use the content, I just do not know how show that. Can we work together on that? The information and links now posted are inaccurate and outdated. I am not posting copyrighted material without permission, I just do not know how to express the permission. This is in response to

Again, you've been warned more than once. STOP inserting copyrighted material into articles. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JCeph"

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do

Hi. Noticed that you are keeping an eye on Eight Belles. While you are at it, can you also watchlist filly, horse racing, Kentucky Derby and Thoroughbred for the same reason? (Thoroughbred just went GA and we at WP:EQUINE are probably feeling a little protective of our newly titled prize!) So far I've only seen a few edits that needed to be tossed (some not even about Eight Belles), but some folks are going to want to put a reference to her into every article possible, and so if I could get a few more eyes on the most likely suspects, it would be very helpful. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I already have horse racing and Kentucky Derby on it, but I'd be more than happy to add the others. :) --SmashvilleBONK! 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blues Metal

I left a reply there; I think you took my comment the wrong way, my apologies. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did. Thanks for the clarification. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Schoharie Valley

Hey, Smashville, Dr.orfannkyl here. On the Schoharie Valley page, Sgt.bender and another user called Qworthy are having an editing war over Araxi Hubbard Dutton Palmer, and whether or not she's notable enough to be included in the article. In my opinion, since she's very famous locally, I figure she should (or could) be mentioned as a notable resident. And I think, since Sgt.bender and I live in Schoharie County, that we are experts on the issue of important locals. But either way, I would appreciate it if you could put your two cents in and try to stop all the back and forth editing. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Dr. O's talkpage. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested photo

Hello! I noticed that on your userpage you state that you are living in Nashville. Would you be willing to take and upload a photo of the Nashville Tennessee Temple? It would be much appreciated. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in California right now, but when I get home, I'll be sure to. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

stop deleting external links on historic sites

Please stop doing drive-by deletion of external links on historic sites articles. You label links to Dulcinea as "linkspam" unfairly. I have no connection to Dulcinea, whatever that is, but i am an editor of HMS Ontario (1780) and Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire which are two that you hit. doncram (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be the case that sometimes Dulcinea links are extraneous to an article. Like, i don't know about one of the ones for a musical group that you deleted, not my area. But for other cases, the Dulcinea link provides a valuable service, and it includes links to more traditional news articles. So, please don't drive around just deleting the links. I think for this source you should leave the decisions to local editors who are developing the articles. doncram (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Every link I deleted was a link to the findingDulcinea.com site which was added by accounts affiliated with findingDulcinea.com. It is 100 percent purely linkspam. Not to mention that none of them qualify as reliable sources. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree: the ones I glanced at are well-cited (links to mainstream media, etc) articles on topics specifically relevant to the WP pages that link to them. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
PEr WP:RS rules, we link to the mainstream media, not little articles thrown together for marketing purposes by a spamming nonauthoritative website. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't believe you, if you are asserting that you evaluated every one of the links you deleted. The Dulcinea link in the HMS Ontario (1780) article was added, along with substantial new text in the article, by an IP editor in this edit. Your edit to delete the Dulcinea reference stripped out the reference, leaving the text unsupported. The text added was helpful, and the Dulcinea reference was a good reference. If the IP editor is associated with Dulcinea (Please show me your evidence!), then we are lucky to have such interest and intelligent editing coming our way. Your edit is what appears to be unthinking and unhelpful. I do believe that you meant well, but your edits seem to be disruptive of article-building. doncram (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my edits seemed disruptive, I really do. But the same person has been adding the same links to articles that are on my watchlist, so I decided to click his edit history and he had been adding them everywhere. I still highly disagree with an employee of the company coming in and adding links to his website all over the place, but if you find the link useful, then I apologize for removing it. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignore Doncram, here. You were perfectly right to remove those links, and Doncram's disregard of the WP:RS and WP:COI (not to mention WP:SPAM) policies is his problem, not yours. The site has been discussed as part of the Wikipedia spam protection project. And, geez, "If the IP editor is associated with Dulcinea (Please show me your evidence!), then we are lucky to have such interest and intelligent editing coming our way" is such a ridiculously over the top rationalization of blatant spamming of subpar sources that I truly question his good faith here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dulcinea is not a reliable source; it is a tertiary or quaternary source of aggregation. If it has useful sources behind it, then Wikipedia should cite those sources, not the aggregator! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ovechkin

Can you link me to the IfD discussion for the Ovechkin video? I saw the one on the talk page, but I'd like to take a gander at the discussion if it went through the official process. Thanks. leafschik1967 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Did you follow the RfA instructions exactly as they are listed? I think your RfA is not properly transcluded because it's pointing to a spot in your user space rather than where it should be (voice your opinion, for example). When you go to the main RfA page and try to get to yours, it is pointing to User:Smashville/RfA instead of where it should be. I'm not 100% sure that's the problem, but it does look like you tried to do it slightly differently and it doesn't seem to have worked properly. (I was going to edit it but I think I should leave that to you, hence this message.)  Frank  |  talk  17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooo...I wrote it in my userspace first...let me fix that. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I wish I had seen this, I would have opposed, "can't create RfA's properly" Er wait, no I wouldn't have. Congratulations.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, luckily I won't have to do anymore on myself... :) --SmashvilleBONK! 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Story Copyright

I declare that the content on my page http://www.intuitivebeats.com/dj-story.php was written by me and is now hereby licensed under the GFDL and is in the public domain. To verify please contact me http://www.intuitivebeats.com/contact.php Can you please restore my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djstory108 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is no copyvio, the article failed to assert notability. I recommend that if sources exist, beginning an article in your userspace (try User:Djstory108/sandbox). --SmashvilleBONK! 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:

If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line and I (or another experienced admin) will be more than happy to help you out.

Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Woo! Congratulations!! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Be a good admin please. :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Good luck, and don't be rouge... —Sunday Scribe 19:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all...I've been waiting for a blatantly obvious CSD to come across to make my first administrative act...and I believe I've found it...who ever heard of Elvis Presley?...I kid, I kid... --SmashvilleBONK! 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable outside of the Memphis area... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Memphis? Sounds hoaxy... --SmashvilleBONK! 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Basically anything outside of Nashville I'm suspicious of. I can at least verify the Exit/In or the Belcourt (as I very clearly have done). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just hoping I'm not looking like I'm going on a deletionist spree...I'm at work and wanted to test the tools...and fulfilling blatant CSD requests seemed like the easiest test. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done and use the tools well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wahey! Congratulations and welcome to the club. I hope to join you, someday! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck as an admin! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! Good luck with your adminship! (Acalamari from alternate account) Bellatrix Kerrigan 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I came here to say what everyone else said. Congrats! seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, and congratulations. Serve your country—err, I mean, fellow Wikipedians. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • best of luck! Hiding T 09:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed a deletion

Hello, Smashville ...

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ak'sent, you neglected to delete International (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... as suggested, by Some Other Editor:

In general it is a good idea to co-nominate musicians and their albums …

Since the PROD is about to expire anyway. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't worry...deleted it...you're just quicker than me... --SmashvilleBONK! 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

KFLP

Thanks for the save! I've also left a note on that user's talk page letting them know that CSD-A3, which is the criteria under which they tagged the page, specifically excludes disambiguation pages.

BTW, I see that you've just recently been handed the mop. Congrats. Mlaffs (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and quite welcome! --SmashvilleBONK! 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

congrats and heads-up

.. as someone has already broght your allegedly "innapropriate administrator behaviour" to WP:ANI ;-)--Tikiwont (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No justification given for removing article that met notability requirements?

My name is Raymond and I am a big fan of Scottish Singer Songwriter "jono" (Jonathan Sammeroff). The original article written about him was lacking in notability, and that was the complaint of the other administrators. I edited the wiki article to accommodate for this in a balanced manner, and demonstrated that wikipedia's notability requirements, stretching well beyond the bounds of acceptability, had then been well and truly met and more.

But then you deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sammeroff - without joining in the debate!! and without giving your reasons for doing so...

Kindly reconsider this articles deletion, and explain how it is appropriate to:

1) Delete the page without joining in the debate to give me a chance to respond to your reasoning.

2) Delete a page that has thoroughly met notability requirements and clearly has a right to be included in Wikipedia.

Please note I am new to Wikipedia and it took me a while to sift through lots of different pages of information before finding and posting on yours. As a result of this, I am the one who complained about you elsewhere.

With thanks from Peenapplay (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay

It would have been highly inappropriate for me to delete the page if I had participated in the debate. My job is to read the debate as an uninvolved third party and make a decision based on the arguments in the debate. There was a clear consensus to delete the article. And I gave my justification: "Consensus is that artist does not currently meet WP:MUSIC criteria." In addition, there was no nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. You are free to recreate the page if and when the subject does become notable, although I recommend that you do so in your userspace first. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, first of all my apologies for my lack of understanding of the process. BUT the administrators who recommended "delete" did so BEFORE I added numerous non-trivial sources of information that DID MEET WP:MUSIC criteria, and I showed very factually and in a balanced way how it did so, using quotations from Wikipedias guidelines on notability. I ask you again to RECONSIDER. And also please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_4 with thanks, Peenapplay (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay

I won't reconsider the close as I took the entire debate and the article into account and had (and still have) no qualms about my decision, but thank you for the heads up on the DRV and please stick around in the land of the Wikipedias. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to deal with me hehehe, but you have still not EXPLAINED your decision insomuchas you have not demonstrated why the article did not meet sections 1&4 of WP:MUSIC Notability because it's obvious to me that it did, so I kindly refer you back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_4 with thanks Peenapplay (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay
Please keep the discussion in one place - the DRV, where I - and others - have covered in depth why it didn't meet these criteria. --SmashvilleBONK! 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and move request.

Well done on passing your RfA, and I have no doubts you will be a credit to the virtual mop-and-bucket. While I'm here, I thought I'd ask for your help; the page 1% Rule (disambiguation) should instead be at 1% Rule - which currently redirects to the former. It appears that a previous (new) editor moved the page from the old title (presumably due to misunderstanding the guideline), and therefore there is a page history, so I can't move the page (being a mere editor ;)). So basically, could you perform the move with your new admin tools - the request is in line with the appicable guideline, WP:DAB#NAME. If you aren't sure about it, no worries, just give me a message and I'll list it at WP:RM instead. Cheers! – Toon(talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and done. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

horse racing

[1] Dontworry (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pamposh Enclave

I saw that you deleted Pamposh Enclave, which was created by another editor. I added some references to the article and took out anything that could be regarded as POV-pushing, so I think the new article should be fine. Could you please restore the history of the article so that people can see the original version? --Eastmain (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Done. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

dear smashville

you deleted permanent breakfast, which is a noncomercial art-project to reclaim the open space. i´m quite sorry that my english is not good enough to formulate this text in a way that you think it´s exceptable. maybe you just have a look on the project and deside how we can solve the problem

yours wernerrudynWernerRudyn (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that English is not your first language, but you must understand that your article was still an advertisment. While it was not for a commercial project, it was instructions on how to make art submissions - including the contact information. I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for this. Perhaps you might try a blog. Please do not misunderstand these statements as rudeness, but I did not want to use slang or abbreviations so that you may understand my English. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

dear smashville, as i understand, the "rulers of the game" and the contactinfo is a problem and makes the entry an advertisment, right? so this is a less important part of the entry, but i still think permanent breakfast is phenomenon in the open space that should be found in the english wikipedia asyou can find it in the german wiki. there are folks doing it for more than 12 years and in more than 28 nations in the world... try to google it. btw. i can delete the rules and the contact. do you think it´s ok then?

WernerRudyn (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Write your article at User:WernerRudyn/Permanent Breakfast. Once you do that, I will help you with the review process. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is back

Hi Smashville you recently blocked this IP. Since their return all their edits have been disruptive. Could you possibly have a look and ask them to stop please? Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that I never made it to my computer over the weekend. If he goes at it again, take it to AIV first, as I might not be online. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

need help

Hey Smashville,

I am the owner of this company STT Productionz.

I am also the owner of the website www.sttproductionz.com

I have copied some information from my personally designed website to wikipedia.

For some reason it deleted my article.

I would like to give out my email address: stt@sttproductionz.com

Please help me out,

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sttp (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You article was deleted as - among other things - blatant advertising. It was clearly written to promote your company. which Wikipedia does not allow. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

VCMC Motorsports Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VCMC_Motorsport_Club

Hi Smashville, during race season, people weren't too interested in working on that page so it was kind of left half-incomplete. Although VCMC doesn't have a lot of external references for it, it does have some but you'd need to know where to search. I would disagree and say that it isn't a notable entry although I can see where you're coming from. It's very hard to verify the origins or basically any information about Motorsports clubs in any part of North America because they generally like to stay out of the press (due to negative publicity).

What I was interested in, was which site had the forum post asking people to vandalize this entry (if you remember)? Since I don't have my talk page under watch, I never got notified that there was a message there. Also, I didn't get any notifications on any changes to the page itself either, so was there any vandalization? I'd assume so or you wouldn't have noticed it?

Thanks. SpuGG (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an issue that was handled many months ago to a somewhat amicable resolution - just a group of people whose article was nominated for deletion that called for vandalism on other articles in response to theirs - I do not see a reason to name names and begin a controversy for controversy's sake - especially since no one ever vandalized the page. The page was deleted for lack of notability. As I was the one who nominated it for deletion, not the deleting admin, I would recommend you discuss this with them. Thanks! --SmashvilleBONK! 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blood Sport 4 AFD

It has nothing to do with common sense. I have opinions and so do you. Schuym1 (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why you're acting so rude. Schuym1 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not acting rudely...I'm arguing in an AfD...I said to ignore all rules and use common sense, AKA WP:COMMON. I am allowed to have a differing interpretation of an AfD, aren't I? --SmashvilleBONK! 17:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Ward

Hi Smashville, I created a page about Johnny Ward, a leading horseracing journalist in Ireland, which I thought was fine, but you have deleted this. Please advise as to why.

Nloisoccer (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article made no assertion that this person was notable and was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the article from continuous recreation. The subject does not appear to be notable and no assertion has been made as to his notability. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I know a colleague, a journalist, who has a biog page. Is it not acceptable for journalists to have biogs who write for leading newspapers? Nloisoccer (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They must at least assert a reason he is notable. All the article tells me is that he has a job. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I made reference to his regular appearances on TV and radio. He also appeared on No Experience Required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Experience_Required), finishing second on the Paddy Power episode. Please advise as to if this is sufficiently notable. Nloisoccer (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not. Take a look at WP:BIO to see what kinds of things we look for. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

no worries thanks for the explanations Nloisoccer (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Real Life Barnstar
For your work in possibly saving a life today (despite the ridiculous discussion on ANI.) Toddst1 (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Perhaps you'll stop by again and explain the situation to someone who just doesnt get it. GrszX 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help but see this. Assuming you are referring to IReceivedDeathThreats, I get it. I get that you drove him to being blocked with incessant nagging. I've yet to see any evidence that he should been blocked before you started harassing him. John Reaves 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This situation has been more or less resolved. The user was correctly blocked. Please do not harass other users on my talk page. --Smashvilletalk 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I started harassing him by opening an ANI thread that Daniel Case endorsed? You are an admin right? Wow. GrszX 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please don't misuse the word "harass". "Correctly blocked" is a crock unless someone can show me that he was blockable before you guys started harassing him. Unless I spoofed the user rights log, yes I am an admin.John Reaves 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How did I misuse harass? A username violation has nothing to do with previously actions, and that's what he was blocked for. GrszX 18:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I was talking to smashville in regard to 'harass'. I'm sorry, but I got the impression that he was blocked based on actions that occurred as a result of his username being scrutinized. John Reaves 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. I came across the username and brought it up at UAA. This was the wrong place, and User:Daniel Case suggested that the username was problematic, and that it should be taken up at ANI. That transpired for awhile until another suggestion was made that it be taken to RFCN where the consensus from several others was that the username was not appropriate. He was welcome to create another username and edit constructively, which he failed to do, and was thus blocked for disruption, as he continued to harass and attack other users. GrszX 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but he was blocked before I ever stumbled across the situation. At least get your facts right before you go off assuming things and making accusations. --Smashvilletalk 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I do believe that following other users to the last page the edited to address something instead of discussing it on their own page constitutes harassment. --Smashvilletalk 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Message

Sorry not quite getting you.I am a RC Patroller and report Vandalism and username violations came across that one and reported it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 10:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

RFA Thanks

Smashville, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. I'd also like you to know that I have enabled email.Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, I wanted some information as to how should I get wikipedia to accept information about my organization 'STT PRODUCTIONZ'. At one point there was information copied from my website and was brought into wiki but it showed some kind of copyright error. What do I really need to do in order to resolve this issue? I am also the owner of the domain www.sttproductionz.com.

I would appreciate it, if you can respond to my concern.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.141.50 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said the last time you asked, your article was deleted as blatant advertising, which Wikipedia does not allow. --Smashvilletalk 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter mess continues

I noticed you AfD'd the "novel" version of that other deletion. My (?) is about the image. I think on the AfD for the other page some editors were hitting towards that entire James Potter deal to be a whole copyright violation outside of Wikipedia. So, even if the image on the novel's article is "fair use", do we want it here? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 05:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely an expert on image copyrights...you might want to try one of the people who brought it up. Sorry. :-\ --Smashvilletalk 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

need to resolve this issue if possible

So what exactly should be edited to be able to display information about STT Productionz on Wikipedia ?

I would really appreciate it if you can maybe point out some section which should be taken out or certain information. I am not quite too sure as to what specifically did you mean to point out in the topic, when you referred to 'blatant Advertising' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.141.50 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the entire last paragraph was a list of services provided followed by a way to contact and order the services. That's about as blatant as it gets. To be frank, the article has no indication that the subject is notable and I doubt very much that there is any manner in which it could be written to make it meet Wikipedia guidelines. I also don't think any further discussion between us would do anything constructive, but if you wish, you may take the article to deletion review. Unless you choose to do so, I really have nothing else to say on the matter. Thanks --Smashvilletalk 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

problem is this

I, too can see that it could have been an honest mistake. However, him attacking me shows he has no AGF. He even denies making the edit.

The correct response would be for him to give an excuse of an error (whether or not it is an honest excuse).

Attacking me is not the solution. Having administrators attack me shows they are not fair. They should have tried to mediate a solution which might be "it's possible that this was an honest mistake. whether or not is was, the user did make the edit despite his denials. at this point, we'll do nothing. please, everyone be careful when editing"

Instead, people attack me when I was the one who discovered the wrong information. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He did not attack you. He told you to go away and then ignored you because you accused him of vandalism over an 8 month old edit where he changed present tense to past tense in the article of a dead person. And you continue to call him a vandal and continue to refer to his edit as vandalism and you called for a block over an 8 month old edit. The problem is the fact that you are being so disruptive about it. Accusing people of vandalism when there is no vandalism is a personal attack...and he does not have to respond to your personal attack. --Smashvilletalk 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflection of your personal bias

In the discussion regarding linking to a YouTube video on the Admin noticeboard, you make the blanket statement that "YouTube is not a reliable source and never will be". This statement reflects only your personal bias - not Wikipedia policy. Policy does NOT ban reference to YouTube video outright. Such a statement of course does reflect exactly the type of capricious "interpretation" of policy that earns Wikipedia disdain.

And the fact is there are plenty of YouTube videos cited on Wikipedia.

Being copyrighted does not automatically make its inclusion on YouTube improper under all circumstances. And what does copyright status have to do with reliability - ie. its accuracy? It's ridiculous to suppose that actual visual and auditory documentation of an event is on its face an unreliable record, or to consider it less reliable than text records and recollections of events.

So if a source is known, and copyright status is clear - clearly shown to be under Fair Use or even express permission given by the creator of the video - then what happens to your unreliability assertion?Docsavage20 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length on ANI and there is no need to discuss it further. You have been told you are wrong and to stop. I never said Youtube could not be linked to - I said it was not a reliable source, which it is not. Your inability to get the point is becoming disruptive. --Smashvilletalk 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ain't it funny...

...how you and I spend a lot of time on both WP:ANI and the Nashville Predators pages? LOL -t BMW c- 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OPF, is that you? --Smashvilletalk 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn afd

You should have waited on withdrawning that afd as we don't consider the U-18 to be the highest level as there is an age limit. Basically the highest level of amateur competition is the olympics or world championships as there is nothing stoping an under 18 from playing in those championships whereas at the U-18's adults can't play. -Djsasso (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack...well...I fubared that one completely. --Smashvilletalk 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Not that big a deal really, he probably will meet the criteria soon anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Crazyaboulost

Hello. I'm pretty sure user Crazyaboulost is using a sockpuppet to keep with his violations and edit warrings in Wikipedia.

This IP adress (201.1.197.173) has the same origin of this Crazyaboulost blocked IP (201.10.36.228)

The 201.10.36.228 IP is the one Crazyaboulost used after getting blocked for violations and vandalism in article Carmen Miranda. He used this IP to leave a message in the Incident page after his user name was blocked.

He and his IP were blocked for 1 week, but now he's using this other IP (201.1.197.173), that has obviously the same origin of the other he used after getting blocked.

His "new" IP was used to keep his violations and he did a personal attack to me in the article Afro-Brazilian: "Dont be fool!", he wrote.

Actually, in the article Afro-Brazilian, this "new" IP reverted exactly to the same version Crazyaboulost reverted before being blocked:

  • Crazyaboulost reversion: [2]
  • IP 201.1.197.173 reversion: [3]

All these evidences show Crazyaboulost is using a sockppupet after getting blocked to keep with edit warrings. Opinoso (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


I reported him here. Please, take a look. Opinoso (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll let one of the SSP experts take care of that one. Looks like you've taken the right steps and it's not entirely my area of expertise...--Smashvilletalk 03:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

union north

hi. You deleted my union north article. I would like the article reinstated as I had not yet finished creating it. Also I do not beleive it counts as advertising as it is similar to the urban splash and baa bar articles it refers to. Also plenty of architects practices have a wikipedia page. Architecture is an art form and I beleive it is worthy being included in wikipedia. I created the article as references to union north are missing from wiki articles on projects done by union north such as the midland hotel. I had no intention of advertising union north but only improve the factuality of these and other articles. Please reinstate this article so I can add citations and improve the tone of the article.

Paul

82.132.136.207 (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Union North is a restless, creative and humanistic practice" - that's pretty blatant. We don't restore advertising. Even without that, the article made no assertion of notability. The page is not protected against recreation, you're more than welcome to write a new article that asserts notability and takes a less commercial tone. --Smashvilletalk 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Nuendo

Hello, you deleted the Nuendo entry. I looked up Nuendo when it was mentioned on a radio show. The google cache of wiki was just what I needed, so I'm not sure why you deleted it. It is apparently a popular program I am not sure that A7 applys. The stub was short but not advertising or biased. If anything I would ask that someone add to it. I was neither the author nor do I know much about this program (I had to go to the commercial website to learn more, something I always hate) Thank you for your time.

Croybaker (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) -- Croybaker

There wasn't an assertion of notability in it. Thus, A7. --Smashvilletalk 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This article should be reinstated for two reasons. First, Nuendo is software, and A7 distinguishes a company from it's software. "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." The article is about software, and A7 applies to "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". Second, A7 does not require an assertion of notability. "an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." There is a reasonable indication of notability within the article: "It [Nuendo] is widely used by professionals throughout the audio industries for recording and editing in music production, film scoring, television and post production & Mastering." Holmesianwiki (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see now that you deleted the Nuendo talk page also. This makes it harder to put the page back together. Croybaker (talk

We don't keep talk pages of deleted pages active. --Smashvilletalk 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi Smashville,

Could you have a look at the "Nick Savoy" page? The page is deleted by an administrator for personal reasons, while the page and content comply to the Wikipedia standards. I would like to get the page back up if possible.

Your input is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Camera123456 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Damien's Page

It's a 300 year old public domain picture - the licensing even says so. Why would he have to take it to RFC? --Smashvilletalk 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Licensing states its from Encyclopedia Britanica - Encyclopedia Britanica is copyrighted, as is everything in it. It's copyrighted. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Multi-afd

Hiya, I noticed that there was an MfD template on March 22, which links to a multi-nom that you closed... Shouldn't the templates be removed, and notices put on the respective talkpages? Or are you still working on that? Let me know if you'd like help.  :) --Elonka 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...I'm just brain-dead today...I'll be right on it. --Smashvilletalk 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mens/Montreal Hockey League

Would you mind indicating why you speedied Mens/Montreal Hockey League When it had two WP:RS references of coverage specific to the league? Someone prodded it, I was replying on talk, it got deleted (certain;y not after 5 days!) and now I find it speedied. MadScot (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it as A7. It made no assertions to notability. The two "reliable sources" were articles from the organizations own website. --Smashvilletalk 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They were a scan from the Journal de Montreal - a daily Quebec newspaper - and a copy of an article from the Montreal Gazette - another daily paper. They were ON the organisation's website, but were not BY the organisation. MadScot (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anyway to verify that they are real articles...If you like, you can take it to DRV, but I'm not restoring it. --Smashvilletalk 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Hi there SMASHVILLE, VASCO here,

i found your reply on WP/ANI (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) about a disruptive editor. All i can say is the replies i received (yours and a posterior one) were not the ones i intended, not quite sure why...In your case, i will divide your answer into two and explain that way.

1st part: "I have no idea what you are going for here..." - i would like to see this person properly warned (although i fear he/she pays no attention to warnings, although duly warned) and blocked if this kind of edits continue (i provided a list of contributions for the user, if the people don't want to go through the trouble of having a good look at those, can't do nothing about that then).

2nd part: "...I find the fact that you take issue with his English quite ironic." - really did not understand the sarcasm. I merely wanted to point out that fact as an addition to the "user's wiki-situation", that is: he adds nothing to the site and, at times, he removes stuff that should not be removed.

The user/admin immediately below tells me i should provide with DIFFS so people can see the difference in two edits. Well, i did just that, so maybe this is clearly a case of "barking up the wrong tree".

Sorry 4 the incovenience, from PORTUGAL a good weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You wrote: Resolved. Malcolm very clearly edited contrary to a guideline. He has been warned that his continous pursuit of the matter is disruptive and that any further mention of it will lead to a block. --Smashvilletalk 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have more problem with your summery than with your closing, although I am not too happy about that. The main problem is that you (and, of course, others) have said that I edited contrary to guideline, but you (nor the others) have pointed given a link to the guideline I acted contrary to. I think my requesting that is a minimal request. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking a little further, It seems that you are saying I broke a rule listed here [4]:

===Behavior that is unacceptable===

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

  • No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
    • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
    • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
    • Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.
    • Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.
  • Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
    • Be precise in quoting others.
    • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
    • As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.
    • DO NOT ask for another's personal details.

I really do not see anything here as describing what I did, and would appreciate a further explanation. NB: referring to next section allows removing off topic discussion (which I did not do intentionally anyhow). Also, since I was blocked for disruption, that actually requires an RfC, or equivalent, before the block. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to Mr Schosha's request on his talk page.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

I broke my own rule, so to speak, by correcting a typo of yours, to put the second left bracket into the above. I just wanted to see what it was. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh...you are so going to Dave Chappelle's Block Party... ;) --Smashvilletalk 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I drop my shields, and throw myself before your tender moicy. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a recurring phenomenon on WP:ANI where someone files a complaint and ends up getting blocked themselves. It could be called "hoist by one's own petard", or something to do with boomarangs, or the old axiom "never sue, because they might prove it." Seems to me we need a special term for that kind of thing on wikipedia, but I'm not sufficiently right-brained to come up with one. :'( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Moisten ones own retard"? I...don't get it. Just a sec; lemme get a Q-tip. I'm sure I must have misheard that. HalfShadow 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's an idea: "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Plaxicoed sounds good. Or Don Kinged..."Officer, I had to kill him, he stole money from my illegal gambling ring." --Smashvilletalk 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Possibly a more extreme analogy: "Hamaned". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Or torpedoed onself on wikipedia - a "wikipedo". Or, in the word(s) of Homer Simpson when he messes up, "Wikipe-D'oh!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Baby edit war

I've left a couple of messages on User:JohnDoe0007's talk page ([5] & here) as well as comments on my own talk page and in edit summaries. They have added unsourced material about a non-notable cover version of the song to the article seven or eight times over the past few days. Now they've started removing existing unsourced material instead of adding {{fact}} tags. I've tried to explain WP:BURDEN to them, but somehow it's not sinking in. I don't want to violate 3rr so I'm leaving it as is, but would you mind having a word with them? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have much to worry about with that one. The person he kept trying to add in was deleted as non-notable. Obviously, we don't list singles of non-notable artists. Just be careful not to violate 3RR. I'll have a word. --Smashvilletalk 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Malcolm Schosha

As much fun as it must be to josh around about having blocked a good-faith contributor, doesn't it seem inappropriate to block someone for pursuing a complaint that they feel is justified? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just let him tire himself out? The fact that you told him to stop talking about it and he didn’t does not empower you to block him.

Please overturn your block forthwith. Or are you going to block me too for complaining about it? HiDrNick! 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He was shown numerous times where the guideline was and told numerous times that editing other people's comments or removing them outright was against the rules. He was blocked for that, it should have been the end of the discussion. But he continued to harp about it coming off the block and refused to listen to people who told him that he had in fact broken the rules and it was getting to the point of being extremely disruptive. --Smashvilletalk 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As the administrator reviewing the unblock request of Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs), I too ask you to undo the block, which appears unfounded to me. It appears that you blocked him solely for this edit to your talk page. This messsage (even if possibly wrong or bothersome to you) was not disruptive, at any rate certainly not to a degree deserving a week-long block. Too, it is unclear to me on what basis (such as a properly imposed community sanction) you purported to prohibit Malcolm Schosha from contacting you about this matter. The Arbitration Committee has repeatedly held that administrators must respond in a professional manner to concerns about their conduct. I don't think that such a response is meant to include blocks. Thank you for your consideration.  Sandstein  22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I lifted the block despite the fact that his "question" was the same as the one that was repeatedly answered at ANI and I specifically asked him to drop the matter. Considering how many times it had been explained to him and the fact that he had been specifically pointed to the portion of the guideline he violated and that he continued to question it, I felt that asking the same question again after it had been answered umpteen times was fairly mocking and trollish. But apparently I'm the only one that saw that. --Smashvilletalk 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
He was engaging in the classic trolling "endless loop". The solution, if he continues to ask that question at ANI, is to not respond. Then he'll either give up or he'll accelerate his behavior and garner another block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A look here [6] finds this statement: Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.
The accusation of "trolling" has been placed on my talk page by Smashville; and, since is is an unfair accusation, it would be nice if he would refactor it. (I do consider his strong defense of the nice Gwen Gale, against the mean accusations of Malcolm Schosha, to be essentially goodhearted in intent.) I probably will leave the subject for now, but may return to it later. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting that you back off because your edits could be construed as trolling is not an accusation of trolling. You seem to have some issues with basic reading comprehension, which leads me to ask - in all sincerity, I promise - is English a second language for you? --Smashvilletalk 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The one is just a slightly nicer way of saying the other.
To answer your question: English is my first language, but, I have very little formal education (outside professional training in the visual arts), and regard myself as just a simple worker.
By the way, if in the course of this discussion, I said anything personally offensive to you, I regret that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

reverting my talk page

A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page [7]. Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Smashville, I came back to leave a note, because it seems you are not present today, but Gwen Gale was here first. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw your note and lost my internet connection almost immediately. You are absolutely allowed to remove discussions from your own talkpage - especially when they are occurring in the wrong forum. --Smashvilletalk 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:76.67.105.188

Do you think its possible to get the Toronto Star delivered cross-continent, I'd love to read that article--Jac16888 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Too bad it can't win a Pulitzer...--Smashvilletalk 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of 74.37.91.194

Please semi-protected the talk page for the duration of the block. Enigma message 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to. He hasn't edited it since he was blocked and it is perfectly within his right to remove notices. --Smashvilletalk 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok...I didn't refresh, but again, if he does not wish to contest the unblock, he does not have to. I do need to remind you that you are waaaaaaaaay past 3RR on his talkpage. --Smashvilletalk 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz

if you check the section of Haaretz you will see that they (Malik Shabazz,Malcolm Schosha ) break wikipedia law. The keep calamining that you must not mention "Political allegiance" in the infobox of newspaper's article unless it is own by party but they have yet to show any wikipedia guideline article that say so.On the other hand I have shown them four important article that contradict their claim.Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The Independent in all of this article there is "Political allegiance" in the of newspaper's article.They know this and other pointing that as well.

As for Boodlesthecat he discussed this issue before as you may see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haaretz/Archive_1#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22 They issue was brought up noticeboard and eventually even Malik Shabazz admitted that the sources are good. The fact is that I Bring reliable sources in order to solve the issue and Boodlesthecat ignore from them and continue to claim that it is only according to self description even though there is no wikipedia law that say so.Oren.tal (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are trying to keep a neutral point of view is not breaking "Wikipedia law". The fact of the matter is that you added 19 sources to one word on an infobox. Not only is it disruptive, it messes up the format of the infobox. --Smashvilletalk 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you lied twice doesn't mean that they have tried to keep wikipedia neutral.I have NEVER put 19 sources in the infobox.Please stop LYING.Even for administrator it is not allowed.I will talk with other about this issue.It is NOT about POV but about facts and wikipedia policy.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. --Smashvilletalk 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a big different between 9 and 19.You have falsely accused me and you need to apologize for this.Oren.tal (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)The fact that you are administrator don't give you the right to falsely accuse users.Oren.tal (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, no one has falsely accused you of anything. Did someone else take over your account and add 19 sources to that line? --Smashvilletalk 18:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There are NO 19 sources there.Do you want other administrators to decide the number?There are 9 sources,not 19.You need to apologize for the false accusation you have made.Oren.tal (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It is 19. You added sources 2 through 21. 21-2 is 19. Even if you had added 9, it would be disruptive. But the fact of the matter is that you added 19. Regardless, we're going to ANI. You are being extremely disruptive. --Smashvilletalk 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I count 20 <ref> tags and the diff shows Oren.tal added 19 of them in one edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you have count but inside the infobox (not the article) there are only 9.Not even one source more.Oren.tal (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me that you do not know how to count past 9? --Smashvilletalk 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The diff indeed shows 19 sources added in one edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe, Oren.tal didn't count them in the diff itself and looking at the infobox, didn't see that one has to scroll the whole window to the right to see them all, there are so many. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps...but even if he had only added 9, it still would have been a disruptive edit. And considering I had noticed some other bad faith accusations from him towards other users, I'm not sure what this user's intentions are. --Smashvilletalk 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I was only talking about the count. Oren.tal clearly remembered adding a slew of references, but didn't remember how many. Taken altogether, I see blatant PoV warring here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You guys should take a look at what he's done to Gush Shalom. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Smashville,
Going to ANI with personalized input seems unhelpful to me since this article has a heated situation where even 19 references are not enough to keep the content on the article. WP:NAM comes to mind as a better way of handling this issue and I've raised this suggestion to Oren.tal.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the editor's disruptive editing style and repetitive personal attacks and bad faith accusations. --Smashvilletalk 20:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is more room for explaining his errors to him and making good faith suggestions than for applying sanctions. He's clearly not a troll and is trying to address a fairly mainstream content that's being removed. To make a personal reference, last time I've had an issue with an editor I first attempted explaining things and once this failed I requested input from a couple more admins who clarified the issue to him. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on his edit history, I have a hard time believing he is not a troll. Sorry. --Smashvilletalk 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Some people need time and guidance to adjust IMHO. Is there anything specific you'd like to point to me that makes you so determined that the editor has no intentions on improving the encyclopedia? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The entire above conversation. But this conversation has already been ended. There is no need to rehash it. --Smashvilletalk 19:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II unblock request

Please see my comment here. You may wish to reconsider responding to the request, and instead advise the Arbitration Committee of its existence. Risker (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I restored his request. --Smashvilletalk 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks.  :-) Risker (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sean Avery Cite

Smashville, do you realize that being right (following Wikipedia policy) does not mutually exclude you from being an ass? I'm not saying that because I must resort to ad hominem attacks; I resort to ad hominem attacks because I don't like you, even though I don't know you, and I want you to know that immediately.

Irregardless, I again edited the article, this time copying and pasting the cite at the end of the (very short) paragraph so that it also references the sentence in question. It, believe it or not, addresses the assertion quite aptly.

You're probably wondering what "my problem" is, and it is this: when some Wikipedian pops cite templates onto a new user's edits and dumps copypasta onto that user's talk page, it turns off many new users. New users learn that order and inflexible adherence to policy is more important than passion for the subject. And that's just unfortunate.

...

Next time trust that an angry little edit like the original one I made may have been in good faith, or do some legwork and check up on the article yourself some, so you don't unjustifiable jump to the defense of a misplaced cite template.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Referring to people who put tags on articles as "cite fags" is not a valid reason to remove a tag from an article. --Smashvilletalk 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. Calling them "cite fags" wasn't the reason for the edit. The edit was because the request for a cite was unnecessary, and the term "cite fag" is my politically incorrect term for people who pepper articles with such requests. The desire to make an improper and inflammatory comment was not the reason for the edit; that would be foolish (rather than just rude and inappropriate, which my edit summary was). Additionally, insulting you was not the reason for creating a new section on your talk page; the reason was to set you straight on the facts and the insults were incidental (okay, they weren't incidental, but neither were they the primary motivation or integral to my post).

While you persist in trying to get me to conform to what you believe to be proper conduct for a Wikipedia editor (admittedly, your obstinacy is supported by Wikipedia policy), you have failed fully to address the heart of the issue--the validity of the edit, and my subsequent re-edit (which you have not undone nor commented on)--which is the crux of my point: the content of the edit (or talk page post) is more important than its presentation or any of the non-integral elements found therein. That is not to say that unnecessary "personal" attacks are irrelevant--they are not. But you simply reverted my edit because you didn't like my edit summary without taking the time to see if the edit was valid. You invalidated the edit because you immediately invalidated my conduct, and that's just wrong; the edit is not the editor who makes the edit. It can and should be able to stand on its own.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't add anything in that edit. You just called them "cite fags" and removed the tag. --Smashvilletalk 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that a deletion is not an addition, but are you aware that I claimed to make an edit, not an addition? You persist in defending your (now hollow) point about the nature of my edit summary, which I have readily conceded was improper (and did so before you made any mention of its content), and still you fail to address my points about the validity of the edits themselves. Your inability to admit your mistake (not the reprimand for the language of my edit summary, but for the unecessary reversion) is the only unfinished business we have here. Instead of trying to be righteous you should address my contention: my edit was valid on its face. The entire content of the paragraph's assertions were addressed in the cite at its end.

Please stop pretending like you don't understand that in this post you are being asked to defend the validity of your reversion as it relates to the content of the article. You didn't even mention the content of my edit summary and whether or not it was appropriate in your first post to my IP's talk page; your original post on my talk page addressed only your copypasta regarding the validity of my edit (which was a simple deletion of the cite template). I have now repeatedly defended that edit and you have failed to make one substantive point about the validity of your reversion. To re-use an argument you made in your first reply to my post on your talk page (except that I will use it in a more intelligent fashion), the inappropriateness of my edit summary is not a valid reason to revert my edit.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you removed a tag without specifying a reason why. In addition to not specifying it, you called the person who placed it a "fag". The fact that you felt the cite at the end of the paragraph covered the whole subject is irrelevant because your reasoning was not "The cite at the end covers this", your only reasoning was calling the person who placed the tag a "fag" and that is not a valid reason for removing a tag. In addition, it is a personal attack. --Smashvilletalk 04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What am I allowed to do now?

On Philip Payton, now the other party is blocked? May I edit? Or should I leave it to someone else? User:Sprogreeet inserted some pretty poor OR and synthesis, which is currently in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you reverted! OK, thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Since you and Inferno were acting in good faith and reverting what you perceived as vandalism, you're good to go. --Smashvilletalk 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's not an article I had all that much input to, to be honest. Just his edits there fall into a pattern with all his other edits, and when he started inserting material unsupported by his refs I got a bit het up! DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: Sprogeeet still doesn't seem to understand why he/she was blocked. Could you respond to them on their talk page so that they will calm down? Thanks and happy holidays ;) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Undead Warrior (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a good one. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A request

I am requesting the block of the IP address of 137.89.187.28 for the vandalism of article of Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal. Id do it my self but i do not know how and i dont possess the authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. --Smashvilletalk 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank You

I thank you for unblocking my IP address. I had no idea why it was blocked as my internet is across a wireless network, and nobody along my wireless network has a Wikipedia account aside from myself.

Again, thank you

Dragpyre (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you look at the bottom of your talk page, it has something to do with TalkTalk. --Smashvilletalk 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for clearing that up.

i do not know if i am allowed to ask this question, or if you have been asked it before, but how did you become an admin?

also, do you have any idea why my school, Chaucer Technology School, is blocked from editing pages on wikipedia? Dragpyre (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After you have been here a while, you can go through the WP:RFA process. Read up about it and kind of look through some other user's RfAs to see what they are looking for...you'll probably have to be on here for at least 6 months or so (I was here for a year and nominated myself). As for your school, I'm not certain, but they may be tied into the same IP issue as the you were. Also, a lot of vandalism tends to come from school accounts, so it is possible that the school has a vandalism block. --Smashvilletalk 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. you seem to be a very kind admin. I have been to some places where the moderators and admins are very unkind toward normal users.

i only joined around 1 hour and 30 minutes ago, because of the Pokemon: Shiny Gold page, which had very inaccurate information, and i felt quite unhappy that it had ended up like that.

Dragpyre (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

i will be posting references for my information soon

Why thank you. I'm going to put a welcome template on your talk page...it will have several links that you might find useful. --Smashvilletalk 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I will flick through them in due course. Also, i finished my references on the Pokemon: Shiny Gold page.

Does that mean i can take out the box at the top, which says the problems with it?

Dragpyre (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragpyre (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't untag it just yet. There seem to be some other issues with it besides the references. The tag will actually signal to other editors that there are problems on the article and they can help you get it cleaned up. --Smashvilletalk 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you, or someone else who is an Admin, will check it before the tags can be removed. I did everything the tag asked me to the best of my ability. The only thing that i can see that is wrong with it now, is that some sections need more information.

All the grammar and spelling was fixed, because I copied it from Word after Spellchecking it.

Dragpyre (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How are you today?

Dragpyre (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on WP:AIV

I'm sorry to badger you, but I do want to understand the process of reporting vandals at WP:AIV.

You replied: "He has not edited since his final warning. It's really just that simple. You can't tell someone this is your last warning...and then still block them despite the fact that they didn't do anything. --Smashvilletalk 01:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)"

Since then he has not vandalized anymore, so the problem is solved, but I still say it would have been correct to block.

The instructions at the top of the page say the vandal must receive "sufficient" warnings. It doesn't say how many.

When I brought the report forward, the user's talk page looked like this. He had made 10+ edits in 10+ minutes and received 3 warnings. The last warning said, "If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing." He then vandalized again.

It would have taken the same effort for you to just block him and be done with it than to say he deserved one final warning. I wasn't the one who gave the warning. Someone else did that. From my point of view, he used up all his warnings and could have been blocked then and there.

I hope you can explain the procedures to me so that I understand better in the future when to block and when it's not yet time to block. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:WARN. It will explain to you how warnings are supposed to be applied. It would have been a highly improper block had I blocked the user when they did not edit after their final warning. He absolutely did not edit after his final warning. He was warned at 1:09 for making an edit at 1:09 to May 25. He made no edits after that. As I said, it would be highly improper and make little sense to give a user a warning telling him he would be blocked for further vandalism...and then blocking him despite the fact that he didn't do anything after that. --Smashvilletalk 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see there are four levels, and I reported him after only the third level. I also see: "Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." If you look at his contribution log for yesterday, I think it could reasonably be described as a "vandalism spree." The purpose of blocking is to prevent more vandalism from happening. I think it might have been reasonable to block for 10 minutes as a final warning, i.e. if you do it again you'll be blocked for longer. But I guess it's not done that way. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's all part of WP:AGF. You have to assume that he gets the final warning and realized he couldn't do it anymore...obviously, if he starts up again, he'll be blocked. --Smashvilletalk 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Smashville, I decided to accept your kind offer [8]. Whenever you get a chance, that would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite welcome! --Smashvilletalk 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seriously.

I'm a vandal fighter, deletionista possibly, and I try very hard to keep the wiki free from bullshit, personal attacks, and irrelevant trivia. I don't write articles because I'm crap at it. English is my third language. I can write a blurb like this without too much trouble, but a decent article is a bit too much to ask. So I hunt instead. Sometimes I'll do some other work too, like fixing links[9], minor copy editing, uploading pics[10], or participating in AFD discussions[11], but most of the time it's hunting season. I try to do that the best I can. I don't tag blindly and when I get corrected or make a mistake I take that on board and try to learn from it[12].
Now I didn't come here for praise or barnstars but I find the general attitude towards editors like me condescending. To say the least. And the longer I'm here, the more obvious it becomes. It's quite clear in a lot of RFA, CSD, and AN discussions; if you don't have some GA-FA-DYK alphabet soup on your plate, you don't really count. Second rate. Article writers, that's what we want. Anybody can keep the wiki clean.
Oh? Anybody? Is that why there are so many (justified) complaints about wrong CSD tags[13], to name just one thing? Good vandal fighters and CSD-ers are at least as important as article writers. Every day thousands of articles get vandalized. No matter how well researched or brilliantly composed.
I find that "writers attitude" annoying. I don't mind cleaning up the mess but I do mind being considered a 2nd class citizen (or a trigger-happy teenager) because I "only" remove vandalism. This community obviously ranks GA-FA-DYK-ETC contributors higher and I don't see that attitude change anytime soon. I know I'm generalizing but I'm sure you know what I mean. As I said in an RFA a while ago, the writer who looks down on the paper merchant makes a big mistake. Other CSD-ers and vandal fighters may not mind getting brushed aside as some kind of necessary evil, but I do. If my work isn't appreciated I'll find something else to do, somewhere else.
That's it. Thanks,    SIS  22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLAXICO

Wow. Who says we never do anything creative here? Happy New Year! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

When the team with the ball is ahead with just seconds to play, the announcers will say the quarterback will "take a knee". Not in the Plaxico Burress way, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came very close to Plaxicoing himself, and still might in the longer term. He definitely drew much more attention than he expected, including the revelation that he was banned from the Danish wikipedia. He'll have a lot more eyes on him than he would have, had he not made a big deal about his userpage comment. "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another brilliant idea: We have the generic "Resolved" template. Maybe we need a "Plaxicoed" template, reserved for those special cases where the original complainant ends up being the one blocked. Maybe accompanied by an appropriate illustration drawn by one of the many artists on this site. I can envision a little clip-art type dealie of a lower leg and a hand holding a fired gun, with the bullet headed for the leg... or indicating a path through the leg, although that might be a bit much for the squeamish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dude

What do you mean? Cheers dude (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No! If its got nothing to do with eHarmony, I want nothing to do with it. lol! j/k! Nice of you to point me there for help in editing. Thanx a lot Smashville. :D Cheers dude (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

LoL! I have been sitting here trying to figure out how far back this dates to and finally remember. lol! I apologize for all my behavior in the whole Guido Den Broeder case. Since you're experienced, I shouldn't have criticized your decision to close that thread. Please accept my apology for that whole incident. Cheers dude (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably should wait until you get the above message to write anything else but thanx for the info and real quick question! Is adding your e-mail how you get the mentor or that just so it's easier to contact an admin? Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Righteous! ;D I'm going to give it all a shot. Thanx again for all the help again. Cheers! Cheers (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby

I found it important to mention the incident... Milanmm (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet case

Hi, since you're familiar with this situation (blocked the user) can you please take a look at this sockpuppet case? Thanks Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jwh3#User:Jwh3 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to open a case for this obvious block evasion. Smashville, please block indef for this edit.--Atlan (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Never mind everything - I went through wp:aiv since it was an obvious sock and it has been taken care of. Sorry to bother. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would've blocked the registered account indefinitely rather than 2 weeks, but we'll see what happens after that.--Atlan (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably got a little slack for being a newbie. --Smashvilletalk 14:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ccd03003

Smashville, you recently blocked Ccd03003 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a spam-only account after they started keyword mining. I concur with he block, but they have posted an unblock request with a promise to cease that behavior. Would you object to a second chance on this one? Kuru talk 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

I don't understand how you could approve this as neutral notification. WP:CANVASS seems to clearly define this as Campaigning. Could you elucidate for me how this is not canvassing? Thank you, DoubleBlue (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how you could see how it is canvassing. Would you enlighten me as to which parts of his notices to the boards were not neutral? --Smashvilletalk 23:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
"Since this new proposal seems to be an attempt to force us into line with other peoples ideas of how to name articles. I thought I should make a note of it here since they failed to let us know the discussion was going on. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople). It is someone who has proposed this before and was shot down before but I think he is now trying to officially propose it." Clearly expressing his own view of the matter and what should be done about it rather than just saying "There is a proposal now under draft that would impact our naming conventions. Please go their to express your ideas." DoubleBlue (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Mostly, I am just concerned that you have officially approved this as "neutral" and I would not like to see this as precedent of the right way to direct attention to discussions. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't have discussions on WP:ANI purely to cause drama. There is no action for an admin to take, so I closed the discussion. --Smashvilletalk 03:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the least bit of concern about closing the discussion as I hope my initial comment there implied. I think Djsasso is a fine editor who had a momentary lapse of judgement. I am concerned that this was closed by saying that the post was neutral and thus implying that this is an example of how to invite editors to a discussion. Even Djsasso admitted it "may have sounded less than neutral". I would prefer that you had closed it, much as I requested, by cautioning to keep one's cool when posting and to invite discussion without expressing an opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess considering what is generally considered canvassing, I read them as neutral. They still seem neutral to me, although I can see the use of the word "force" can be somewhat contentious... --Smashvilletalk 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I guess we just differ on that. Could you perhaps in future at least close a similar discussion by saying "while less than ideal wording, I don't find it to violate WP:CANVASS"? DoubleBlue (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deal. --Smashvilletalk 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

re: WQA Request

The issue of Realkyhick's civility has already been solved, but thank you for checking my request.

You had written:

"I closed your WQA request as pointless and in bad faith. You did not provide diffs and you did not notify Realkyhick of the discussion. In addition, since Realkyhick is not an admin, there is absolutely no way that he could abuse admin tools and thus, there is absolutely no way he could use them against you. I highly suggest you focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of forum shopping to try to get users who disagree with you in trouble. --Smashvilletalk 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)"

I don't know what "diff" or "forum shopping" mean and by admin tools, I simply meant tagging.

I don't believe I acted in bad faith and I did notify Realychick. In fact, the moment I did, Realkyhick appealed to Orangemike (see User talk:Orangemike ), and thereafter Orangemike deleted my 3rd party review request and further edited the page with incorrect rationale in what appears to be an act of meat puppetry.

I've already noted multiple times that I will leave the page for others to edit to avoid "owbership" claims so your suggestions are moot but appreciated.--Nynewart (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Smash. I don't think Nynewart really "gets it,"" gut you gave it the old college try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you so very much my good man! Sam seems really cool and laid-back so I really lucked out. And from what you say, I can really learn a lot from him. I have a feeling this is going to be quite an adventure. Glad you suggested this for me! You rock! Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Hey there, thanks so much for endorsing the unblock, I'm really happy to be able to edit again. (tobobo (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Damiens.rf

Smashville, I templated him for vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the article with his spurious claims of "weasel words", "No ref", "OR", despite the fact that references are, in fact, in the article (no they're not blogs or forums or OR :) ) He's been asked , over and over again, to stop. He's refusing. Bottom line, he makes a decent edit, nothing happens, he vandalizes, he gets templated like anyone else. It's policy. — Kosh Jumpgate 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You templated his page twice in 24 hours despite the fact that he had not edited. And you revert the Dwight Lauderdale article with comments such as: [14] [15] [16][17][18] [19][20] [21]. Considering that you consider to add OR, non-encyclopedic tone and peacock terms to the article, there is absolutely no basis to your continued harassment of him. --Smashvilletalk 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Smashville, other way around, Damiens.rf was removing referenced information, not OR, etc... this is considered vandalism. Vandalism is exempt from 3rr. Every claim in the article is backed up by a verifiable source (not mine, not synth, not OR). SO no, no synth, peacock terms are in the article. As far as unencyclopedic tone. There's no set definition on that, so that's pretty much an opinion at this point. As such, it's neither right nor wrong, just an opinion. — Kosh Jumpgate 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

His edits are NOT in any circumstance vandalism. He is removing unencyclopedic content and language. Blatant vandalism is exempt from 3RR. His edits to the article are not even borderline vandalism, they are constructive. Calling edits vandalism that are not vandalism is considered a personal attack. Your edits are not backed up by a verifiable sources. They are the definition of WP:SYNTH. Specifically the most recent contentious edit. No source on earth can tell you a person's motivations for doing what they do, so to claim they do something for the "fun of it" is just silly. --Smashvilletalk 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Synth? Nope. SYNTH states (in part):

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research

None of this is occuring. I am directly quoting the source any time a claim is made. This is not Synth. Thanks — Kosh Jumpgate 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

I was going to drop you a line and say thanks for leaving the comments at AN/I but then I saw "This user is a Nashville Predators fan." on your userpage and decided to say Go RED WINGS! instead. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha...as much as I dislike the Wings, I hope Lidstrom's okay...he's pure class. --Smashvilletalk 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:PLAXICO

I have nominated Wikipedia:PLAXICO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RFD

I gave a little reply, I hope you might consider it. Sorry for not coming to you first. You do a good job on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. I've been through enough of these to know not to take it personally. I've also been through enough to know that it really isn't all that important and if one person worries it might be disruptive, more probably will too. I went ahead and deleted it. --Smashvilletalk 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Thank you for accepting my unblock request. SPNirology (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite welcome! --Smashvilletalk 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

To Dwight Lauderdale have been reverted. There are in no way OR. Each occurance of "OR" is actually sourced and referenced, and in both cases is a direct quote from the article itself. Thanks — Kosh Jumpgate 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you referring to my edits as vandalism. --Smashvilletalk 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User_talk:KoshVorlon

I tend to agree with you in the disagreement, but protecting the page of a blocked user, when you're currently arguing with him on that talk page seems to be a bit out of process. Perhaps you could post the action for review at WP:AN, and see what some other administrators thing about the issue. Regards, SDJ 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Took to AN...although I will say the reason I am even involved is because yesterday I asked him to stop the behavior (edit warring, harassment, personal attacks) which ultimately led to his block. --Smashvilletalk 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the block or anything else regarding what has transpired. (I myself have crossed paths with KoshVorlon.) AN may even hold up the protection you placed. It just doesn't look good, is all I was saying. SDJ 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for dealing with the situation as you have done. Not every administrator is willing to admit when they might have made a mistake. Especially when it was pointed out by a non-administrator. While I felt the protection was mistaken, I'm very impressed indeed with your conduct afterward. Keep up the good work! SDJ 05:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dru_Down_(album)

Hi there. You closed this as delete, but didn't delete the other two in the nomination: Cash Me Out and Greatest Hits (Dru Down album). I assume they should be deleted as well? Thanks! Raven1977 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That I did...thanks for letting me know...taken care of. --Smashvilletalk 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, and I hope you have a happy new year! Raven1977 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice

Hi, was plaxicoed a Freudian slip or intentional? (noticing the title of the thread just following on AN/I)....hopefully no one else will respond there otherwise it would mess it up. Makes for great continuity. ☻
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the title on the next one...that's great! --Smashvilletalk 23:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nizevyn Block

Please do a checkuser on the accused sockpuppet Nizevyn. I don't believe he is a sockpuppet and has been incorrectly banned. --Theblog (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't have checkuser. Second, he registered within hours of Cambios being blocked and proceeded to make the same edits. He's quite blatantly a sock. --Smashvilletalk 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please ask for that to be verified then. Why wouldn't you do this before confirming a ban? If he is such a blatant sock then checkuser should confirm it immediately. --Theblog (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, was a report filed at WP:SSP? I can not find one. I believe the ban should be removed until the proper method is followed and it is actually verified they are sock puppets. Please reconsider. --Theblog (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't run a checkuser on blatant socks. And we don't run SSP's on blatant socks when we can simply block them. The question is - why do you care? He made 4 edits. --Smashvilletalk 05:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please point me to the blatant sock criteria? Thanks.--Theblog (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Reconsider hardblock?

Hi. I note that you hardblocked the above account, which seems understandable given the username, but I just wanted to point out to you that this is not necessarily a bad-faith username. It seems to have been created for the purposes of anonymously seeking assistance, as it did here. Will you reconsider the hardblock so as not to negatively impact him in other Wikipedia activities? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I do not see bad faith in the creation or use of this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll change it to a soft...I blocked it off of WP:UAA where it was reported both by a user and a bot. I admit I didn't even look at the contributions because I never remotely thought that it could possibly be a good faith account. --Smashvilletalk 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe it's probably served its purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

See [22] - this one removed a copyvio template I'd put on an article - says he's removed the copyvio but I don't know, and in any case it needed another Admin's approval. What do we do about this sort of situation - there was a bit of block evasion, but my main worry is that it can look as though an article is being related by separate but somehow related editors (which is what I thought at first), and it is harder for others to spot things such as 3RR - let alone the fact I think this editor is here with a POV to push. Thanks dougweller (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and indeffed all of them. Between the block evasion and the POV pushing, there's plenty there to constitute abusive sockpuppetry. --Smashvilletalk 17:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was doing some tidying (found some more copyvio I think) and found this one, indeffed in early December. This user is a member of H (Subclade 5) and R1A (talk · contribs). dougweller (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And one of the socks then vandalised the userpage of the blocking admin [23]. I suspect this editor will try to get back. dougweller (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt it...of course, if they are dumb enough to post the unblock-auto claiming they are not a sock...I guess they'll be easy to find...--Smashvilletalk 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Barryispuzzled sock account, Kessinger01

Hi Smashville.

A few days ago you blocked a sockpuppet account of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs)—the account TerryFried (talk · contribs)—while I was still in the process of writing up a SSP report for it. He's now back again with a new account, Kessinger01 (talk · contribs), and I figured I'd drop a note to you first rather then clog up the SSP page with Yet Another report. He's not trying to hide that this is a sock of Barryispuzzled (he seems to have created the sock account specifically to leave a message on my talk page; cf. [24] and [25]) and manually signs with "Barry", so I think this is an uncontroversial block. If I don't see you've noticed this in some reasonable amount of time I'll go ahead and file the SSP report instead (if you don't have the time or don't want to get involved etc.). --Xover (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for the heads up. --Smashvilletalk 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. --Xover (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet needs blocking

Hi Smashville. A user you blocked for sock puppetry, User:H5+R1A, has created another sock. see here. Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he has been blocked now! Do you want me to tell you if I come across anymore of his socks? Cheers :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do...sorry...spent the day taking down the Christmas decorations...wasn't around the computer... --Smashvilletalk 02:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries! Real life should always take precedence over Wikipedia. I'll let you know if and when this user comes back. Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Barry sock...

GotYaGame (talk · contribs). See [26]. --Xover (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He just doesn't quit, does he? --Smashvilletalk 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, certainly doesn't. Thanks again. --Xover (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Aaaand… another one: JeffersonT01 (talk · contribs), see [27]. This account doesn't come right out and say it's Barry (though his User/Talk pages hint fairly strongly, and the linked edit is the one Barry was pushing with his socks), so let me know if you'd prefer I file a SSP/Checkuser rather than blocking on available evidence. --Xover (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that he also gave me a shoutout on his talkpage was evidence enough... --Smashvilletalk 06:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Xover (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk

I have requested a comment from TalkTalk on why they are proxying to User talk:62.24.251.240 and User talk:62.24.251.241 at the moment. Please note that blocking these IPs will affect a large number of legitimate users. Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Barry is Back

At least 4 more sock puppets of Barry are at it again on both the Shakespeare Authorship page and the Baconian Theaory page. I've reverted but the edits continue and I don't want to violate 3RR. Puppets include RegHiside, Sycorax14, ProsperoY and Kessinger03. At Shakespeare authorship, the last unvandlaized version was here [28], but he's already attacked it. The last (pre-Barry) Baconian article was here [29]. Can you revert these and perhaps lock the pages? And deal with those sockpuppets? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The history of this dispute is that if you don't stop Smatprt he'll say "Oxford wrote Shakespeare" in every single Shakespeare project article. Good editors have left because of him. Please look at the reverts and try to understand why they're being made. I need you to do nothing and so that the articles are balanced and my job is done. RegHiside (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please check the testimony of other editors: “his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop”,[30] “he will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means”[31], “his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome”[32]. RegHiside (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that these old disputes were originally created by Barry's previous sock puppets. Same old tricks at play here, I'm afraid. See here [33] and here [34] too see examples of what we have been dealing with. Sorry for the disruption.Smatprt (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the RFCU got him taken care of for a bit...--Smashvilletalk 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question to johnbibby

  • What do you mean "why would I file an unblock request for him?" The reason is because that is my point of view. (I have no link with him if that is what you mean - I regard myself as an impartial observer.)
  • There is clearly an ongoing battle between say pro/anti Israel editors. The former are I suspect greater ikn number than in skill. This can lead to overall bias.

Thanks for your comments

18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
How does this affect bias: [35] [36] [37]? --Smashvilletalk 19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about Village People - That was not connected with my comments.

I think we should finish this discussion here. It seems you have been aggravated by somebody; have now expelled him; and I am now getting the aggravation.

Sorry - I was only trying to help

Johnbibby (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aggravated. I'm having a really hard time understanding how you could "support" such blatantly trollish edits. And I really don't want to end this discussion until I find out why because frankly, I'm concerned by it...did you simply just not read his contributions but decide to support him regardless? --Smashvilletalk 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan block

I'm not asking you to lift it. I think it's justified. Rather, when he said "forget the rule" I think he was referring to a discussion he began on my talk page. He asked where he can go to get a rule change. Then he got blocked. I asked him what rule he wanted changed and why, and he didn't want to build on it anymore, saying "forget the rule". I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at Wikipedia, I believe he just wanted to drop the discussion at hand.

This message comes with a complimentary grain of salt. ;)  Hazardous Matt  17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Um... Could you tell me what canvassing is? Kalajan€₣ 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS will do a better job than me. --Smashvilletalk 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, sorry I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Kalajan€₣ 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for CoolHandNuke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of CoolHandNuke. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TheMadFam (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The site doesn't even exist yet? oh my. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolhandnuke.com. I'm assuming the third party sources would reference...the multiple exclamation points? --Smashvilletalk 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that re the exchange that has been taking place at TheMadFam's talk page I have left a message suggesting that they bring up their dissatisfaction at WP:ANI in as friendly terms as possible. Personally I doubt that anything will happen as a result, I'm doing it to be nice to a newbie. -- roleplayer 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood...I backed out of the conversation anywho...didn't seem constructive...--Smashvilletalk 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

dude

i didn't add it after the other told me to stop he added it hisself  Benton Tigers  03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You and I both know that's not true. You were warned here. Yet 4 hours later...you added it back. --Smashvilletalk 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user talk:Colts1

I suggest protecting it for a short time due to abuse of unblock template. D.M.N. (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna give him one more shot...which he apparently used up...--Smashvilletalk 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I apologise for accidentally recreating Where did columbus died?. I was tagging it for speedy deletion, but you managed to delete it before I could do such a thing. Sorry! Please accept this barnstar for your trouble.


The Editor's Barnstar
Goosemanrocks (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna

that source is not right?User Talk:Rbwm 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't use peacock terms in an article. --Smashvilletalk 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:

I'm very sorry, I don't know how to find out if Colts1 and Sinofdreams are the same guy another way. Kalajan€₣ 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You could request a checkuser or file a suspected sockpuppet report. However, the fact that he isn't caught in Colts1's autoblock should tell you something. --Smashvilletalk 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He i'm not colts1 but I can tell you that he does have other accounts on wikipedia that got blocked because of sock pupetry.  Benton Tigers  21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I Noticed That There Is A Colts1 That Was Blocked IM NOT HIM

I Tried To Make My Account Colts1 But It Said It Was Already In Use Please Nominate Me To Be An Admin

Thanks Colts2 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I Live In Indiana And I Noticed That You Created The Indiana Down Article...Im Not From Shelbysville But Isnt It A Part Of The Casino Indiana Live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colts2 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspicuous Behavior

Hey, I'm Hazardous Matt. You might remember me from such hair-pulling episodes as "Kalajan", and "Kalajan II: The Blockening".

ahem Anyway, I was trying to stay out of that whole thing. Unwatched all the related pages, trying to let the block be a block, etc. Taking a step back and all that. Anyway, today I got a message from a brand new user User:Fiddler96. Very few contributions, saw my signature on WP:PW and wanted me to make one. No big deal. Anyway, I asked them what they wanted in their signature (noting a very short list of contributions). They wanted my signature, with a dark blue background a white writing. Normally, okay, except this is the very same signature thatkalajan made.

Okay, conincidence, right? I look at the userpage for User:Fiddler96. It's got similar links, the same friends list, all of that. Then I look at the contributions and notice that his IP is blocked and he promptly took down the unblock request. Incidentally, kalajan has a blocked IP.

I was prepared to just ignore this. I figured it was nothing but happenstance. Then, he offered to unblock User:sinofdreams.

Please tell me if I'm going all Oliver Stone here.  Hazardous Matt  16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I hate to see like I'm hounding the issue: [38] His first userpage edit was almost an exact replica of User:Kalajan. That's it. I've said what I needed to.  Hazardous Matt  17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked him as an obvious sock of Sinofdreams. User:MarkandBark too, which somehow had slipped thru the cracks. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

peer review request for the Spokane article

Hey, Smashville. Im searching for an editor to peer review the Spokane, Washington GAN in the near future (after it gets done being reviewed -which I expect to happen before next week). If you are interested, please contact me on my talk page so I can stop scouting out editors. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Im taking your silence as a 'no'. Ill find someone else then, thanks anyway. Anon134 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry...Didn't mean to not respond...never got around to looking into it. GAN's are an area that I haven't spent much time, so I don't know that you'd be getting a fair deal with me...--Smashvilletalk 06:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Glencartwright

User talk:Glencartwright, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Glencartwright and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Glencartwright during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


thanks

thanks for the welcome template.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome! (no pun intended) --Smashvilletalk 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sixteenth note

I restored Sixteenth note. I think you meant to revert, not delete. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed...my downstairs neighbor heard my massive four letter word string...--Smashvilletalk 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: No worries. I owe you for cleaning up Rosshall Academy after I selected the wrong revision to revert to. Hopefully I put a stop to that bit of nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Meh...you reverted to the first good faith editor you could find...it just so happened she didn't go back far enough. --Smashvilletalk 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you miss Ron Sword already?

I had the dude blocked. Thanks for kicking his butt, too. ;-) Timneu22 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I smell an unblock request with a legal threat coming...sometimes you can just feel those users...--Smashvilletalk 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

Hi, could you please semi-protect this page for vandalism by IP's? Thanks.  ←Kalajan→  21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it has enough going on to warrant a semi- at this point. --Smashvilletalk 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It keeps getting vandalized (sneakily) by IP's see here -  ←Kalajan→  17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you read this?  ←Kalajan→  15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

You deleted an article I was posting, about the term "Scaird" and called it "nonsense" About the term Scaird.

Maybe those will help. It is a very real term And one used daily from my old Irish home. please let me know what needs to be changed as far as the editing goes. I would be most appreciative. Rolltidealabama (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Ireland beat Utah? The fact of the matter is I deleted it as nonsense, but after further review, the article already exists on Wiktionary in the exact form that you posted it. --Smashvilletalk 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies about the copy of my inclusion on Wiktionary. I am new (obviously) I was trying to include a wiki article to be linked under the irish language pages. The reason for the urban slang version of Scaird was simply if you try to google scaird for the irish term you get 56,700,000 results with the scared definition. (compared to 57,100,000 for the actual word) I apologize once again for the misplaced insertion, and most likely in the future will just do the "suggest" function. =) Rolltidealabama (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nick Saban is scaird of Utah"? :) --Smashvilletalk 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Utah had a grim game face on (and a happy one after), NO doubt about that! =) They played a great game and brought it to the field when it counted! Bama was not at their best when they needed to be. Utah was the team above all others I felt would give them the most problems. And the results show what happens when you get too cocky coming in against a truly strong team. Bama underestimated Utah, and got left in the cleat tracks on the field. I'm actually quite glad also because it shrunk some heads down a bit here at the U of A! Kudo's to a great team =) Rolltidealabama (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

sinofdreams sock

Found another obvious sock: Weaver2009. SimonKSK 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked him. --Smashvilletalk 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, man. SimonKSK 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:

There's a user called "(something about black people; I'll try to find him for you)" and I saw the template and copied it. Now you think about it Sin could have a bigger sock and was copying it from that account. But no I'm not, you have my word.  ←Kalajan→  06:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

K. I'll take your word for it. --Smashvilletalk 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I Edited And Added Some Items To The Indiana Downs Article. Please Check It Out. нαяяαнѕ1 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrahs1 (talk • contribs)

And reverted as a blatant copyvio.

Requested protection

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009 is a disaster and needs protection; see here[44][45]  ←Kalajan→  13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Two edits in four days is not a reason to semi-protect. --Smashvilletalk 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan

Smashville, just wanted to give you a heads up. I reduced Kalajans block to 6 months. Both barneca and I agreed that at least 3 months was apporpiate but that an indef was optional. I would like to see kalajan return after 6 months and contribute properly. IF you ahve a serious issue with this please let me know. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I saw your discussion after I had done it, otherwise I would have left the entire block to you... --Smashvilletalk 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Found Sock For Sinofdreams User:Pills4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouShould1 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? SimonKSK 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, The IP Is The Same...And They Both Took A Quick Liking To WWE YouShould1 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Beginning To Believe Kalajan Is Sinofdreams Also YouShould1 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you now? Interesting.... SimonKSK 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, Wait Is This I A Bad Thing....That Im Kindly Trying To Help? YouShould1 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no. It's just funny that you think you can fool us, Sinofdreams. SimonKSK 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I Was That Dude, Do You I Would Be Telling You? YouShould1 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What? I'm not even going to go after this. I'll leave it to Smashvile and barneca. SimonKSK 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked as a blatant sock. --Smashvilletalk 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, again! It's nice to have an admin around. (^_^) SimonKSK 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Dan Taleveski

Why did you delete the Dan Taleveski article, he is an artist and songwriter signed to Zone 4 and interscope records plus he was mentioned in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawarriordex (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it months ago as non-notable. I reread the last version - it didn't indicate any notability. --Smashvilletalk 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apple pie needs semi-protection

Apple pie needs semi-protection a lot people vandalize it by the day see here apple pie


thank you ----------Cream horn------ (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


90.217.207.31

I am just wondering about whether this user should still be allowed to edit, after the blatant vadalism they have done here Chaucer Technology School.

I am going to revert the edit this IP has made to my previous, accurate edit, instead of this joke.

Thanks in advance: Dragpyre (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you took care of it. --Smashvilletalk 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do you know what will happen to the IP/user that did this? Even though Simon "Mupet" instead of Simon Murphy may be considered humerous, it is not accurate and holds no encyclopediac value. Dragpyre (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean what will happen? Blocks are meant to be preventive. The only two edits the IP ever made were minor vandalism almost two weeks ago. --Smashvilletalk 07:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IGG Software

An article that you have been involved in editing, IGG Software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGG Software. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. tedder (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding as you declined a speedy delete, so I thought you might have comments on it. (please use a tb template on my page if you reply here) tedder (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-meetup Nashville on Labor Day weekend!

Wiki-meetup Nashville will be September 5–6 (Labor Day weekend) 2009. No conference rooms or libraries. Food, beer and conversation, maybe even a show. So come either day or both! --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

Hey, I don't know who added List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) to the AfD, but do I need to start a new one for List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), 2006, and 2007? CTJF83Talk 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok CTJF83Talk 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Colbert shouldn't have been added to this AfD in the first place, since it is a political comedy comparable to the Daily Show, not a generic talk show. Also, it has been added late, thus only allowing for half a week of discussion. WolframBerlin (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[46] Horrific close on an AfD that didn't even provide an adequate deletion rationale. Closing AfDs against consensus because you don't agree with the consensus outcome is very bad form. Lots of solid reasons based on notability, verifiability, media coverage, policy, and guidelines were given. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus outcome was clearly to delete. AfD isn't a vote and, as I stated in the deletion rationale, there were no policy based keep arguments. Of the arguments which quoted policy correctly, not a single one was in support of a keep. --Smashvilletalk 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability is most certainly a policy based argument. The AfD was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping and the policy based arguments were on that side. Arguing there are too many episodes or that you don't like this type of article isn't reasonable or appropriate. The nom was fundamentally flawed as there was no deletion rationale. You messed up. But it's cool. Nobody's perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I too feel this was a controversial decision. Would you mind if I opened a WP:DRV on this? CoM pretty much sums up why, but I would like to add that a lot of the keep votes were implying WP:GNG by saying they were notable or even WP:EPISODE. Tavix |  Talk  18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked when I just found out that the Colbert episodes list was deleted. To more visibly work on that list was the only reason for recently creating my first Wikipedia account, having used this list for over three years now as the reference. WolframBerlin (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One other point: someone (most unhelpfully, even if acting in good faith) moved List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes to List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes (2009) mid discussion, so the article that was originally nominated to be deleted is still around (albeit with a different title). I think you need to delete that one as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Orangemike took care of it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Good job. All I saw on the "keep" side was hand-waving assertions of notability without independent sources. A whole bag of "ILIKEIT" does not trump policy-based reasons for deletion. Edison (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree...but I respect the decision that was made here. Sorry for the long delay...crazy month. --Smashvilletalk 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Geocaching and Geosexing articles

Hello! You recently undid my edit of removing the Geosexing reference from the Geocaching article. I deleted it mainly because the activity is not real, it's just a page someone made up, and is listed for deletion. The article basically states that 'it is an activity the creator would like to create, but hasn't yet.' I figured that if it isn't real, why should it be placed in the article. I now realize I didn't make it clear those were the reasons I removed it in my log :). I would appreciate if you would reconsider your decision. Thanks! MobileSnail 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-remove it...I admit I didn't check the geosexing page, as I'm on my work computer :) --Smashvilletalk 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, understandable. That's a good laugh! I could only imagine... Thanks! MobileSnail 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairmount Cemetery

Hi, I nominated Fairmount Cemetery for deletion as it had one blue and one red link which is not an appropriate disambiguation page per WP:DISAMBIG. Apparently an article was actually created overnight after the nomination to add to it. However, it is still an inappropriate page per our guidelines as only two articles are disambiguated and headnotes are supposed to be used for that. Saying that it was "a bad faith nomination" is not appropriate under the circumstances. Please take a look at the history of the second inked article and reopen the inappropriately-closed AfD. Thank you. Drawn Some (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a basic, appropriate DAB page. You clearly made the nomination in bad faith and I am not about to reopen it. I mean you nominated it three hours after you posted this and this to his talk page. You clearly were aware of a dispute and your nomination served no other purpose other than to flame it. --Smashvilletalk 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's still not an appropriate disambiguation page per our guidelines. Did you look at the history and what it looked like when I nominated it? It was even more clearly not at the time. I particularly object to you saying that the nomination was in bath faith because of a dispute. The "dispute" you are referring to is merely gamesmanship to try to keep inappropriate articles which fail our notability guidelines from being deleted. Richard Arthur Norton is trying to say I'm "Wikistalking" him for nominating inappropriate articles for deletion. Please review the history of the page in question as well as the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
To be in the midst of a dispute with someone about wikistalking - even if you are not - and to go out of your way to nominate an article written by said person and to specifically call said person out in your article, knowing it will induce drama, is extremely inappropriate. Also, the DAB page has six primary topics. It is an appropriate DAB page. The condition of the article at the time of your nomination has no bearing on whether or not it is deleted...--Smashvilletalk 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article only has two primary topics and headnotes are supposed to be used in that situation per our guidelines. Disambiguation pages aren't supposed to included items for which there are no articles. Fairmount Cemetery isn't even mentioned in the other three articles. If you believe that it was inappropriate or in poor judgement for me to nominate it, I can accept that, in retrospect it obviously caused problems, but for you to say it was a "bad faith nomination" isn't warranted by the facts and it isn't true. I was patient with Richard Arthur Norton being uncivil and writing inappropriate things but I finally asked him to quit and he still continued but I won't be bullied by that sort of behavior into not nominating inappropriate articles for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And you shouldn't be. I struck through the bad faith and called it "good faith with bad timing". You should probably take the RAN stuff to WP:WQA to be on the safe side. --Smashvilletalk 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think making a filing at the WP:WQA would inflame the situation or would it help just to get it on the record? I'm inclined to wait a couple of days to see if things cool off. Drawn Some (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't. It shows you're trying to resolve the issue. And there is clearly a wikiettiquette issue (sidebar: I'm always amused at how you can make various words Wikipedia-specific by adding "Wiki-" to them.) --Smashvilletalk 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The "wiki-" is usually unnecessary in my opinion, just like e- on everything a few years ago was. Drawn Some (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Biotook

I see you have warned this user. You may not be aware of this, but this user is definitely a sock of User:Normrogers (blocked) and User:Box of atoms (blocked), as well as a possible sock of User:Bags of atoms. (See sock tracking on my userpage). Intelligentsium 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone got him. --Smashvilletalk 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelson

Please reinstate Robert S. nelson page

Text is not copyrighted and I have permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tytanmedia (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that you have permission to reproduce it. If in fact you do, please see WP:PERMISSION for information about providing evidence that you have permission from the copyright holder. --Smashvilletalk 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As per instructions I have included permissions text "The text of this webpage is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." on source page to authenticate that their is no copywright violation. Please reinstate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tytanmedia (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Please confirm that copyright issue has been resolvedTytanmedia (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, follow the instructions and contact the appropriate parties as instructed on WP:PERMISSION to verify every thing is in order. Just fair warning, however, the article will probably be re-deleted if posted as a non-notable biography. --Smashvilletalk 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT FAIR

Why Did My Userbox page Get Deleted It's Userboxes, U Know The Things For Your Profile?

WELL IT'S NOT FAIR DELETING IT FOR NO REASON Makkapakka3ROBLOX (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You created an article called ROBLOX Userboxes. If you go to WP:ARTICLE, it can give you some help on what kinds of things an article constitutes, but we don't make articles full of userboxes. --Smashvilletalk 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Monicities

MoniCities (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC) May I ask for why our new page is deleted? And how can we add the page properly with out violating any of the rules? Many thanks =)

Wikipedia is not for advertising, but more importantly, your page made no claim to notability. Please see WP:ARTICLE for information on what a Wikipedia article should consist of. --Smashvilletalk 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MoniCities (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for writing back. I have read the link you have provided. Still do not know what exactly we have to do to list our company's information on Wikipedia. We are not using wikipedia page as an advertising tool. But creating the page to present the existence of the company. What we do, and what we are hoping to obtain from wikipedia is just like the rest of the social network websites like facebook, myspace, and others. Thank you.

Kentucky Derby, SEE ALSO links

Apparently you feel that the Kentucky Derby is not related to anything. Even the first three finishers of the race do not seem to make your list of ==See also== links even though it is consistently on many other Stakes Race pages throughout wikipedia. Is not the * Kentucky Oaks, * Kentucky Derby Festival * Kentucky Derby Pie, * Top 3 finishers of the race, * Triple Crown Productions, * 2009, 2008 or 2007 articles about the race, * Louisville, KY attractions or * US Triple Crown on television related to the Derby. Each of these or at least some of these should be listed as =See also==. What is the harm to referring any one to other information that is related to the Kentucky Derby???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiglduncan (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the talk page and editing summary, every single one of those links is already either linked in the article in either an infobox underneath or the body actual body of the article...or was not directly related to the article. Adding links to a see also section that are already in the article goes against the spirit of WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEEALSO. It's not a case of being against "See Also" sections...it's the fact that after I cleaned out everything that was repeated or not directly related, it left an empty section...and we don't leave empty sections in articles. --Smashvilletalk 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein

This seems like a ridiculous page to me. Hard to believe it has survived for years. Newportm (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...it also doesn't link to any deletion discussions, which I find surprising...it seems like a prime candidate for AfD, though. --Smashvilletalk 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

STEWART DOWNING

Hello, I have read the dispute resolution page and have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt on a situation. Recently I added a new picture to the page of Stewart Downing, when he joined the team I support. This was removed and so I have removed the opriginal picture as he does not play for that team anymore. The fact his picture is there in a middlesborough is not good for sets of either fans. For some reason you have replaced it over and over and I would like to kindly ask you to either put my picture back up or leave it removed. I have absolutly no idea why you would get involved in me posting a perfectly valid image to a page with no ill intent whatsoever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs)

You were warned for potentially violating the 3RR rule. In fact, you actually did violate it, but I decided to make you aware of the rule before you did it again. If you do revert again, I will block you. Not only are you edit warring, you are edit warring with copyrighted material - which I see you have been warned about numerous times. --Smashvilletalk 16:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Today was the first time I had used wiki edits and the way you are informed of problems is not atall obvious, I thought you were just some idiot editing the page to mess it up, I have been taking time to try and make it right so I find it very rude that you did not properly contact me and explain. As I said the picture is WRONG and needs to be removed and as you clearly say as soon as I got told about the copy right problem I removed the uploaded picture so please don't try and use that one against me. If you proceed in returning the original picture you are vandalising a page and I will have no qualms about reporting you. Perhaps you need to grow up a little, I'ts sad they are giving 12yr olds power like this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did notify you that you were breaking the rules. Hence the reason you are at my talk page. And what exactly are you going to report me for? Warning you about breaking a policy? Not blocking you? I highly recommend that you start acting civil. --Smashvilletalk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For vandalism of a page. I have told you what the problem is with it, I can see you have attempted to your job but now I have informed you why I was trying to change/delete the picture you still persist in simply trying to act powerfully and refuse to even talk about the point at hand. I have reported you via email, I suggest you revise your understanding of the word civil, perhaps do a wiki search, although you will probably just adjust it to suite your needs and then vandalise it once it is changed back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have. Do you want to continue your personal attacks? --Smashvilletalk 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, everything is saved on the system along with this conversation and your vandalism of the downing page, which still has a wrong picture on it offending fans of both clubs. Your obviously not english and wouldn't understand the feelings of supporters. What a sad sad man you are, hope your mums proud of you and your wiki moderator badge, well done :) by the way, you better watch the page because I guarantee you 1000 other fans will try and change the pic in the next 24 hours, your going to be very busy if you want to offend them all too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here is over. There is a discussion about you at ANI. --Smashvilletalk 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Villa fan and it doesn't offend me. --82.37.154.39 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Thank You

Smashville, I will start reading the Welcome and users guide. It looks like the "helpme" can be very useful. I also appreciate the ability to ask anyone a question (does it matter if I put it on my talk page or your talk page?). I am really just beginning to learn, but I do have a great deal of info to offer. Thank you for showing me the signature button as well. --Craiglduncan (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance, if you wanted to ask me a question, you would post it on my talk page. Otherwise, I wouldn't know there was a question being asked. A lot of people differ on how they answer though...I tend to answer anything on my talk page so that it's all in one central location...some other folks answer on the other person's talk page. Some people have a template that they put on the other person's talk page letting them know that they've responded. It's really just a matter of preference. --Smashvilletalk 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

HORSE OF THE DECADE

Hi again Smashville. If John Henry is ranked #23 in the Century and Spectacular Bid is ranked #10, then how could John Henry be the Horse of the Decade? Do you have an article or Panel that you could site? Many claim that Spectacular Bid was the "Best Horse to ever look through a Bridle." I am not trying to be argumentative but will yield to your contention if you can steer me to something that I can read or listen to. Thank you again and I hope this will be just one of many friendly discussions.--Craiglduncan (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually...there was an actual specific award for "Horse of the Decade" given out in 1989...[47]. It was voted on by fans...so John's backstory probably helped a lot...cheap claimer becomes the all time money earner...and oldest Grade I winner...and almost comes back at 12 to run the Breeders Cup. I'm assuming the fact that 2/3rds of his career occurred in the 1970s is what screwed Bid. Although, I know that a lot of writers believe his 1980 season was the best season ever by a racehorse...he was literally unbeatable. Oddly...I went to Ellis Park this weekend...and this beautiful grey walked into the paddock for a $4,000 claimer (Funny Cide happened to be making an appearance...and I happened to be petting him at the time)...I looked at my program...and it was a Spectacular Bid. I was amazed...I didn't know there were any still in training. --Smashvilletalk 15:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian Pink Floyd Show

Thank you very much for locking the page :) I have been making every attempt to keep things civil, but a forum continues to send members over to change one individual thing. The members are increasingly aggressive and despite clearly being SPA's, excuse their actions by saying "its wiki policy".

Was wondering if you had any thoughts on this matter, if you could visit Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#User:GODstrings.2C_User:colinwilson62.2C_User:Bandcorrection and comment. Thank you again, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I protected it, I probably should stay out of the discussion...being the neutral third party and all...I just saw some heated comments coming across the recent changes, looked at the history and the talk page and realize it probably needed to be protected until it had a chance to cool down and be resolved. --Smashvilletalk 13:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
True, that definitely makes sense. It seems the edit war began 10 days sooner than I had noticed with the addition of the link. The following is the last revision prior to this: [48]
So, I was wondering if we could have the article set to semi-protected (Either now or when the current protection expires Friday) to prevent SLA's from continuing to change it back and forth? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixed to pre-edit war version. --Smashvilletalk 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Woodlands Swim Team

Would you be able to userfy this article you deleted - The Woodlands Swim Team - for the creator? See my convo with him on his talk page. Thanks. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done diddly doodly. --Smashvilletalk 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Liam Fitzpatrick

Hi I see you deleted my page - how do I go about getting it back? Google me and you'll see that I'm pretty well known as an author and trainer in Europe

My entry was only half done as I'm still learning how to use wikipedia so any help you can offer would be welcome.

Thanks

Liam l.fitzpatrick@working-communication.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamFitz100 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Liam, but your article made no claim to notability whatsoever. Based on the information provided in the article, it doesn't seem as if you are yet notable enough to meet WP:BIO. It's also generally accepted that if you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, you shouldn't have to write your own. Again, not saying that you won't be that notable...it just doesn't appear to be the case right now. --Smashvilletalk 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Dcousino

I noticed that you're also reverting the edits by Dcousino (talk · contribs). I noticed that all of their edits are to add links and/or images specifically promoting a specific winery (Cousino Macul) - so I'm suspecting COI/self-promotion, but as they don't comment, or reply to comments in the edit summaries or on their talk page, it's impossible to confirm. Suggestions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the 3RR warning now ... probably the most applicable and appropriate solution given their edit habits thus far. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling he's going to revert again, and, if so, I'm going to block and see if we can figure out what he's doing. Intentional or not, he's vandalizing the page. --Smashvilletalk 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the photo's from Concha y Toro winery to Cousiño Macul's. They are both chilean winery who deserve to be in those articles. Are you promoting Concha y Toro?. ---Dcousino —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
I drink Two Buck Chuck. You are replacing working images with nonworking images. I'm trying to get you to stop, since there is absolutely zero reason for you to be blanking out images. I don't see what's hard to grasp about that. --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind what you drink. I can perfectly see the image in several computers, is there a problem in yours?? The image url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antiguas_reservas_chilean_wine.jpg --Dcousino —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
You were the one accusing me of promoting some Chilean wine. I'm not the only user who cannot see your image. There is clearly a problem with your upload. And I have informed you of this more than once, but you continue to place empty content into the article. I have no opinion either way on the actual content of the article. What I do care about is you continuing to replace actual content with blank content. --Smashvilletalk 16:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Smashvilee, I think we started with the wrong foot. I did not see any empty content in the article so I continued to replace the image. If you tell me how can I know when the image is not properly loaded I can edit the article properly and avoid any problems with you. Or if you want you can edit the article and place the image and see if it loads. --Dcousino16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to comment, I'm also not able to view the image - I tried clearing my cache, and a second browser. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:AN to see if anyone can see it...or has any suggestions. --Smashvilletalk 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Crackdealer

I have unblocked Crackdealer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to change his user name after a request on unblock-en-l. He actually mailed me from the website of "Crack Records". He is expected to engage in no other activity than to request a change of user name. Fred [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. --Smashvilletalk 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Denali Alaskan Federal Credit Union

Hi I am trying to write an article on this credit union's history and the first attempt I had it said it was a biased article even though apparently this is ok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstone_federal_credit_union). I am really just trying to make an article and now I get a warnign saying it's up for deletion because it is not relevant. I guess I am confused. what makes one thing work and another not because it seems odd that Redstone gets a pass on all this so far and I get my page deleted. I can go into more detail through edits and certainly intend to add more references but I think If one credit union like redstone can obviously get on another should be able to have a write up as well.Vault-tec (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CORP. Your article appeared to be written from a marketing point of view and made no assertion of notability. Also, on Wikipedia, the fact that other stuff exists is not a logical reason to keep your page. --Smashvilletalk 13:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

James Conlon

Thank you for reverting the LAOpera edits to the James Conlon article. They were clearly a conflict of interest and were yet another attempt to substitute existing content with marketing boilerplate. Somehow these types of edits are happening more frequently, so we appreciate your efforts. Hippo Potamus (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens...PR people decide they don't like the Wikipedia article or that it doesn't have enough emphasis on their product...--Smashvilletalk 13:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikia

Well, yes, but all in all, it benefits Wikia in the end as well. I beg you, I did not intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox at all, but merely to contact those whom have worked hard here and try to notify them of such an existing wiki. Please, the majority of the contacted users have been largely focused on such a subject. It seems almost a pity their skills are not put to something that will more heavily concentrate on one of their liking. I mean, it is only about a children's book series, nothing so grand...Please, could you grant this one small request of mine, especially as I am barely on Wikipedia at all? Ralnon (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I would make another note: regard my edits and the revision of the Droon-related pages. Some even lacked user pages, and appeared to have joined Wikipedia for no other purpose than to edit, yet their contributions can be limited because of the work being in fiction and Wikipedia's policies about it. However, on a wikia project, perhaps it would be more relaxed and a good use for such knowledge. Advertising? Well, truthfully, I truly did not deem it "advertising" at all, but merely an attempt to get more users to a new wiki to benefit Wikia and perhaps in turn Wikipedia. Please, is it so condemned here? I promise, I have tried my best in the past to respect Wikipedia and Wikia and protect them both. I have always strove to aid to the contribution of articles on Wikipedia's projects, and aid those on it. Please contact me on my talk for further queries. Thank you! Ralnon (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add one more note: that of multiple issues concerning the Secrets of Droon page, which has not been adequately addressed by sysops or regular users since June 2006. It is what spurred me to create the wiki, where I can work with greater motivation to fix such problems with the article. Besides, a soapbox is like a blog in modern-time, but were my messages attempting to at the very least make others whom have edited here aware of such a wiki so invalid, so like a soapbox? Please, my friend, can you not understand why I am doing so? Once again, I ask you to consider well, for I really mean Wikipedia no harm, nor do I seek personal benefit, only that of those whom have knowledge of the series and of Wikia itself. Ralnon (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia to advertise your off-site Wiki. That's against the rules. It's pretty straightforward. --Smashvilletalk 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My friend, I apologize if I have caused any inconveniences, yet still I am in confusion of your claims of my advertising. I was talking to other users about a subject they appear interested in; I did not intend to cause you such trouble, and, forgive me, but I am somewhat surprised you would dedicate so much time here. Would everyone here call my small number of specialized messages seeking to help both Wikipedia and Wikia spam? I do not know, but I would like more time for consideration of this issue, Smashville; I am slightly curious as to why you did not address all my points and immediately undid everything afterwards while threatening me with a block. Surely, in usual situations, the recipent of the "spam" would hold distaste or annoyance for it themselves, and would easily erase the comments if they deemed them irrelevant?; I did not post it on Wikipedia's articles or talk pages themselves. Please, Smashville, I am not familiar to Wikipedia and its policies much, but I had hoped you would more clearly and even civilly explain...Could you not this once forgive me and consider my request? Ralnon (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much clearer to explain it. This is Wikipedia. You created a page not on Wikipedia. Then you posted messages to various userpages (and the article itself) telling them about aforementioned non-Wikipedia page you created. This is referred to as "spamming". --Smashvilletalk 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Heart Attack Grill

I received a message from you regarding an edit I made on the Heart Attck Grill page. I have been working directly with the owner of the Heart Attack Grill for the past 2 years. It is my job to update the page and make all the information correct and updated. If the way I am editing the page is wrong let me know. If I need to start a new page and have the old page removed alos let me know. I am new at using Wikipedia so any information would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmotter1 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Todgeball Deletion

you recently deleted a page that a group of friends and i submitted. I understand that you think that the sport of Todgeball is nonsense, but, if you noticed, the page was a well thought out tribute to a sport that is widely played on college tennis courts. Yes, this sport will probably never make ESPN or ESPN2. We are hoping that one day ESPN8, "The Ocho" will cover it. As ridiculous as it sounds, this sport is as real as any other sports, and seeing how I can't find any mention of it in this encyclopedia, I felt that it was my responsibility to place it there.

I would be more than interested in learning why you deleted this article, and if you cannot provide a good reason I would like for you to place the article back online so that all those that are curious about this great sport can learn how to play. Aufan89 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:N. --Smashvilletalk 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Macmillan English Dictionary - article deleted

Hi there,

I was ask to provide some 3rd party verification for a recently deleted article on the Macmillan English dictionary. I am new to this so apologise if this is not the right place for this!

The highly regarded Macmillan Dictionaries are an internationally valued resource, especially by English teachers.

Below are some reliable, verifiable published sources attesting to the quality and popularity of this dictionary resource

1. Refereed journal article reviewing top English Dictionaries: 'At a more specific level, however, the preceding analysis suggests that Macmillan Dictionary ranks highest because it exhibits the largest number of functions and innovative features.' Here.

2. Inclusion on both Yahoo! directory and the Open Directory

Yahoo! Directory link

Open Directory


3. A small selection of links to mentions on leading English language blogs:

3.1 The top English Language blog talks about the dictionary site here: Here another says, 'Following the launch of the excellent new Macmillan Dictionary website comes the related blog.' here.

3.2.'The new Macmillian dictionary website is also worth spending time on.'link here

3.3 Another


4 Foreign Language

4.1 Italian: About Macmillan Dictionary: 'Vi propongo ora un viaggio tra le sue pagine, alla scoperta delle caratteristiche che ne fanno, per certi versi, un’opera rivoluzionaria.'Link here

4.2 Italian Education Portal Listing, Link

Thanks for your time, please mail me with any additional queries Jonathan Cole Wordsmurf (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that while the Macmillan English Dictionary probably is notable in and of itself, the way the article was written was very, very much like an advertisement and only focused on the dictionary's website. I would begin by writing a neutrally worded article on the actual print dictionary. --Smashvilletalk 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

kindly direct me

dear sir,

kindly direct me about disruptive edits. you marked my edits as spam. they were informative links. i will really appreciate your guidance.

best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.53.29 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind signing in so I can figure out what this is about. Considering I spend a large portion of my time fishing out spam links, I have no idea who you are or what you are referring to. --Smashvilletalk 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

kindly direct me(repost)

dear sir,

kindly direct me about disruptive edits. you marked my edits as spam. they were informative links. i will really appreciate your guidance.

best regards infobankpak Infobankpak (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well...to be honest...every single one of them. Your only posts were to go through some Alabama pages posting a link to a website called etownguide. Our policy is that we don't allow links to be posted merely to promote their subject - in this case, the website - which is what these appeared to be doing. --Smashvilletalk 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Classic Races

As to your edit [49], there was no consesus to merge the two articles as defined by Wikipedia Policy. Second, a merger means combining the text of the two articles without duplication. You did not, and simply wiped out all the pre 1919 Classic Winners and inserted no explanation as to the Classic reference. Your arbitrary action was unwarranted and a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and policy. I am reverting this again. If you disagree then take the proper steps and refer the issue in accordance with Wikipedia procedure. Thank you for your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is right here. It was open for 20 days and there was a clear consensus. --Smashvilletalk 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Would you consider undoing the cannot edit own page block?--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Already on it...--Smashvilletalk 19:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Parascandola

Thanks for reverting this one -- it has certainly been problematic during its shorty life. User:Andyjoe7and8 has ignored all rational attempts to explain WP:MOSBIO and WP:BLP and his new friend User:Scam50 suddenly shows up to continue the fiasco. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries...they look like your run of the mill POV pushers with ownership issues...this one is dangerously close to 3RR territory. I would presume a block of one would block both... --Smashvilletalk 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Scam just reverted your reversion, I re-reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Law School Ranking

I referenced the Cooley ranking with different sources, a simple google search will show you how much of a phenonomenon it is to bash that thing in pre law admission research. Cooley even responded to it, of which I have quoted and refrenced.

Also HYS is an informal club just as the T14 or TTT is. It is similar to HYP (harvard yale princeton) of which there is a full wikipedia article for. check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "bash" things. What you are providing is original research and potentially libellous. --Smashvilletalk 19:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it from an unbiased point of view, merely stating that the rankings are severely criticized in the blogosphere, and pointed to reasons why the blogosphere criticizes it with references. I also added a rebuttal from cooley, with references. Are you a Cooley student?

Also HYS should stay, tell me why it shouldn't. Google HYS you will find it is a big phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"hys harvard yale stanford" - sorry try a google search on that.

You call this unbiased? That's straight up vandalism. --Smashvilletalk 19:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha... now you are just going through my old posts because you have a grudge. I stated that "some consider outside the t14 to be a ttt." how is that vandelous. You do go to Cooley, your point of view is simply biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through your posts because you are adding unsourced, controversial WP:OR and personal opinion into articles. Can you seriously not see what is wrong with what you posted? --Smashvilletalk 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I post criticisms that are all referenced. Every single one is referenced, are you to suggest that wikipedia should ignore criticisms? Go ahead and delete anything that is not referenced, if it referenced by guidelines, you sir, are the vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.top-law-schools.com/search-forums.html?cx=partner-pub-4401176013261469%3A1dqvt9-csam&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=TTTT&sa.x=55&sa.y=11#1111

http://www.top-law-schools.com/search-forums.html?cx=partner-pub-4401176013261469%3A1dqvt9-csam&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=HYS&sa.x=0&sa.y=0#1052

http://www.top-law-schools.com/search-forums.html?cx=partner-pub-4401176013261469%3A1dqvt9-csam&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cooley&sa.x=17&sa.y=10#1042

That site is legitmate because there are over 100,000 topics, which means its relevant. It is the go to source for any and all pre law advice.

We'll finish this at WP:ANI. Maybe someone there can explain this better, because clearly I can't. --Smashvilletalk 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Check your email

I've sent you a message via email-user. --Versageek 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But...

Come on, I wanna see your unblock request!! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and please do take this time to reconsider your approach to editing ... LOL. That one gave me a chuckle.  ;) — Ched :  ?  17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh...it would have been full of copyvios, personal attacks and legal threats, I guarantee. --Smashvilletalk 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Moggy Farewell

Hi I was surprised that you wiped my little entry. Can you suggest how I can restructure the information to meet your criteria? I believe that "Moggy Farewell" deserves to be mentioned for the benefit of those exploring euthanasia devices. Zebra00c (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...it was a pretty spammy entry. Are you affiliated with the company? --Smashvilletalk 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you just going to re-add it without answering my question or rephrasing it in any way? Wikipedia doesn't work like that. --Smashvilletalk 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at the Kira Takenouchi article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice: Katsumasahiro2

Hello, Smashville. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Katsumasahiro2. Thank you.

Figured you may want to comment on this --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I slept through all the fun. Rats. --Smashvilletalk 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI regarding Jza84

(Started here rather ANI, to try and avoid drama). If there is no action to be taken then why not simply state that and leave it there? There is no need to to characterise Chrisieboy as making bad faith comments or 'tattling'. Being threatened with a block is not equivalent to saying someone did something 'craftily'. I am not suggesting Jza84 be punished at all, but there should at least be some sort of acknowledgment that he shouldn't be threatening to use his tools in this way. Quantpole (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it had happened 4 days prior, was a one sentence, one-time remark. Obviously, since he wasn't blocked, it was an empty threat. We have bigger and better things to be doing. --Smashvilletalk 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Weston Golf and Country Club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. That was the first one I tried to submit...didn't know about the character minimum. --Smashvilletalk 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

16 (band) entry deleted

I was wondering why you deleted the 16 (band) wikipedia entry...I understand the first time it was a copyright problem with my bio being from Last.fm but I reworked the bio...I understand that something about the article wasn't notable but I wasn't finished updating the article...I took a break and now I come back to work on it after dinner and it's deleted...isn't there some way to notify me of whats wrong and give me time make the appropriate changes before the whole work just gets deleted? I didn't even get to add their entire discography which includes a minimal of 6 full length albums that have been released over the course of 17 years through various record labels, I would like to think this band is notable they have been around since 1992 and toured with slayer and eyehategod...they were huge in helping to define sludge metal and I want to know if its possible to get my work back...Is their someway I should mark pages that I am currently working on but did not complete yet so that they do not get deleted? T0778kj (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Both times I deleted the page it was the exact same content, which was a direct copyright violation from http://www.last.fm/music/16/+wiki. I forgot to change the delete reason the first time, but the content was exactly the same. --Smashvilletalk 13:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your fast, reverting the vand. to the Ryan Seacrest page. But I'll only give you it because the servers went down :P --ScythreTalkContribs 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I was a ninja...but a ninja never admits it... :) --Smashvilletalk 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Undone edits

Hi Smashville,

Sorry for not filling in the Edit Summary. The edits I made to Gregor Robertson's page were made for two reasons. 1) Often the links cited did not say what the author claimed (e.g. Gregor rode illegally without a helmet - no such statement is made in the article) 2) NPOV - the links go to sites (such as City Caucus) that are run by the Robertson's political opponents (the author's worked in the previous mayor's office). 3) Many references referred to extraneous issues that are not relevant to the page. (Eg. no one refers to Robertson as "Bubble Boy" - a single column should not become a reference point for a wikipedia article. On the Burrard bridge trial "Three days into the trial, a local merchant reported a 46% drop in sales.[24]" A single merchant's complaints are allowed to frame an entire entry in Wikipedia? My edits pointed to a non-political, city run site that outlines the facts around the trial. Another concerned vancouverite (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Another concerned vancouverite

I see there has been a lot of back and forth on the article and think it needs a senior experienced Wikipedian to take a deep look at the claims in the article to maintain NPOV. As an aside, even the post above from Another concerned vancouverite appears biased. The link in point #1 shows a picture of the subject of the article doing exactly what had been claimed (riding illegally without a helmet during the protest). Would appreciate you looking into things and helping to clean up the article neutrally. Angrybrit (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Jbg.gold comment

I added some rationale to the article's talk page. Not sure why the addition was deleted; I am totally new to Wikipedia. I find the article "Gold as an Investment" to be outdated and would like to adjust it. I have the credentials and experience in the gold investment industry to make these much-needed changes. I would appreciate your help in modifying the article if you think I will be able to or have any tips as an experienced Wiki writer.

Thanks, Joel

Jbg.gold (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Joel 14 August 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smashville/Archive_2&oldid=1147985649"