User talk:Pharmboy/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

January 1, 2008 Archives

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oral health and dental topics

The guideline WP:CLS covers the list vs. category thing.

The Transhumanist 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

J! Archive as a citable source for Jeopardy! data

Hi there. I won't re-add the J! Archive link that you've removed as a cited source for Jeopardy! prize amounts--I help admin the site and I don't want to create a perception of a conflict of interest--but I am curious as to why you feel the site doesn't qualify under WP:RS guidlines. It's the largest and most accurate compilation of Jeopardy! data available. It is carefully tended to by dozens of dedicated archivists. In the context of this type of information (specialized info about a game show), I think it is defensible as the most reliable source of its kind. There are a few cases in which it is more reliable than official press releases and web sites, which have on occasion announced incorrect prize amounts and score totals. I'm certainly not interested in spamming Wikipedia and I try not to link to the Archive wherever I can avoid it. However, I think you'll be in the minority amongst editors of the Jeopardy!-related pages if you were to insist the J! Archive does not qualify as a reliable source. It is the only published source that is peer reviewed, by people who pay careful attention to detail, day after day, and for much of what is there, no other like resource is extant in any medium. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If there were other citations for the article, such as newspaper links, etc. that fully met wp:rs then there would be less of an issue and it would likely slide under the radar as being an alternative but informative site (if you had google ads, then it would simply fail, imo). When the only link on the page (excepting the official site) is a site that is borderline (and managed by the person who created the article) it starts looking like spam. In my eyes anyway. Adding a cite or two that more clearly meets wp:rs and the problem goes away. Keep in mind, wp:rs talks about sources that are at arms length, and your site isn't. It is independent, but designed soley to cover the subject matter, thus borderline. CNN, Time, or any local newspaper that covers ALL or most news (not in the "Jeopardy" business) would be 100% compliant. I don't question your good faith, my concern was balance on meeting :rs Pharmboy (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- Some of your reasoning might be based on incorrect presumptions, and you may also hold a more general misunderstanding about the meaning of the RS guideline and the verifiability policy. Should presence of advertising have impact on the perceived quality of an Internet source? Virtually all journalism in the United States--print, periodical, television, and Internet--relies on revenue from commercial sponsorship. The number of citations on Wikipedia to advertising-supported journalism is large. (To date, the J! Archive has never been ad-supported, and we have no plans on making it so. Even if you believe the J! Archive falls under WP:SELFPUB, it is not "unduly self-serving". I'm not sure the Archive is any more "self-published" than journalism web sites; there are many people involved in its production and oversight.) Re CoI, an archivist didn't create the article, as you presume. As I mentioned, I try not to link to the Archive when I can avoid it, and I am never the first to include such a link in an article. I couldn't find any explanation of this "arm's length" language you use. The Archive is as accessible as a major news publication web site, and, unlike many "factoid" articles published in major print journalism, it is signed. ["Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it."]) Major news publications do not publish tables of Jeopardy! prizes and will never be useful for the type of information the Archive provides. When this information is deemed appropriate to include in Wikipedia, is a link to the Archive not better than no source cited at all? Even if the Archive were to be classified as a "self-published source" (and I'm not sure it is any more so than the web site of a news magazine), the policy page states "Self-published material 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." The Archive qualifies: Statistics on Ken Jennings's run compiled by one of the Archive founders, Andy Saunders, were published (in many major newspapers, on TV, etc.) and Andy was interviewed about Jeopardy! on National Public Radio.) Questions generally more helpful in establishing the Archive's credibility as a reliable source are "Is the information contentious or incorrect?" "Does the Archive promote an agenda or point of view?" "Does it involve claims about third parties or events not directly related to the subject?" "Is there reasonable doubt as to who wrote it?" "Is use of information from the Archive likely to lead to libel claims?" "Does it include weasel phrases or speculation?" I ask all this because if there is something that can be done to improve the Archive from what you call "borderline" status as a reliable source, I'd like to do so. Speaking on behalf of it, I think you've given it an unfair shake. Robert K S (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to labor the point, and willing to hear other opinions. I still think that if this is the only citation, there is a problem. It should have cites from somewhere else demonstrating the program exists as well. I tried to offer an olive branch by simply saying "maybe if there was another citation or two from a source that more obviously meets wp:rs, the objection would disappear" but you seem to have taken it wrong. We read wp:rs a bit differently. This doesn't mean either you or I are ignorant of it, it means we read it differently. If what you want is a line by line break down of the policy, I can do that, too. It would better serve Wikipedia better (and you) if you instead spent that time finding another cite or two for balance. It would probably take less time than it took for you to write that paragraph, and would undoubtably make the article better. Pharmboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but the issue here isn't the article, whether it is notable, what other sources it may have, or whose time is better spent doing what on the article. (I didn't author the article, and if it were to be put up for AfD, I would probably vote for its deletion on the basis of non-notability.) My concern is that you've posited that the J! Archive does not qualify as a reliable source, and I'm trying to understand why. What you seem to have come up with so far is something that strikes me as contradictory: The J! Archive is not reliable as a source of information about Jeopardy! because it is a site that deals with information about Jeopardy! (Are CNN.com or Time.com disqualified as reliable sources for news because those sites are "in the news business"?) If you think "a line-by-line break down of the policy" or guidlines will assist in my understanding, then yes, I would appreciate that. Just as it is the responsibility of an editor of CNN.com or Time.com to ensure his or her publication preserves reputability and accountability, I'm interested in taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Archive has consensus support as a reliable source on Wikipedia--or at least one that isn't removed offhandedly and as a matter of course on suspicions of spam. All the best, Robert K S (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply Because the website is dedicated to Jeopardy related material, it is not totally independent of the subject matter. WP:RS links to the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources, which states: An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective.. I am not questioning the website for accuracy or quality, I am saying it is not fully independent (disinterested), and THAT is what makes it a borderline wp:rs site. That is my reading of it. CNN would be disinterested. Dallas Morning News would be disinterested. A website that is dedicated to publishing news solely about the same topic (or very similar) is not disinterested.

In most circumstances, I would simply delete the link and be done with it. In this case, I think the site has something to offer in spite of not meeting wp:rs fully, *however* I think it is a mistake to only have this site as the sole citations. The other link is the jeopardy website itself. The article has zero second source references. If it did have second source reference(s), I would easily overlook a borderline link (yours) because it would be adding to the value of the article, even if it doesn't fully meet wp:rs. Otherwise, the article is a prime candidate for AFD, as you pointed out. I think the article is probably worth keeping, I wasn't trying to be hard to you, I was trying to prod you (and someone more of an expert on the topic than I am) to dig up a wp:rs citation, which I could then accept (and defend) the link being added, giving the article more depth. Otherwise, it would more than likely die in AFD anyway, making the link moot.

Short version: I think your link would be appropriate if the article was properly sourced, as a borderline but informative link. If the article isn't wp:rs sources, it will likely die in AFD soon anyway.

Shorter version: Find a link that fully meets wp:rs to add to yours and I would shut up. Pharmboy (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I only wish to point out the essay you linked is expressly neither policy nor guideline, and that I cannot see anything in WP:V or WP:RS that disqualifies the Archive as a reliable source or prohibits its use. (Can I take it from your apparently softened stance that you agree?) I agree fully that disinterested sources are preferable to interested ones, and should be used in favor of them wherever possible. I hope to pursuade you that interested sources are better than no sources at all, as the case is here. Again, the issue at hand, in my mind, is not the notability or verifiability status of the article Jeopardy! Kids Week--it is whether you believe that interested sources are forbidden. The J! Archive is a reliable source for much information that is not published elsewhere, and for some facts may be the only readily citable source. Robert K S (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing further--the portions of the J! Archive that do not simply archive show material do qualify as an independent source inasmuch as the J! Archive is independent of the show Jeopardy! and describes the show from a disinterested perspective. It is coverage of the show rather than the show itself; it is not the official web site nor an extension of it. The examples given in the Wikipedia:Independent sources essay confirm this: "independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release"--by analogy, an independent source would be coverage of the show (the J! Archive) rather than promotional material for the show (its web site and press releases). If you applied the essay to historical biographical articles the way you seem to be applying it to Jeopardy!, then written biography books of notable individuals would not be suitable sources for those biographical articles. The biography book authors may have been "interested" in their subjects in the sense that they were motivated to write the biography, but they were not "interested" for their subjects in the sense that writing the biography profited the subjects themselves. The latter is the sense of the word "interested" being used in the Independent sources essay. Robert K S (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The essay I quoted you from was linked directly BY wp:rs, meaning the admins consider it proper, even if not official. I don't know how to put this any simpler than I have and my stance hasn't changed. In the first sentence, of the first reply of this discussion, I said "If there were other citations for the article, such as newspaper links, etc. that fully met wp:rs then there would be less of an issue and it would likely slide under the radar as being an alternative but informative site", and I keep restating this, but you don't seem to get it. I tried to give you a simple, easy and fair way to have 100% exactly what you want but you have instead chosen to spent your time (and mine) trying to convince me that you are RIGHT. I am not new here, and we just read the policy differently, which is why I offered a compromise from the very beginning (see quoted sentence again, read slowly if needed). It seems any further discussion is pointless. I would suggest you simply do what you think is proper, and I will do the same, be it adding, deleting, or sending to AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not concerned about the article, its preservation, or its sourcing. I'm concerned that you've said the J! Archive is not a reliable source. As I pointed out above, even if the essay you linked to were as strong as a guideline or a policy, it in no way disqualifies the J! Archive being cited as an independent source. Robert K S (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Any website can be used as a reliable source, an unreliable source, or as a spam link, depending on how it is incorporated into an article and the content of the article. This fact has evaded you and it is frustrating that I must explain this in child-like detail simply because you are getting defensive about your website and trying to protect it. Particularly since I am not ATTACKING it. How a website is linked affects whether or not it is spam or not, not reliable or not. Again, you are hung up on proving yourself RIGHT about your personable website being "reliable" under all conditions, instead of objectively looking at the issue. The issue *IS* the article in question, whether you understand that or not. Let me spell it out for you:

In an article about social websites, a link to www.myspace.com would be proper. In an article about your new heavy metal band, a link to www.myspace.com to view your band's video isn't. Yes, this is oversimplistic but accurate.

I'm tired of explaining to you, and honestly, I don't expect you to understand this either. You are too busy putting on blinders and getting defensive about your own website, when in fact my comments about the actual site were flattering, although the LINKING OF IT is inappropriate in some circumstance, to wit: this article. If you really don't give a damn about the article's sourcing, preservation or content (as you clearly stated above) then please, don't edit it just to add your website. Think about it: not caring about an article and editing it just to add your own website is the defacto definition of spam. Go ahead and disagree, just please quit wasting my time doing it. Pharmboy (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax, take a breath. This issue has nothing to do with me, personally, or you, personally. I'm trying to determine if there is any basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for the prohibition of use of the J! Archive as a citation in articles, something your edit summaries gave me the impression was your contention. My intention in separating the issues of your edits to the Jeopardy! Kids Week from the larger question of whether, as your edit summaries asserted, the J! Archive did not qualify as a reliable source, was to determine if there was any basis for your reasoning for the removal of the citation ("link... fails wp:rs" and "cite does not meet WP:RS and can't be used as citation"). There's a larger issue here than just the Jeopardy! Kids Week article. If the Archive really "fails wp:rs", a number of other articles are affected. Perhaps you were shorthanding a much larger argument against WP:COI in the edit summaries; such was not clear. If you still believe the J! Archive fails RS--an issue altogether separate from whether posting of Archive links by those involved with the Archive constitutes conflict of interest--you have yet to clearly explain why. Robert K S (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Rochelle Warner

G'day Pharmboy - I saw the speedy at that article on the model. I wasn't too sure about it myself? I put the notability tag on it as I wasn't real happy with the references, but I see an admin flicked the speedy. You taking it to AfD? I thought about it but it's likely one that with a lot of effort enough references could be found and cited. Hopefully the notability tag will prompt the article creator or other editors to clean it up? I did a quick search but couldn't find any helpful refs. Oh, also wanted to say I took a quick look at that draft your doing on helping newbies avoid having their articles deleted. I think trama should read trauma? but it was looking ok with just a quick scan. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

oops. speling isn't my strength ;) Thx for the looksee. I was trying to give they guy a chance in the article talk. If it doesn't clean up today, I will likely AFD it tonight or tomorrow and drop you a line, since you have been involved as well. Pharmboy (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I found a cite that demonstrates (weakly) that the two names are the same person. It is a pdf in spanish... but I removed the tags, she is notable but still needs cites. Pharmboy (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week {{fact}} tag

As far as I am aware, there would be only two ways to cite the information to which you added the fact tag (prize amounts)--a single citation to the J! Archive list of prize amounts, or multiple citations to various King World press releases (not all of which may still be on the Internet, or will be there for much longer, following King World's integration into CBS, and not all of which are accurate besides. Of the two--secondary source that represents scholarship about the show or primary source that constitutes promotional material for the show--which better meets WP:INDY? Robert K S (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A citation demonstrating how much money was won doesn't necessarily need to be independent. A link to the main website clearly stating the prize amounts is perfectly valid in this context. The independent sources are to establish notability, ie: why it is important or notable, not to prove it exists. Other links may add depth to the article but don't establish notability. The cite tag was added hoping someone would dig up a cite that meets wp:rs and perhaps kills two birds with one stone: wp:notability and {fact} Pharmboy (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

B-3 Bomber Issue

I know that you tagged it for deletion, but looking at the 2018 Bomber page, the info that I posted seemed more fit for a 2037 Bomber page (which in the 2018 site, has a link to it even though it doesn't already exist). Thanks for any ideas that you might have.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if you redirect it to the 2037 page if you think it fits better. My concern is that the article didn't work as a stand alone and was already duplicated. be bold and just redirect it. then the AFD becomes pointless and it gets closed. Then you can work on the 2037 page and make it better. Pharmboy (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Help !!

!!! Need Help With Photos, I apologize for uploading them incorrectly, i am new to this and really ned some help please can someone show me how to upload photos that are from a different website !!! Thank You, Gediminas_Varzinskas

P.S. I have uploaded the same image but this time I have wrote where I got the image from, who the actual author of the image is, and the perissions I have. I apologize for not doing so before. If there is anything else I need to include in the description of the image Violeta-vilius-studiophoto.jpeg please tell me. Thank You :)

That is the problem: you can NOT upload them from ANY website. That is against the law in the United States (where the English Wikipedia is located). You have to actually "OWN" the images, or have signed permission from the owner of the images, or have it fall under "Fair Use" in U.S. law, which this can't. What you can NOT do is upload them and claim they are your own. You may mean well, but this is against the law here and Wikipedia is explicit about forbidding this.

To compare, I have uploaded the images you see here. I OWN those images, as I CREATED them in my own studio, using my own camera. This give me the right to upload them to Wikipedia. Likely, you simply will not be able to put an image up of Violeta unless you take it yourself or get written permission from HER. When you are uploading to Wikipedia, you are basically "giving" the image to others to use. You can not give something away if you don't own it. When you take images from other websites, you don't own them, you just have a copy of them. This means you have no legal right to give them away.

Please read WP:Copyright_problems to learn more about what is acceptable and how to properly determine if an image is legal to use or not. Pharmboy (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You very much for explaining to me :)... I understand now how the system works... and as I said I really do apologize for the trouble I have caused. Thank You again for explaining to me ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gediminas Varzinskas (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As a hint, whenever you make an edit to a page, any page, it is always good to put something in the summary that explains the edit. Only a few words are needed, but it will prevent misunderstandings. Also, when there is an issue, use the talk page. Most people, like myself, are reasonable once you show you want to discuss and learn. Pharmboy (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey !! Thanks again and also thanks for the hint about using the summary, i never realised that was even there :D hehe. Thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gediminas Varzinskas (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One more note: You should sign your posts by place four ~ marks after your write (to the left of the 1 key, use SHIFT). Like this ~~~~ After you save, it will then show your name, date, etc., this is so the SineBot (above) doesn't have to autosign for you, and is the proper way to put a signature on your posts. Pharmboy (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks... I have learn so much from you hehe... you would be a good teacher ;)P.S. I wanted to ask you, on my user page, if I want to post a picture of myself, shall I just post a picture like normal but actually say its owned by me because I took the picture, well i put the camera on a timer hehe... but my picture is on other websites like forums that I visit and my personal website etc... Will my picture not get deleted ?? If yes, what porrf do I need to show that it is my picture ?? --Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is a picture of you, there is not likely a problem. Just fill in the license info when uploading correctly. If someone tags it, you would say "it is a photo of me". If the picture is a STUDIO picture of someone famous, then there is always some question about who might own it, but not of you. You are not famous ;) Pharmboy (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

oh Ok ;) Thanks :)... And how do you know im not famous lol :D ?? (only joking hehe) Sorry just one more question, hehe, can I put an info box on my User page, if yes, what do I need to type in after Infobox because on singers for example you write Musical Artist, but for me should I just put normal person :D lol or is there a special thing to put hehe lol ??

--Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. when I want an info box for an article, I go find one in an article I like, and steal that code, then just modify it. Recycling code I suppose, but that way I know I am using code that conforms to wikipedia standards. I don't do a lot of fancy stuff anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

oh ok... Ill try find a way hehe... Thanks for saying not to sign articles hehe because i signed the Violeta one lol :D --Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I need you to get back to me ASAP !!! lol... On my user page, I've put an infobox but the only way I could make it the same as any other so I put Musical Artist :D lol... Will I not get told off for saying it or what shall I do ??? Because I tried after infobox not to write anything I tried about 1000000 methods lol thats the only one that works so shall I just keep it or shall I delete it because I will get told off for saying Musical Artist ??? --Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can pretty much do what you want on your user page as long as you are not spamming or causing a problem with wikipedia. Just go in and edit the part that says Musical Artist. I am working on an info box as well for my page, go to [1] to see some different info box samples. Pharmboy (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey !!!... I've kept it at musical artist because if I change it to anything else or delete it the infobox no longer shows :(... I won't get told off by Wikipedia for keeping it at Musical Artist will I :? ?? --Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you will. Pharmboy (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ok :) Thank You ;) --Gediminas Varzinskas (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wylie Township

Hey buddy I created Wylie Township at your request let me know if its correct.still ;earning this gigAcuhill (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)acuhill

Help me out here man, I just rewrote it to avoid deletion for copywrite. Take a look I want to be correct.Acuhill (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)acuhill

I think with the help of someone I got it fixed check it out so that you can take it off your list.Acuhill (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)acuhill

I added a little context and content, and a couple of links that should help. Still needs cleaning, but I'm at work and a busy day ahead. Will work on it in the weeks to come. Pharmboy (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bristol, Connecticut Fire Department

The interviews were for research purposes. NOT the "newspaper". I really don't know what you want me to do??... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.87.109 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You cant you ANY interviews you did as text for the article. Read Original Research. You have to cite things IN a newspaper, but you can't play the role of newspaper reporter for an encyclopedia. No offense was taken but that is the rules for an encyclopedia. It is also covered in Reliable Sources and Verify. You should read those 3 and I think it will all make sense. My goal was to get the article properly sourced via the policies here, not to harm it. If I didn't tag it as such, someone else would have soon enough, and perhaps tagged for deletion. Normally, fire depts. are not included, and there still needs to be a claim of WP:Notability (another to read). I did add some content to help it pass muster temporarily, though. Pharmboy (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hot Dogs

Why did you delete my edit regarding Spike's Junkyard Dogs? I see that the reason for the deletion was "spam." How come my edit was perceived as such? Euge42180 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was about a single business that sells hot dogs and is not notable by itself (according to WP:Notability) and not in the proper context for the article. The article isn't a list of place that have great hot dogs. Pharmboy (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see... But I'm still confused. While the article as a whole isn't a list of places that have great hot dogs, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that my edit was appropriate in the subsection that discusses Hot Dogs in the United States. Furthermore, my edit was an addition to, what appears to be, a list of eating establishments that specialize in hot dogs. What exactly qualifies those other places as notable? Euge42180 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of those have articles on Wikipedia, meaning they have already gone through the vetting process to establish 'notability'. Anything else should be deleted, likely. Places like 7 eleven (largest seller of hot dogs in the usa) and Dairy Queen (huge notable corporation) are proper in the context. The others that are in a list really should be deleted as they are not adding to the article, and I may go look and delete those later. I just noticed the addition of yours as it was a 'change'. Pharmboy (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

(copied from User talk:Tijuana Brass)

Please don't revert an AFD to remove someone elses input. I'm pretty sure that is against the spirit and letter of more than a couple of policies. Pharmboy (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Look over what was removed - it was a personal attack, which has no place in an AfD or anywhere else. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, let an admin decide what to do. The whole afd has several discussions bordering on personal attacks. That is the nature of some AFDs, but it isn't an editor's job to revert SOMEONE ELSES WORDS. What you did was worse than the attack. Pharmboy (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the decision remains. You may appeal it at WP:AN/I if you'd like. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Decision? I was under the impression we are both editors. Did I miss something? Pharmboy (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see your admin graphic lower on the page, rather than in the traditional place. Telling me this before would have saved a lot of time and effort, you know. Then I will address to you: why would you remove one attack and not others? Pharmboy (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA refactoring

No problem at all. Sorry about the confusion. Cheers, Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way... on an unrelated note (or, given the RfA we've been talking about, maybe it's entirely related), I agree wholeheartedly with the points you're making in both of your essays. Those are things I wish more people would understand. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute! Two other admins, KnowledgeOfSelf and Kuru have helped significantly. I am hoping they would be appropriate for mainspace when near complete, if others think they are useful. The one, Pre Delete Trauma is pretty close, just added the PROD section. The other needs more direction. Thanks for the feedback on both issues. Pharmboy (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I do need that type of editorial assistance. I'm addind references slowly, and that was the fastest first-pass way. I'll try to do better as I learn more about Wikipedia tags. Do you raise corn Pharmboy? - Smiles and Best Wishes Escientist (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hehe, actually I'm just a city boy with an old school name, living in the middle of nowhere. You are welcome. I will try to help when I can. Pharmboy (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

Attacking the arbitrary decision to delete that clearly violated all consensus established in 15-20 polls and also the most recent one takes place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a frustrating decision to bring this to Deletion Review, as I find the topic rather distasteful. It doesn't change the fact that it appears an injustice was done, and in spite of the negative reaction I am sure I will get from many, bringing it to review was the right thing. I understand people's gut reaction and aversion to the topic, but I would hope that mature administrators can overcome this and do what is right. I had thought about attempting to become an admin here at one time, but the politics involved are almost too much for a 43 year old with a career. Thanks. Pharmboy (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Omer Cordell

It needs more verifiable references to substantiate it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, most admin don't bother even when the article could go either way. I know it is a borderline case. I added a few more, and with the weight of the quality of work on his side, I am guessing he barely passes. Never heard of him before I started working on the article, but wanted to find a way to help if possible. If you conclude otherwise I would understand, but it seems to pass the 50% mark by a hair and there are other citations to find to substantiate his work. Pharmboy (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man enemies

i have rewrote the article merging several seemingly pointless articles.. i have changed my vote on the Mister Negative afd and was hoping you would add these articles to it (see below) so that we can get them all redirected in one big hit. --- Paulley (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Batwing (comics), Coldheart, Don Fortunato, El Toro Negro, Fusion (Marvel Comics), Iguana (comics), Senator Ward, and Spidercide.

The AFD has really been going on too long to put these into it, wouldn't be fair to those that have voted. Why don't you just make a single nomination that has all of them in it? I would be for merging as well. Pharmboy (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, im the only one that has voted. --- Paulley (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

oh yea. well, then I think you could probably just fix the main article and be bold and change the old articles to redirects. I just hate to add to an afd if there is so little time left. It would appear that there is little resistance, which is ample justification to be bold. Pharmboy (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure i was thinking i might be bold.. its so much easier as long as not to many people oppose or notice --- Paulley (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this AFD ends in merge, it would be pretty easy to justify. Let me know if you need a second opinion in a discussion/disagreement on the issue. Pharmboy (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You best keep an eye on Mister Negative, people have been removing the afd. --- Paulley (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pharmboy, could you please put your opinion in this discussion (Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies#Merger proposal) as an upcoming villain id knew there would be opposition so i put in a proposed merge rather than being bold. --- Paulley (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel needs your help

Hello Pharmboy. Since you're a frequent editor on this page, please come examine this discussion, Talk:Biodiesel#Environmental_Benefits. You'll need to look through the main history for details on what was posted. --E8 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rubén Torres Llorca

Hello, Pharmboy ... you declined a {{Prod}} on Rubén Torres Llorca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ... I've added a link on the talk page for the WP:COI/N discussion regarding the 150 articles created in a single day by this one editor ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, however, COI and other issues aside, the guy seems to be notable. Regardless of how the article got here, it doesn't serve Wikipedia well unless there is a bonified reason to delete the article. A quick googling shows he is known and likely a good article can be made. As the discussion you pointed out stated, "It's not like the encyclopedia is over-stuffed with information on Cuban painters." so I would prefer to try to salvage the article rather than delete it for the wrong reasons. If there was a bonified copyvio issue, then yes, it would have to be deleted (hopefully recreated cleanly in userspace first, however) but that doesn't seem to be the issue, or at least claimed. We are on the same side of the issue, we just have different solutions to the same problem. Pharmboy (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in researching the other 116 articles on Cuban contemporary artists (click a few at random) created at the same time as Rubén Torres Llorca (currently at AfD) by ArleArt (talk · contribs) that have not yet been deleted? Here is the archived COI/N discussion ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Might take more than a day to do all of them. The editors that are nominating them for deletion could spent the same few minutes and add a couple of refs themselves, or at least find out if they are actually notable. Pharmboy (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Serio

Regarding the anonymus comments here, do you think we should warn an admin? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I took it to WP:AN/I. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured you would know what to do, and had some background on the issue. The claim and method was so pitiful, so inept, I actually laughed out loud. Next they will go after NBC for a lack of coverage on the 5pm news. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cuban artists" checklist

OK, none of these editors

have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?

Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.

In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sun tanning.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sun tanning Mediation

Hello Pharmboy, I have accepted the request for mediation for the article on Sun tanning; I invite you to make a statement about the dispute here. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a bit worrying. I've checked his contribs, and he hasn't been around since the 16th. He is apparently busy, I figure we should give him a little while longer to respond. Would you be alright with that? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pharmboy, as the other editor confronting Dandelion's edits and reverts I can appreciate your frustration at him as an editor. However, the mediation request is about the article and concentrating on Dandelion is only going to look petty. Let's get the article out of the way and then you can open an AN/I or some other action regarding the user himself. Padillah (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I am just frustrated over the pace and changing faces of the situation. It appears he has FINALLY suggested adding some context that is perfectly fine to me. It is amazing that it took a month and so much argument to get him to write a few paragraphs that justify the image. I don't like being treated like the enemy when I am in fact supporting his position but not his methods. Anyway, I think we are done there, I have said as much. In the end, he ended up doing what you suggested at the beginning of the process, which he could have done earlier if he wasn't so hell bent on pushing an agenda. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look. If you're all happy with it, then we should be all sorted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Pharmboy ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

Possibly unfree Image:AlphaSunTanningBooth.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:AlphaSunTanningBooth.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel production

Pharmboy - please come look over this page. Another editor has made massive changes. Please come offer an opinion when you can.--E8 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask again. The same guy has been at it in Biodiesel for the last few days (over 50 edits). He's cleaning things up, but in the process, making a lot of errors. He's also very adversarial towards me and I am unable to rationalize with him. Please assist if you can. (I think I've fixed most of the errors.)--E8 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a msg on his talk. He seems to have something to contribute, although he seems to be a bit more forceful than he needs to be. The msg referred to getting more done with a less confrontational attitude, and I am hoping he may have taken it in the right manner. I think he is just a bit overzealous, and I am hoping we can just talk him down a bit. He also edits using many minor edits, which makes it difficult to see the changes, but I am guessing that it is because he is new. Want to be careful to not bite the newcomers, but he does need to use TALK a bit more, and be more patient about making edits. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded for attempting to make peace in the Biodiesel neighborhood. E8 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the revisions I am proposing for Biodiesel production.--E8 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That was very kind of you. I would suggest you also ask him to participate in your version. I will look at it later, I am at work. In my job, this is the time of year I put in 60+ hours a week. Its the summer/fall that I get to goof off. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did ask him to examine the project along with a few other quality editors.--E8 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)