User talk:Pharmboy/Archive2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Unorganized talk from 2006/2007

This section is almost all the talk for this period, excepting some vandalism. It would be organized, but dammit, people put stuff at the top instead of the bottom because they don't know any better or have no consideration. Don't edit this page or it will be reverted. Pharmboy (talk)

hey you idiot

"They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." that is from your own link.

Look at the video before you delete it retard its a third party publication that was previously published. (was unsigned by User:Oniazuma)

  • Thank you for your thoughtful and well expressed opinions. Since the link is broken, it was removed. Being a blog is also a consideration for any link being deleted and the talk page for the article in question is the proper place to discuss it. I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICK as I am sure you will find it useful. Pharmboy 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Jack Adam

Can you please review this. As you will see if you check the links this person meets the notability guidelines and is on the honour role for the University of Ballarat due to his influence on the Australian Mining industry.

Gervo1865 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my speedy request. It may be handy to have a little more material to a layman as to what makes him notable. Pharmboy 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PERMISSION TO USE CONTENT FROM strategic-air-command.com AND OTHER SITES

The following is the content of an email from the owner of the above (and other) websites granting permission to use the images and text from his websites on military history. The message id for the email is: <001a01c6e75a$883f98e0$6801a8c0@TOPDOG> I had written previously asking permission to use text and photos, and tried to talk him into writting a few articles on SAC. Pharmboy 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for you kind email.

I am very familiar with Wikipedia. I am CEO of Feenixx Publishing
http://www.feenixx.com
We publish content intensive poster and we constantly use
Wikipedia for research.

My own schedule is far too full for me to take on the task of
writing articles for Wikipedia. I am also CEO of Web-Shops.Net
and we have 14 Internet sites. In addition to the SAC site,
I also have family history website. Plus, in whatever free time
I have, I write other things.

However, you may feel free to use our material in whatever manner
you wish. If you want to just "cut and paste" that's fine. But
please give us credit, and if possible, a link.

Warmest Regards
Marv Broyhill

Blocking spam

Hi. Regarding your request at WP:AIV to block external links, what you are looking for is m:Talk:Spam blacklist. They are usually quite accommodating and take only a few days to block domains. Let me know if you need assistance. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award. I do not think that Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because WP:NOT is simply not on the list of speedy deletion criteria. You might well have a case at WP:AFD, or even via Proposed deletion. But this simply isn't a speedy, IMO. I request that you consider not re-tagging Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Edit Summary, I gave the particular reason for WP:NOT, which was "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". My reasoning is that the article was just a simple list. I will defer judgement on inclusion or not to you, but I just wanted you to know there was more reason than the generic NOT. Pharmboy 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New Dying Fetus Drummer

Trey Williams has just joined Dying Fetus, and when I say just, I mean it: he joined on July 20th, 2007. Let's talk about why the article shouldn't be deleted:

  • 1. It's a major announcement.
  • 2. Fans might want to know about it.

I'm also confused on how the article "doesn't assert itself." What does that mean? I just created the article; I've been a Wikipedia editor for quite some time now, and I've never seen that posted after one of my edits. If we could just clear things up, I'd be more than happy to discuss Trey Williams in a mature manner. Thanks. Dark Executioner 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

it is a template, so take up that issue with the crew who makes the templates. Second, this dicussion should be in the TALK section of the article, NOT on my talk page, since it is about the edit to the article, not about me. Pharmboy 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... but you're the one who brought this whole thing up! The other members of Dying Fetus have similar lengths. Here, I'll even put the links here for you:

Now, can we focus on putting more info on the article, instead of trying to get it deleted? You know, JUST a suggestion. Cowboy From Hell 666 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Cowboy From Hell 666

  • You don't get the point. The other articles are problems too, I just haven't gotten to them yet. One sentence isn't an article. What it needs is to roll them into the main article. Now, you can keep complaining to me, or work on the article. That is what the policies and procedures are. I am trying apply the policy here, you seem to be just trying to say "everyone else is making short articles, so I can too" which isn't a valid arguement. Since it went AFD, you need to argue there anyway. Pharmboy 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Got your message. Yeah, that looks pretty good, it basically states what is already stated in each member's respective pages. As longas it stays like this, I don't see any further need for the individual pages. As for your past tone towards me, I'd have to say that I forgive you. That just seems to be a symptom of Wikipedians. Wherever you found that extra bit of info on Trey Williams, I appreciate it, cuz I spent an hour trying to look up stuff for him. Dark Executioner 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Someone put that on the talk page, so I included it. Wikipedians like me, that try to spend some time cleaning up the place, sometimes may get a bit less than couth (by accident) because we face so much hostility from people on proposed changes on stuff that is totally insane. I'm talking about people who are just clearly advertising their business or their local band, or website. And they will just argue without looking at policy because they really don't give a shit about wikipedia, just promoting their pet cause. Sometimes it bleeds into stuff like this, where there is an honest difference of opinion and pretty hard resistance, too. The main thing is improving wikipedia.

As to the article, my opinion would be to remove the pages for all the members except John Gallagher, which is lean but he is really the one who is notable. (There may be another, but there would need to be some content to justify it). Then someone needs to fix the redirect for him and find more content. My 2c worth anyway. Pharmboy 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your nomination of List of Folk-blues musicians for deletion

I've completed your AFD nomination by creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was it that this article was nominated for deletion? It clearly falls under the structured lists exception of rule #2 that you say it violates. Lists are everywhere on Wikipedia. This is no mere "collection of links". It clearly is a list of folk-blues musicians, a musicial genre. Please see List of jazz musicians, List of heavy metal musicians, List of hip hop musicians, List of Piedmont blues musicians, List of country musicians, List of bluegrass musicians, List of soul musicians, List of bebop musicians, and on and on. Need I say more, or shall we rest this case? (Mind meal 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Folk-blues_musicians where everyone can comment. I don't think the list is a bad idea (and said that). It just should be a category, NOT an article. Hell dude, I am a musician, but that doesn't stop the fact that the list is a great idea, in the wrong place. Pharmboy 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sangwara

Hi Pharmboy, please see my question on the talk page. Best regards and keep up the great work! gidonb 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarlem

BTW, this article was already deleted once. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlem. Skeezix1000 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accion USA

I wrote an article and you deleted it, well I really dont know much about wikipedia, I was wiritn g thearticla but then I had to go so I saved it and well it wasnt quite done. Now its done, its under accion usa. I hope its good, I mean Im trying not to publicize that organization but I dot know if its ok or not. Can you please help me? I just dont want it to be deleted again. It would be awesome if you could read ove rit, if you cant its fine.

Thanks--Businessowner 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

Can you please do your AfD's properly? Use this form please: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still working on it. Going from editing, to writting full, to finding spam, to speedys, to afds. Takes a bit to learn part time. I probably fudged a couple more. Pharmboy 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

for not leaving me alone to battle it out alone. 15 supporting deletion and 4 or 5 in favor of keep that can't refer to policy in their arguments is certainly a reasonable consensus. I just hope the closing admin doesn't think a vocal fringe is a reasonable keep argument. VanTucky (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

no prob, just felt more arguing wouldn't help. Arguements tend to get weaker as you use them more and more. Pharmboy 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't responded to baiting anymore. VanTucky (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Neo Messiah

You tagged this article as a speedy deletion candidate due to lack of context, but the context is actually clear: it's a religious essay and original research. I nominated it for deletion at AfD, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Also, your comments to the article's creator could be construed as a bit impolite. While the article is very deletable, it is still necessary to use the correct process, and helpful to do it in as friendly a way as possible (this can keep the creator from feeling defensive and thus keep the discussion much neater). Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

check history and see it when I nominated it. afd was the next step, per the talk page admitting it was "lots of work" and OR. Pharmboy 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template HRM

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template HRM. I do not think that Template HRM fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because lack of context is not a speedy deletion reason for templates -- many valid templates lack context on their own. Use WP:TFD if you think this should go, please. I request that you consider not re-tagging Template HRM for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is in the template namespace it is a template for purposes of the WP:CSD. DES (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Angus Young Signature SG

Thanks for helping keep WP clean. I'm going to speedy this one as soon as I leave this note. It would help if you left whatever content (as long as it's not really harmful) when you tag; if it's garbage, I'll be able to see that otherwise I have to delve through the prior versions to see what the article was at its "best". Unfortunately, on occasion some otherwise savable articles get vandalised and in their vandalised state are tagged speedy. We're supposed to revert to the savable version rather than delete. The fewer versions to plough through the faster I can do that. Don't take what I say as anything negative: it's just a request to help us out a little better. Keep up the good work! Carlossuarez46 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Humber Valley Resort

Please review your recommendation to speed delete this article. While I referenced the proprietor's website, it was not meant as advertising. The resort is a real entity and has an economic and cultural impact in its region. Verne Equinox 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Dry Ice Bomb

No rewording necessary, Pharmboy, but your suggestion is noted. Just sound legal advice. Mandsford 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WHP site

I was addressing the issue as I deleted the tag... and there are more references to come. Only I'm not incredibly familiar with wikipedia and it was taking me some time. I appreciate your concern for the entry's integrity, but give me some time to actually edit before accusing me of vandalism! Yikes! And by the way, I only deleted the references tag ONCE and I don't really see how you can construe that as malign intent given that I started the entry about half an hour beforehand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxhs (talk • contribs)

I am not questioning the how legit the organization is. Quite the opposite. If I thought it was not legit, I would have tagged it for delete. You are talking this personal, but it isn't. A tag is not an insult. It isn't saying the article sucks. It isn't insulting your mother. Tags simply say "Hey, I'm an article, here is what I need to be correct". And yes, people actually DO go research and fix other peoples articles. If you wouldn't have made such a big deal of it, I might have googled it and make the citations myself. Oh, and when I tagged it, it automatically was added to my "watch" list, so I could go back later and add references. If you check the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_HIV_Program_%28WHP%29&action=history you see you changed the tag twice (every article here has the full history of every change ever made.) And yes, I tend to get a bit testy when someone changes a tag without cause TWICE and doesn't add a valid summary. That is why the edit makes you press Save twice if you don't add an edit summary, because you should always add one, PARTICULARLY when doing something like deleting a tag, of all things. Pharmboy 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HwGuy / HwGay discussion

Please see this talk page regarding this matter. JohnCub 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spam

Thanks for your work on fighting spam.

If you haven't already, check out:

You might enjoy some of the stuff we do. Also, there are some interesting tools and templates we use that can dig up more domains and spam. You can look at some of the stuff I added to your suntanning.com spammer's talk pages at:

Anyway give it some thought and thanks again for what you're doing.
--A. B. (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS That's a big carp!

Thanks, yea I let him go back into the lake. I have a lot to learn about the templates and such, the input is appreciated! Another note: I have been looking for a way to participate and help, beyond writing in my fields of expertise. I will take a closer look at the spam links and see if this is something that will fit. Pharmboy 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

Hi. As a seasoned wikipedian who has already weighed in on the debate, could you please help me out and explain to Moonbeam28 in the AfD that yes, if someone else had put in the article it might not be a COI (unless the editor personally knew the author), but it would still fall foul of notability? I know what needs to be said, but I'm not familiar enough with all the policies and the pages they are on in order to direct her. Thanks so much! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, I found some pages that seem suitable, but if you know of others, please add! Thanks — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Legend

I do not see how EGM is not a reliable source.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

I would think that EGM has fact-checking, huh? All I need is one reliable source, right? If so, then this is flawed, and the nominator's argument is flawed.

Phamboy, EGM did not create the game - That means EGM is a third party. All I need is one third party source. WhisperToMe 02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the conversation in the proper article rather than here, but to answer your question, the references must both be 3rd party and "reliable". Reliable doesn't mean reliable in the traditional sense to start with. Next the amount of coverage in this article is relevent as to wp:v, "verification". No one is saying the game doesn't exist. They are saying the game isn't particularly notable. Not every game ever made on every platform "deserves" an article. It isn't about worth, it is about what makes an encyclopedia. Its ok if we disagree. Personally, I think that over half of the articles on wikipedia shouldn't be here and are not encyclopedia material. Interesting, useful, perhaps, but that isn't the criteria for an encyclopedia. Pharmboy 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Corpse

Have you ever heard about CC being banned from Atlanta? Bob Dole and a few other senators forbid them from playing in certain cities, and unfortunately for me, Atlanta was one of them. However, the ban seems to be revoked now, because they're coming to the Masquerade on October 10th, 2007. Do you know anything about when the ban got revoked? Dark Executioner 15:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Bob Dole can't "ban" them per se. I'm an old fart, but there was this same controversy with Wendy O Williams and the Plasmatics back in the 80s. In her case, the cops beat the living fuck out of her to "convince" her to not perform. Something about her doing obscene things with a sledgehammer on stage, and they tried to ban her, but in the end, all they can do is arrest after the fact. "banning" is basically illegal censorship, although if no club owner wants to bring them in (and face the wrath of the cops) it may as well be banning. The deal with Cannibal Corpse may have gotten started with the speech he gave years ago, you can read it at http://www.tombofthemutilated.net/Bob-Dole-Cannibal-Corpse.html Pharmboy 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Life Recordings

When was Dying Fetus signed to this label??? Dark Executioner 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I have no idea. You are the Dying Fetus expert. I'm the old dude with writing skills :D I have no idea who added that. Pharmboy 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Herb Tyler

I replied on the AFD on Herb Tyler the issue is that the league is semi-proffesional, which indicates WP:BIO failure right there, nothing like an AAA minor league baseball team, which is fully-proffesional. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Time

It's time to merge the Dying Fetus musicians with the main article. We've already done that in a way, you and I. There's no progress on making those tiny articles larger. I edited John, Mike and Sean's pages with the template that says "merge." I'm just waiting to do so. Dark Executioner 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

The best way would be to just PROD them, and as long as no one protested, they would be auto deleted by the system in 5 days. I think it is just a { { subst: prod | reason } } type template. I fudged up my ankle the other day, they thought it was broken again but it is just a really bad sprain, so they have me on mind altering drugs, so I haven't been doing much the last week.... Pharmboy 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qite sure how to PROD, so I just went ahead and merged the pages/deleted the links. "Mind altering drugs," huh? I was wondering where ya been! Well, get well soon, man. If you want to PROD the articles for me, they're still there, but they've just been changed to a redirect (kind of like what I did with Burn the Priest). Dark Executioner 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Also, I'm interested in joining Wikipedia's Wikiproject: Metal. Do you know how to go about with this? Dark Executioner 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Hmmm, good question. I haven't joined any groups at wikipedia, so I am not sure. I would try to find someone that is already in the group to start. And the mind altering drugs are not nearly as fun as they sound, considering the foot is swollen up like a toad. Would rather be out fishing or working or something else. I think the redirects you did are fine for now. If someone with the same name as the members needs an article (different person) then they can create a disambiguious page at that time. Pharmboy 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steal This Film (2nd nomination)

Greetings, Steal This Film has been nominated for deletion. I have flagged the article for for rescue Please read the nomination, improve the article and comment on the Afd if you have time. Fosnez 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


an accurate photo taken by myself hardly seems like spam

Please do not post blogs as sources or external links as it is clear violation of wp:rs and wp:links. Pharmboy 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't have the wiki experience that you do and I feel like you're less than welcoming of me for that reason. You implied on my page that I made attempts to log on "anonymously" to accomplish things that I wouldn't do under my user name. I feel insulted by that accusation.

I could understand however how a commentary on James Watson might be inappropriate (though I'm not yet CERTAIN of that being the case) but I can not agree with you that a photograph of Rulon Jeff's tomb is somehow spam. Yes, I took the picture when I was in Colorado City but I don't agree that it's spam and I feel as though you're "We Are Watching You" messages are unkind notes of intimidation toward others who simply don't yet have the wikipedia experience that you have. They seem hardly welcoming and, at least with regards to the Jeffs article, terribly inappropriate. A photo is a photo regardless of who added it. And again, you're many "tools" for watching people you intimidate make you seem quite elitist and contrary to the democratic spirit of wikipedia. - mnuez

  • to reply, first know the edit in question is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rulon_Jeffs&diff=prev&oldid=166207092 and is not a photo. I don't mean to seem 'less than welcoming', but you seem to have a habit of adding the blog after being asked to NOT include blog links, and haven't started a conversation about it until now. I am not the only one who has made a comment to this effect.

A commentary IS inappropriate on wikipedia. It is fine that you don't understand that, and if you ask, people can show you why and where the policies are that say so. That is what wp:rs and wp:links are all about: what are Reliable Sources and what is appropriate for linking and what isn't. And yes, we are watching, but it is the articles, and then other articles if someone seems to be spamming them. Keep in mind, spamming (in reference to wikipedia) isn't about making money, it is about adding inappropriate links for any reason, to multiple articles.

I watch over 100 articles. This means I check them all almost daily. I am not an admin, I am not paid. I am just some schmuck who believes in what wikipedia is doing, so I donate my time. Some of these articles, I am considered an expert. On others, I am just knowlegable. Others, I know little of, I just watch because they are candidates for spam. If you look, you will see I have several edits on the articles in question.

When I see someone making a change, then being asked to NOT make that change, and given links to the policy that says why, and then they make the SAME EDIT under a different account or IP address, this is called a sockpuppet and is against the policy at wp:sockpuppet. Adding the link was against the other policies. It isn't personal, but what you did IS against the rules and you were given links to why.

I write lots of articles, make edits, correct spelling (even my own) and deal with lots of issues on a regular basis. If I seem less than welcoming, it may be that when someone breaks policies and after the 1st or 2nd time say "sorry, what is it that I am doing wrong, and where is the policy?" and they instead just insist on publishing links to their blog, well, damn, then they don't seem to want to be welcomed, and it seems that they just want to link their blog.

There are methods here to easily get someone blocked, or get their domain/blog blocked (and this DOES hurt your Google ranking) but I didn't do that. I just asked you to stop spamming. Time I have to spend removing spam from you and hundreds of others is time I COULD HAVE spent adding new material, correcting articles, or adding photography. You can check my contributions or anyone elses if you want to see how they spend their time.

So, to end this long reply, it isn't personal. I didn't think you had some evil plan to spam Wikipedia, but you STILL were doing something against policy, several times. It takes a little time to learn what is acceptible and what is not here. Personal opinions and editorials are NOT allowed as this is an encyclopedia, not a news or other site.

So go read the rules a bit, start with editing mistakes and less controversial edits and you will learn the rules and can be a contributing part of Wikipedia. This is my goal, if it is yours, then humbly and politely ask around. Most experienced users are happy to help when they have time. Pharmboy 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

on "tanorexia"

I opened the discussion on the discussion page for tanorexia for the notion the word is slang on the same day I made changes. Instead of starting an edit war, please use the discussion pages for the very purpose for which they were created: to read the postings and offer your own opinions and/or make your case before simply changing important aspects of the article.

I would be very interested to hear what you have to say. --JohnDoe0007 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that I love the word, but there is no other word that can OBJECTIVELY be used instead, and a new, made up word would be clearly violating Wikipedia policy as Original Research. As I understand Wikipedia policy, it is a proper article that describes a term that may not be "official", but doesn't meet the criteria to be called slang either. The article also does more than a dictionary definition, and clearly states that the term is unofficial, not understood well, but is used by many outlets (including doctors) and is in at least the American vocabulary, which is enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. Pharmboy 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to the discussion page for tanorexia for continuance of the discussion... --JohnDoe0007 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Your criticism of my links

Hi Pharmboy. I am a bit bemused by your behaviour regarding my additions to the sunburn page on Wikipedia. I added carefully worded text and links to two scientific abstracts to justify the points I made. Then you sent me a stern warning that I was effectively a spammer. But 'not to take it personally'. Hmm. I did nothing wrong, apart from not put the full titles in the link text, which I will correct. I am afraid I feel that you are being overprotective of Wikipedia and unwelcoming to helpful newcomers. Danpalmer65 (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually I just went back and checked and saw the spammer link was added in error, the spam link that was removed wasn't yours but was removed after you added yours. Again, it is never personal, it is just a template that was added by mistake. This is why I use the templates (in error, this time) so people don't take it personal, although you seem to have. It is a matter of maintenance, not an attack on you or anyone else. It helps to have skin a bit thicker around here. Mistakes happen sometimes, and other times, people just have differences of opinion. Pharmboy (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, well it's good to know I didn't do anything wrong, and perhaps I am a bit oversensitive. But having taken great care to do things correctly, I was a bit dismayed to get told off at my first go. You are more experienced on Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be respectful with newbies. There was an assumption that I was a problem that I still find disconcerting. And in the end, I wasn't at fault. You made the mistake, you blamed me for it, you haven't apologised. Anyway, I will end the issue here, if that's OK Danpalmer65 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Look, I watch about 500 pages. For free. Mistakes happen and I said it was my mistake. I am not sure what you are looking for. I didn't "blame" you, I inserted a template that informs newbies that they made a mistake. It isn't my template or policy, it is wikipedia's. Laboring it further and continuing to be oversensitive isn't going to help. If my adding a template by mistake and then saying it was a mistake hurt your feelings that badly, you are going to have a bad time on Wikipedia, as most people won't be so kind, in the right or wrong. You are reading entirely too much "personal" in this. I don't know you, it can't be personal. Continuing to think was personal is a waste of your time, please don't make it a waste of mine. Please look around and read some of the basic policies here, and see how others handle issues. A reply is not necessary. Pharmboy (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi again, Pharmboy. Thanks for the new template and more for the gesture behind it. I appreciate your friendliness, and would like to say sorry for getting angry about the links template. It was partly just confusion as I wasn't sure what I'd done wrong. Regards, Danpalmer65 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hoy botnb.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hoy botnb.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pharmboy, sorry about the HoY link to MySpace. I didn't realize the rules or problems with it. Just happened across it and it appeared to be their own place on the site.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Biodiesel

I noticed your strong stance for biodiesel. As far as the lubricity question is concerned I still cannot download any PDF files, perhaps it is my computer's fault. I shall persevere. In the meantime I have to take your assertions for granted.

On another vain you have reversed my edit on toxicity without explanation. It is not correct to do this, and in any case it is not correct or ethiccal to mention that biodiesel is non-toxic, because it is compared with diesel fuel of petroleum origin, which is not more toxic than biodiesel yet we do not talk about this! To mention it as it is in the article is a pure SALES BLURB. What I have written is correct and it tells the reader EXACTLY the toxicity aspect, which refers to toxicity of exhaust emissions not to the fuel, and to the possible evaporative emissions that may come from it. Not to mention this detail is also fudging the issue.

I do not wish to have an editors war by re-reverting the reversion, and that is the reason why I write to you direct, to settle the argument.

LouisBB (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I really didn't forsee any edit war. Any change to the article regarding lubricity should have full citations. Citations are provided to demonstrate that biodiesel has better lubricity than petrodiesel. If you have any citations that meet the wp:rs policy, then you should add a section that explains that there is dispute about the lubricity and use the citations as evidence. This is normal for any Wikipedia article. The fact that you can't read a particular PDF file doesn't change its use as a citation, however, as PDF is considered a common and useable format in citations. There are dozens of potential citations that could be used to demonstrate that the lubricity is higher, and that this is one reason it is being considered for blending since the 2007 laws changed the amount of sulpher allowed in petrodiesel. The key is to research it very well before making any claims that are counter to other well cited facts. Pharmboy (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I am sorry for the misunderstanding Denis, I am not arguing about lubricity, see my latest comment there. My argument is about yout edit on the 2nd December when you reinstated the words non-toxic, and you'll see my argument above. I don't like this statement as it is, bacause it is meaningless. If you say that it is just as safe to handle as conventional fuel that is all right by me.
    • However, I did discover a mistake which I made in my edit on the 2nd December, which I intend to correct by wiping it. It was whilst trying to specify what was meant by non-toxic in saying that it does not cause noxious exhaust emissions, which is false, because of the increased NOx. It is not proven that the increased NOx does less harm to human health than the long term effect of the carcinogens in the diesel smoke. It is early days to say that.

Regards, Louis —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBB (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks SineBot. Here it is belatedly: LouisBB (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
When I readded the toxicity information, it was about oral consumption. You can drink biodiesel made from pure vegetable sources or recycled cooking oil. It is less toxic than table salt (ie: 8oz or less you are fine), and this is cited elsewhere in the article, several times I think. Pharmboy (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that it is wrong to say categorically, without detailing what one means when one says that biodiesel is non-toxic. Even apart from the fact that you are generalising on several items: mode, temperature, duration of exposure, plus even more pertinent: on source of oil (what plant it is coming from, and which part of it) and whether it is a methyl ester or ethyl ester. In my view it is irresponsible to say categorically that biodiesel is non-toxic. If you insist then you can sign on the bottom line, if anyone comes to harm from biodiesel of any source and in any application you'll take the responsibility, but I don't think that you would be foolish enough to do that.

As an example: The toxicity of erucic acid (see WP under that title) a component of some canola oils and several others is a contentious issue. Canola (rapeseed) oil is classed as high, medium and low eruc canola oil and only the low erucic acid canola oil is accepted universally for human consumption.

If you study a textbook on vegetable oils and fats you will find that the composition of an oil can depend on which part of the plant it is coming from.

Another example of the danger of generalisation: Is rhubarb toxic ? Its roots are not, but the leaves are deadly. So if you insist on leaving the statement in, then please say what you mean exactly (which biodiesel, when and how) LouisBB (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)LouisBB (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello Dennis again,
  • I noticed what you saiid on the talkpage of the Biodiesel article. I have added a further comment, please let me know where exactly the confusion comes from. As far as the previous chat is concerned: for the reasons stated above I intend to rewrite the reference to the toxicity issue. Please do not whipe any of my explanation unless you justify it on the talkpage.

Regards, LouisBB (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what reversion you are talking about, my comment about the clarity was just that, a comment and I left editing to others. Perhaps you need to look at the history page. As for talk page, I always give a full summary and use talk if it is needed on every edit. I don't need to "justify" every edit on the talk page anyway, no one 'owns' the article. If the language is confusing or inaccurate, I will correct it, as have others. I've tried to be accommodating to your opinions, but you seem to be claiming ownership of the article, and your english isn't as concise as you may think. You argue against facts that are well cited and have taken an attitude that isn't conducive to the goal. You might consider taking a less condescending attitude toward others, and you will less likely to have to eat crow. Pharmboy (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry if I have offended you, that was not intended, and I apologize if you think my attitude is condescending. I try to make a point to be polite. I am only pleased if you correct my English. Of course, nobody is perfect, and you don't have to justify all your edits. The reason that I write to you directly is exactly that I don't want to offend you publically. The revision I am talking about is still, when at 13.17 2nd Dec you altered my edit of 8.40 reinstating the non-toxic statement, and I have explained above why. I have also mentionned on the talk page how the lubricity question has arisen. As it happens, some years ago I have been involved with this issue (though it was not primarily biodiesel )and I did not understand what exacly was confusing. (See your edit on the 8th Dec there) LouisBB (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Above you you stated: Please do not whipe any of my explanation unless you justify it on the talkpage. I didn't make any edits to the article on Dec. 8, I only made a singular COMMENT on the talk page that the recent addition was confusing. Thats it. I left it up to you or others to clarify it, so there wasn't anything to justify, I only stated where there was a problem. As for offending me publicly, I don't exactly understand. If the conversation is about the article, then it belongs on the article's talk page, so we can reach concensus, and I WANT other's opinions. I don't know enough to be and "expert" in this field, I have just done a couple years of research into it. My talk page is no less public than the article's talk page anyway.
  • As for the Dec 2 edit, this was before the other conversations. If you look at [[1]] the edit was made with qualifying statements, including your NAME in the summary, to show as a compromise. There are hundreds of citations that show that biodiesel is classified as "non-toxic" by the US Government. If you have something to cite that shows otherwise, then do so, otherwise, there is already a concensus that this is the proper statement, and you can't seem to understand this. If you are going against concensus that is heavily cited, back it with facts and ADD it instead of replacing the sentence, ie "while biodiesel is classified as non-toxic (cite) there are reasons to believe it is not because....(cite)". If you are going against concensus and refuse to clearly qualify your statements, you are claiming OWNERSHIP of an article, which is completely against policy. This is a group effort and you might try working to build concensus instead of butting heads. Personally I am tired of beating this dead horse and don't see a reason to continue the coversation. Pharmboy (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have apologized if I appeared to be condescending. At the same time it is obvious that you are aggressive with all who dare leave a message to you complaining about your reversions. My remark of please don't wipe... was a polite request, not an accusation ! Secondly: if there are so many references about toxicity, then please put one or two citations into the article. The second template block at the top of the article demands citations. This is my last remark, thank you. LouisBB (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Mixed logit

Just a friendly headsup on Mixed logit. I removed the nonsense tag, as nothing in the article meets the definition of patent nonsense. Also, it's not a hoax. Probably could use some context and refs, but that's about it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • np, was much shorter when tagged and no longer applied (my bad). Definately needs to be explained in "layman's terms", too technical at this point. Pharmboy (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I saw all the other edits made by the IP and assumed that you were the same person sorry:) That is very weird how so many edits are made in the same second even. I think it is probally a spamer IP. Natasha (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I have no idea wtf the article is even about. I just know you don't capitalize every word in subtopics, ha. Still needs some major `splainin'. Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Sunburn: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I am pretty good about using the templates when it is obvious it is vandalism. In that particular case, it wasn't really vandalism, just bad judgement and inexperience, and I hate to wp:bite the newcomers. I also report vandalism, to get people blocked, etc. quite regularly, but I appreciate the followup. Pharmboy (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • after looking at their other edits, it appears they are somewhat vandalising, but it wasn't obvious from the single edit. I put a mild request on their talk page (not templated) Pharmboy (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I am wondering what assumption I made in the section about Chell in the Portal page?

It originally stated that GLaDOS was a liar, which if you have played the game you would have known is untrue, since the twist of the story is that GLaDOS was never a liar after all. GLaDOS was not really trying to murder Chell, and there really was cake with the companion cube.

This means that the facts stated about CHell's past are true. But the possibility of GLaDOS lying about those two specific facts is still there, given the situation in which GLaDOS said those facts, so you can't be entirely sure that GLaDOS was telling the truth about Chell's past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervin2 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't come to the same conclusions that you do at all, thus it is not obvious. Thus, I am forced to use the conclusions that are given with the 3rd party references, which is the whole idea of an encyclopedia. Anything else is original research and doesn't belong, and doesn't add to the article anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of enemies in Doom

You have to use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} instead. However, I know Teggles from the Final Fantasy WikiProject, and I'd urge you to give him at least 2-3 days to get things in order before putting it through AFD. He knows the rules, and if it has upport from sources, it isn't cruft. I say the deleted article was cruft. This one...not yet. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the afd tags, against my better judgement and substituting yours for now. Pharmboy (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, sorry about that. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cohen

I take your message on my talk page in good faith and thank you for your constructive words. As to the notability or otherwise of the members of the Cohen family, well, we'll leave that matter to the community to decide. I've enjoyed our sparring, and wish you well with your future edits. I've checked your contributions, and you are a man with Wiki close to your heart. Have a good day. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

IOU $10

You said: this

Guess what? Special:Contributions/Serio2. Plus a recreate of Talk:Serio which I speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G8. User:Serio2 looks a lot like a contravention of Wikipedia:UP#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page?. I wonder if he's doing it for a bet... Tonywalton Talk 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec)Can't see the point, really. He's made no edits in mainspace (except for the Serio talkpage, which I deleted), so I can't see his actions so far being disruptive. MfD for the self-promotional userpage might be an idea, though, as it seems to be in contravention of the WP:UP#NOT guidelines. Tonywalton Talk 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooper High School

Your asking for help and then you revert. The Winningest baseball coach in Texas makes him notable. As for the fieldhouse all, the addition of the 2nd floor in the corner office is correct, it was done, call and verify. Sunset stages was used by the AISD for charters, Why cant you list the past head coaches. The AISD added 9th grade to the high schools in the late 80's, fieldhouse was expanded, veriable contact cooper. Those additons were more relevant then talking about taped groins, ankles, and locker dimensions. What gives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.47.35 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • if he is the "winningest" coach, then sure, add a citation demonstrating this and add him. Lists of all previous coaches, however, are against policy and have always been. They must be notable for something other than just being a coach there to be included or the article would be a mile long. This is not new.

I noticed a lot of activity coming out of Richardson, regarding West Texas articles, ie: 69.151.118.82, 69.154.118.246, 69.152.208.221 and your IP. You guys have a bet going or something? Pharmboy (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

dont know anything about that stuff I just know a I graduated in 85 and was just trying to help. If you dont want its ok with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.47.35 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You might lurk around a bit and read the actual policies here. There are lots of things to do, but we all gotta play by the same rules or the place will be a mess. That is the only way to make sure Wikipedia has a consistant look and provides unbiased, properly sourced info. Pharmboy (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Richardson, Tx vandal(s)

Pharmboy, after you called us spaz, we had a intervention and realized that you are right and we are wrong. We want to apologize and become solid wikipedians. No more inaccuracies, no more non-sense. No more factual info to the cooper high page, you can have the taping, and groin conversation. We want to be productive members of wikipedia, true wikipedians, we are going to start collecting star wars men, and cutting our hair like spock. We want to spend our days like true Wikipedians living for vandal hunting, Doom, dungeons and dragons, and eating that the Golden Corral with friends discussing pascal, and whether superman could beat aquaman.

Thank you for making us better men and solid wikipedians, you may now go back to the tanning salon selling speedos anf goggles. group hug! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.118.82 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Biodiesel

Hi. I'm not really sure how to use this talk thing any more than I know how to edit a Wikipedia article page. Regarding the biodiesel contribution, I had just hopped in and saw such a glaring error on the hydrocarbon emissions, I had to create a username to change the article. I saw the citation was to the Union of Concerned Scientists, and knew somebody had to make some kind of mistake to mischaractorize UCC published information. I missed the "summary" field on my first go around, then when I saw it change back, I just thought I made a mistake, and tried again, this time noticing and filling out the "edit summary" box. I did do a very minor change once upon a time to another article, but not as a registered user. I hope I haven't messed up this talk page with this article as I don't know how to create a new section. Just delete this after you've read it I suppose. Thanks for the heads up on why my article changes were initially rejected too. Steve B., aka beltrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beltrams (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

evolvingenergies.net

Pharmboy, i apologize if i appeared to be spamming, i understand that can be an issue, i wasnt though. I actually was researching for a paper on bio-diesel, and found the sites listed to be rather difficult to navigate through, then i found the other site, www.evolvingenergies.net This site had all of the history, all of the info, and had a better nagivational field. I got more out of that site than any of the others. So that is why i kept it up, i actually had a friend call me and tell me he couldnt find the link, thought i messed it up, then afterwards i got your warning. Wasnt spamming, i assure you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.49.37 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • When someone reverts an edit you made, and you know they did it in good faith (meaning they gave a detailed reason why in the summary) you probably should go to the talk page for that article before adding anything back, and get the input from other users. Sometimes, you will be right and others will agree. Sometimes, not. The goal is to create consensus on stuff like that. The problem is that thousands of people every day add links to their websites, thinking it will get them traffic or better page rankings (it wont: wikipedia uses NO FOLLOW tags). There has to be a limit somewhere as to how many links are on an article. Pharmboy (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

put SERIO page back please

To Whom It May Concern:

                                      It has been brought to our attention at Serio Controla Records from one of our web developers here that you wish to delete our artist page of Serio. We at our company do not intend to mislead or vandalize your website which has been said that we have done nor is this a promotion. This page like many other rappers pages on your site was made in the guidelines of your policy. If you feel that the article was not please let us know what changes you want and we will make them. However to say that it is incorrect is false you have a rappers page on there Kid Frost or Frost(rapper) our artist recently did a song with Frost that will be released latter this year. Serio is very known yet very new we understand this here are just of few of the places you can find info about him on the web as a chance to help your investigation to prove who he is: If you have any questions you can respond to the e-mail or feel free to give me a call at 509-475-2561 you are free to call 24/7 if no one answers please leave a message and your call will be returned ASAP thank you and take a look at some of these links.

Check out just a few places where he is at on the web there are more too…Such as Napster Itunes ect..


xhttp://www.myspace.com/serio323

xhttp://www.myspace.com/serio12

xhttp://www.myspace.com/serio5

xhttp://cdbaby.com/cd/seriomusic

xhttp://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SERIOofficialsite

xhttp://www.groupietunes.com/artists/serio

xhttp://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/1499330

xhttp://www.greatindie.com/ipnmusic/store/list.php?item_number=837101154482

xhttp://musicishere.com/artists/SERIO/Nightmares_Turned_Into_Reality

xhttp://www.bitmunk.com/view/media/6549334

xhttp://payplay.fm/seriomusic

xhttp://chondo.net/cnd/viewAlbums.do?albumId=20170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.23.74 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Digimon

Regarding your comment about List of Mega Digimon (Part 1)#BlackWarGreymon, those soft redirects are only temporary while many of the articles are moved to an external wiki. Most of the work is done, but I'm having some problems importing the article history for the large lists, due to file size limitations on Special:Import, so they still exist on Wikipedia to provide that history. This also helps direct recent editors and readers to where the information was moved to. It will eventually be deleted. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks. It just looked odd. I did a whois on wikia.com and since it was different that wikipedia, it just looked odd. Pharmboy (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to you comments on the debate for "ATHOMENET"... if my account were a single purpose account, I would not have, nor would continue to make edits on other pages. (See Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero, and whatever else I do today)

The only requirement in COI that is met is that I have an affiliation, but cleary in COI it does not suggest that simply because of that affiliation that I cannot make an entry. With respect to neutral point of view, the article is clearly unbiased.

AtHomeNet

Much like the editor "Athenara" stated, is it not better to let an entry stand on the right hand side of "barely notable" as Athenara put it? If editors continuously make the decision to choose what they personally feel is notable, that takes the power out of the hands of the encyclopedia readers and contributors and defeats the spirit of wikipedia's purpose as an online resource does it not? and as for Spam or advertising, information is just that. There is no advertising here...the article states the purpose of the firm, what they do, and how it has impacted a growing niche market that will only continue to become larger and more well known. -Edenrage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

If you have a name, I'll be happy to cite your malicious edits on lynx's homepage. Tedickey (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you found yourself here, you should know I post my real name and info freely on my user page. It isn't even hard to get my real address and phone if you know your way around a shell. I have nothing to hide, and my history here shows that. My edits are not malicious, they are simple, factual and fully meet policy here. If you disagree, then please do cite the policy that I am misunderstanding and I will be happy to remove any edit I make. If you just want to play childish games, don't bother. Pharmboy (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not that hard to find me either, and if you had any real knowledge of the history of "open source", you would understand why I'm irritated with your edits Tedickey (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for you, so finding you isn't an issue. You came to ME with the snide remarks, remember, not the other way around. As for the history of open source, I am not sure what you are getting at. I'm an old fart that has been using open source for many years on every conceivable platform, including FreeBSD, Linux, Windows (3.0 on), OS/2, Mac OS (since the Mac Plus days), and even preSolaris SunOS, and like to think that I am pretty familiar with the history. I am not much of a programmer, so I haven't contributed much, but I know the difference in PD, Shareware, FOSS, Shared Source (ha) and even between GPL 2 and 3, so I am not sure what your point is. I like open source software better than closed source (so I can tweak stuff), but I have no religion when it comes to software: I'm not a fanboy of any flavour. If you have a genuine bitch, quit waffling and get to the point. I'm trying to be patient here, and I'm actually listening, but you aren't exactly saying anything that warrants changing my mind. The first place to start would be to NOT assume I am something I am not, particuarly when you know nothing about me. Pharmboy (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

followup So tell me Thomas, educate me, what is it you find offensive about the tag? I'm all ears, truly. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm - take it easy (I've had too many arguments with open source zealots over the years) Tedickey (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe you. I'm just not one of them. Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It does sound that way ;-) Tedickey (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What did you mean by..

What did you mean by "Your other articles indicate you won't" on the Black & Decker Pivot Vacuum page? I work hard to gain the information I do, and most of the time, I add valuable information to Wikipedia.

The product is notable, as it is made by a notable company. (I love entei (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Swivel Sweeper is the best example I can give. Or Sweepmaster. You haven't created many articles, but the ones you have have mainly been very short and you never developed them fully and their notability is questionable without better citations. It isn't personal (I don't know you, so it can't be) but I was basing that opinion on your previous contributions, and that alone. Pharmboy (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misc. =

Kind SIR! YOUR DEROGATORY RANCOR HAS not gone unoticed by our organization. Please cease and decist from calling our group SPAZ. We are here to put down the negativity and quashing of personal freedoms. Your attempts to silence and impose your will on peace loving editors is blasphempous. Beware of 69.152.206.216 we believe them to be a rogue element within our group.

Hardin Simmons is Baptist. 3 days thats along time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.141.255 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I don't think Avoca, NE has a talk page yet. I am pretty sure this is the main site for the town which is why I posted it. Its a small town so there is not a lot of resources put into a fancy website - http://www.avocanebraska.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trob4cy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You still can't use a blog for a source site, particularly a new blog. wp:RS and WP:LINKS are pretty clear about this. Pharmboy (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hoy botnb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoy botnb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Punta Gorda Middle School

If middle schools aren't so notable, why is Matoaca Middle School classified as "B-Class" on the assessment scale by WikiProject Schools? Am I missing something? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good example: if you notice, there is a MERGE tag on that article, meaning others think it needs to disappear. First off, quit taking the deletion request personal. I wouldn't have cared if it was Bugtussle Jr. High, it would have been tagged *if* there was "no assertion of notability". Articles get tagged every minute or two. Before you jump on me about policies, please take the time to actually read them. High Schools are automatically considered "notable". jr. high/middle school and lower are not (not my decision, that is simply the policy HERE at wikipedia). In order to have an article, they need to "assert notability". This would include: the middle school where a president went to, some bad police thing happened there, some really great thing happened that got national attention, etc. That makes it "notable". Not notable isn't a statement as to the quality of the school. It is a policy. You can read it here. It is flat out the policy that not every school will be listed on Wikipedia, and it has been the couple of years I have been editing here. Pharmboy (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure of an AFD

I've closed one of your AFDs as a redirect, see there for the reasons. Thank you. Regards, Rt. 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Merge}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.WYSIWYW). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:48 27 December 2007 (GMT).

ah, ok, thanks! Pharmboy (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP TAKING SERIOs NAME OUT OF THE LIST OF CHICANO RAPPERS

STOP TAKING SERIOs NAME OUT OF THE LIST OF CHICANO RAPPERS you obviously dont know much about chicano rap

you are not fit to edit on stuff about chicano rap

so leave it alone until I see some real correct articales

    • The 'rapper' Serio won't be added to the articles, as he has already been blocked for spamming, his articles deleted via AFD. He isn't notable. Bye now. Pharmboy (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder...

...of WP:BEANS. I'm probably having a bit more fun with that AFD than I should be... although it would be somewhat amusing to watch the beans get stuck.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I got stuck in a edit conflict, but was going to politely ask you to tone it down just a little bit. I know it can get frustrated, but I have learned the hard way that being happy is more important than being right. You can accidently create a vandal if you redicule some people, and blocking them is not as effective as you might think. Besides, the article was going to get deleted, there really was no issue or question.
Or put simpler: May my words always be tender and sweat, just in case I have to eat them. Pharmboy (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I noticed your comment about not knowing how to place an AFD notice on a page (saying you would do it yourself). The full AFD instructions are here: Wikipedia:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. TJ Spyke 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I do afd's all the time. What I was not sure of was how to FIX one that someone else flubbed up, but thanks! Pharmboy (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


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