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

Archives Jan 2005 – May 2006 May 2006 – Dec 2006 Jan 2007 – Feb 2007 Feb 2007 – Apr 2007 Apr 2007 – Dec 2007 Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 Feb 2008 – Feb 2009

Note: Anyone who modifies the format of my page will be subject to Wikipedia's Spam Policy. The page is now under the watch of Wikipedia.

Also, a note to Mhking, you have been officially reported to Wikipedia. An Wikipedia:edit war is not the appropriate way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia.

May I also direct everyone to reading the Three-Revert Rule, which allows you to be banned for a minimum of 24-hours for reverting more than three times in the form of vandalism.

Meleniumshane90 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I'm sorry about sending you guys so many images. All I was trying to do was improve wikipedia a little. I will not be sending over so many images from now on and you can go ahead and delete all of the Images that I have on wikipedia right now, if you wanted to. User:GMButtrill08 and User:G-mon, I have two names because I was trying to change my first user name(GMButtrill08). 5:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your work with vandalism, but especially tonight (New Years Eve), I, Sharkface217, hereby award you with this barnstar. Good job, man.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mhking,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's you Mhking? Everything all right? Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of marking something "dead link", just remove the link, and note in the description that you are doing so for that reason. --Mhking 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

>>thanks for info, how do i remove this "new message"?, it keeps appearing at the top of my screen and i cant find any info anywhere how to get rid of this

thanks

If you are counter-vandalism, please explain how removing unsubstantiated information and cleaning up grammar on this entry merits your interference? This entry is not up to Wiki standards and your current attitude of maintenance towards it is conflict of interest. IMHO. AntiVanity 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I didn't know that.I will never do that again. What should I do?

I think that the references in the article adequately demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gang is one of the few all-Polish organized crime outfits in American history. They are a major force in Philadelphia's modern underworld and listed as contacts of many other criminal organizations operating in the city. Thedeparted123 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello pls delete beat the bank article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiddy (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I created this page from Gelco trying to present a NPOV and the article was basically historical information, please indicate how I need to edit it to ensure it is not deleted. Gelco is over a hundred years old and has historical significance in their industry. --Voyageurit 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put Gelco with a hangon so I can add noteable and verifyable supporting documentation on the Gelco entry. This entry was historical about the evolution of the business process industry and is a valid article. --Voyageurit 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any substantial difference between my original edit and your slightly revised version, but I don't have a problem with the section as you now changed it to read. Thanks for just editing my contribution instead of deleting it. 70.254.91.108 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ramsey The sentence in question is absolutely POV; I have reworded it to remove the POV. I have no problem with the substantive content, but POV edits need to be addressed. --Mhking 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - Pars Online is an article I believe to be notable. Please check out the talk page there for my comments. --Commking 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else deleted the speedy delete tag already - thanks. --Commking 11:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - we've faced other nonsense before, including a couple of users with dozens of sockpuppets intent on vandalizing TV station articles. This is actually an easy one. Thank you for jumping on it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no vandalism from: 141.154.64.129 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) The images he/she are replacing in those articles are indeed valid images. Please clarify why you need this person blocked if you refile on WP:AIV. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, fast patroling you're doing there! You're beating be about 30% of the time in speed of db-tagging.  :-) Coren 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Pious7_Talk^Contribs 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mhking, I DID NOT remove any "to-be-deleted" criteria. Rather, I followed the protocol sent to me in a message for starting a DISCUSSION section to accompany my page, "Canadian Toilet Cartel". After the posting thereof, another editor removed the distinction and replaced it with its current disclaimers and warnings.

These "DISCUSSION" instructions were the instructions sent in the message because of a possible immediate deletion due to a designation of the page as "nonsense". The page is my first attempt and also a very important one to me, as it deals with organized crime. Organized crime is one area of fascination for me. In trying to improve the page, I am continually updating it and adding citations in order to conform to wikipedia specifications. Thank you for your concern.

Sincerely, Leon

Yeah, this whole ordeal is getting out of hand. It's so wonderful that people are able to collaborate together on an article that is really not half bad (except for that it's humongous!) but when people start doing stupid stuff, like making pages that are either redundant of material already on the root page, or are totally not worth making a page of at all, it just makes more work for others. But whatever. We all know it happens every time something big happens. Had you not AfD'd that article, I probably would have done so myself. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a semi-related note, I think that as long as we wait a while, things will cool down (or should at least) and any stray articles that should be merged back into the parent article would be better taken care of then. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that whether you agree with my tone or comments or not, you have no right to delete my comments. I made a valid point and did not insult anyone directly even if i went of on a slight tangent at the general state of things causings people irrational arguments. Please refrain from deleting my comments in the future! --Jimmi Hugh 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaken; I've not deleted any comments of yours, at least not intentionally. If, by chance, I have done so by mistake, I apologize. --Mhking 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case sorry, i did wonder given you made numerous other changes also... and as mine was the bottom post it was probably caught of in some copy operating... no problems! --Jimmi Hugh 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there is a way Adminisrators can delete a topic without waiting for the 5 day discussion, given that all the keeps in the discussion do not have anything todo with policy? --Jimmi Hugh 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankyou. I did think it was probable that any sort of disagreement qualified it for debate whether the discussion followed policy or not. In related news, i apologize for my excessive commenting last night... i was basically living of the commenting while trying to stay awake with a concussion. --Jimmi Hugh 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. King, I honestly do not think I was vandalizing the Sun-times page although we may disagree on what is factual and what is in dispute. But I noticed that a lot of people seem to share my thoughts. So please do not forcifully impose your own understanding on others-- please be more democratic and open minded. -- Berkeley, CA

I have no idea how it is spam, my website is just as much of a fansite as anything else on there.--MasterKit 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring those two links. I just assumed that there was a separate article for area codes (where those links would be more at home), but chasing that down brought me around to NANPA again. -- JHunterJ 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hurt me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.171.250 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6	21 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Canada highway WikiProjects deleted Deletion debates Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back them up? I have not done anything wrong. Or ever vandlised wikipeda. Your post shows a perfect example of the mentatly of the editors ie if they dont like something that somebody has done then it must be vandlism and WP:POINT DXRAW 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. DXRAW 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that you actually reverted yourself to avoid an edit war and took the discussion to the article's talk page some while before DXRAW (talk · contribs) wrote the above. Well done. Please note that xe is not an administrator. Uncle G 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael. Thanks for your message. Having a look at the article and those related, there does appear to be some single-account editing going on, and very likely some sock puppetry. I tend to agree with your take on the situation, but would rather the AfD on Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre be resolved before removing it completely. So I have reformated the article and added a slightly edited version under the notable stories section. Rockpocket 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be relevant enough to be included in this article,maybe under the title criticism for Chicago Sun-Times--Ksyrie 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I understand speedy deletion, I see your point. However creating pages from IPs is banned and I can't see how that's any more dangerous than allowing new accounts to do it. The way, the truth, and the light 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, and at times I share it. But in the eyes of many (including myself) the benefits certainly outweigh the risks. --Mhking 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't split a discussion across different talk pages. My main point was that there doesn't seem to be any reason to treat new accounts differently from IPs in this matter. The way, the truth, and the light 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to reply on others' talk pages for that reason; that's what the watchlist is for. Again, my point was that treating differently IPs and new accounts doesn't make sense. The way, the truth, and the light 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I was wrong. You can't be expected to watchlist every user you are talking to. There ought to be a feature to watchlist a page temporarily. The way, the truth, and the light 14:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well about the bushmaster knock-off that your saying the external links are spam.. i dont understand that.. all im trying to do is say where i got most of my information.. sorry if thats not aloud. BKO THECANADIAN 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also i dont understand how the links im posting is inapropriate since it related to where u can get information about my topic.. but its alright , i dont really care just i dont want people thinking that i wrote all my information when alot of it comes from different sources. its not 100% me and i though u had to link to the sites where u got your info.

Ok, just wanted to see if the page was makeable. LazyLaces 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is continuing to vandalise pages: [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.5.9 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, so I guess I went and broke the rule by one revert then. This edit war is a bizarre conflict in that the individuals who are fighting are removing valuable information without talking on it. It's been a hit and run process for them.I think it's fair to say that they are vandalizing the page, but I don't know who might agree. I will find the time later to make an RtC for it in hopes that the people who comment would have more integrity than they did. I think that the guy without an account might have still been Skarioffszky too. Is there a chance that I could get the page semi-locked, since the other pages on the issue are also semi-locked? -Youngidealist 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just remembered that the last thing I did on the history was a simple edit for clarity, not a revert. I think I am still within the guidelines then, but yeah, it's still an edit war with those two.-Youngidealist 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, That sounds good. Can I ask, would you know if NBC is connected to or possibly owned by Turner now? I ask for the sake of my own suspicians about the interpretations of thetapes (Turner bleeps out 'Jesus' when said in vein on its stations) but I wouldn't aempt to put it on the article, that would be origional research, I'm just curious. There is of course the need to clarify if he was speaking against Christians or speaking against the "wrong kind of Christian" which is often a stance that Christians take to criticize one another. I also wonder how you would feel about NBC if it does turn out to be a false rumor in the company. Thanks for your assistance -Youngidealist 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand that you are being fair, honest, and neutral in the disagreement between myself and Skarioffszky, and I appreciate that, but he's gone and removed the section again from the main page without talking first. I think this is malicious behavior on his part as I have agreed for him to edit for neutrality, but not to delete. I ask that you would revert it back as I am at my three revert limit. Youngidealist 23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you targeted these pages for deletion without trying to discuss this with anyone involved on the pages. So all the rules you stated that I should follow, you did not even follow yourself. If you had at least looked at the discussion threads, you would have found that we had more information regarding the sets, but were then targeted for deletion for having too many links (in order to cross-reference the figures with the comic counterparts). The information provided would help someone understand the game, the sets and the characters. However, as per the suggestions by other editors, the pages were paired down to the lists.

Rather than submitting a CfD for a topic which you have no interest in, you should have discussed it first on the Main Page's (HeroClix) discussion page. I see NO entry there. This step IS the first to be taken PRIOR to putting up a CfD. As an editor, you could have made suggestions for making the pages better and bring them up to the standard that wikipedia is striving to achieve for their readership. Most of these pages go back FIVE (5) years without a CfD.

Also, we are not daily editors on wikipedia. When I get new information, I post it to wikipedia. Therefore, it was most important that you did post to the dicussion thread FIRST.

Finally, I will apologize for the CfD on the stations. I did look through all your content and do think that your radio station boxes are nothing more than advertising since you list their content categories and then have links the the station's web sites. First Lensman 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diez2 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things I added in the V-Tech shooting article were FACTS and were in NO-WAY picking a side. They mainly described how there's facts about the whole event that don't make any sense and makes it look so damn unreal... most of the newspaper got their information from blogs of witnesses, mine were from credible magazines/police and witnesses reports. You probably are as corrupted as the ones that try to hide the truth to everyone. Face the facts, that whole event as it is described by the medias don't even make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.130.9 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mhking. I looked at the edit history of this article a little while ago, as its on my watchlist (it has been getting vandalised a lot recently) and I notice you have removed the trivia section. I have no objection to this at all, but would you mind if I integrate some of the trivia into the article itself, as the trivia heading suggested? It will obviously work better in the article than in a seperate section in my opinion. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6	21 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news April 27 IRC meeting California Deletion debates MacArthur Maze Fire Illinois Featured member Circular route shields Pennsylvania From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am currently still writing/editing this article, please wait till its completion before you decide to delete. ps: i'm from ga too (glennville)[[User:Supreme2k1|${\displaystyle Supreme2k1]]13:58,12May}$ 2007

Mhking, sorry about the Ender's Game article . I can never find anything good to write. All the articles I want to write have already been written. Any ideas on how to think of a good article?

Thanks

--Seabird111 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Seabird111--)[reply]

At your earliest convenience I would like to draw your attention to the discussion topic I started in the Red Faction article. Thank you. Hapa Hanu 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mhking. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Marathon Man2.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Mhking/Archive 3. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question. On this edit, you say that she died at Dexter King's house. Are you a member of the family and can you e-mail me proof that you are, because the fact that she died at a different place than a person reports on the news is original research. Thanks. Real96 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 8	19 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news USRD members assist Canada project California Deletion debates Two debates at USRD Illinois Featured member A new GA Oklahoma From the editors Pennsylvania From the editors Washington
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to your site to inquire as to why you marked my unbiased article for speedy deletion, but after reading some other comments, I can clearly see the pattern that you follow. Can you explain why, after the article was marked for speedy deletion and I re-edited it to include references and historical documentation, you marked my article again and included a warning that would ban my further posts to Wikipedia? I have nothing but good intentions in participating in this project but you react by deleting pages without any specific or evidentary explanation. I find this particularly distasteful and request a detailed explanation for your actions.

Jjm10 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving threatening messages on someone's talk-page is not cool, especially when you've actually managed to slip up yourself. You tagged that article with ((db-repost)) which is not valid in the absence of an actual deletion discussion. Maybe you could do with revising how speedy deletion works to avoid another such situation; maybe you could also consider working with people to improve their articles rather than simply flogging them to death with templates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 05:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil here. I think you may have inadvertantly bitten a newcomer. The last thing we want to do is turn an enthusiastic and well intentioned contributor into someone sour on our process who keeps their potential contributions to themselves because we've driven them away. The parkclearly exists, a google search reveals that, and it is clearly notable enough to merit inclusion. The article just needed some work, and instead of tagging, perhaps you could have worked with the user. I hope you find this feedback useful. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil/Mhking -

I see what you are saying; my tone was harsh, and I apologize. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and felt that I had correctly cited references and had a site deleted too quickly. I did not correctly place the request to dispute the deletion, which led to further confusion. I intend to read up on the procedures and participate in a meaningful way. I apologize again to both of you for my rudeness.

Jjm10 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ben Hubers is pretty significant in Georgia distance running, such that he probably merits a place on the alumni list. fish 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put Hubers back on the McEachern page, but he's still deserving of a spot there. fish 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; thanks for the clarification. fish 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cbsdaytime.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 9	9 June 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Highways notability guideline? California Deletion debates Portal debate Maryland Featured member Three new GAs From the editors Exit list debates
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your continued edits of WYIN. All of my revisions are factual based on verifyable working knowledge of that particular topic. I see you were a former resident of Gary and now live in Gerogia. Well when you move back and actually physically can see that the changes made were false, let me know...I would be more than happy to debate those edits with you...

I just saw your profile in Gary, Indiana. I bet you did that all by yourself. I can also tell you love to hear yourself talk don't you. I bet you read this out loud in your best "James Earl Jones" voice just because you miss the sound of your own voice...

So what is that you do exactly? After reading your page, it sounds like editing Wikipedia is the highlight of your day...

http://www.lakeshoreptv.com/res/pdf/Web-Storm-damage.pdf

I have tagged Image:Espnu_fc.gif as ((no rationale)), because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current schedule from the List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company page again, and the editors in charge will have you permanently blocked. AdamDeanHall 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping corral vandalism by User:71.187.56.223. Mdotley 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 10	7 July 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Kentucky subproject promoted California Deletion debates AID restructuring Maryland Featured member GA status Pennsylvania From the editors Notability discussion currently collecting dust
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this article for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV HD channels. I also had to do a massive revert on List of DirecTV channels. I'll keep a better eye on the article for a while. --Son 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Myselfalso)[reply]

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son^{T - C}
• Son^Talk
• (→O - RLY?)

16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond soon, it is rather time-sensitive. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Anything you feel you can do. Please go to the bid and sign your name under "in Atlanta" and list your limitations so people know what to ask from you when the time comes. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of DirecTV channels, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC) MY RESPONSE I WAS ASKED TO MOVE IT TO DIRECTV CHANNEL PAGE SO HOW IS THAT VANDALIZING IT HUH ?? YOU ARE DEFAMAING ME BY CLAIMING I VANDALIZED IT - I GUESS THE OPPRESSIVE BROADCASTER DOES NOT LIKE FACTS

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 12 • September 1, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features WikiProject template system revamped Inactivity report Stub template changes continue	State and national updates Missouri New Jersey New York Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Beyond2000.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 13 • September 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features U.S. road editors attempt to achieve the two millionth Wikipedia article WikiProject page revamped Bannered U.S. Routes merged Quality first: WikiWork, stubs, and improvement of the project	State and national updates New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mhkingapril3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mhking. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.

I'm still writing it! Give me a little bit of time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Jim (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up -- I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on the article See-through frog, as this seems to be real. I also added references, a category, and all that fun stuff. --Fabrictramp 22:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 14 • September 30, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Consolidation of participants list causes controversy Portal structure change Discussions regarding notability	State and national updates U.S. Routes New Jersey Pennsylvania New York State New York County Texas
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I please have the article Spencer Shay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boo1210 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just to let you know, I've put my reasons for creating the page on the talk page of the article... ~Pentangle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentangle (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to ask you, how does one start a wiki-based site, (such as Galactiwiki, Pilkipedia, Lostpedia, etc.), and is it free? I would love to know. Thanks.

Seabird

Your attempt to speedily delete the Ah Louis page is patently stupid. Couldn't you wait even fifteen minutes following the creation of a new article in order to see what progress might be made to it? No, not you... you waited mere seconds to jump all over a new article. You must be so proud of yourself. —XSG 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only add things that are in fact coming. The Starz Comedy and Kids and Family are not there and they have been up for months. They are only in HD. The standards should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mu69 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps instead of deleting the article, you could advise me of what I need to add to verify it. That would be great —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinhell (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really vandalism, it is a content dispute. I have absolutely no idea what this relates to since I have never watched cable TV, but you can't really describe the addition of inforation, even if it is completely incorrect, as vandalism. Perhaps try explaining to the editor on their userpage why they are wrong? Tim Vickers 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 15 • October 20, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Tunnel fire in California shuts down Interstate 5 Exit list guide gets a makeover Ohio stub deletions	State and national updates Interstate Highways U.S. Routes California New Jersey New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Playable characters in super smash brothers brawl. Thank you. Domthedude001 01:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Well i had to write it as ill have the most accurate information, unless you want me to get someone really slow at typing and tell them everything to write. But nonetheless it is a important page to gaming society, like the page of Pure Pwnage or someone like Fatal1ty, hope you understand. Alfarjamie

Re: It still adds more information to your database, i don't think something like 50 cent Should be reaching the notability requirements but he does. Alfarjamie

Re2: If you need a example of notability, just search Alfarjamie in google, you will get a lot of results, 800+ and ALL me.

Re3: Why not just leave the page there though.. I mean, people could just wiki my name and find out about me rather than just contacting me basically all day asking about me..

Re4: Delete my profile then, ill just host it on another site and give thier site more views..

Hi Mhking; an anon accidentally posted a comment on my talk page intended for you. Here it is: --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Miller

I'm sort of new to wikipedia. this is actually my first interaction with other posters so to speak and I had to look around for a while before i found a way to post a message to Mhking. I hope you'll pardon me if I'm posting this on the wrong page and that I'll be pointed in the right direction. If this gets deleted I'd like at least to have some sort of feedback. Wikipedia is a crucial part of tomorrow's world (and today's !!) and if some might argue that in of itself, this is not yet the case, by virtue of the precedent it sets for information sharing and meaningful debate it certainly is. Even though i might be willing to admit i got carried away while editing Larry Miller's article, I don't think, considering his "delicate" (I wouldn't want you stop reading just yet) utterances, that calling them (not him) "racist" is a violation in any way of wikipedia's standards or guidelines. When dealing with white-supremacists, for example, such as Hitler, I couldn't help but notice that no one shied away from using the words "racist" or "anti-Semite".

But on to Larry Miller... I made 3 changes to the Larry Miller article: added "bigot", my bad. end of story. From this point on I will no longer speak of this edit as I believe there is nothing more to say about it. When speaking of your "re-edits" elsewhere in this message I speak only of the other two instances in which I intervened to edit the article. Namely when...

I added "category: anti-Arabism" and added "racist" as an ADJECTIVE (not a noun as in "a racist") referring to his so-called "traditional conservative positions" i.e. point of view (what follows is the excerpt in question)

[Larry] Miller also writes a regular political-humor column in The Weekly Standard, generally taking traditional conservative positions on a variety of issues:

   * "The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: there are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention."

And regarding Palestinians who want their own state:

   * Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

[End of excerpt]

As for calling mr Miller's positions "racist", I think that his statements speak for themselves. Denying the existence of a people through the refusal to recognise their very name is as grave an offense as denying the existence of, say, the Holocaust would be. I think we all agree that this goes well beyond "traditional conservative". He goes on to state that "Palestinian" is a "made-up word". Perhaps, and yet no more than any other word is, words such as "American" or "Israeli", for all words are "made-up". He carries on: "let's call them what they are:..." Though I can certainly appreciate the smooth transition into an "us vs. them" dynamic, I was appalled to read what to him is an appropriate definition of Palestinians: "in denial about never being able to accomplish anything..." I can't help but wonder how Wikipedia's staff would have reacted to these comments if they were directed to other ethnic groups such as , African-Americans, Mexicans, Puerto-Ricans or, dare I say it, Jewish people. I am by no means saying that he should be censured. Far from it, but if this sort of comment is to be published on wikipedia, they should be appropriately labeled. These are racist comments, there is no room for debate. Thus if a contributor/editor describes them as such it should hold, for it is a fact. An anti-abortion standpoint or activists for school prayer or even creationism might be considered to be "traditional conservative". Mr Miller's comments are not "traditional conservative" they are blatantly racist. Calling them "traditional conservative" is inaccurate and, in light of this, does not pass muster with Wikipedia's standards.

I think I've made my point regarding the racist nature of Mr Miller's statements so in keeping with wiki-accuracy (wikcuracy, if you will) it might be possible to zero in on his brand of racism, which brings me to my next point.

As far as "category: anti-arabism" goes, it is by no means a concept, a term, a category or an article that I made up. there is an article on it on wikipedia. It is defined on your site as follows:

"Anti-Arabism is a term that refers to prejudice or hostility against people of Arabic origin."

Bearing in mind that some schools of thought consider Palestinians to be of "Arab origin" and that any person of normal intelligence would find in Mr Miller's remarks both "prejudice" and "hostility", I think that it was more than justified to link a living, breathing example of anti-Arabism to the "anti-Arabism" article, it helps to explain / understand the concept as well as contributing to the de-orphanisation of both articles. So your deletion of this edit in particular is completely unjustified. This particular edit in no manner whatsoever constituted, as you put it, "adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles.." (by the by, it was just the one article). It should not have been touched.

I invite you then to take a look at the bigger picture. I think if anyone made any sort of comment to this effect in reference to Israel or to Jewish people in general, no one would think twice about describing them as "anti-semitic". I thus think that Mr Miller's comments should be appropriately labeled as both "racist" and "anti-Arab. Just as "anti-semitic" cracks are, by definition, "racist" so are Mr. Miller's anti-Arab remarks. It is that simple. Double standards are a major hindrance to objectivity. I recognise that in any ideology, in any point of view there is a level of subjectivity, however I believe that in Mr Miller's case or at least in this case the brand of subjectivity evinced in his comments has an accurate name, i.e. "racism". And isn't accuracy what Wikipedia is all about?

I am convinced Mhking, that wikipedia is of paramount importance, it is a site I love and have the utmost respect for. Furthermore, I think that your work and that of your colleagues in wiki-quality control is essential part of Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I feel that that you were somewhat rash to act in the "cleaning" of the article. Though I do grant you, as stated above, that part of your re-editing efforts were justified, I feel you were too quick to simply undo all my edits (namely concerning the entries "racist" and "category: anti-Arabism") instead of stepping back a second, taking a good look at the bigger picture and realising that there is, indeed, a problem.

I think it's clear that Mr Miller's comments themselves are of a racist nature and I don't - nor will I ever - apologise for calling him a racist. I am sure we all agree that a racist is someone who evinces racist attitudes, commits racially motivated acts and / or utters racist remarks. I am sure as well that we all agree that his comments on Palestinians amount to racist remarks and that, in light of this, calling Mr Miller a "racist" is in no way my (or any one else's) personal analysis or opinion, rather a description of reality, of a FACT. (Now that I think about it, I guess it's pretty clear that he is a "bigot" though I would no longer post it because, though true, it would constitute an insult). If ever and whenever it is not allowed to label someone who publishes these or similar statements "a racist", then it would / should not be allowed to call anyone a racist. If Mr Miller is not a racist then no one is. The very word "racist" would then cease to have all meaning and would become an empty, "made-up word". Wikipedia's (or any one else's) reticence to recognise this FACT would be, in fact, sad and irrefutable proof of a lack of neutralityBold text. For all of Wikipedia's talk of neutrality (NPOV policy) your efforts to re-edit Larry Miller's article seem biased in his favour and at neutrality's expense.

Now that I have explained to you why I made some of the changes I did, I take advantage of this opportunity to let you know that I will make three further edits to the article, knowing of course that they will be automatically available to you for scrutiny. These edits are quite simple really, you could have made them, but in your zeal to purge tha article of my edits, didn't. I am going to add the word "controversial" to the article's opening sentence so that it will read:

"Lawrence J. Miller (born October 15, 1953) is a "controversial" American stand-up comedian and actor who frequently portrays..."

Furthermore I will add it to the sentence that leads up to his clearly racist comments on Palestinians. The aforementioned sentence will read as follows:

"Miller also writes a regular political-humor column in The Weekly Standard, generally taking traditional conservative "and controversial" positions on a variety of issues:"

Because of the importance of being consistent, I will add "controversial" to the "Larry Miller disambiguation" page as well so that it will read "controversial columnist".

My third and final change to the article will be adding, once again, the "category: anti-Arabism" to the bottom of the page's cross-reference section. I believe I have sufficiently made my case for this and, as well as for the other edits that I will carry out, if you don't agree, I hope you will seek your colleagues' opinion on the matter instead of simply blocking my account like you threatened to, thus "adding (or deleting!!) commentary" based on "your personal analysis in articles.." My analysis is based on facts that are cold and hard enough to be considered wiki-facts and thus, my changes (the ones I am about to make) should stand. If you do not agree with me, however, instead of summarily and unilaterally deleting them, at the very least they should be up for discussion including me and the rest of the wiki-community. Wikipedia belongs to us all not just to those who patrol it. If autocratical editing becomes commonplace, it will be Wikipedia that will suffer the most from it. Wikipedia is a promising project with a bright future. A future that depends on monitors such as you. Will wikipedia be an unbiased source of information or is it destined to reproduce the same double-standards of mainstream Amercian media?

I am a staunch believer in freedom of speech, in the inalienable right we all have to speak our minds and yet I believe that we are not simply dealing with a right, but rather with a responsibility as well. I believe we should all be held accountable for what we say and write. Whether it's published on Wikipedia or in the "Weakly Standard" (pun intended) should in no way have any bearing whatsoever on our responsibility for our words / actions. It is actually quite simple not to be considered a racist... all that is required of us is that we display no disparaging attitudes towards a particular racial group, that we commit no acts which might belittle a racial group and that we not profer pejorative utterances regarding a racial group. From reading a short article, a stub actually (and not just anystub - a NPOV-guaranteed Wikipedia stub at that) it became painfully clear that Mr Miller is not capable from abstaining from this. I wonder why that is...

Thank you for your time Mhking. I look forward to reading your reply. until then, keep up the good work ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr3 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mhkingapril3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently placed a warning on my talk page concerning vandalism! This was in no way vandalism (more a hit on the wrong TW button). When noticed that I mistakenly removed the SD tag on the newly created vandal article, I was about to correct it. But since you already readded the tag, I was unable to do so. UserDoe 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. I was busy wearing out the block button, and you showed up right when I needed some help. :) east.718 at 06:36, 11/12/2007

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features The word "decommissioned" causes trouble WikiProject U.S. Streets Deadly crash shuts down Connecticut Turnpike	State and national updates California Maryland New York Virginia
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only person vandalizing this article is you and the other individuals who rewrote it and butchered it. It is now totally unreadable and has blatanlty incorrect and incomplete information. The recent changes to the article seem to concentrate on the sleazy aspects of DEN and much of the information is wrong. Our company owns the trademark rights to The Digital Entertaiment Network and was involved in a trademark dispute with the DEN. Since we own the trademark name which is the title of the article (The fact that 'the' is not there is irrelevant. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not see a distinction) our information belongs at the top of the page. The information I posted is factual and verifiable and is not an advertisement. The small write-up about the website is merely a description of what it does. If you wish to escalate the matter with wikipedia I will be more than happy to formulate a response. Please do not delete the information again or I will report you to wikipedia as vandalzing the article.

Ralph Press Tdenusa (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this article is about in regards to Digital Entertainment Network is strictly your opinion as to what it should be about. The only reason information about our trademark ownership and dispute with DEN regarding it is not mentioned is because the authors of the article did not do their homework. It's interesting to note that opinions expressed in the article such as 'After a substantial amount of hype, the site itself turned out to be rather conventional for the time' you have not complained about, but the factual information I have provided which directly relates to both DEN and my company seems to bug you. Please do not bother having your friends on Wikipedia also send me bogus threats. If you honestly believe that the information I have posted is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines I suggest you file a formal complaint with them. I fully plan to reinstate my edits. In the event you remove them again, I will file a formal complaint with Wikipedia and we will have them decide who is right.

Ralph Press Tdenusa (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is that Gary Indiana is in the Pandora's Box documentary. The designers of Gary were recruited by the soviets to build a Russian town, and the Russian town was designed along similar lines to Gary.

If you don't know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism, which apparently you don't, then I would recommend you don't use the vandalism tag, except in clear-cut cases, particularly for well established editors.WolfKeeper (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alejandro Pérez should not be deleted. Perez has been recognized by individuals and organizations for his efforts in improving education; mainly at Comstock Elementary School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempfel (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tags from this article because I think it really does TRY to assert the notability. Feel free to tag it with a prod tag, if you like. Joyous! | Talk 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see your moniker warning the same guy that I did about some drag strip. I, as wysiwyg, remember reading articles on your ping list at another popular website. Hope all is well and keep up the good work! —Travis^talk 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that Pevsner v. Commissioner qualified for CSD:A7, but rather needs an intro. It doesn't offer much context but should not be speedily deleted in my opinion. If you disagree, please message me or write on the the talk page of the article. You may have not noticed all of the information lower on in the page, and made a mistake. I know I've done it many times. Thanks. Alexbrewer^{talk} 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the "star" of the show was "Harry Johnson" and it deals with sex, I think it was more "prank vandalism" than "unsourced series". -- azumanga (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Situation has an actual article, but I still smell a hoax. -- azumanga (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but our reports were reverted by a bot saying the user was blocked for an hour. There is nothing on the user's talk page (User talk:67.68.14.148) that says he was blocked. Do you have any idea wtf happened?  Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴talk 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

hey you left me a message and i have no idea how to respond. wikipedia is really confusing to get around Lilmizmagic4 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i got the information from the source i posted. its not exact copy, but thats why i cited the book because that's where i read about it. This was a class assignment for me so i'm new to this and not really sure what i was doing. i wouldn't contribute here if it hadn't been a requirement for a course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilmizmagic4 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

You deleted my entry about a company. Okay. But what about all the other articles about companies? What's the difference there?

Bye, Isniela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isniela (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism, which apparently you don't, then I would recommend you don't use the vandalism tag, except in clear-cut cases, particularly for well established editors. Get a life, go out and lose your virginity for once. fucking michelle malkin fan with a god-complex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.128.219 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. It's nice to meet another user who's in his 40s (I'm 47), and I can see that you, too, have a wide variety of interests. Feel free to wipe this message after you've read it. I honestly don't want to undermine your efforts on fixing the pages of other users, and you convey enough of a sense of authority with the younger editors to do well with them. However, the program guide admonition is intended for current material, so to avoid the "Coming this Christmas to Nickelodeon" type of promotion. If you want to call in administrators, that's fine, but let's not get into an edit war. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Costello posted the following on my talk page, as a response to both of us, so I'll pass it along: >> I'd direct your attention to this text from the WP:NOT guidelines. "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." (emphasis mine) Note the specific reference to annual US network television schedules, which would be a close parallel to this, the annual schedules of NBC Red during a historic period, 1926-1952. These schedules would not, obviously, list upcoming events, current promotions, or current schedules. I would argue that the WP:NOT guidelines have a specific carve-out for the kind of thing NBC Red had. Eric O. Costello (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mandsford" << Mandsford (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. I wish I had more expertise on making tables. I can do some of the basics, but all I have at the moment is the grist for the mill. Anything you can offer to improve the appearance will be appreciated. Right now, there's so much red and blue, it looks like election night. Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, I added links to Television Without Pity's episode recaps to the External Links sections of several specific pages. For example, I added a link to "Chuck episode recaps on Television Without Pity" to the "Chuck" page.

I was then blocked for "spamming" and given several warnings by you and your colleagues, who referred to TWOP as a fan site or my personal blog.

Television Without Pity is not a blog or a fan site. It is a professionally run website that provides in-depth episode recaps for popular shows. It is owned by NBC Universal.

TWOP's competitors include TV.com, TVGuide.com, and AOL Television -- all of these sites have links in the External Links area on pages about specific shows. Why can't TWOP?

Please advise. Thank you.

--RonGrail 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the above. However, this statement you made is incorrect: "TWOP is a forum-based site that uses individual user-written articles as the basis for its recaps/reviews of programs."

TWOP's reviews/recaps (i.e. what I was trying to add to the External Links) are written by professional writers who are paid for their work, just like TVGuide.com, TV.com, AOL Television, etc. The majority of the site's traffic is generated by its professional content. The site has a full-time staff based at NBC Universal's headquarters in New York, in addition to a roster of freelance professional writers.

The site's user-generated content is segregated in a "Forums" section, which was not being linked to by me on Wikipedia.

Please let me know if this helps change your mind. Both the business and editorial sides of TWOP consider TV.com, TVGuide.com, etc. to be competitors. It is unfair to be treated differently than them by Wikipedia, when all create the same kind of content in the same manner.

--RonGrail 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and think before criticising other user's contributions. I am doing this because at the moment the way the date formats work in Wikipedia is U.S. centric, in breach of the long standing policy that all variants of English have equality in Wikipedia. The redirects will allow people to use British English dates in auto-generated footnotes without creating red links. If you check you will note that such red links exist for most days in 2007, and for some dates in other years. They will proliferate in the future. I would ask you for an unreserved apology for falsely implying that this is not a constructive contribution to Wikipedia. LukeHoC (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]