User talk:Someguy1221/Archive 3

Not sure why this got deleted. I've been trying to edit and update it based on suggestions from the 5 other people who keep changing it today. Removed any of the direct links to Amazon- not trying to sell any books or cross link. Made it more neutral. Pantologist (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already, can you look at my vandalism report to block the disruptive IP? Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism CTJF83Talk 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just left a note there, and a comment on the user's talk page. While he has certainly been disruptive, I think this is a case of a user thinking a rule exists that actually doesn't, and not actual bad faith. But he is pushing at the border of AGF, and he'll be blocked if he does it one more time. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I believe he is disrupting at Talk:Glenn Quagmire to get his way, but that is another story, we'll see how that goes. Thanks for the warning/revert! CTJF83Talk 07:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The IP has again removed the note at the top of Glenn Quagmire which conforms to current consensus. If the consensus changes, I have no problem removing the note, but currently it is against listing an age. CTJF83Talk 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The note contains unsourced point of view and original research.

While we're at it, this user should have several warnings placed on his page but he keeps erasing any trace of misconduct, as can be seen here, here and here (the last one was mine). This is yet another clear indication of manipulation. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm probably being petty, but it is very frustrating when a new user comes in and tries to "ruin" and change everything established users have agreed to who are trying to improve the project and articles. CTJF83Talk 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to the word "ruin" and see it as a somewhat of a personal attack. I might or might not be an established user, the fact of the matter is that I have a very good reason to remain anonymous as my account has a stalker riding on the tail of virtually every contribution/discussion. Moreover, all this talk by Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) is a clear indication of attempting to WP:OWN the Family Guy articles, to the point that he would do anything to get me banned, manipulate the RfC by misplacing comments, tell me to "back up" a few times and recommend other users to ignore me instead of seeking a constructive solution. I think the age should be included, I've stated my reasons more than plenty. This whole soap opera is sheer insanity, but if we've gone this far, might as well finish it. I am only asking you both to WP:AGF in me. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You, Someguy1221, have just been awarded The New Mikemoral's generic barnstar in miniature. You can earn this award too for other generic things, just like Someguy1221 did.

You get this award for you anti-vandalism deeds. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On 3 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Renal medullary carcinoma, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was on the verge of bringing this user to admin attention...looks like you beat me to it! Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's nice when a disruptive user brings their own self to administrators' attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing the report, I could have just switched around a few letters in the {{vandal}} template and been done with it! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - in future I'll bear that in mind. It's still new ground for me, despite the amount of time I've spent here in the past couple of years.

Thanks for your help! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know - he's back at it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly add the initials U.S. before the word president on the Alan Lakein page. Or, if there is a reason this would be an unconstructive or inaccurate edit, kindly tell me why. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.159.41 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

for handling the situation with Objective33 so promptly and definitively.Synchronism (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Suavv (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Hello, I added more references to the submission that I posted last night. Let me know if there is more that you need. Thanks. J. Rashod DavenportSuavv (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you were the reviewer for the article I submitted (Freeman's Mind). I believe you should change your mind about my article. If you would click here you will be directed to a YouTube page with the first episode of his series. If you would check the amount of views you will notice it has been viewed by over half a million people.

I hope this helps convinces you

-Maslic1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslic1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, notability is not determined by the number of hits it has received on a website. Demonstrating notability requires providing reliable sources that have discussed or reviewed the series. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Should Red hair (Robert Wegmann album) be deleted along with Red Hair (Robert Wegmann album)? Former is a redirect to the latter. - 58.8.17.197 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I missed that one. Gone now. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, that WAS quick. Cheers! 58.8.17.197 (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You caught me while I was lining up articles for deletion ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to complain about the speedy delete. The article was linked internally and externally and was slotted to become part of the history of the Ronde.

{{Ronde van Vlaanderen}}

The very connection the above should indicate its significant worth on WP. (Those not familiar with pro cycling might not know that the Ronde is not far below the Tour de France in terms of importance).

The article was very much a stub, that's true, but the Cycling Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling) is very active. We would get the article fleshed out soon.

I also resent the article being deleted almost without warning. It was only created hours ago.

Can the article be restored, please? Best, --Smilo Don (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted not because it was a stub, but because it was an unformatted mess with no context. I'm restoring it to User:Smilo Don/2004 Ronde van Vlaanderen. You can move it when it's ready. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article in some fashion. I feel that your note evinces a lack of courtesy and kindness. We're all contributors here, my friend. Let's not be too hasty with others' work. Best, --Smilo Don (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's too easy to become callous when the last 400 people to complain just wanted to advertise their bands. I appologize. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hear ya. There's a lot of self-promotion (cf. David M. Kopp) on Wikipedia. I often help to eliminate that stuff too. Anyway, I feel like we're on the same page. In solidarity and warmth, --Smilo Don (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the redirect... now I've got a copyvio question for you on the same article. I noticed that Warrior (2010 film) plot section is a c/p from the IMDB page that is referenced. Not sure why coren didn't catch it - or is it too small to matter? Does this deserve a non-free tag? JCutter (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's too small to not matter, but I also wouldn't be surprised if IMDB itself copied that from an ad. Anyway, I removed it. The article creator is free to write his own summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. On a separate matter - if you have some free time hoping you can help out on #41 here, but completely understand if you don't. Thanks. JCutter (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how the admin coaching system works, but I can certainly help you out if you have any questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I wrote on the article's talk page before deleting the article? IByte (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. The article was deleted because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E107 (software) was closed as a consensus to delete the article because the topic was not notable. If you would like to challenge the outcome of this discussion, you can go to deletion review or consult the administrator who originally deleted the article, MBisanz (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to bother. I decided to give Wikipedia another chance after previous bad experiences (see my user page), but it would appear this was a bad decision. Now this may sound a little bitter, but the place appears to be full of trigger-happy users and admins alike who delete good faith edits because somewhere in the world, three people haven't heard about the topic you're writing about (and they call that "consensus", helped by such wonderful tools as the highly unreliable Google test). Too bad, I still think WP could have been a wonderful tool, but if I constantly have to argue to be allowed to do something I perceive as clearly useful to and within the rules of the community, it's not worth my time. (P.S. as for your claim that I should contact another administrator and that you have no other choice than to blindly follow procedure, I believe you are responsible for your own actions.) -- IByte (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC), signing off

I never meant to suggest that I was blindly following procedure. That is actually very explicitly discouraged. The intent of my telling you that was that I agreed with him, and had no intention of myself reversing his decision. As for the rest, it strikes me as arrogant to claim that you should be allowed to post an article because you think its important, and that no one is allowed to deleted it if they disagree with you. This is why we have established guidelines as to what topics get articles, and proper forums to settle disagreements over the matter. The article was analyzed with regard to those guidelines, and a discussion was held in the proper forum, and the conclusion of several editors was that the article did not satisfy the requirements. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The anon editor is removing copyvio and SD tags and attempting to conceal the activity using bad-faith edit summaries -- eg "removing excessive wordiness; rewrite" and "grammar fix." The accusations of harassment and trolling are, of course, preposterous. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew something was wrong when I went and opened your contributions to find a string of huggle edits. Anyway, he's blocked for 31 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an experienced user, possibly a blocked one, posing as a new editor. S/he rattled off a few policy abbreviations at me, dropped a bad-faith NPA-4 warning on my talk page and an equally bad-faith {{indef}} tag on User:Gordie2715. S/he didn't learn all that from a handful of anon-edits. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Lambmeat. Here's why I think so:

• The odd solecism "grievances" appears both in this edit summary and in User:12.38.1.131's unblock request.
• User:Lambmeat had an earlier run-in with User:Gordie2715
• User:Lambmeat also uses misleading edit summaries about grammar fixes to conceal vandalism.

--Rrburke^(talk) 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you chose not to delete the old talk page for Parkland Elementary School. The Parkland Elementary School article was merged into the overall school district article. I would agree that this talk page should be kept as an archive if it contained useful posts that would help develop the Quesnel School District article. However, since it only has two posts, one post suggesting the deletion of the article, and another explaining why the non-existent article is a stub, this page is a textbook candidate for CSD G8. I'm going to WP:MfD this page. I encourage you to join in the discussion! -Gr0ff (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221, Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah's page has been nominated for deletion. Have your say at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Remigius_Jerry_Kanagarajah_(2nd_nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've listed it for AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

listen the thing is that person is famous and doing a great job and do you think without knowing the person you can delete his article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintansatra (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take your advice for the tagging guidelines. I was just wanting to help out but i have started to cause more porblems sorry. Also i am concerned with the wikipedia notice baord about me. You can look on my talk page for the link. Is there a way you could put ur input in and maybe mention that i was meaning no harm in these edits.Rockiesfan19 (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for my rude behaviour, and I will now be a good faith editor. Vandalism is a way of the past for me. - objective33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective22 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a comment back, thank you. Objective22 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Good luck on Wikipedia. Please consider any advice given to you. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to work out why Category:Accepted AfC submissions contains 4,063 pages, but the total of the population of categories in Category:AFC articles by quality is 4,305. These should be the same in my mind. Any chance you could compile a list of articles in the latter which are not in the former? I'll bet you can do this quicker than me! Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, so I'll have to finish this another day. I did find 28 so far, which you can see here. I think the first one might have evaded the cat by having been substed when originally placed ~2 years ago. I'll try to track down the other 200+ pages tomorrow or the next day. Fun task though; thanks for letting me know about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've fixed those 28, and they were all substituted as you said. I might need to look for a more automated method for the remaining 200. Fun task, really? You might want a task like this as a break from the guelling RCP and related agro :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is just weird. The problem seems to be that the category pages are misreporting the number of members contained within. Category:Redirect-Class AFC articles, for example, reports 1536 members. If you cycle through the entries, however, you'll find only 1320 members. This is the same number you arive at using AWB or any other method, as far as I can tell. A couple other AFC categories are similarly misreporting the number of members within. I really don't know what to say on this one. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, weird. I'll post at WP:VPT, see if anyone has any idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just posted there a little bit ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So I see! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would empty the category and use Category:Redirects-Class AFC articles temporarily instead to see if we can fix it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Category:Redirect-Class AFC articles is not reporting any pages now, so maybe I can refill it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting watching it slowly creep up every time I refresh the page...By the way, the redirect category wasn't the only one misreporting the number of members; some of the others, I'm not sure which ones though, were also misreporting the number of members, although to a much lesser degree. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The others seem to be Stub (reporting 1261; actual 1254) and Start (reporting 1151; actual 1133). I'm not sure if it's worth worrying about these. Thanks for your help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched Wikipedia for "solution" (a word often used by advertisers), which returns 8000 pages as of 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC). If I encounter a userpage that is promotional in tone, I just tag it with {{db-spam}}. Alexius08 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment noted you'd removed twinkle, but I noticed this. Curious, eh? Avruch ^T 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's still in his browser's cache? I deleted his monobook page to make sure this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's indef'd by Tiptoety anyway as a sock. Strange on the js page, though, wouldn't think the browser cache would have an impact. Avruch ^T 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of Netpassport. That guy has been a pain since day one R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. That was my first article. Ancestor is one of the most important bands in Cuba, and well known in the mundial underground. You can verificate it in their web www.ancestor.co.nr or searching in google their records In "Absence of Light" and "Hell Fuckin´ Metal" I made the page respecting the structure and copyright and put references. Why was deleted? Please tell me and if you can, help me to keep the page. Lord Dakkar (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of copyrights or of verifying that the band exists. Rather, it's a matter of verifying that the band is notable. A band isn't entitled to an article merely by existing, and there was no assertion given either that multiple reliable sources have given coverage of the band, or that it met any of these criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thankyou for helping to sort out the page I created, that was a big help --Greenenvylle (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and help. I´ve found that Ancestor meets the following point:

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Ancestor is the most prominent representative Black Metal band in Havana and whole Cuba. You can verify that in the Internet, and as I told you, in a lot of underground fanzines. Also Ancestor have appeared in Heavy Rock (Spain)and Rock Hard(Germany), both very important magazines. Greetings. Lord Dakkar (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Prove it. Can't take your word for it if there are no reliable sources to make the claim. All you avoid is needing to show "substantial coverage" in multiple reliable sources. Fanzines are not reliable sources. Basically, you can consider this that a bunch of random people saying this band is very important doesn't get it a Wikipedia article; then we just wouldn't have content guidelines at all. Are Heavy Rock and Rock Hard reliable sources? With the information you've provided so far, the article would still be deleted as non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Here's something for all the hard work you put into Wikipedia. Well done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Someguy, I just wanted to pop in to see if you've ever gone by the handle "Atamasama" or "Atama" elsewhere on the internet, since I knew a guy that used one of those as well as one very close to your Someguy one. Thanks! 98.212.158.221 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I've never used a different alias on Wikipedia, and have never used anything close to Atamasama or Atama on any other websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to bother you, then.  :) 98.212.158.221 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out why your edit caused the funny display on the second template on that page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tweaked around with that in preview for a while and couldn't figure it out. I was kind of surprised when I couldn't find any recent edits to the banner that could have caused that. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Fixed it. You can see what I did on the page. I suddenly remembered this from way back in the original AFC system, when I'd sometimes see decline templates fail to display properly. The problem (which I believe I posted to VPT over a year ago and never got an answer) is related to indented templates sometimes messing up the formatting of every template beneath them. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not related to the templates. Even with indented text, the effect was the same. Crazy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out this revision I just created. With the comment templates unindented, the banner displays normally. Also check out this revision of my userpage. When indented, the border disappears from one of my DYK boxes. I think it's all related, but I never was able to find a particular reason for any of this happening. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This not that I have a Supreme Court case to cancel the registration of the trademark Citigroup, the problem is that I am the original first user owner of the trademark Citigroup and they do not have any legal rights to use my trademark anywhere including Wikipedia. My team of lawyers have been contacted to investigate the proper way to remove the use of my trademark on Wikipedia from further use of my mark, by my opponent that is insolvent on U.S. government life support and will be nationalized any day and closed. An example of what is being done on Wikipedia is if General Motors started to use the mark General Electric, or General Mills or General tire. Citibank is broke, they will not see 2010 as a going concern because I am also requesting TREBLE PROFITS (THREE TIMES PROFIT) since October 08, 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citigrouplu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For your personal knowledge Someguy 1221, Citigroup is broke and on U.S. government life support. I will be the main reason Citibank is closed, and taken over by the Federal government. All my customers and friends have flooded all the members of congress and every state senators and every person of any importance about the facts Citigroup Inc. is broke, and they have hijacked my 33 year old name Citigroup that I invented. This Wikipedia page will not be of any use to any user because Citigroup Inc. will not be in business very mush longer. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citigrouplu (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bother to check the damage all this public court action have done to my opponent. They still claim to be a world notch bank and their stock is worth a Pathetic $17 billion dollars after the Fed has pumped a reported $45 Billion. I have been told it is a lot more but that is TOP SECRET. The public will know soon enough. When we started to dual their stock was worth $277 Billion. My opponent if you calculate has lost over 95% of their value and a number of directors. Here again that number is not important because the whole board will be on the street soon. THE FED IS GOING TO CLEAN HOUSE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!!! THIS MAY GIVE YOU SOME INDICATION WHERE I AM COMING FROM, and how seriously I have taken the theft of my mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citigrouplu (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How can it not be relevant? It's used by 160,000 people, plus. Furthermore its a great example of co-existence in the middle east as its an Israeli website that is looking to reach out across the arab countries via the Arabic team that's working there.

Danielphilipconn (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)danielphilipconnDanielphilipconn (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because there was no reasonable assertion or evidence of notability. Articles are not created on a website simply because a lot of people use it or because it's a great website. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Websites must demonstrate that they are notable either by meeting one of these criteria or by having received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Those would include, for example, major Israeli newspapers, and exclude blogs and forums. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you comment on my talk about the lead section of the High-definition television! Audley Lloyd (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake on the Doane Academy page and was trying to fix it, it was not vandalism... Did you read what was done? It was nothing malicious

Alright, I did a partial revert on myself. I reverted the edit when I saw you'd tried to use HTML to embed an image in the article. Wikipedia doesn't support this feature of HTML (see Wikipedia:Images). I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be working to make the page much more relevant. And fix my errors.

  Hello! Your submission of Stephen Elliott (botanist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! mynameinc 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this reversion: [1]. Keep up the good work. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 06:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who indef blocked User:Hilary T for sockpuppetry, could I ask you to take a look into the habits of User:Jemima PD? This new account seemed to immediately launch into a similar tirade about the GDFL, followed by a GDFL- related !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Atomic Betty which I personally, if it is her, can only interpret as wikistalking given her previous personal attacks on her old user page, such as this: [2]. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all the edits but don't see anything to block over. The account does scream sock, but Hilary tries to be very non-obvious when she's not having a temper tantrum. So I think a checkuser could be in order, but personally, if Hilary thinks she's somehow harming Wikipedia by running around acting like a productive user, good for her. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On 25 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Elliott (botanist), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You just got rid of the piece i put on sedrick elli's page. you said i did not have a resource. but i do its just not on the internet his coach Pete Merandi told me the story. Sedrick Ellis is a great story that not many people have heard of it and im trying to get it out there becuase its a great story about turning your life around. if you can help me get that story out there. thank you -nick welch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.98.20 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you got the information from his coach them I'm sorry, but I can't help you. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That means if it hasn't been published somewhere, we can't have it on our website. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling comment removed—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tddaly (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this user may be, or may be related to, 68.83.253.201 who you blocked yesterday. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help agin. So, tell me how can prove it to you? Of course that Heavy Rock and Rock Hard are reliable sources. They are very important magazines from Europe. Just search for ANCESTOR in google and you will see. Again, thanks for the help. Lord Dakkar (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You can recreate the article with explicit references to the magazines (see Wikipedia:Citing sources; in short, you should give the issue it appeared in and the title of the piece on it, with page numbers if possible). This is the easiest way to let other editors (and readers) confirm that the band has, in fact, received the coverage. However, if other editors don't agree that those magazines are reliable, the article may be discussed for possible deletion. If you'd like, I can restore the article to your userspace so you can add the references before moving it back to its original location. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User Xhienne has been trying to tamper with the Criticism section, first by shortening a quote and then by repeatedly adding a banner asking for cleanup. I have properly argued both in the article's discussion page and in Xhienne's discussion page against it. In the process I have received a threatening message, asking me to undo my intervention if I do not want to be reported fer multiple reverts. Xhienne additionally hides his user name under "Xavier." You may want to look into this.Sardath (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. Please restore the article to my userspace so I can add the references for magazines and TV shows. I appreciate your help very much. Hope my article can stay some day. Lord Dakkar (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. You can find it at User:Lord Dakkar/Ancestor (band). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea! I always wished that there was an way to have multiple watch-lists... — Jake Wartenberg 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it useful. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Someguy1221,

We here at The Political Simpleton feel that we are in the same catagory as "The Drudge Report and "Huffington Post". Unlike other automated news agregators we hand pick news stories. This is a niche in news aggregation that people would like to know. We want to comply in every facet to be part of Wikipidia. I know you are very busy but I would like to work with you to keep The Political Simpleton on Wikipidia. How can we make this happen?

Ray Wilkinson

Contact information removed by Someguy1221—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The most important criterion to pass if a subject is to have an article on Wikipedia is notability, which in a nutshell states: A topic is presumed notable if it has received substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. No reliable, independent sources were provided in the article, and no reason was given to suspect the Simpleton qualifies under the sub-criteria for websites or companies. While I can empathize with your feelings about the site's standing along side the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post, those are set apart by the amount of coverage they've received from reliable sources. I did look for such sources for your site. A search for "Political Simpleton" on Google returns only 187 unique hits. Many of those are to your own website and to press releases, and the only ones I can see from reliable sources are using the term without reference to your website. So unless there is something I missed in there that you can show me, I'm sorry to say, but the site is not notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just asked a question at User talk:Tennis expert#Question about a subpage that may involve you. Could you take a look and possibly reply there? Thanks! TNXMan 02:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion forms part of a discussion initiated at Talk:Maria Sharapova#Career history fork, so I have moved it there. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius should not have edited my discussion page. Therefore, you are still free to reply there. Tennis expert (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• It just seemed more sensible to keep it all in one place. I apologise that you took offense at my move of the thread. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a comment on T.e.'s page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your communication.

The info on Wikipedia is false. Australian Geoscience Placenames Registry states officially Mt Warning is Mt Warning and my families mountain is Wollumbin.

Each time we try to correct this false site, messages alleging vandalism and threatening blocking are sent to us.

(Wollumbinmountain (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

The prior post is the official information from the federal placenames registry of Australia.
The info on Wiki is false, the placenames registry is official.
We would like to correct this false site, which breaches the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to delete this, then you need to delete Youporn as well as Pornotube. Otherwise, it would appear you are playing favorites. Why are these pages allowed and not ShockerVideo?

Holden30 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)holden30

Or more accurately, I'm playing "Uphold the community's standards for which topics get to have articles, namely that they've received substantial coverage from reliable sources." YouPorn and Pornotube have received exactly that. ShockerVideo has not. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why's that? Because you personally use YouPorn and PornoTube and not ShockerVideo? I'm not sure, but I don't think your personal habits should come into play when it comes to what is relevant or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden30 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You can attempt to make this about me, or you can attempt to make a substantive response to the issues that have been raised about the article. I have no bias against ShockerVideo itself. If you can demonstrate that it is notable, I would probably recreate the article for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to make this about you. Maybe you could explain what makes Youporn or PornoTube notable as opposed to ShockerVideo? Also, why do you continue to delete ShockerVideo from the porn 2.0 page when it is one of the sites that is listed in on the source website? What makes "AdultMovieTubes.com, XTube, JizzyPorn.com, YouFastPorn.com, Xvideos, Shufuni, Tube8, Megaporn, Spankwire, YouBoob.it, YouPornGay, RedTube, and Pornhub" more notable? Also, take a look at the entry for "wankspider" on the porn 2.0 page. It would appear that it is a very biased and uncited article.

Those first two sites are notable because they have received coverage from reliable sources. You can find some of them in the list of references on each article. I'm reverting your additions to Porn 2.0 because you're including a link to the site, which is considered spam. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You failed to answer what makes the sites in the porn 2.0 page more notable and not spam themselves? Why is "jizzyporn.com" a notable site as opposed to ShockerVideo? I'm sorry, but I have never heard of jizzyporn.com... Have you?

There's a difference between mentioning a website in an article and giving it its own article. Only the latter uniformly requires notability. ShockerVideo was not removed from Porn 2.0 for being non-notable, but for being a spam link. The other sites are not linked. While even unlinked, the list is still questionable, it is unallowable as a list of links, because Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm clear on what Wikipedia is and is not. I have readded ShockerVideo to the porn 2.0 page as part of the list and not as a link. I assume that this is acceptable. If not, I'm sure it will be swiftly deleted. As to the Porn_2.0#Wankspider_-_Adult_Tube_Search_Engine entry on the porn 2.0 page, please evaluate it's credibilty. It would appear to me as it is a plug for the website and biased, as does the entry for TNAFlix.

I removed several sections from that article as spam. Thanks for pointing them out. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello The page which I had created for "World News Network" was deleted. please ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network

I agree, some of the content was copied from "world news network" website.

As suggested by the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_News_Network&action=edit&redlink=1

i have re-created the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

This time i have taken the precautions and written about "world news network" in my own words. Please may I know your opinion on this page? This time I don't want it to be deleted.

thanks User: Smita28smita (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article as you're rewritten it could still fall under the realm of advertising and be deleted simply for that. I looked through the sources you gave, and at best I think they demonstrate only a very marginal degree of notability. That is, some of the sources seem to be only trivial listings of the company, and none provide any real in-depth coverage of the company. In fact, most of those actually read like advertisements or official summaries of the company. But again, the main issue with the article is that it reads like advertising. I was going to quote the more advertising-sounding parts of the article, but I actually think the problem is in every sentence. So I'll just give you the general advice, and that's to build your article based on objective facts (preferably ones that can cite reliable sources) instead of subjective opinions like that it is a credible alternative to the mainstream media, or that it has qualities rarely seen on the internet (oh darn, there I went and quoted). You can get more feedback from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests if you'd like, or if you have another draft that you want to be seen by more people than me. Good luck. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:AFC submission/submit}} would have been better ;) How are you these days? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I still had a few left when you caught me, so your suggestion it is. I've been pretty well. Wish I could spend more time round AFC but most of my free time vanished a few weeks ago. But I think I'll help you clear the backlog I'm creating ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you sure about that? The pending banners came out looking really wierd: [3] Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad; I forgot to subst them. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, did those come from the abuse filter? Or the usual trawl? I have occasionally triggered the abuse filter when starting a discussion on the talk page of a submission. I don't suppose there is a way to avoid that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They came from a usual trawl. A lot of those I noticed were submitters resubmitting and removing the decline templates without adding a new submission template. And some were just the submitters removing the decline templates and not doing anything else. As for the occasional false positive, I assumed that it would be rare enough for a new talk page to be created for a page within the project. It's hard to filter them because they'll all have the same prefix as the submissions. However, will it always be the case that they'll have {{WPAFC}} on them? I could add that to the filter. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Did you change that filter because it's no longer warning me?! By the way, could you write a filter to stop people putting AfC submissions into mainspace? (Either by appending to an existing page, or a registered user creating a new page.) Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed the filter for you. Glad to hear it's working. As for filtering out AfC submissions to the wrong namespace, are they just to the mainspace? I haven't watched that type of botched submission for a while. I can create a filter for it, although I'm not sure how efficient it will be (inefficient filters are disabled for being a drag on the servers). Filter 167 is incredibly efficient because of the extremely narrow search pattern (new AFC subpages in namespace 5). You can watch it at Special:AbuseFilter/183. It's currently looking in all incorrect namespaces, on both new and existing pages. I'll narrow that down if it's too slow. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) Franamax (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You and Droptone are the inaugural recipients, keep up the good work! Franamax (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221

My name is Pete C. Im the network manager for Orbost Secondary College or as you may know it 202.182.65.197

Seems some of the students here have been anonymously vandalising wikipedia over the course of the last year or so. Its gotten to the point where you (rightly) banned our IP.

The two main reasons Im writting to you is to firstly appologise for the inconvenience that the disruptive edits have caused and secondly to ask if they is anyway to avoid this problem in the future?

Im sorry if this is not the appropriate forum to discuss this topic

thanks in advance

Peter ErgSlider (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to keep an eye on how your students have been editing, you can see the contributions on Special:Contributions/202.182.65.197. When you click on one of the diff links, you'll see what they changed (text added is in green on the right; text removed is in red on the left). It also gives you a timestamp in UTC (or your preferred time zone, if you selected one), so if anything is going to tell you who's responsible, that's it (assuming they have to log in to use the computer). If that is the case, then you could block their editing priveledges on your end by preventing a given student from accesing any page in the domain en.wikipedia.org containing action=edit or Special:MovePage in the http address. If you wanted to really stay on top of this, I'd could release the block for you (the block will release automatically in April 2010, by the way), but it would probably be far easier to simply inform students that they can still edit Wikipedia if they log into an account, which they can create from an unblocked address (such as at home, presumably). If the block on your school's IP is preventing logged in users from editing, those individual students can request a exemption from the block according to the procedure layed out at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions right here; this is the right forum. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond when you can and let me know when you can find that same chart that is shown for obesity trends, going all the way to 2009, instead of just 2006. Thank you. Bob.--99.141.163.3 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, actually. You're much more likely to get an answer from one of the reference desks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that these pages are so important to the project that their deletion will cause harm, I'll stop for now. Otherwise, I plan on (manually) deleting pages marked as rejected that are either older than two months or contain material that would be routinely deleted under CSD G1/G11. I am not using a bot for these deletions; I read every page. Personally, I can not see the use in keeping any of these pages around for longer than a few weeks and suggest that you look into adopting a PROD-like system to help clear out the junk. This creates no additional work for administrators or reviewers. If I "just don't get it", please let me know your reasoning for wanting to keep these articles, aside from "they're causing no harm", because people can still directly link to these archives. Nakon 02:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The page which I had created for "World News Network" was deleted. please ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network

As suggested by you, i have re-created the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

I have also posted my request on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Please may I know your opinion on this page? This time I don't want it to be deleted.

smita (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments left at EA. The copyright violations have been mostly stripped out, along with the advertising language, but it still leaves it with no evidence of notability. Merely being listed on the BBC's list of aggregators doesn't qualify as a significant coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

On June 21st, Wikipedia's Help Desk, I posted a question titled: "Short Explanations After Linked Words, Is It Acceptable Here?"

You very kindly answered my question and suggested that I enable Navigation Popups. I did so, and It's exactly what I needed. I can't tell you how aggravating it is to me to always be forced to navigate to an entirely different article just to get a little bit of a definition. Now I don't have click on the link. I hover my mouse over the link and the definition pops right up, easy as can be. That's cool. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question.

Mirabellayellow (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

I got a message to my IP Address saying that I edited a page on Rush. The fact is that I didn't edit the page, nor had I visited it prior to your message.

Perhaps my IP Address was shared with someone else?

Sorry for any confusion.

All the Best,

Wikise

Original message:

"User talk:72.73.202.223

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Rush (band). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)"

FIOS uses a dynamic IP protocol. The IPs frequently switch between different users. That edit was probably ~500 users ago. Don't worry about it ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for an Anonimo page for a very long time. I have no idea why it was deleted. Why can Rolex, Omega, Panerai and Tag Heuer have Wiki entries? Anonimo has a very cool history that should be shared. I'd hope you'd reconsider next time before deleting the page.

THank you

Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.33.38 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no evidence of notability in the article. A company doesn't get an article simply because it exists, by Wikipedia standards. It needs to have received coverage from multiple reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - was just trying to help

For catching the vandal on my userpage :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

so why cant i post "crime" in zimmerman?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by GeerfFreed (talk • contribs)

Because all content must be verifiable. You you can't show that by citing a source, questionable content will be removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

how am i suposed to verify it zimmermans a small town thres no books, movies anything about it?

If there are no sources about it, not even newspaper articles, then you can't. Verifiability is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If there is no way to know that you didn't just make it up (not that I'm accusing you of doing that), then there would be no reason for anyone to trust it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Someguy1221,

I am the creator of the Martin Roll wiki pages, that you now have removed.

Could you PLEASE tell me why these pages has been removed?

Martins book is a global bestseller, and a GREAT ressource for me and other companies who wants to enter the asian and especially the chinese markets? And he shares a LOAD of resources on his websites to educate western people in this "new" market. A lot of managers in the western countries needs to be educated in especially the very different cultural parameters you have to take into account when entering the asian markets. Furthermore will students find great details on understanding asian ways and traditions.

Could you please tell me why this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lindstrom

....is allowed to have his page on the site, when Martin Roll is not allowed to be located at the Wiki?

If it is a issue regarding the ways and how the text is written, please point out to me why and how the text should be and should NOT be written.

Kind regards Stefan Mortensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanMortensen (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lindstrom is allowed to have a page because the article is written from a neutral point of view and cites multiple reliable sources. The neutral point of view is the point of view that accurately reflects what reliable sources (such as articles from newspapers and magazines) have to say about a topic. When material is written based on the company's or individual's personal/official websites or blogs, it's typically not neutral, and in the case of the articles you wrote, crossed the line into blatant advertising. There is policy on Wikipedia that advertisements are to be uniformly deleted (Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). The best way for you to get an article on Roll or his company would be to step back from writing the article they way Roll would describe himself and his book, and instead look for content that has already been written about him in newspapers, books, or magazines. See what they have to say, and collect, paraphrase, and/or sumarize those views. And of course, then cite those sources. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing my merge template? 76.244.158.243 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A mistake. I've reverted myself. Apologies. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) 76.244.158.243 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [4] 24.57.54.1 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been full protected, so I've unblocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women of the Sun, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Long comment hidden by Someguy1221 I hope this suffices for you to establish the credibility and notability of Artist Akim Monet, and I sincerely hope you will “un-delete” my entry.

Should you wish to receive any more information, please do no hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,

Alessandra Migani (Alessandramigani (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm going to undelete the article and move it to your userspace, at User:Alessandramigani/Akim Monet. Once you've made the desired changes, you can feel free to move it back to its original location (for instructions, see Help:Moving a page). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221:

This is User:Musicsociety on wikipedia

I understand now of the rules. I did not bother reading and it cost me. You and Wikipedia have my most humble and deepest apology for breaking these rules. I would love a copy of the text of the page though for reference if this is OK so I can generate it on my personal website.

Thank you for understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekey (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you send me an email (the E-mail this user link on the left of the page), I'll send you the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Someguy1221,

Thank you for undeleting my article about the artist Akim Monet.

As you suggested, I am going to fully develop the article from my user page before moving it.

I am still familiarizing myself with the Wikipedia system and its rules. I am going to check how to properly use my user page. It is my intention to follow the guidelines while consulting the new contributors’ help page.

I would like to ask if it could be possible for you to have a look at the finished article on my user page (when I complete it) before I attempt to move it back to its original place.

In regards to the image that appears on the article, could you please point me towards the copyright rules for artists’ images in order for me to properly incorporate this and other images by artist Akim Monet? To answer your question about the image on the draft page for Akim Monet, it is a photograph taken by Akim Monet at Khajuraho in India. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khajuraho

The image is a low res. version of the large original (40 x 60”) Monet showed in 2002 in a New York gallery. Monet makes low res. versions of his images available to the public for use on the web. But of course, I understand this has to be said somewhere. So again, I look forward to being pointed in the right direction. In fact, the issue of copyright and crediting images correctly is parallel to the one of quotes and citation. There too I will need to learn how to correctly compile my list of “References”.

Thanks again.

Regards Alessandramigani (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These edits didn't get caught: [5].— Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was going to ask you about that soon. Anyway, it looks like there was a problem in the filter's syntax. It's fixed now, so hopefully it'll catch them now. Still in log-only mode, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

it's actually spelt "ridiculous" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.5.73 (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've been spelling it wrong for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The page which I had created for "World News Network" was deleted. please ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network

I agree, some of the content was copied from "world news network" website.

As suggested by you, i have re-created the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

Please may I know your opinion on this page? This time I don't want it to be deleted.

thanks smita (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Smita28

I gave you a reply in June, and I think that still applies: The copyright violations have been mostly stripped out, along with the advertising language, but it still leaves it with no evidence of notability. Merely being listed on the [Guardian]'s list of aggregators doesn't qualify as a significant coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Notability for more information. The ideal sources for an article actually discuss the topic of the article, and aren't merely mentioning or listing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Salwa Judum[6], I should point out that the primary source used by the Maoist sock master User:Oftenhurry is a far-left Indian named Ramchandran Guha who writes for a publication named "countercurrents.org", where they also claim that a secret conspiracy of Jews and Hindus was behind the Mumbai Terror Attacks[7][8]. This guy is, by no means, a reliable source on anything.Cheers.Keysvolume (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to tell what's going on, with so much socking and edit warring on all sides. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, This user has been making false allegations - wonder why he did not provide the wiki link for Ramchandra Guha ^[1]? It is because he just made up that far left and all that Jew stuff. He is one of the most revered journalists in India. He is associated with many mainstream media. Please check the wiki page yourself and you'd know who Ram Guha is. Maybe pretty soon he would start vandalizing that page too! This user is also vandalizing my talk page ^[2], indicating that I am a sockpuppet, which he knows is untrue, as I have been cleared off being a sockpuppet. I asked him to stop, and warned that I would report him for vandalism, he did not stop. He also has gone ahead to make reverts of admin made changes on pages - 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naxalite&action=history - here he made changes after admin Fastily reverted vandalism done by one user Mehrrunnissa, who is currently blocked and is being investigated for using sockpuppets.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salwa_Judum&action=history - here he reverted to his own version after you did the same as above

Please note, both these pages are under semi-protection and were vandalised by Mehrrunnissa, who being blocked cannot undo the changes. Keysvolume is now doing it instead. He is defying community rules of addressing the issue in the talk page instead of reverting a semi protected page. I also found out that these two users are under investigation for being sockpuppets.

Thanks, Oftenhurry (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve myself more in edits to the article. This is a content dispute, and unfortunately one that has been plagued by policy violations on both sides, as I mentioned above. The best thing for everyone to do is to pursue dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Edit warring will only result in more blocks and page protections, regardless of which version is the right one. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

- I am sorry but what policy did I violate? Someone comes and vandalizes my page, they go on their free well to to do reverts after admins made the changes, and then they thorw slander at one of the most well known journalists of India, simply because they have their own agenda. I am sorry to say that I have used wikipedia before for my own research use, but these incidents are making me highly suspicious of the authenticity of wiki, since anybody can come and say anything they like. Oftenhurry (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My appologies. I didn't mean to imply that you have violated any policies; merely that amongst the editors supporting each version of the three articles, there are some who have violated policies. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this Maoist POV-pusher User:Oftenhurry is a clear-cut sock puppet of indefblocked user User:Barakabless, and has returned in order to promote a revisionist agenda based on the writings of some extreme left elements in India. I do not believe that wikipedia policies like WP:POINT permit him to do this unless there is some systemic bias at work here.Keysvolume (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oftenhurry was cleared of being a sockpuppet of Barakabless at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barakabless/Archive. If you dispute the conclusion of that investigation, you may contact Versageek (talk · contribs), the checkuser who reached that conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted an article on my paintings, (Carlos Maneiro) and it was deleted. I own the material posted on it, how could I get it back up? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.174.123 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a deeper problem that, even if the material were not a copyright violation, the article read like an advertisement; it would be deleted anyway. The best thing you can do is to find reliable sources that discuss your work, such as newspaper or magazine articles and reviews. Then write the article by paraphrasing what they say about you. However, keep in mind that you're strongly discouraged from writing about yourself. It tends to be impossible to remain unbiased when doing so, which increases the chances of making the article sound like an advertisement. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The user you've just indef, he's back here and here. Suggest a change of setting to "unable to edit own talkpage" instead. Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 07:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Must be a slow day, you're fast! Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help User:Merlion444 by semi-PP his page for a while, he's been the target of vandals for the past few days already. I'm not worried about mine since it is patrolled by page stalkers... hahaha Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 07:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello.. You and I kind of ran into each other on Merkeys IP talk.. First I'd like to say that I understand why Merkey is blocked and has been PNG'd by the community. Secondly I'd like to say that I hope you understand that I am not attempting to push Merkeys point of view. What I am interested in is adding his military information in a well referenced and properly cited fashion. My reasoning is very simplistic really. See while Merkey may be one of those angry mastodons that we all try to avoid, he is an honorably discharged veteran of some notability. While his words, which through just a cursory investigation, definitely speak much louder than his actions. He does have what appear to be authentic discharge papers, awards in simple format, birth certificate, etc.. on his personal website. I noticed some edits he had made which included gif's of his awards and a bit more detail about his early life. Now these edits have been reverted for one reason or another. I am not contesting the removal based on whatever BLP policies, personal interest arguments or perm. banned reasons. But in order to "conform" with other articles, perhaps based on notability perhaps not, I would like to continue editing his article. After conferring with him via email and finding the references needed online I would like to present it to the talk page for discussion. Now you and I both know that this is how things are normally done, yea? But it has been my experience that working on controversial articles tends to sometimes cast people in a bad light. I have no agenda here, I am completely neutral as far as the history of the article goes and I dunno any of you from Wikipedia or any where else. This way perhaps everyone can get what they want. Which is of course an accurate and referenced biography. - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry; I don't think anything negative of you. I actually think this is a very unfortunate situation, as this is one of those good-hearted mastadons who simply has substantial trouble conforming to Wikipedia's social standards. Merkey seems to have some sort of "if you're not with me you're against me" mentality, while at the same time seeing far more meaning (or at least a very different meaning) in the blocks directed against him than was actually implied. He doesn't understand that he is being blocked due to his incivility, disruption and threats. He doesn't understand that the task of ArbCom and administrators in a dispute is not to assign blame and punish, but to keep things calm, even if that means blocking a legitimately upset raging mastadon. I'm really only saying this at frustration with the knowledge that I probably could never get Merkey to understand where I and every other admin is coming from.

Anyway, I think the only thing you should consider is the risk of acting as a proxy editor for a banned user, which is a blockable offence (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users). That is to say, you shouldn't be making the edits he asks for, but it's OK to look at a source he directs you to, and make your own edits based on the source. Regardless, I would suggest posting to the talk page before or simultaneous with making such edits. I wish you and Merkey the best. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL I appreciate your candor.. I assure you that I will not act as anyone's proxy. I really just want to improve what I see to be the beginnings of a pretty good article. I am going to give things some time to cool down and do a little research on this guy. Keep an eye on the talk page. I'll be in touch. Thank you for your time. - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I tried to request that your block was removed but can not (because it has already expired). Here is a copy of the statement which I made at [9] "I would like to request that this block be removed from my record. Someguy1221 said "The diff you gave of the 3RR warning actually came after the user's most recent revert." and I assume that this means the block was not issued for 3RR. He goes on to say " However, the user's general incivility leads to believe he will continue to be disruptive, so I have issued a 24 hour block." I submit that I have not been generally incivil: I have been civil on all occasions to all editors, despite repeated insults and accusations of being a troll and/or a sockpuppet. I have been less that civil one time and to one user (one of the users who has been abusing me since I registered here) and would like to apologise for that. I would like to underline that my incivility came after a certain editor cut a 684 word article down to 81 words, removed all of the 638 words which I had written and removed all sixteen of the 28 sources which do not agree with his version of history (all but one of those 16 were inserted by me)[10] I understand that there is never an acceptable reason for incivility but is provokation a mitigating factor?"Varsovian (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian; unfortunately, the record of a block cannot be removed; it is permanent. As for the provocation issue; I don't speak for Someguy, but never allow yourself to be antagonized by other users. That generally ends up getting you in trouble, even if they 'started it' (I'm speaking hypothetically here). Master of Puppets 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To both Some and Master, this is a content dispute that was being handled properly on the talk page of No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron with both parties at fault but Varsovian at least had a semblance of contrition and made efforts to discuss relevant topics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk: actually this block relates to London Victory Parade of 1946, which is where I first met Jacurek. He then followed me over into No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron: he had edited that article just once before, on 13 Feb 2009, but within one hour of me posting there he had reverted my first edit in that article. From there, well, you saw how it went....Varsovian (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples of incivility can be found here, here (the same edit repeated), and here. I'll echo the statement that the block cannot be erased from your record, as a purely technical matter. Now, I found myself saying this only yesterday to someone else, but I'll repeat it: It's not the job of an administrator to determine who is right or wrong, or to determine which version of an article is the right one. The job of an administrator is (among other things) to use blocks and protection to maintain an editing environment that is suitable to the formation of consensus. Edit warring and incivility detract from such an environment. Outside of reverting vandalism and other extreme cases, you can't count on everyone seeing that you're right and blocking the other guy, and that's why it's important either stay civil and avoid edit warring, or know when your emotions are getting the best of you and just take a step back from Wikipedia. I hope you find a speedy resolution to the issues soon. The best way to do that, from my experience, has always been to get more editors invovled. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me about this. All three of those examples are directed at the one user and at the one time which I was talking about. Your words, especially those about getting other editors involved, are wise ones and ones which I will make sure to keep very much in mind in the future. Thanks again.Varsovian (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see a section Ive added to the Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#False_positives_in_filter_58.3F page; I think there may be a bug, either introduced by your recent edit of it, or lingering from beforehand. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been fixed after all. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please let me know what the issue is for marking the page down for deletion? If this is an issue of notability, please refer to my talk page since I've had several conversations about this issue and the general consensus seems to be that the article is fine. Thanks! Zelysion (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion

Edit: Sorry I saw your discussion page. I will respond onto that page. Zelysion (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion

Someguy1221, since you originally blocked Varsovian I'm asking you for advice: This is from my conversation with user Varsovian yesterday.[[11]]:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such incivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

He was just blocked for similar behaviour and edit warring right? [[12]] as well as warned later here[[13]]. Now he goes again and is edit warring against two editors and indirectly calling me an idiot. Someguy1221 please advice when you get a chance.--Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to note that I did not call you anything and specifically state that I would never use such incivil language to you. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly accused me of being a troll [14] [15] and a puppet and a liar, I am still being civil to you.

Someguy1221: Does WP:AGF mean that I should assume that an editor is telling the truth when they say that they live in a particular city or that I should follow the example of Jacurek and assume that they are lying, ask them if they even know what a person from their city is called [16] and then ask repeated questions [17][18][19][20][21] in an attempt to prove that they are lying?

You may also want to note that Jacurek started this section after the attempt by him and Loosmark to have me banned here [22] were called a "content dispute/conflict" by two uninvolved editors. What a co-incidence!Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, although Varsovian's language was admonishable in that exchange, it is not advisable to go on long tangents on the talk page that are unrelated to the dispute. In the meantime, I have yet to see any reasonable steps made towards dispute resolution. You've both been talking yourselves in circles at this point, so I would recommend trying to attract other editors to the dispute (through an RFC, or by asking for contributors from relevant WikiProjects). Someguy1221 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Four other editors were already involved and disputed Varsovians edits but left after loosing interests in endless conversations. Somebody really needs to examine that and you are right more people should get involved. However I question the intention of Varsovian there who just arrived here in September but shows signs of good experience in editing. I suspect that his agenda is not to improve the article since he entirely focused on my person from the very beginning.--Jacurek (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is a complant filed by the other user also disputing Varsovians edits here on the same article[[23]]--Jacurek (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Was this one of Varsovians aims? [[24]]--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia itself isn't a cite? interesting. strange that it's listed on the racial slur page, no? i love your hypocrisy. please, fight as hard as you can to hold up the leftist viewpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.3.74 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

70.48.115.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And 64.228.131.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the typofix.- Sinneed 06:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, Someguy1221. I have a peer-review request: I've listed the SENSOR-Pesticides article for peer review under the "natural sciences." I saw that you were listed as someone who was willing to be contacted for requests on the AfC project page. If you have a minute, please look over the article and offer your comments/suggestions/edits. It's not a long article, so it shouldn't take long! Thanks. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I closed this PR after getting good comments from several users, so n/m. MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you read my last message you can see it was the last one. Now, I would be interested in hear what exactly you read. It is true I did some harassment since I posted many time in his talk page. But did you see the origin of it? The Feature picture candidates pages. My first post in his talk page was in reply of an nonconstructive response to another reviewer who was actually providing useful information. Also follow the rest of his posts in that page. Read some, that are now there and some that are in some past nominations also. Follow also the link in my last post in his talk page. I would say that I had a chronic lack of AGF. Actually, in all my posts I was hoping for him noticing that he behaved wrong with Bazoo and that his posts are usually impolite. Franklin.vp  07:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, please when you post the incident to ANI can you send me a link. I would like to see it too and I don't know how to find it. Thank you Franklin.vp  07:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well if was thinking in you giving the diff pages. Just to be sure, since I am now a user-with-a-warning and I want it to be well earned, and since Nezzadar seems to be used to give partial links (as you can see in the ANI post and in hist ANI post linked in my last post in his page) let me post here the sequence

I start with [[25]] (I hope you saw the one in the FPC page) and then he replies with [[26]], then I do [[27]] and then [[28]] happens. I did [[29]] in which I become hopeless about making him understand. And I think that after this you were informed. (Actually the only one posted in the ANI) In any case I go happy home since Nezzadar agreed to behave well in FPC, at least something is gained.  Franklin.vp  08:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting with this, there are much more civil ways to tell a user you think his comments don't contribute to the discussion without attacking him. As for this, it's not the nicest way Nezzadar could have replied, but users in good standing are given considerable leeway in asking others to stay out of their userspace. The next two diffs from Nezzadar don't show anything of even minor concern, and the final diff from you put you over the top into the sanction/blocking arena. But yes, hopefully everything is settled now. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Remember Nezzadar? Look here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Projections. And the thing is that that time that I was lecturing him was not the first time he was causing problems. And it was not the last either. It is just that he is plain ignorant and a brute, not willing to learn new things. It is true that restlessly he fights vandalism in many places of wikipedia and works constantly on it. But his ignorance creates more problems than benefits in some places like FPC. He has the energy of a good editor but the stile of a troll.  franklin.vp  02:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• More Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei 4.jpg once more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the first incident, I would not hold Nezzadar responsible for the rapid loss of civility, although I'm glad it was brief thanks to restraint displayed by the other side. In the second incident, I don't think Nezzadar's comment was incivil. Nezzadar may need some further education on Wikipedia and the purpose of its projects, but he is quite far from any sort of actions where santions need to be taken. That's just my opinion, and you can open a new thread on ANI if you disagree. In looking to his future interactions, users who don't understand a project will wind up either learning or leaving. If he makes a comment on a FAC that is not totally in sync with the project's standards, it will not affect the outcome of the discussion, so there is little need to worry about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Individual incidents can be evaluated in many way I will just pile some more. [30]  franklin.vp  02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to give a big THANK YOU for seeing the page and cleaning up the name at BB cream. Since you made a change instead of someone else happy to throw a CSD onto it, can I assume you think it worth a chance to play out? I would have tried to do more as a very basic cleanup earlier, but at that time there was a rather massive rush of things I'd patrolled and removed from A7/G11 where the tag was being added repeatedly or in different forms and it was hard to keep up with.

Having had some more time to actually research the topic of this article, I feel kind of dirty that it was that close to a possible delete. Even with the few news sources it started with it without even having a company home page as a link was something of a giveaway on good faith. Anyway, if you're terribly bored and feel like wandering over, I've put up message on the author's talk page and started an article talk page, but right now it's mostly as encouragement to get the new contributor to work on it slowly! I think I gave enough hints tossed around that it would avoid the peeping eyes of a PROD if it grew even a little, but perhaps I'll add one neutral referenced thing to make sure no one tries...

Again, thaaaaank you for assisting on the save. It's so endlessly frustrating when something gets a CSD tag thrown back on after I remove it with a lengthy edit summary and I'm not there to catch again, and you pretty much stopped it from starting over again. Cheers!~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in and helping out with the anon. I have a wiki-headache now, but hopefully things will calm down. Thanks man. Regards. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He came back and according to the WHOIS this is a Bell Canada IP address.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent them another email. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And they replied:

Thank you for your patience with this case and keeping us up to date.

We had attempted to resolve this situation amicably with the client, however as you are aware, this was not successful.

I have communicated the seriousness of this to the account holder and they now claim to fully understand. We have made it clear that posts made to wikipedia after today's date will result in their permanent removal from the Bell Canada Network.

Please let us know immediately should this activity continue.

Regards,

Chris
Bell Internet

Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you blocked that IP again. Whoever it is keeps getting other people to do the same vandalism while they're banned. It's getting pretty ridiculous. They've also been hitting my talk page. There's no reason for this band to get removed. Not only did they play but they have several pictures of them performing on their Myspace page to prove that they did in fact play. I've requested protection for the page but have no idea if they will work. It'd just be nice to have another set of eyes on the page to keep reverting the nonsense. DX927 (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist. The page probably won't be protected since it's only being vandalized about once a day, but I'll be blocking anyone who repeats the same act of vandalism. By the way, is there an easy link, maybe an official one, I can go to to confirm that this band played at the Warped Tour? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you go to http://www.myspace.com/rosylikesred and look at their photos they have an entire folder of pictures of them playing this year's tour. They are also listed at http://www.kevinsaysstage.com/bands.php and http://www.vanswarpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp although the pictures are better proof. DX927 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures hosted on a band's myspace are actually not considered verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Just as we can't tell if a band is telling the truth about where it has performed, we also can't tell if the photo is what it is claimed to be. The official website of the tour is the best evidence for this sort of thing. But I'm not suggesting the band didn't actually perform; just FYI. And thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is beyond stupid. It's a photo of them on stage at the show. It's not just any other stage, it has huge banners indicating location, and it clearly takes place outdoors like most of the shows on the tour. How much more proof could there possibly be? DX927 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't "prove" anything on Wikipedia. Our own interpretations are original research. We only verify it with reliable sources. It's not a matter of how obvious the source is; it's a matter of how trustworth (Re: Reliable) the source is. Photos can be doctored, so photos are not generally considered verification of anything, especially if they were self published on a band's website. This is the same reason that written material on a band's website is not considered verification for most things. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John P. Yount, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

cheers mate, its rory here, who are you? Get in touch..... rory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.148.10 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

hi, its rory, who are you? would love to get in touch with some people i met from the past. Ps.: can you please leave the page as i left it? I would prefer it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser33 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

hi, this is rory. Who are you? would love to keep in touch with people ive met in the past. ps.: can you please respect my wishes and leave it the way i had it? otherwise please delete the article. cheers, rory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.148.10 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He reverted me after seeing that other user's agreed with me, I was just using my wikirights, which is that if 2 or more people agree, it goes their way. I think he also used his IP adress as a sockpuppet to back him self up In the talk page. House1090 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. No matter how many people agree with you, you cannot go over three-reverts a day unless you are reverting vandalism, copyright violations, or libelous content. And even then, edit warring is highly discouraged. The page was intentionally protected in the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay then what about the Wiki 3 opinion? He is just doing what he wants and getting a way with it, he was edit warring me i think 1-2 months ago, but I just gave up and moved on. I am tired of this and something must be done, look at the wiki notice board, I have updated it. Please! Thank-You House1090 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can follow dispute resolution. Administrators don't decide the outcome of a content dispute. We only fascilitate their resolution with the use of protection and blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

After he got off your 24-hour block for 3RR, Dominique R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done the same revert three more times. He has engaged in the talk page, but with a combative attitude in the face of a consensus against him. What do you suggest we try here? Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, the Swedish Wikipedia editor GameOn has reverted your edit on the Moira Sullivan article. He has already been reported for harassment to the English WP arbitration bureau. Please revert the edit since he will undoubtedly revert it again as a wikihounder. Something must be done about him. His comments are falsifications, libelous and defamatory, no editor should behave as he has and an administrator has to deal with this as it has gotten way out of hand and is harmful to WP. Thankyou for your assistance. Mjsullus (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)mjsullus

Hello, Someguy1221. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing about the QuickLogic article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickLogic

The description currently online is out of date. QuickLogic manufactures CSSPs only and is not involved in ASSPs, FPGAs or Programmable Logic Devices. I'd like to suggest two edits for your consideration:

1) Update the Products category so includes CSSPs only.

2) Update the definition of QuickLogic with the following: QuickLogic Corporation (NASDAQ: QUIK) manufactures flexible semiconductor platforms for the hand-held mobile device market. Using ultra low-power patented technology, QuickLogic supplies design solutions for the portable consumer such as smartbook, netbook, mobile internet device, smartphone, wireless data card and portable navigation markets. QuickLogic’s customized solutions are called “CSSPs”—Customer Specific Standard Products. They are built upon proprietary ViaLink technology and offer a combination of hard-wired application-specific logic and a flexible programmable fabric for customer-specific applications.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sunnyvale1988 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your desire to update the article, if you can do it without making the article read like either an advertisement or a press release. Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be written in a neutral tone. The neutral tone is the tone taken towards a subject by reliable sources, not the tone that the subject would use when speaking about itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks so much for the speedy reply and for allowing me to edit the page. Initially I tried a couple of times to update it but my verbiage was too commercial. Is the verbiage I proposed in my previous message acceptable? I only have one more attempt before I get banned from Wikipedia. This is my first time attempting to edit anything so it's been a learning process. Thanks again. Sunnyvale1988 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still reads promotional, to me. The best way to write in a non-commercial tone is to find sources that don't originate from the company (i.e. sources that are neither press releases nor advertisements nor official websites), and paraphrase what they say about the company. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in your edit summary you referenced ticket #2009110910037765. Could you tell me what that meant?—Ash (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a reference to a complaint received at OTRS, which can be reviewed by other OTRS volunteers. But even without the ticket, the content I have removed would have been an NPOV violation regardless. I have left a more complete explanation at User talk:TamaraStaples. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put a reply to your commentTamaraStaples (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the nature of the NPOV changes; however giving a rationale of an OTRS ticket for which non-OTRS volunteers can see no details, seems an oddly non-Wikipedian way of pursuing a consensus. I assume you are aware of the talk page history and how someone claiming to represent The Princes Trust has been making changes, apparently with COI, as these changes tended to remove any negative criticism of the Trust. As I suspect the OTRS ticket may have been raised by the same individual and given this context, if you intend to make further changes due to a OTRS that remains confidential, perhaps you would do the regular editors the courtesy of explaining the rationale and the general content of the OTRS ticket on the talk page so that a transparent true consensus can be reached. Cheers, —Ash (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for how the OTRS citation appeared. It was meant only to provide a motivation (not a reason) for my edit, for those capable of reading it. I'll be adding my full rationale to the article's talk page shortly. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The dispute over a particular quote attributed to a non-independent, biased source has been going on for weeks. If you read the discussion on that page you will find one, possibly two people who insist they are right to use the quote however absolutely refuse to justify it, even when it is pointed out the use of biased sources is a direct violation of WP:BLP and WP:COAT. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. The overwhelming consensus is that the quote is inappropriate however they (and one person in particular) continues to impose their opinion on the rest of the editors. A recent attempt at compromise putting the quote in context by giving the subject's point of view in order to attempt to balance the article back into NPOV was completely deleted by the persons involved. I believe if you actually go through the discussion page, you will find a large consensus opposed to the use of the criticism quote, with only one or two people imposing their opinion on the rest of us and refusing to compromise. Malvenue (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest to you is to pursue dispute resolution, and report for 3RR if someone violates the rule who was actually aware of it. I do agree that the reported editor's attidute is highly undesirable, as he appears to be to have gotten quite emotional about the matter. But it's not a blockable offense to be in the minority.

However, I am disappointed that you've made six reverts in the last two days, for which you could be blocked. Now, you may feel that since you're reverting what you see as BLP violations, that you are exempt from the 3RR rule. But when a content dispute clearly exists, you can't make that assumption (i.e. if several editors who've looked at the situation don't think it's an obvious BLP violation, then you shouldn't treat it as one). The most you should do is take it to ANI. If it really is a BLP violation, it'll be dealt with soon enough, without risking a 3RR block in the event that you're wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am new to this. I'm trying to stay within the rules but I'm still not sure exactly what I'm doing. I wasn't sure even how to reply to your warning. I don't mean to do the wrong thing, just correct obvious errors. Malvenue (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I figured that, and it's part of the reason you're not blocked right now ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What this person has been doing is inserting the offending statement without consensus, then simply reverting it and making complaints against anyone that corrects it regardless what the discussion says.Malvenue (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User's like this follow one of two paths: A) They learn and become productive editors, or B) They crash and burn, and either quit or get banned. I know that users with this sort of attitude can be frustrating, believe me; I've been there. But these situations are too ambiguous, both in their state and in their possible outcome for administrators to start bending the rules or exercising IAR with any sort of confidence that what they are doing is the right thing, and that's why my hands are tied on this. What I can tell you is that the resolution comes more quickly the more editors are brought into the situation. Consider following one of the suggestions at dispute resolution, such as a request for comment, being sure to put below the RFC request a quick summary of the dispute, so that newcomers to the page aren't scared away by the wall of arguing. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty amusing. I may occasionally be guilty of that last poicy as well. Not to be a whiner but since the page protection went into effect, the majority of the latest comments have been mostly insults and failures to comply with WP:AGF (see, I am learning something!). Other than posting same on the talk page, what is the procedure to report these violations? I got reported, which is what brought me to your attention in the first place, so I think I need to know how to do that when necessary myself. Many thanks for your help and instruction. Malvenue (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And the proper place to report is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly stop deleting the information provided in Girija Prasad Koirala's page. They are backed by sources. You may love him or he may be your demi-god but you have no right to stop the world from knowing the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack of All, Master of None (talk • contribs)

I've replied on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Morning!
Could you help me? I wanna delete this "article". I tried to include {{db-empty}} but it does not work. Are you able to delete this page? It is dispensable. Thanks :) --Geräusch (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It actually does work, sort of. The deletion tag doesn't display, but the page was listed at CAT:CSD. Anyway, I've deleted the page. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! That works fast. --Geräusch (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)