User talk:Bwithh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 2 May 2007

This user is a random page patroller.

Fed up with the crowding at Newpage patrol and Recent changes patrol?? Join the Random Page Patrol Corps, See The World!!!!

This user is a random page patroller.

"HACK THE PLANET!!!"

Word of the Day

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave messages for me below.

Older messages are archived here:

"Japanese ethnicity" image

I have left you a reply on my talk page. I will begin looking for a better image. Ideally we can have more than one picture, which would make it easier to feel that the template is representative. Dekimasu 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 9/11: The Big Lie

Looks good. :) Merry Christmas, and Happy Hangover. :-p Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better. Removing the copious details of the contents of the book really helps sustain NPOV. It does however leave the synopsis entirely blank. I was thinking that the old three part thesis part be rewritten to serve that role. I've never read the book, so I can't say for sure whether that would be an appropriate synopsis or not. Also, what do you think about footnotes, rather than embedded links? There already seems to be a mixture in the article, with the addition of the isbn reverence. I'll handle some of those cosmetic details, if you wish, just tell me which way to go with the references. I'd rather abstain from putting a synopsis back in there without having read the book. I always prefer clean-up over deletion when I feel that the article has enough merit for a spot here. Thanks for your help! Merry Christmas! :) Umeboshi 18:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks very much for your helpful message, User:Umeboshi. I think reference footnotes are a good idea (I'm not quite used to making them yet). I will take a look at the old 3 part thesis, but without having read the book, it might be hard to consider it reliable. A starting point for the synopsis might be the rebuttal of key claims by the US State Dept? Though that also has POV issues maybe? oh and happy xmas too! Bwithh 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though not a fan of the book, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. Per MOS on lead section, I think that the second paragraph is a good place to put a few sentences about the sources that refute the premise of the book. I'll leave that to you since you have an interest and have so far done a good job of responding to issues. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Before I read it, I actually had just added a line about the factuality of the book being severely criticized to the intro paragraph. Hope that satisfies you concerns. Bwithh 18:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that, which is a start. As I noted in the MOS link above, the lead should give a synopsis, thus a little more on the criticism... so, as above, I think the second paragraph is a good place. — ERcheck (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is a semi-stub as is, not a featured article candidate under peer review. At the moment, I feel the line (which covers all the key sources of criticism) in the intro para is sufficient given the length of the article, especially as we already have a criticism section. The article needs to be expanded in other ways that more urgently need attention - the synopsis section for example, plus international (i.e. outside France/US) response. Bwithh 18:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a couple of tweaks - so I've beefed up the criticism in the intro by mentioning that the US government has denounced the book and considers it a misinformation threat; plus I've move the whole bit to the second para Bwithh 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your changes. Looks good as a balance and synopsis. I agree with omitting the NYT reference in the lead. — ERcheck (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I appreciated your suggestions Bwithh 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge

The article Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge has been substantially rewritten with multiple nontrivial sources, after your vote for deletion. Would you please reconsider your position.

Jesse Samek

Thanks for clarifying. I was getting confused and frustrated. --DJREJECTED 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help - if you have any further questions about the Deletion Review or Articles for Deletion process, please feel free to ask me Bwithh 05:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Rooney

Hey there...added some refs to the article. Hope it's okay now. Merry Christmas! Gzkn 06:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's great, thanks. Merry Xmas too ! Bwithh 06:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's games referencing

		The Original Barnstar
		Excellent work at getting a first round of references into a bunch of children's games articles ... and beating me to them while I was off fixing esoteric articles about Lydia. Job well done! Serpent's Choice 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, unexpected and much appreciated. thanks very much! I doff my cap to you =) Bwithh 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should be unhappy with you for ruining my examples of unreferenced articles, but I guess I'm not; thanks for taking the time to find the references and making Wikipedia a better place! :) --Bkkbrad 00:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to say so - thanks very much ! Bwithh 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman

I think a solid argument can be made that separate articles for this noted songwriter's works as a painter are unnecessary (there aren't, to my knowledge, similiar separate articles for the vast majority of works of many major painters, let alone those of avocational artists like Elke Sommer, Tony Bennett, and Sherman). I certainly have no problem with your moving them to AfD. I also wonder whether each of the several hundred of his songs that currently have their own articles are fully notable; the same could be wondered of juvenilia like Armistice and Dedication Day. Just because he is unquestionably notable, is each and every work? Robertissimo 07:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Salting"?

You mentioned in an AfD something about "salting" an article. I've seen this term before in the context of deletions, but I can't figure out what it means. Thanks. =Axlq 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the relevant policy page is WP:SALT. The Wikipedia term means to protect a deleted articlespace so that ordinary editors cannot recreate the article (this is usually used against persistent creators of the same illegitimate article). The phrase is a reference to the real-world practice of salting the earth. Hope that answers all your questions ! Bwithh 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains it. What I've done with such pages is put them on my watch list. As long as it stays deleted I never see it, but if someone re-creates it, it appears on my watch display and I re-tag it with a db-repost. I didn't know about this salting mechanism (not available to me of course, since I'm no admin and don't aspire to be). =Axlq 06:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Bwithh

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vickeried

You prodded the article Vickeried last month. The creator removed the {{prod}} tag soon after. I have now nominated the article for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vickeried. ~ Bigr Tex 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I must have missed that prod removal Bwithh 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd the game

Sorry, I replied to the wrong person, thought you had said something. I slashed it and corrected the user-name I was addressing. Sethie 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note - no problem Bwithh 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should know better!

Quit messing with the WP:AfD page! Bearly541 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have no idea what you mean. Bwithh 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I mistakenly deleted some messages on the CSD talk page while I was adding a perfectly legitimate message of my own. I'm sorry about that, but it's seems rather unfair that you automatically assume that it was deliberate and I'm a vandal Bwithh 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 1.) I was just joking. And, 2.) I realize your mistake and reverted it. 3.) I didn't put a test template on your page. Bearly541 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I didn't understand your joke. Thanks Bwithh 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall

Hello,

You participated in the deletion review of this article that a user (an admin, I think) has now unilaterally restored (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dead Malls for the explanation of his action). I'm writing to you in hopes you may have some idea as to what action should be taken in response to this choice by User:DavidLevinson. Please let me know what you think. Erechtheus 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I wasn't sure whether or not you were an admin (some are so coy about it that you can't tell from absence of the words), but you were still a very interested participant in the DRV. We'll see what comes of it. If nothing else, I want an explanation as to how this is acceptable so I'll know better the next time. Erechtheus 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The action ~~seems~~ is clearly out of process and partisan - though I think its best to try and settle this through backchannel before taking further steps for community review of the action Bwithh 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd pride day

Regardless of the way this discussion goes, I want you to know that your comment is very very fun to read aloud. Joyous! | Talk 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... thanks for the nice note! Bwithh 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia

Thanks for your warnings, but I am new to this wonderful place and before you delete what I have worked for in hard days and nights over new years, you may please consider just cleaning it up. I have investigated against a mega fraud and was surely successful. I have stated my articles with newspaper articles and the photos that I released are all owned (including the copyright) by me. I am not quite sure how this whole site is working. I am learning. But if you want to support an important cause and help me to warn millions of people about fake memorabilia, you are more than welcome.

Thanks and happy new year! Mmmovie 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Mmmovie. The discussion is now in the hands of the wider community, so it's not just a matter which is up to me. Of course you are very welcome to join in the discussion and argue for keeping the article

If you want to write an article that is follows Wikipedia's standards, you are certainly welcome. It is definitely recommended that you take a look through WP:POLICY and WP:STYLE as well as checking out how the best existing articles (see WP:FA) are presented. If your article is deleted by the community, you can ask for the content to be placed in your userspace page or ask for an review of the deletion decision through WP:DRV - the established deletion review process. Hope that's useful Bwithh 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I Brian hereby award User:Bwithh for his stellar, in-depth and detailed AFD nomination for the Mark Bellinghaus articles. Your astounding research into the article before nominating it for deletion is refreshing and most welcome --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very kind, thanks indeed! Much appreciated - I doff my cap! =) Bwithh 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reena Virk

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to do. I didn't write the article originally, so I don't know who put that part of "world wide" in the article. I guess, it should be taken out. It does seem like an exaggeration. It did receive some American coverage and it's been 9 years so it's understandable that American articles, concerning the case, are no longer available. I live in Canada and in the community where this case happened. It was major news in the Canadian media back in 1997. I can vouch that the article is accurate. But I know that's not enough and I will work on providing some citation. Fighting for Justice 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. I will try to add proper sourcing to some of these statements. Bwithh 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? The Kelly Ellard article was directed to the Reena Virk one because Samir and I discussed it since we were having a small disagreement with some wording. Samir is an administrator. What are you doing? The Ellard article was too short and needed to be merged. Fighting for Justice 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll revert the edit and discuss this with Samir. I think Samir should have left a more comprehensive edit note - currently it looks like you and Samir had a disagreement and Samir unilaterally redirected the article. I also feel the redirect may be out of process as it essentially deletes the article without a consensus discussion about it. I also note that an article about the other murderer still exists, and Kelly, not Warren, was the more important of the two in terms of the debate on girl violence. I've just spent quite a long time improving the referencing the Reena Virk article, by the way, and I am bit bemused by the slightly combative tone you're taking with me[1] Bwithh 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwithh, thanks for your note. I redirected the Kelly Marie Ellard page mainly because all of the information was already in Reena Virk (mainly thanks to your additions). User:Argyriou pointed out to me: [2] that most single murderers are mentioned only in the articles on their victims (see Jon Venables and Robert Thomspon for example), and that appeared to be fair. In addition, it appeared to address the issues that User:Fighting for Justice was raising with respect to the role of ethnicity in the article. I'm always in support of process being followed, so if you'd prefer, feel free to revert the redirect, and we can open up discussion on a relevant talk page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Samir, I'll be following up on opening a discussion in the near future. (btw, just to clarify, I think your redirect occurred before any involvement of mine in the Reena Virk article.) Bwithh 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. Yours was one of the neutral votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Handheld

You participated in an AfD for Xbox Handheld. I re-wrote the article as a stub and provided sources. Please take a look at the re-written article Xbox Handheld and comment at the AfD discussion [3] Alan Shatte 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. As one of a very low number (unfortunately) of users with admin status both here and Commons, I am in a singularly good position to deal with image related admin tasks; and hope to work on that to the best effect.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to Mark Bellinghaus page

Dear Brad Patrick, congratiolations on all your many awards, and I just wanted to inform you, that the source which you removed, and which you added to the site, is equal to the reliability of the source that you added, in my opinion. You removed a press release with the explaination: (Removing unreliable sourece. PR Inside is not a reliable source. Cunningham is a known associate of Bellinghaus - not an independent author) You should also know and realize that the source you added is really a one person want to be press agency and nothing but a simple blog. When said owner, Diane Velasco "interviewed" me on the phone, she introduced herself as a "long time friend" of Kenneth Knoll." Kennth Knoll was attacking me anonymously on my first blog as "mj&m fan" until he outed himself in a lawsuit threat towards me and introduced himself as the "manager" of "Marilyn, Joe & Me." I have no idea what the Tom Cruise story, which this woman brought into her article had to do with my fraud investigation, but if you were a victem of rape, like I was, you probably would understand why I seem a bit "puzzled," to find such a one sided piece as a source for facts.

Diane Velasco not only misquoted me, she also made things up, she claims too many times that I said this or that, which is absolutely incorrect. When I tried to contact her regarding her claims, she would yell at me and hang up the phone.

I have been dealing with more than one journalist, who does not know the word "ethics." This was not my first encounter in the last thirteen months, since I was investigating. You also state that the book is a "prospective movie," but when I called the New Mexico Film Funding, they had no idea who Ken Knoll is and they never heard about a Marilyn Monroe movie project. I am gladly forwarding you the email that I received from the lady who is running the office. If you do not accept press released that are supported by important links, how can you accept blogs that have nothing but assumptions. I tried to email you this statement, but since you do not accept emails, I have to do it this way. Please look for a major article that will be released about this toppic in a major Los Angeles publication. Internet release will be tomorrow night, print will be on thursday. At last: I do not understand why you seem to think that I am a phony or a crazy person who is writing and saying a lot of bull. Fact is, and I can also prove that, that I have saved many hundreds of thousands of people their admission fees and the disappointment of looking at an ugly pair of Marilyn Monroe underwear and lingere, which never even was owned by the legend.

If you feel that this is not important for this wonderful idea of spreadding knowledge and findings and ultimately warnings about fraud to the world, then I think you should go ahead with what some members of your community feel all along.

I can assure you, that soon people will understand why this fight was so important. To go against one of the best connected lawyers in this country is not that easy. But I hold proof in my hands that he is not only a liar, but also a criminal. I will gladly email you some info and proof for the last claims.

And this is just FYI: Ernest W. Cunningham is a very well respected author, who has written one of the best books on Marilyn Monroe. I did not say more than Hello, at previous MM meetings that I frequently attended at a local fan club. He witnessed the same obvious fraud like I did, at the press opening for "Marilyn Monroe--The Exhibit," and he walked around with two known journalists, one staff writer from The Los Angeles Times. If you do not call this a "reliable source," I have no idea what is. Important is also: Robert Welkos wrote his first piece days in advance and that is why he did not mention the strange press opening night. He tabbed me on my shoulder and said:"Mark, you are going to be in the Times tomorrow." What he was holding back was, that he met Robert Otto a few days earlier, that he made me look like the "jealous scoffer" who is partly retarded. Please read this first interview from 11/11/05 with the knowledge that that the exhibit has thank god been stopped and will not screw more money out of innocent people's pockets. Please also notice, what is pointed out here, too--that Robert Otto at that time claimed, that his collection was worth $10 million, which was substancially supported by Mark Roesler's CMG "officials." Everyone was supporting the other ones claim. And June DiMaggio would be delivering the authenticity, due to her high age and the mother's tie to the DiMaggio family. She herself was never officially adopted and named herself "DiMaggio" in the 1950's. The reason for this hymn to the exhibit? The Los Angeles Times was immediately printing advertisement. Big ads for the MM exhibit--promising: "Up close and personal" to be with Marilyn's real items. That he was there, was coincidence--I actually worked for a local paper that night and we bumped into each other. I introduced Mr. Cunningham to the reporter Robert Welkos, and Welkos would mention Cunningham in his future article. The same article that printed on 3/23/06 the $8.75 million Mark Roesler lie and the specific insult to Marilyn Monroe fans and collectors. He tried to intimedate and bluff, but it did not work with me. I know what I learned about MM. I also spent my entire life savings into my collection, just to see that junk on display? It took Robert Welkos from the LA Times four months to write anything about our findings, and in his "follow up" he did not mention the fake curlers at all. I am sorry, but Robert Welkos was the first person that I called with my findings on November 11, 2005. He never warned his readers. But he had the nerve to give that Canadian self-proclaimed "Marilyn Monroe re-incarnation" (handy with her daughter being MM's mother re-incarnated), a full page in The LA Times. I wasn't the only one protesting about that.

How would you have felt, buying the best Picassos available--real ones of course, and then there is this art show or exhibit opening with 95% fake Picassos. Would you not also be absolutely outraged and upset if the local and national media would claim that all the fakes are actually real?!

I am thankful that there was someone like Mr. Cunningham, who witnessed the same scam, live, surreal and with Hugh Hefner as one of the speakers. I was going to be one of the plaintiffs, if that is of importance to you, but since I am also one of the prominent collectors of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia, I was running the chance to be dismissed, since Otto's lawyer already claimed that this was a trial--initiated out of jealousy. But the fakes that I found were still fake, and here comes the best: the 1974 hair culers, they were insured for $300,000. (I also have proof for that one!) If that isn't fraud, then I have no clue what else is. If Otto's collection was would have been real, if June Alpino aka 'DiMaggio's claimes made a tiny fraction of sense, if Mark Roesler could be trusted, I would have been the biggest fan of "Marilyn Monroe--The Exhibit," but in this case, what am I supposed to do?!

Respectfully,

Mark Bellinghaus Mmmovie 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, thanks for the note. Just to point out that I am not Brad Patrick, who is the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel. I merely have a link to a message of his on my userpage. I'm not aware that I added any blog sources to the article. Someone else may have. If you would like to persuade the community about your views, you are more than welcome to do so - please see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Bellinghaus_%28second_nomination%29 Bwithh 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your information. Regards, Mmmovie 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for public radio show

Hi there,

My name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer with a national public radio show called Weekend America. We want to do a story on the fine line between an individual who deserves an entry on Wikepedia and one who doesn't. As someone who's weighed in on the issue, I was hoping you might be able to chat over the phone for a few minutes.

We're a conversational show and want to have a relatively laid-back discussion about what goes on in Wikipedia, just to let you know that this isn't a debate-type show where we encourage fighting.

If you're up for it, or if you have any questions, you can e-mail me at nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org to set something up.

[http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/ ] Thanks! Neille

Neille i 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Producer Weekend America 213 621 3450 http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/

About Gundam and cultural relevance

Just want to discuss about the relevance of Gundam and cultural relevance. What you used for Simpson is no different then relevance in Gundam, at least in Japan. While I agree that there are stuff on RX-78 that need improvement, the fact that you ignored that it is huge in Japan, and that's what they meant by cultural influence. What do you want to show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your message. If you actually read my vote in that debate, I voted a conditional keep for the non-robot-cruft-mountain part of the article. The condition was based on references showing that the the robot thingy was indeed a major cultural object in Japan/Asia. I did not "ignore" that it was "huge in Japan". I was simply asking for good references for this particular Gundam robot, which should be very easy to get if it is as popular as Bart Simpson in the US. But the people providing references seem to be struggling with understanding what a good reference is, and understanding what "cultural influence" is. You guys may want to prove popularity (a more modest and straightforward claim which would be fine for an article too) rather than "cultural influence" if you're having trouble with references. I understand the overall Gundam series is popular in Japan. I have no problem with the main Gundam article. The debate is about a particular "character" or "prop" in the series, and showing proper references indicating that this indeed deserves its own article. The automatic assumption of bad faith and victimization by certain pro-keep commentators in the afd has been very off-putting. If you guys want a fansite wiki, I strongly encourage you all to go and check out Wikia, rather than Wikipedia. There are excellent examples of well-run fansite wikis out there such as the Homestar Runner Wiki, the Battlestar Galatica Wiki, the Star Wars wiki. In fact, I see that there is already a fledgling Gundam wiki on Wikia. I'm sure they could use your help, and this kind of site is where Gundam fans should focus their attention on, especially if the information they want to put up on the web has problems with Wikipedia standards and processes. Bwithh 11:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makbool Javaid

I have listed Makbool Javaid for AFD, which you may be interested in given your recent vote on Dilpazier Aslam. Cheers, KazakhPol 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Soubise

Your revamps the article Julius Soubise were very thorough and you found some good sources. I installed the {{oldafdfull}} template on the Talk: Julius Soubise that details the results of the AfD: Keep. I've also contributed to the article by formatting all your sources using {{citebook}}. I had to track down much of the information such as the authors, publishers, titles, ISBN, and year. Hope this helps and I look forward to seeing that article expanded. Mkdw ^talk 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed for your help and work - you beat me to the references cleanup! Bwithh 10:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free

Hi, I've added three sources to this article. [4] I believe this should take care of the sourcing and notability concerns, and you may want to revisit your AfD comments. Best regards, Dragonfiend 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous image discussion

Was there ever any constructive reply from the copyright holder of the flickr image we were considering for use at Japanese people? The current placeholder image is so dry that it may crumble to dust at any moment. Dekimasu 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for reminding me. Sorry for not getting back to you. The copyright holder offered the photos for use for Wikipedia under a no-commercial use license. Unfortunately this is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing which requires that images must be released for commercial use as well. I wrote back and explained this to him and waited for his response but have not heard back unfortunately. I'll take another look for suitable photos Bwithh 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long
Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey
May there be many summer mornings when
With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time

Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Aaron Sorkin article

Bwithh, I would like to ask for your help in bettering the Aaron Sorkin article. I have made extensive edits to the article, and have tried to make it both interesting and factual. I would appreciate if you could as a peer, review the article and perhaps even help with the lead section. I'm hoping to set the Sorkin biography on a track leading to Featured Article status eventually. It would be a first, because as far as I can tell there isn't a Screenwriter yet who's been featured. Anyways, any help would be greatly appreciated. -BiancaOfHell 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the nice note. I'd be happy to take a look. (I don't know much about Sorkin himself, but I had a love-hate relationship with West Wing (maybe watched 40-50% of the episodes), have watched all the episodes of Sunset Strip (enjoyable but... very flawed and increasingly showing signs of writer desperation), and have even watched a few episodes of that Sports Night thingy.) Bwithh 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, have you thought about listing the article under Wikipedia:Peer_review? Bwithh 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I'm going to fill in the lead section, because they will surely complain about that, and then put it over at the peer review page. Thanks for the help so far. The pics are good additions. I agree about Studio 60, it's trying to find itself but it's definitely fun to watch it do so.-BiancaOfHell 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm thinking about replacing all the TV show logos with more interesting cast images. I'd rather not use DVD covers (because of the extra junk on the covers) but I'm uncertain about current policy attitudes towards fair use use of promotional publicity cast photos. The promotional/presskit image fair use tag is no longer available on the image upload screen (but is still used on older images like the cast image - clearly a promotional publicity photo - in the West Wing article) and I know that official attitude towards fair use arguments have hardened recently. Maybe replace all the logos with DVD covers showing the cast members? Bwithh 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is that important that all the shows follow the same pattern for photo choice, but the Sports Night section could definitely use something better than the DVD cover, but their logo unfortunately is a bit plain. The Studio 60 logo I think is fantastic, but that's me. The West Wing seems to be pretty well covered. I'm wondering if maybe The American President, which had an important place in Sorkin's life, should maybe have a pic as well, to the left away from A Few Good Men's pic. I am slowly figuring out this "fair use" stuff so I'm hoping what I've added is correct. How does the policy go for stills from a TV Show?-BiancaOfHell 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Studio 60 obviously doesn't have a (legal) DVD release yet... I think the best way to go is with low res images of promotional posters (which is still an option on the image upload screen). As far as I understand (I'm not 100% up to date on the shifting fair use policy discussion myself), TV/movie screenshots are okay so long as they are used in a limited way to illustrate something about the TV/movie show in an article as opposed to gratuitous use - e.g. 40 screenshots to map out every plot twist in an episode). Bwithh 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Studio 60 released its pilot on DVD through Netflix, I think. and I'm not 100% sure the poster thing applies to TV shows (the upload option specifies movie posters... Bwithh 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, going with the posters - I think its reasonable parallel of the movie poster option Bwithh 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using 'Generic event poster' when in doubt. Yeah, there was a promo DVD released with several pilots on it, through Netflix (i believe).-BiancaOfHell 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Aaron Sorkin article to the peer review page. Hope this goes well. :) -BiancaOfHell 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. I've added the tv posters now. I'll look for one for The American President. and then focus on text review. Bwithh 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The LaJolla poster is a big improvement... good to have the title on the pic. Overall, the article is a lot more colorful now. The Sports Night poster is fantastic. If you could put a text review in the peer review process article that would be great. Thanks again for the help. -BiancaOfHell 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. I'll take a look at the peer review later on. Bwithh 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go straight to FAC. It's going to be vetted for featured article status now. I'm impatient. :) -BiancaOfHell 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Daniels

You recently tagged the Cedric Daniels article as having original research issues and I wondered if you could give some indication of what you thought the problem were on the talk page.--Opark 77 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of these fan-written plot summary articles which are on the borderline with original research. I can't remember what points particularly stood out to me... I'll take another look at it. Bwithh 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Keller court martial deletion review

Hi Bwithh, Thanks for your input to the discussion. I have answered your comments on the project page. I would agree that the court martial is not the most significant event in Adam Keller's life. But this in itself does not make the court martial non-notable. Best regards, Abu ali 10:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to disambiguation pages.

Regarding your recent edito to Operation Show Me How. I see that you have made a link to the article entitled Lyons. This page is a disambiguation page. It lists over a dozen places which share the name "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? Please don't link to disambiguation pages, but directly to the appropriate page. For more information see WP:DPL. Thanks. Dontdoit 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the location of the Interpol headquarters, so my guess is it's either Lyons-la-Forêt, Lyons, Ohio, or Lyon's, the California restaurant chain. So which one is it, Bwithh? ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the UK, so its a reference to Lyon, France. I'll make the change to Lyon and I promise Mr. Don't do it to "don't do it" ever again. Bwithh 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... ah its already been changed. Bwithh 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, and here I expected to see the folks from Interpol hang out at a local Lyon's... ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, JMWAVE, was selected for DYK!

On January 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article JMWAVE, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

awesome! thanks... Bwithh 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea moving the stuff on RFK and providing a link, that's much better - thanks. Rosenkreutzer 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Bwithh 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!

Hey, I just happened across your page, and parts were nearly like reading my own, even down to "fancruft"... Looks like you're doing a fine job. Best regards, Icemuon 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind message! Nice to meet you too. You may be interested in joining WP:SCISSORS Bwithh 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I wish I had more time to do more work here, now I mainly just glance at the deletion logs every now and then. But every bit helps, right? Best regards, Icemuon 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of an article you commented on

This AfD is currently on deletion review. You commented in a prior review on the same article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Bwithh 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Bwithh on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake! You're not a vandal. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Bwithh 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce in which you participated, some editors suggested the need for a guideline where a consensus could be reached regarding whether everything which is newsworthy is also encyclopedic. I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). Your input is welcome. Thanks. ((P.S.) I see that you have already contributed to the guideline, but I want to make sure to contact everyone who posted remarks at the subject AFD to avoid any hint of spamming or selectively stacking the deck for the guideline.) Edison 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Edison. I don't think I've contributed to the guideline before although I've certainly talked about this subject quite a bit in the past and I'm interested. There was recently some similar discussion on the WP:SCISSORS talk page, so I've mentioned your page there too Bwithh 08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to participate in this, but I'm already stretched too thin writing 3 other NG's. I'll stop by to proffer my "Bear Falls Out of Tree in Santa Cruz" pet example for ephemeral news coverage though. ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sportsnightlogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sportsnightlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School districts

Hi Bwithh, would you mind taking a look at the AfD for Mount Enterprise Independent School District? Since you are involved in the deletionist community I thought you might have some input on whether school districts belong here. I don't know if a discussion regarding this has taken place at some point, but I thought you might know. Thanks and best regards, Icemuon 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I've long avoided debates on schools and churches etc until a proper guideline is in place (a tendency of mine from my early afd days because school and church debates (there's a lot of them too) seem always inevitably to be long and revolving around the same arguments ("all schools automatically notable" vs. "schools need to be of a certain size" vs. "schools need to have some other notability claim beyond being a school", and there were more interesting afds around.... I like variety). I think the prior "discussion" you're after is represented by the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline and its talk page. Tthanks for letting me about this afd - I'll take a look at it to see if I want to become more familiar with the current state of the schools debate (I seemed to have been drawn into debates about shopping malls anyway which is a similar kind of thing I suppose, so why not schools and churches). Also - just to clarify, WP:SCISSORS isn't a deletionist community, its a wikiproject focusing on deletion-related issues which one doesn't need a deletionist wikiphilosophy to sign up to.. All the best, Bwithh 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to the schools discussion, that's exactly what I wanted. I know "deletionist community" wasn't exactly the right phrasing, I couldn't think of something better at that moment :-) Great to see you might have some interest in tackling schools again, it seems that every time I click "Random Article" I get some kind of school -- I hate to say it but sometimes it makes my faith in Wikipedia quaver -- is it going to end up an ocean of irrelevant stubs with no real information, and only a few atoms of real content floating about? Best regards to you, Icemuon 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl section on The Inquirer article

I agree that it seems to be highly inappropiate for us to be mentioned and linked in the article, so I've decided to be bold and modified it. If they attempt to edit war, we should then resort to an RfC, or ANi. Dionyseus 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like they want to get into an edit war, so I'll try to request an RfC. Dionyseus 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. I'll look around policy pages to see if there's anything which covers the problems I wrote about before. Bwithh 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks... I think this is over now? Bwithh 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Have you ever considered this Bwithh? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind message and suggestion. This has been suggested to me before and I am still considering and "getting ready". When I feel I have enhanced my understanding of wikipedia areas I have been less familiar with and my real life is more settled, I hope to give RfA a shot! Bwithh 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an offer, by the way. See User:Blnguyen/RfA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... thank you. I'll keep it under my hat for now Bwithh 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

Hi there, I've changed my opinion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadín Ospina to "Keep" based upon your total revamp of the article. Your version makes it much easier to understand why this artist can be considered notable. Great job! --Kyoko 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew someone could do it. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be assistance! thanks for the kind notes Bwithh 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowak

For starters, this is one reason of many why it might seem odd to some readers, if she weren't an astronaut. Gwen Gale 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On February 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Latin American School of Medicine (Cuba), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions Bwithh!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much ! Bwithh 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

I noticed that you voted early on this, and wanted to let you know that the article has substantially grown (and will likely grow further) into a useful list of evidence for the Moon landings that has nothing to do with hoax sites. I'd like to invite you to take another look, and to consider changing your vote. Gravitor 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Dude, You are a freaking LOSER. Do you constantly watch T.V and run to your computer in your underwear to update the world on wiki? Bravo, asshole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.106.255.36 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And what exactly is your problem? Bwithh 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. I may not agree with every word you (Bwithh) say, but that (69.106...) really trangresses WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Blech. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help on the Aaron Sorkin article

Bwith, thanks for all the help with the copyedit/images/verification of facts. The article reached FA recently, and the whole image-removal issue seems to be getting better. Some photos of Sorkin were found at Flickr, and slowly consent from these Flickr users is being obtained. This project can be a struggle, but it's worth it in the end.-BiancaOfHell 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasipology

I'm sorry if I seemed "scolding" at Template talk:FindSources. I hope the expanded explanation there covers it. Nothing personal at all, just was about the unintended effects of changing templates that are in already in use. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song article

Well, it's been prodded, and quite correctly too, in my opinion. It's pretty much OR and absolutely unencyclopedic. The real problem with something like that is that firstly, it could be a nearly infinite list - you can sing any canon or round forever, I suppose - and secondly the article title is, as far as I'm aware, an invented, neologistic term. So original research. Also unencyclopedic, because, quite frankly, no one cares. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and that

Belated thanks for cleaning up Giraffe (novel) before it got to the main DYK section. Much appreciated! For some reason I can't fathom, I am unreasonably chuffed to have got three new/anon contribs onto the main page lately. Anyway, your fifteen thousandth edit is fast approaching. That must mean an RfA soon... Yours in anticipation, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

This is just to let you know that there is a merge proposal being considered at Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given that you participated in the AfD debate about this article, you might be interested in leaving your opinion concerning this merge on the talk page. Lunokhod 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of the World's Religions

Please have a look at Parliament of the World's Religions and its talk page. I think you can help in the matter. -- Seejee 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 Edits

Please discuss the matters on the Temp Page, found here Arcayne 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak?

Are you taking a break from the madness? Hope to see you around again soon. ~ trialsanderrors 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I have a bright idea, someone's always beat me to it. Mark me down as a good old AOL "m3 t00" on t&e's question. Hoping you're well, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge

Thanks for coming out of retirement, in order to clean up this page. For the record, when the {{fact}} tag was originally added this morning, there was no reference for the events of 1209. I removed the tag, and placed the appropriate citation, in the History section, rather than in the lead. And, for your information, I'm planning to eventually get round to writing a fuller history of the university. So far, I've got up to around 1210, so don't hold your breath! Bluap 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalian sovereignty

Tell me more about this Talk:Westphalian_sovereignty --ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 436: / Line 436: @@
 ==University of Cambridge==
 Thanks for coming out of retirement, in order to clean up this page.  For the record, when the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was originally added this morning, there was no reference for the events of 1209.  I removed the tag, and placed the appropriate citation, in the History section, rather than in the lead.  And, for your information, I'm planning to eventually get round to writing a fuller history of the university.  So far, I've got up to around 1210, so don't hold your breath! [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
+==Westphalian sovereignty==
+Tell me more about this [[Talk:Westphalian_sovereignty]] --[[User:ARISTOKLES|ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ]] <sup>([[User talk:ARISTOKLES|πείτε μου]])</sup> 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)