User talk:Wafulz/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →
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

I'm getting there...

Thanks for taking the time to make sure wikipedia doesn't fill up with random, incorrect, or insignificant entries. I'm working on making sure The Carnival Band isn't one! Real life keeps me busy, but I'm reading through things and trying to make sure I go by the guidelines and that I end up with an entry containing useful info. I've appreciated your suggestions.

I see you're busy, but if you happen to have to time to look over the article again and you see anything else you think needs changing, I wouldn't mind hearing about it.

Fondofcrows 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sonic: The Fated Hour and Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

Alright, I'll admit, Sonic: The Fated Hour is rather insignificant. I won't try to create the article again until more information is released, as it's clearly not notable in its current state. However, I am quite sure that Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX does meet notability guidelines, but somebody's trying to delete it anyway. Could you please help my case? --Luigifan 12:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Goatse article

Hello fellow editor,

I'm quite upset by repeated removal of images that I consider contribute quite strongly to the Goatse.cx article, and would like to encourage you to read up on Wikipedia policies governing the inclusion (and exclusion) of these images, particularly WP:OR#Original_images.

Thanks. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you just upset about the removal of the goatse image from Quake? Or do you feel strongly about the Time Magazine picture as well. --Wafulz 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel that ideally both images should be included and that WP:OR is being overapplied in this instance. However, it's possible that the Time cover has Fair Use issues because it's an unintentional goatse. At this point, I'm only strongly pushing for the inclusion of the remaining two images and not the Time cover. I don't feel that either of the two violates WP:OR and that removing them just because a source cannot be provided is overkill. If every single line of text and image on Wikipedia had to have a source, then we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. In this case, the context is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the map makers intentionally included this allusion to goatse in their map. Do you yourself doubt this? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted what I think on the talk page. --Wafulz 01:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. Thank you for your attention to this issue. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, anything to avoid a revert war :) --Wafulz 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MarioWeen

No, there is no news post that I know of where it mentions the actual numbers (infact, it appears TDC doesn't keep an open archive of their front-page news posts - however, a bit of digging reveals the post for the win). But you have to remember: The article was created roughly a few days after it won; back when people actually witnessed the poll. Jeeze, some of you guys can sure be tight-assed about this stuff. It's really starting to make me hate Wikipedia. I understand it's an encyclopedia and everything, but some of you guys REALLY need to lighten up. BlazeHedgehog 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you saying it won "by a landslide" without references is as valid as me saying "it did not win by a landslide" without references. It's not being tight-assed, it's being neutral through presenting all of the verifiable facts available. Adding in phrases like that is called using weasel words- essentially, they're unverified/unverifiable statements that imply a point-of-view through wording. Also, it's just a game of the week vote that likely involved fewer than 200 people- it's not a hugely important aspect of the article. --Wafulz 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't really towards you specifically. I'm just getting tired of Wikipedia as a whole. Some of the rules and guidelines here, and the way things get twisted... it's all very frusterating at times. Like the entire concept of "weasel words". I'll admit, some people like to add subtext to certain articles and that's not cool, but there are some people who take this stuff too far. Like, how does "by a landslide" imply a point of view? What, the view is that a lot of people voted for it, and thus it won a poll? That's not an opinion! Just because something can't be referenced doesn't mean it doesn't exist; thousands of things happen every day that go undocumented by the news, but people knew they happened. And now you're trying to tell me that something I witnessed with my own two eyes - something many people witnessed - could not have happend just because the website didn't physically publish the results of a poll everybody on that website had already seen? That's crazy! I mean, holy crap, a comment like "It win 62-8 by a landslide" is really going to erode the foundation of Wikipedia and send the whole system crashing down around it, eh? All because TDC didn't say, "Oh, by the way, despite everybody here paying attention to the poll, this guy won by a lot." BlazeHedgehog 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Blaze has a point. A very good one, at that. You DO know that the media is just controlled by its sponsors, right? Which means, it has no integrity. So, just because something is covered in the news, or isn't covered as such, shouldn't be considered to "determine" how factual it is, because it does not. --Luigifan 12:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? You just segwayed completely from "this is unreferenced" to "the media is evil." The 62-8 thing was an incorrect statistic- it was people who had voted it up and down, and not the GOTW vote. Regardless, I think you should read the verifiability policy, where it explicityly states the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth. While we're not looking for TDC to literally say "it won by a landslide," it would sure help to have some numbers. Anyway, it's better to just say how much it won by seeing that "landslide" is a very subjective term. Is a vote of 60-10 a landslide? How about 60-30? Is a vote of under 100 or under 200 people even capable of a landslide? My point here is to avoid subjective terms as often as possible- we're presenting facts in the most neutral way possible, and the best way to do that is to just state them without adding unnecessary fluff or subjective descriptions. --Wafulz 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

I reverted content added by be removed by clumsy rvv attempts like yours. Just look and think before you blindly rvv.

Sorry but I don't think "edward battye rules!!!!!!!!!!!!" belongs in an article. --Wafulz 20:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, then maybe someone made a clumsy rvv attempt like yours, which I reverted to save the content I added. Just look and think before you blindly rvv.
It's not blind- you're also replacing prose with a list and constantly removing the bit about pundits, despite it being sourced. --Wafulz 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The pundit bit (and maybe the capitals) is what I'm trying to fix, but some people have a nervous trigger finger. The list has always been a list, only the formatting was funny.

Hockey statistics

Hi. Can you point me to a Wikipedia guideline/policy and/or discussion that reached a consensus on not updating hockey players' statistics during the season? I noticed that you added a comment to the Evgeni Malkin article requesting that stats not be updated, but I can't find any information on the rationale for this. Thanks. Geoffrey Spear 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the disclaimer on several hockey players' pages. It's likely because all it does is clutter up the history page with relatively unnecessary edits and makes the page more news and less encyclopedia. Users are better off just going to an external link to an NHL/TSN/whatever profile for the latest statistics. --Wafulz 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

General Mayhem

Thanks -- I couldn't find the AFD because of the differently named new articles. I've now deleted those per speedy category g4. NawlinWiki 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Sure, no problem. It seemed to be someone who was upset at the deletion of General Mayhem, and was adding {{db-web}} to legitimate webpage articles. Hope all is well. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This hornet's nest

Sorry for the trouble this has caused. I wonder if any other course of action short of letting them have the article against our guidelines would have had any other result though. Thanks for the heads-up about their detective thread. Some of their guesses are off (this username is more popular than I thought when I picked it), but I'm certainly happy to be a tarpit for their invaluable time. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, they're a bunch of bored fifteen-year-olds. They'll either get bored or realize that being on an encyclopedia isn't the be-all and end-all of life. --Wafulz 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I figure. There's not much that they can do to me that I can't just shrug off. The thread makes for entertaining reading though! A couple are talking sense, but the rest are just frothing impotently. When this calms down I'm going to have to go through the history of my user and talk pages and thank everyone who pitched in to help fend off the horde. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi! AfD

Please reconsider your vote on this deletion. I've added some content that I think boosts the article's notability (number of views, number of comments) and offers verification (director's website). Chicago god 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The director's website isn't independent, so for now my opinion remains the same. --Wafulz 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Frozen Throne Advanced Melee AI

Hey, I see that you undid that IP's edit for the link. I reviewed the website and thought that it wasn't glaringly against the rules for inclusion, and it seemed like a pretty neat, well thought-out resource. I'm putting it back in, with a nicer edit.--Htmlism 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wigan

Hi, You sent me a message regarding an edit on the article of Wigan. I have tried to put the correct distances from the cities of Liverpool and Manchester but have been stopped from doing so. Why do you allow false statements? Also, it is a 'fact' that the 'Parishes of Wigan' are under the 'Diocese of Liverpool'. This is a piece of 'history' which cannot be altered, no matter how much the people of Wigan do not like the people of Liverpool. It is a fact that Wigan is closer to Liverpool than it is to Manchester, and that cannot be altered. I would not put any information on Wikipedia if I knew it not to be true. Also, the people you are allowing to be listed on the 'people of Wigan' list are not all from Wigan at all! A lot of the information on Wikipedia is total rubbish, and the reason why this is so, is that 'honest' contributions from 'honest' people who 'know' about the place they live in are wiped off in favour of some nonesense which is totally personal to it's poster. Please correct the info. to Manchester 23 miles, Liverpool 21 miles and replace the 'historical fact' that 'Wigan Parishes' are under the 'Diocese of Liverpool'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)

I left the distances as you had left them, so I don't know why you're bring that up. However, I had to revert one of your edits because statements such as the following are not encyclopedic and actually are unverified.
"People from Wigan do not like to be associated with Liverpool, but it is a fact that the town of Wigan is, actually, closer to Liverpool than it is to Manchester. The Wigan Parishes, the main one being All Saints Parish, are all in the Diocese of Liverpool. Whether they like it or not!" --Wafulz 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The first comment re. Ass. with L/pool is verifiable fact, simply ask them. The distances can be verified by Ordnance Survey or Google Maps. The Parishes can be verified by www.liverpool.anglican.org. The distances and the parish information IS encyclopedic and, clearly, ARE verifiable.
    • Provide a citation from a reliable source for the association thing and then I'll believe you. Asking them myself would constitute original research. Also, please rethink what you write in your edits- adding personal commentary to the end of a statement will more or less guarantee that it will be reverted. --Wafulz 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Belmont High School (Belmont, Massachusetts)

Hi. I see you've recently edited the article on BHS. I was the original author of some of the content, and I'm curious as to why you changed [of the things you did]. Firstly, the two paragraphs about the administration that you removed. Why do they violate WP:NPOV? I was particularly careful when writing those articles to not assert opinions, only "facts, including facts about opinions" (WP:NPOV) .

Secondly, you removed "notoriously polluted pond" as a description for Clay Pit Pond. Exactly why?

Thanks! Jonathan 07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Prodi

Please note my edit in the Prodi article are refrnced. Thanks. Chavatshimshon 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute the references- I'm trying to avoid a revert war before an effective consensus can be found. --Wafulz 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Telus page

Hi Wafulz. You've come in at the 14th hour on the Telus page. I don't believe my edits should be reverted, but the particular edit you reverted may have been excessive. The point is, I've been through this before. Wikityrants (e.g. TheProject) have continually reverted my posts, and I get sick of it. You asked me to reply if I don't believe you should have reverted my post, so I replied.

I don't expect you to understand, but if you are fair-minded and check my history, you will see that my posts could be made Wiki-compliant. Others simply delete them off-hand. You will also see that I don't care that much. I am doing it to ruffle feathers, but that's precisely that point of Wikipedia, is it not? To allow differing viewpoints on a subject? The notion that "not everyone appreciates Telus' ads" is MOST CERTAINLY relevant to the topic of their advertising being mentioned on their page. Again, I don't expect you to understand. But anyone who would post on Alexander Steen rather than Darcy Tucker is A-Okay in my books. You can't be all bad.  :)

All the best.

(I *****HATE***** Wikipedia. Seriously, abandon it while you can. ****Seriously****. As in: tomorrow. Leave and never look back. You will never regret it.)

While I agree differing viewpoints should be encouraged, they are not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia requires that all information be verified by reliable sources. Unfortunately, many of the sources you use are primary or not entirely reliable (blogs are very rarely used as sources in general). It's a bit of a learning curve, but unfortunately, some personal views on topics end up not being represented because they are not documented by verifiable, independent reliable sources. In the end, what it comes down to is sources, sources, sources. --Wafulz 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You are preaching to a person who understands not only your words but your entire rationale and knows better. First of all: the sources for almost everything on the Telus page could be considered "primary" or "not entirely reliable". Second, that "learning curve" you refer to is just another way of saying "we only endorse viewpoints that conform to our standards of expression". I wouldn't be able to find a published study, for example, that says that people question whether the Telus ads are in good taste, but if I went out and asked most people, they would admit "yeah, maybe that's a bit shallow". Either way, I should be able to add to the Telus page that "Not everyone is a fan of the ads" simply because the page mentions the ads. Referencing a blog is sufficient to substantiate a counter-point. If not, the entire Advertising section is "POV" because it is written in the context of people liking the ads. Blah. I'm wasting my time explaining this to you! Please stop appalling me with your soulless references to policy. I get it and I refute it. As I said, leave Wikipedia and never look back. This kind of debate is not healthy. If we did it long enough, I'd win, and neither of us would be better off. I wish you better than spending your time obeying this sick idea of "neutrality".
P.S. "While I agree differing viewpoints should be encouraged" ... whatever. You sound like an automaton. I am an expert on the subject, and you are a machine. You say one thing and perpetrate another. If you believe differing viewpoints should be encouraged, prove it. Tonight, you have soundly refuted your own words.
P.P.S. "Wikipedia requires that all information be verified by reliable sources". What a noble idea! But before I came to the Telus page, for example, there was no mention of Clearnet in the Advertising section. a) there were no reliable sources, and b) there was no real content. Again: you are a machine. Towing the party line. Spouting what you've been trained to believe. Do you really want me to continue?
P.P.P.S. I'll tell you what Wikipedia is for: wasting our time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.183.147 (talk • contribs)
P.P.P.P.S. "In the end, what it comes down to is sources, sources, sources." Fool! What are the sources for the sources? In the end, it comes down to having a brain. You are disowning your brain in favour of following policy like a drone.
The lack of negative opinions on the article does not mean we are portraying it in a positive light. I see three third-party references in the advertising section alone. If you believe it's that easy to find people who would say the ads are bad, then you should just as easily be able to find sources saying this. If you could find an article in a business magazine or the like saying that the ads suck, then feel free to bring it up. As it stands, you don't have any such sources. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your opinions. There's plenty of other websites and weblogs out there to spread your view at- this isn't one of them. --Wafulz 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"The lack of negative opinions on the article does not mean we are portraying it in a positive light." Not technically. But if you look at the actual article, yes, it is being portrayed in a positive light. The only reason it is not more overt is because I have been here watching it the past year or two. More to the point: I was the one who added those references in the Advertising section. There was no mention of Clearnet at all! Are you waking up yet?
"If you could find an article in a business magazine or the like saying that the ads suck, then feel free to bring it up." So I have to be a print journalist to have an opinion? Get real. It doesn't have to be in print for me to say "the ads have been criticized". On most pages, it wouldn't need a reference at all. Note: I'm only replying to you because I think you might have the potential to see past the sick double-standards at work here. Stop me any time, because I never feel good after telling someone off like this. I just can't believe you believe what you're saying, that's all.
"As it stands, you don't have any such sources. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your opinions." Spare me. You're not sorry, or else you would have looked the other way. And as for Wikipedia being a soapbox... you have yet to see that it's not about being neutral, it's about being subtle. Subtle opinions are allowed on Wikipedia. Overt opinions are not, because they tick people off.
Basically, all I have to tell is this: start your stopwatch. There will come a day (if there hasn't already) when you will have something important you want to add to a Wikipedia page, but you'll have to stop yourself because it's "pov". You'll know it's important. You'll know it should be said. But you won't have a way to say it because there's no "source". Other people may not want to hear it, so you won't ask them for help. It'll just go unsaid. When that day comes, reply to me and say "Sorry, dude. Now I get it. Now I see I was defeating myself the whole time." Deal? If that day never comes, then I guess I was wrong. In that case, you really are just a machine.
Sure thing. You keep time, and then when the day comes, I'll apologize and we can have a beer and watch the Leafs game. --Wafulz 05:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing.  :) Good night.

Operation Wrath of God

Hi, thanks for informing me about the policy for protections. I just found the WP:SEMI and WP:FULL and will read through them for clearer ideas.

Also, do you have any comment about the claim that Operation Wrath of God is a hoax and should be deleted, as suggested by Scott Adler in the talk page? Some of his statements sounds a bit like original research to me. Regards, Vic226 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It has over 50 independent notes and five reference books. Even if it was a hoax (which I sincerely doubt), it has enough sources to be a good verifiable article. A quick browse the user's edits shows that he has a history of of POV-pushing as well as inserting the word "alleged" into articles that he doesn't agree with. --Wafulz 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've saved it from speedy deletion

I worked up a short stub on Greg O'Halloran, thus, hopefully, saving it from the eye of the speedy deletionists. Hope this article looks okay. Bobo. 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions

Thanks for putting back the changes that I have made after the page has been reverted too far back --Cyktsui 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Any time. I'm a grammar nazi anyway. --Wafulz 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series" AFD - Thanks!

Hi, I just dropped by to thank you for tagging each individual article in the Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons with an AfD tag - that must have taken ages! I'd give you a barnstar, but I think they're rather lame, so I'll leave the message as it is. Just dropped by to say that your work is much appreciated. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 06:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Depolarization radiation force theory

Hi, Wafulz, thanks for looking at this. You seem to have looked at it before I got a chance to save my reasons, so you might want to look at it again and amend your comments if you want. Thanks! Eleuther 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cam Ward.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cam Ward.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Khatru2 07:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question. Maybe they would know on the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page. I was just tagging all of the replaceable fair use images of NHL players. Khatru2 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Calgary Flames

Hello, Wafulz. I've pulled back my Vandalism charge on the anon-user. Shamefully, sometimes my passions for improving Wikipedia gets the best of me. I've offerd an apology & compromise to the anon-user. GoodDay 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, everyone has their moments. Some just happen to be online and well documented >.< --Wafulz 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
True enough. GoodDay 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Image:smile.pngI would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I appreciate your suggestion and will try my best to be more active, even amidst large amounts of work. Have a nice day! -- Chris is me 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Subscript text

Down Syndrome

Too late, I already reverted myself. :p :) —AySz88\^-^ 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or not; looks like the edit conflict detectors aren't working quite right? —AySz88\^-^ 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The reverts got lost in vandal reverts. It's been restored anyway. --Wafulz 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay

why would you eliminate my talk page?? like WTF i only made it for me and my friend and it had no effect what so ever on you nor wikipedia...


you're just mean :( Summitt 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want a page for you and your friend, try an online forum or myspace. This isn't the place for it. --Wafulz 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Edit

Thank you for your concern, but I assure you my tags on Immanuel were relevant and necessary. Please do not remove them or you might be seen as guilty of trolling or vandalism.

Yoiu17 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It often helps to give reasoning behind your actions, especially after throwing an AfD tag on a talk page. I was just trying to help you out.--Wafulz 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dana International

what is there to advertise on dana intl artistic page...nothing is for sale, nor is it a commercial site or a business..its displays the artwork of dana fans and explains transsexualism...what is an ad about that??? where is the inappropriatness or irrelevance...please...do enlighten me...it is a fanpage as is DANA INTERNATIONAL A STAR ONLINE

It's a small fanpage that doesn't add encyclopedic value. Given its hosting, it would probably get completely toasted if it stayed up on Wikipedia for long anyway. --Wafulz 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

thats too bad i guess considering it was the only web page affiliated with her official site...as her official web designer did the work for the backgrounds (Illi Barhom)...her official page is now defunct...however maybe u should consider adding www.danainternational.com or Zana International's dana blog as these contain much more content than the current link...as a dana fan since 1996 i know most of the websites associated with her and the artisitc page is the only one that discusses dana's impact of GBLT rights...anyhow...as it is a geocities page the bandwidth would probably be gone in a short time...well the people who matter know it I guess...tc...thanks for explaining oh btw before dana's wikipedia page was revamped that link had been on there for more than a year...i got to know it through wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.169.231 (talk • contribs)

http://www.dana-international.net/ is still up as far as I can tell. If you can find her blog you should be able to link it without much fuss. Also, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) --Wafulz 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

lol www.dana-international.net is NOT her official site...it is a FANPAGE...her official site is www.danainternational.co.il it has been down for about 5 months now...she has a new album coming out and that usually happens but is been longer than usual...the site in the external links section is a FANPAGE and not the official site...as i mentioned it is www.danainternational.co.il. I suggested linking to www.danainternational.com which is an NYC fanpage and http://www.geocities.com/zanainternational/ which has the largest gallery of Dana International photos on the inet..its also one of the first dana pages...run by transsexual graphic artist danielle lamb...however if i remember correctly from an email in dana yahoo group her site was hacked and deleted but as ull see on the link she is currently workin on relaunching it (####)

From what I can tell, http://www.dana-international.net/ is the only site that is a) Functioning and b) would survive even a small bump in traffic from the article. Most geocities websites aren't linked because of concerns with how they are run (they're usually personal with no editorial process) and how they would handle bandwidth jumps. Try again with the signature though- you're a couple of keys off. --Wafulz 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah i get wat u mean abt geocity sites but the .net site does not have an editorial process either just someone willing to put the money in for a domain...the DEFINITIVE site for dana is Geir Schroteg's he is the father of all dana fans online...it is functionaing, has its own domain and is very very PC...he owns the dana yahoo group and met her as well :) http://www.phreak.co.uk/dana/ it is the only proper site with CORRECT GRAMMAR AND ENGLISH on Dana...im scared to link to it though for fear that you'll delete it so you check it out...and try having a 5 year old VAIO...by keyboard doesnt even work anymore...its the same key right? the one with the number sign but i dont have SHIFT button...can you sign for me?

Remember the Alamo

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summary

Lol, its because of Sidney Crosby's mass popularity random IPs feel the need to update his statistics game-by-game (he just had a six-point night tonight and half an hour after the game is completed the stats are updated), however I see it all the time, these IPs always update the season statistics but never update the career totals to coincide with it, so none of the numbers match up. Personally I'd rather see no statistics updating until the season is completed and official, but that's what happens with IPs I guess. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't see that your at U of W, that's cool, my mother went there and I've lived in the K-W area my whole life. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the disclaimer that I had put up a few months ago at the beginning of the season because it has clearly been ineffective and IPs just stomp all over the place anyways. I'd love to see a Wikipedia personally where you have to create a user account to edit. It would drastically cut down vandalism. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah more or less, I mean I put it up on the top-ten leading scorers on the NHL team pages, because when they do it it really screws up the stats because career totals with a single team are harder to compile if the player has played for many teams in his career, and IPs walk all over that too. When it comes to statistics it's very hard to do anything to stop it, unless we could put just one section of an article as protected and then IPs couldn't edit it. I wonder if that's possible. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok here's what I'm going to do, I'm gonna put an even sterner disclaimer saying something along the lines of "Will be treated as vandalism and will be reverted." How does that sound?

Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Contested prods

Hey there. Just thought I'd let you know that the policy is that you can't add back a prod, even if it was removed without a good reason. See WP:PROD#Conflicts. As such, I've moved Prince Sherwin Johnson to AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

trauma and psychology

Thanks for the note about original research. This is not original research. Both are recognized fields and I have tried to assemble the relevant references and links in an objective and useful manner. Since I have been working on this only for a week or so, it stands to reason that others have not joined yet. I will continue to improve on the entries, however in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Brosi 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your revert of my userpage. Teamwork makes the world go round. Cheers and happy editing! Jpeob 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anytime :-) --Wafulz 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed and was closed early at 2/10/9. I am not discouraged, however, and will use the experience to improve my skills until a later date when I may succeed. Yuser31415 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I added "nonsense" to Mats Sundin article. I'm sorry, but this is obviously true! Here in Finland there is a lot of rumours about he's homosexuality. Also TV-show Nevada made a joke about that. Of course you aren't going to believe me, but this is the truth, and in Finland we have got a liberty of speech. I don't know how are things there in Canada, i just know that your ice hockey team sucks. with love, Mr. Anonymous—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.200.48 (talk • contribs)

Well Mr. Anonymous, or rather 80.222.200.48, at some point in a celebrity's career, everyone will make a joke/suggestion about them being homosexual. Does this make it true? No. Until Sundin himself decides to say himself that he's a homosexual (assuming he is closeted), we can't suggest otherwise. By the way, I hope you Finns like your collection of silver medals. :-) --Wafulz 16:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)