User talk:Prezbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

fyi[edit]

You nominated Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#Category:Pashtun_Taliban_leaders for deletion.

I informed the administrator who closed the discussion of half a dozen exceptions. Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I put it up for deletion in part because of your comment on the creator's talk page. Either way it would be easier to have a category for Taliban leaders who aren't Pashtun if that kind of categorization is useful.Prezbo (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW Tariq Aziz is Chaldean, not Shiite.Prezbo (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yipes! You are right. Wow, thanks for finding humor in it.
Personally I suspect that the Taliban leadership might be even more insular than Saddam-era Iraq's. I regard those seven allegations from the Guantanamo as very serious -- because men are held there for years based on them. But I personally think these are among the allegations that are totally lacking credibility. The Guantanamo analysis effort, that portion of it that has been made public, overflows with allegations that I think reflect a total absence of sanity checking. There is one captive, denounced for a bounty in Afghanistan, by bounty hunters who told Max Smart that he was (1) the former Taliban governor of one of Afghanistan's most populous and prosperous provinces; and (2) the spokesman for the Taliban's Foreign Affairs Ministry, and (3) the Commander of Afghanistan's three largest Air Bases; and the Taliban's answer to James Bond. Max Smart paid out a handsome bounty for this guy, and his hosts. This guy, Abdullah Khan testified in January 2005 that his interrogators in Bagram kept insisting they knew he was lying about his identity. They knew he was Khirullah Khairkhwa, the former Governor. They warned him if he didn't confess he was Khairkhwa he would be sent to a worse place -- Guantanamo.
Sure enough, after a couple of months, he is sent to Gauntanamo -- where he learns something from the other captives that should have been terrific news, news that in a sane world, would have triggered a handsome apology and quick trip home. The USA had alrady captured the real Khirullah Khairkhwa -- had captured him in late 2001, a year and a half before his own capture. Better, Khairkhwa wasn't half a world away in a CIA black site. He was right there in Guantanamo, just a couple of hundred yards away.
Well, his first interrogation in Guantanamo starts off just like his interrogations in Bagram -- with his interrogators insisting they knew he was lying about his identity, instisting they they knew he was really Khairkhwa. In reply he pleads with his interrogators, to please check the prison roster, so they could see he was telling the truth, that he wasn't Khairkhwa, couldn't be Khairkwa, because they had already captured Khairkhwa. This is the most shocking part, the part that shocks me three years after I learned his story. He testified in January 2005 that during the year and a half since his arrival at Guantanamo and his CSR Tribunal none of his interrogators and none of the analysts felt it necessary to take two minutes to take the obvious step of checking that prison roster, and check his alibi.
What a way to run an intelligence effort! Imagine paying a bounty for a guy when you already had the real guy in custody. Up until his capture his story was a hopeful story. He wasn't a Pashtun, he was from Afghanistan's Uzbeks, in the North. He hadn't been to Kandahar, for ages, because it hadn't been safe when the Taliban was in power. But he had worked there, as a migrant farm worker in his youth. After Karzai came into power Shahzada, his former boss, a rich landowner, left Kandahar to tour Afghanistan, to restock his kennels with scrappy roosters, for cock-fighting, and scrappy dogs, for dog-fighting. Shahzada and Khan run into one another at a dog fight. Khan is no longer a migrant farm worker. He is merchant, with enough resources to give his old boss a fighting dog. And Shahzada, in turn, tells him that if he comes to the big bazaar in Kandahar, he should stay with him, and they can hang out some more.
This was good news. Two guys from opposite ethnic groups, who had felt unsafe traveling under the Taliban, were traveling, and hanging out together. Shahzada invites over Nasrullah, a butcher from an enclave of Afghanistan's Tajik minority, to spend the night playing cards.
Shahzada's CSR Tribunal determined he had been an innocent bystander all along, and he was sent home three months later. Abdullah Khan's CSR Tribunal confirmed as an enemy combatant, and he was held for another year and a half. And Nasrullah, whose only sin was knowing "Khirullah" was held for over two more years.
So, my interpretation is that allegations like this are important, without regard to whether wikipedia contributors find them credible, because they have such important real world consequences.
Again thanks for finding humour in my apparent contradictory acts. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ProjectVirginia[edit]

Learned my lesson from that experience. Wikipedia is definitely not a place where my efforts should be spent.Phenry09 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you kind of got a raw deal in that a better source showed up right before the AFD was closed. It probably wouldn't have made a difference if it had been there from the beginning though.Prezbo (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for patrolling[edit]

thanks for patrolling new pages! andyzweb (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated.Prezbo (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Semitic Action[edit]

Hi Prezbo. I see in this article that it is stated that the organisation ran an unsuccesful Knesset campaign. Do you know which elections they participated, and under which name? The election articles have all parties listed, but none are called Semitic Action (perhaps the Movement for Brotherhood or the Peace List?). Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. The source actually says that they "tried to stand for election to the Knesset," so maybe the campaign never got off the ground.Prezbo (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Green[edit]

Hi Prezbo, you moved Operation Green (Ireland) to Operation Green just after I had pointed out that there had been another Operation Green or Fall Grün which was the plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. I was quite happy about the parenthesis "(Ireland)" because it opened the path for an Operation Green (Czechoslovakia) while the page Operation Green - which had been a redirect only - would have become a disambiguation page for these two operations. You will have had your reasons and thoughts when moving the article. Would you please explain them to me? Thanks in advance! BTW, I haven't the time and material to write the article Operation Green (Czechoslovakia); in the other case I had done it, of course. Wschroedter (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, my reasoning was that there was no other "Operation Green" article and thus no need for the parenthesis. I didn't check the talk page or see your comment there, sorry. I don't think it makes sense to have a disambiguation page with only one article on it, but if you want to undo the move and create one I won't object.Prezbo (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it makes no sense to have a disambiguation page with only one article on it, but this is only true as long as nobody writes the other one. The point is that without that hint, nobody is aware of the fact that there were indeed two Operations called Green. In the English-speaking community, the operation against Ireland may be of higher interest and was perhaps well-known, but I myself only knew the Czechoslovakian one. In the end, you would get a disambiguation page with one blue and one red link. However, I don't know how to undo a move. So it will remain as it is until really somebody writes the other article. Wschroedter (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll undo it if you don't know how.Prezbo (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Done.Prezbo (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at User talk:Jim Fitzgerald[edit]

Save your breath. Experience shows he won't do anything about it, and won't change his behaviour. This user simply doesn't give a damn with regard to copyright, and nothing anyone says will make him accept these rules. okedem (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your "organizational" changes[edit]

If you want to add information, that is fine. The article needs more filling out. But it doesn't need to have POV sections like Zionist revisionism because YOU say so. Generalized headings have been used for thousands of biographical articles on WP and they work fine. So if you want to help, there is plenty to do and it's great to have active editors like you around. But as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously have no idea what you see as POV about using that section heading for a section discussing Ratosh's career in revisionist zionism. Saying that generalized section headings work fine doesn't make it true. When they're only vaguely related to the section content, as in this case, I don't think they're working fine.Prezbo (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Delpeut[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Peter Delpeut. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Mr. Prezbo![edit]

Can we work on our probabilities? --Closedmouth (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Can you please userfy a deleted article for me?[edit]

Would you mind if I emailed it to you? You proposed it for deletion, after all. I don't think it stands a chance of improvement and userspace isn't supposed to be used for archiving things like that. I would've done that straight away but you don't have an email address enabled in your preferences. Graham87 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way. I entered an email account.Prezbo (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, you've got mail. Graham87 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aerican Empire[edit]

Thanks for editing this article. To address your confusion, the word "imaginative" was in use as it was because people had been arguing over whether or not the word "fictional" was an accurate description. While the consensus was finally that "fictional" would not be the best word, "imaginative" was used as a compromise, because it could mean either "having a lively imagination" or "devoid of truth" depending on one's point of view. Anyway, I haven't undone your change, but now you know why it was written the way it had been. Timcrow (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult documentary[edit]

This article, which was previously PRODed by you and subsequently deleted, was re-created word-for-word and is now at AFD. Your input there is welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in your reversion message on the stormfront article[edit]

Washington post uses neither the word "significant" or "concern" in it's article, I read several pages of the book and it does NOT use the terms "racialist" and "racist" interchangeably, let alone on the page being used as a citation (which I incorrectly called a quote), the "citations are further down in the article" is FUD, the citations should be by the fact they are supporting - if they exist and "etc" as a reversion reason is unacceptable.

Now, personally, I am not a supporter of stormfront but you your edit message is simply untrue, and you appear to have done this just so you can make the article read like you want it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's standard Wikipedia practice to leave citations out of the intro to avoid cluttering it up. If you're really interested you can find the citations in the article and add them to the intro. For instance the "candidate for political office from a major political party" is obviously referring to Doug Hanks. The Post doesn't use the words "significant" or "concern" in the article but it still backs up the statement. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia communicating something in different words than the source does. The encyclopedia entry says that "Stormfront put Don Black in the spotlight, both for racialists throughout the world..." and then goes on to say that the site is "the cyberspace flagship of the racist right," so yes, it's using the words interchangeably. "Etc." is fine, if you edit anonymously and make lots of bad edits on a controversial topic don't expect gold-standard civility.Prezbo (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Carruth[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prezbo. You have new messages at Talk:Shane Carruth.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Interstellar Alliance[edit]

Kindly READ user pages before spamming them. If you can't be bothered to do so, kindly stop editing them. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TBoNWM[edit]

I moved it back to the disambig'd title, since the primary topic is really the book in the Young Wizards universe. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to fight to the death over this, but I don't see how it can be the primary topic when there isn't an article for it and never will be. Or even if you think it is, I don't see what purpose is served by forcing the article title to include a parentheses that isn't needed.Prezbo (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks in quotations[edit]

Hi Prezbo. In your recent edit to the Peter Watts article you removed some wikilinks in a quotation, with the edit summary "quotes usually shouldn't be linked." Is this a documented convention in Wikipedia? If so, do you know which policy I should be looking at? I think wikilinks are frequently useful in quotes (and in my opinion the Philosophical zombie and Greg Egan links in the Peter Watts article provided much-needed context), but I'll happily defer to established policy. Jd4v15 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Linking: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." You're probably right about zombies though, someone might not know that article existed. I'm sorry about that. Even then though I think it would be better to put "see philosophical zombie" in brackets. With Egan people can use the search bar if they want, I think it's worth some inconvenience to avoid tampering with someone's words.Prezbo (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Or also WP:MOSQUOTE: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."Prezbo (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those policy links! That zombie reference is definitely a tricky edge case. Jd4v15 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Prezbo[edit]

I am not entirely sure if this is how you meant to go about contacting you regarding your proposed deletion of my article. If I have acted inappropriately please let me know and I will go about it correctly. I have cited the reason for my objection to its deletion on the article's discussion page, and pasted it below.

I would like to ask that this page not be deleted since the award is set to become something of an institution within our students' union. Most people considered for the award consider careers in comedy, be it writing, acting etc. For some of these people to go on to successful careers, it will be a novelty to look back at their first relavent award to be this. The aim is to produce a fraternity, for want of a better word, of comedians. Similar to the likes of Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Emma Thompson, who all studied together at Cambridge University.

I assure you it is not a university in-joke. While it is not affiliated with the university specifically, it is affiliated with our union. If you can further guide me on making the article worthy of not being deleted, it would be appreciated.

Kfgmaster (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a bit mean of me to call it that. Just read the Wikipedia guideline WP:N. I think the article should be deleted because it doesn't meet that guideline. The only way it can stay is if you can prove it does meet that guideline, which usually means producing press coverage.Prezbo (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I see. Would referencing our own union suffice? Kfgmaster (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it would need to be independent and reliable, like a newspaper. Just read the guideline, it explains all that.Prezbo (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth FAQ[edit]

Regarding this edit, here's what I thought:

  • If you look at unreliable sources as well (such as self-published works, etc.), I'm not sure that a "only a tiny minority of them" regard the first chapters of Genesis as literally true.
  • As Wikipedia is only based on based on reliable sources, it's a moot point what unreliable sources say.
  • Now, the question whether there are any reliable sources at all that maintain that Genesis is to be read literally is certainly an interesting one. But regardless of whether there are any or not, it's certainly safe to say that such sources would at most constitute a tiny minority of reliable sources.

I think the word "reliable" should precede "sources", but there might be other ways to reword the sentence to make it clear. How about including "at most" in between "by" and "only"? Gabbe (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, I won't interfere if you want to do that or restore the original version. I don't care that much about this so I'm sorry for taking up your time on it. Wikipedia isn't only based on reliable sources. I thought what the FAQ was trying to say was that some noteworthy theologians believe Genesis is literally true; those would be sources worth paying attention to in some contexts but not reliable on the actual history of the world.Prezbo (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I do think it's uncontroversial to say that there are literally no reliable sources in the relevant fields (geology, biology, etc.) which hold that Genesis is literally true.Prezbo (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. Hmm... I'll think about it for a while, see if I can come up with an even better wording. Thank for the input! Gabbe (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Eichmanns[edit]

If you are willing too, I can close this AFD as a redirect, and redirect the article right now. Okip 03:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it in the past and was reverted, if you redirect it that will probably happen again. I'd like there to be some consensus that it shouldn't be an article.Prezbo (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Destruction of Thought-terminating cliché[edit]

i think you've acted too drastically by entirely destroying an 8000kb article and then redirecting it. Why don't you discuss it with others on the talk page first, or put it to a vote. Roidroid (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it on the talk page and then merged it a few days later. If you disagree then feel free to explain why on the talk page.Prezbo (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Image in Human rights in Israel[edit]

That's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. I logged it at File_talk:Druze_protest_September_2009.jpg. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Islamic FBI helper note[edit]

I suppose you are correct about the reliability of the Islam Times. Still, there was a note there that you must have missed about this Michigan guy of "Islamic descent" who was helping the FBI investigation. Yes their article was somewhat poorly written, and the note about this guy was way down on the article, but it was there. I'm attempting to find out if there are any more reliable sources for this story to see if I can re-insert it after I've been able to list the improved sources. Just giving you a 'heads up'. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that.Prezbo (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cats on User pages[edit]

I notice you've been commenting out the cats on several User pages including mine. So I went digging for policy or guideline and, of course, found it. Thank you for catching this. I created a shortcut to be used in case anyone asks you why you are commenting out cats on their User page: WP:USERNOCAT takes one to the section of the editing guideline that explains it.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll link to that in my edit summary next time.Prezbo (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply posted by user scottperry[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prezbo. You have new messages at Scottperry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Donae'o[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Donae'o requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create this article.Prezbo (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Stabbin'[edit]

Come what way, that image will be on Wikipedia, my friend.

If you wish to contest this, please reply here. But you would be better off joining the advocates for said image; in such case, also please reply here :)

In return, hookers and blow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.143.69 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

The recent edit that you made to the page [Mhabhart] has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the [sandbox] for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative [summary]. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayn narayn (talkcontribs) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC) --Narayn narayn (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The present article on Mahabharata seems to have very little information on the epic and a lot of information can be added to it. As the article is closed, so no relevant information could be added to it. Additionally new better pictures could be added along with recent information on new findings. Also information seems to be bit cluttered. In whole, this page seems to have huge potential but it is not tapped. So I decided to create a new page without disrupting the original one. I hope you understood my point and in future, will help me in a constructive manner. Now I am reverting the page and please don't redirect it again to another page. Hope for your positive contribution. Thanks.--Narayn narayn (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks.--Narayn narayn (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry F. Ward[edit]

Article userfied at User:Prezbo/Harry F. Ward. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks[edit]

Hi, I think I found a solution that should make everybody happy. Cgingold (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Icke[edit]

Just a quick note: it seems that your question for the title was deleted by mistake. I reinserted it, you can find my answer there as well. 92.227.114.199 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing. Btw, you deleted your Username while editing that last comment. 92.227.114.199 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Alfred Kunz[edit]

"You shouldn't remove a reference just because the URL has gone dead.": Maybe. I looked for the source but couldn't find it, but I'm glad you did. Removing the url does no serious harm (it's always in the edit history) and, in fact, by replacing with a cn tag alerts editors to the need to find a source. Otherwise the statements can go months or years without proper sourcing.
"In this case the citation would be totally adequate even without a url, not every reference needs to be online.": Partially correct, partially incorrect. True, references don't have to be online. But there was no other source cited, and in the absence of the print version of the article, it's difficult to verify the accuracy of the information, and everything on Wikipedia requires a source.
Cheers. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll just point you to an essay instead of arguing about this further: Wikipedia:Linkrot. I hope you won't do this again.Prezbo (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't plan to. I hope you won't make a mountain out of a molehill again by confusing an essay with a policy. Cheers. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prezbo. You have new messages at Kiko4564's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kiko4564 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll Never Walk Alone (song)[edit]

Can you please review your last edit? I am not sure removing on the grounds of "ugliness" is quite WP. Now we have an infobox and track listing, but no other text or sub-heading. Whether the recording is notable enough to have anything there is worth thinking about. I'll review what you do next and if it's still not right I'll revert the whole thing back to what it was. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really have a leg to stand on, do whatever you want. This really is an atrocity and of interest to 0% of the article's readers though.Prezbo (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Also there's already a section about this on the talk page, you didn't need to contact me.Prezbo (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really, I reverted you, you reverted me and that was going to get neither of us anywhere. At least I left you with choices and you have chosen one of them. All's fine as far as I am concerned. The Bela B version certainly didn't warrant its own page. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed Prod Turkish Research Program[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Turkish Research Program, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - I suspect that this organization will meet WP:GNG as it is 15+ years old and there are enough Google Scholar hits to leave the impression that there is substance here.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR and Maintenance tag advice[edit]

I'd recommend you look at WP:3RR and not remove the tags again as they are meant for the general editting community in reviewing an article that you created. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have as much right to edit the article as anyone else.Prezbo (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's also kind of silly to revert someone twice and then warn them about 3RR.Prezbo (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No question about that. However, please read WP:3RR and WP:OWN. Your article conflicts the Second City article. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
So? It's cited to a reliable source, and Wikipedia is often wrong. I know what those guidelines say.Prezbo (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghetto Fighters' House[edit]

Dear Prezbo, I appreciate your explanation - both for the style point of which I was unaware, and especially your thoughful understanding of the concept of Jewish resistance in this context. Actually Jewish resistance movement was an erroneous link; if anything, it should have been piped from Jewish resistance under Nazi rule. That latter page is comprehensive, but due to the style rule it would be disallowed. I'll see about putting that page as a See also. Your intervention has contributed significantly to improving the Ghetto Fighters' House page – thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem.Prezbo (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your assistance on the photo resize. I didn't realize that "File:...." affects the size of the photograph. Very relieved.Carmaker1 (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem.Prezbo (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting addition to the Jascha Heifetz article[edit]

Didn't know about the Tsrifin gang. Interesting. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. They are definitely an interesting footnote to history.Prezbo (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CeCe Peniston's article: Overweight Struggle[edit]

Can you explain what made you to think that this article has been (quoting your own comment:) "Spam? This is just terrible" and delete it?

As I recall it was basically written like a tabloid, but I'm not going to fight over this so feel free to restore it or continue cussing me out.Prezbo (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm probably in the wrong here. In answer to your question I just thought it was extremely poorly written and the tone was inappropriate for an encyclopedia, but in any case I should have just left it alone.Prezbo (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was taken from a US national newspapers, so the only inappropriate thing there might have been your own thoughts as I see now. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benuliak (talkcontribs) 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon[edit]

Your version of the lead paragraph lacks proper wikibolding, and really doesn't make it as clear as it needs to be that there's no credible evidence that Sharon ever said such a thing -- which is the essential necessary point which the lead paragraph for that article must convey. AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, so I'll respond there.Prezbo (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fritz Teufel[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeshe Council[edit]

I just stumbled on your argument with User:ValenShephard. Wikipedia is the largest topic on the page. Amazing. Do you know enough about the organization to add better material? It certainly needs improvement. I'll try to stop by again and help out.AMuseo (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't really know anything about them unfortunately.Prezbo (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer (robot)/Combat history[edit]

Hullo there, and thank you for leaving me a message. The page in question was created in response to discussion on the main article's talk page about what form the combat history section of the article should take: prose, or a table. A peer review suggested we were right to stick with prose, so the page is largely obsoleted. It would be a shame to lose it in case we change our mind, so is there an automated procedure for moving the page to my userspace? Thanks for alerting me to this. CountdownCrispy 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thank you for your help. :-) CountdownCrispy 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup templates[edit]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of Razer (robot)/Combat history[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Razer (robot)/Combat history, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

David Ignatius[edit]

You blame me? Then, why did not someone do so, last year? Could be you. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, you win! Congrats.Prezbo (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Panel game[edit]

Hello! I saw your editing of the panel game article and would really appreciate it if you could briefly pop into a discussion on the Hollywood Squares article on whether it is a panel game (there are cited descriptions if you're unfamiliar with the show). Here's the discussion. Thank you so much! 76.105.176.44 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

PLEASE DONT QUIT. KITTY WANTS YOU!!!!!!!

Jdavie (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deathcountry up for deletion[edit]

Discussion here, just figured you may want to know, seeing as you're one of about five people who edited the article. 2birds1stone (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)