User talk:Pairadox

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

In recognition of your useful and helpful deletions, and in compensation for the unwarranted warning templates they earned you, I award you this brand-new one-of-a-kind Compensatory Barnstar. Happy editing! Eleland 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on User:SQL/Reflist, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work will go unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition for your major edit of Patton Boggs LLP removing the self-promotional style of the article and for wikifying the article, as well as for having responded so kindly and constructively to my initital misplaced criticism Mschiffler (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your continuous welcoming of new users. MBisanz talk 08:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The Barnstar of Good Humor is awarded to Wikipedians who lighten the mood and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. Thanks for the periodic laugh. Doczilla (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Young Oz Manger

Hello, Pairdox, Iam Very Sorry

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

• You may be interested in a current MfD discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
• Recently, the page User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
• Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
• If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing that policy to my attention. You probably helped me avoid a serious problem. I am sometimes overzealous, and I frequently get myself into hot water, as you will see if you look at my talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:[1] No prob, it's a common misconception about user talk pages and blanking. Pairadox (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Cole

The article did not say that he had an affair it says that tabloids reported that he had an affair; this can be verified by the tabloids reports. There has been quite a lot of media coverage of the tabloid reports themselves and the events surrouding them by sources usually considered reliable [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article wasn't claiming that the accusations were true, it was just documenting that accusations had been made and as shown above, those accusations have been documented by reliable sources. Whether to include the information in the article itself is an editorial decision but I think the sourcing is sufficient. I do think there is a difference between saying that "X had an affair" and "X was reported to have an affair" as I think in this instance the latter can be reliably sourced and verified (whilst the former cannot). Having said that I'm not going to re-add any information as I now think it would probably be unnecessary recentism (links to essay). Guest9999 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be used to repeat rumors, which is essentially what that sentence did.[6] If it can be reworded to focus on the effects of the initial reports, such as the banning of a reporter from a news conference, that would be fine. (Although, to be honest, at least one of the sources you provide above seems to be naught but a rumour in itself.) Pairadox (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm sorry I acted hastily in reinstating the material. Guest9999 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Pairadox (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

I've gotten four barnstars, but not that one. And I have so wanted one of those! Thank you very much. Doczilla (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks pretty good over by the fireplace. Seriously: Thanks again! Doczilla (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies regarding Nancy Pelosi article

I will stand down. Thanks for the defense. Jw120550 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A note about Rev Melissa Scott's adult video career

I recently had a small paragraph removed from the Pastor Gene Scott page that made mention of his widow, the Rev. Melissa Scott who now runs his ministies. It told about her adult video history back before she met Reverend Scott. It was removed as being "non-constructive". I believe it is very constructive to mention her stint as an adult video actress for Vivid Video under the name Barbie Bridges, as it informs people of her past so they can better decide what type of person she is, so they will have all the facts when they're trying to choose whether to join her ministry. There were 4 Google sources that verified this info as true. I also have the nude pictures of her as proof, though I won't post them here. To not add it seems a little like censorship, and I thought that Wiki was a means of gathering all the facts? Thank you. Iambigwayne (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

The problem wasn't the info, it was the sources. Groups.google doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Pairadox (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Leo Yankevich

Hi, Pairadox--

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Czarnykon (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the citation tag; as the links at the bottom of the page do constitute the use of the modifier "considerable."

Czarnykon (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, they don't. Considerable is a comparative term; a list of links to his work shows nothing of how he compares to others. Pairadox (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. I have rewritten the sentence.

Czarnykon (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite

Not quite. I'm not wondering so much from the perspective of someone tapping an admin. Rather, I'm wondering what the admin ought to do if the admin is the one spotting the sock. "Discretion of the admin" seems vague to me. Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately my question has more to do with the admin's freedom in using checkuser rather than freedom in blocking.Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all admins have checkuser access? Doczilla (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got evidence listed at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history, and it's still not nearly complete. Good lord, that person has used a lot of socks. I just pointed the latest incarnation out to ThuranX. Doczilla (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And with CC, the problem gets compounded by the fact that records don't go back far enough to connect current users to the original CC (who wasn't the original anyway) via checkuser. Checkuser has to be used instead on the most recent confirmed sock, and when some admins get the checkuser request, they just say the records don't go back far enough and fail to check the most recently confirmed puppet, thereby dragging out the whole process. Doczilla (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:[7]. (With Days of our Lives, reality shows, celebrity pages, dates, and related categories . . . it's the Creep. Doczilla talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, I need to get some sleep when I insert an edit in the middle of my name. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming amount of information on that evidence page can be daunting. Sometimes that's what keeps me from reporting the sock. Also, I've been concerned that if the same user (in this case, myself) always reports the puppeteer, it could come across as some kind of personal vendetta. Therefore, I try to give other people the opportunity to report CC. (And now my broken arm is hurting because I've been typing this too rapidly, so I am going to have to call it a night.) Doczilla (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the big orange banner. I just didn't want some of what I had to say to appear in my own talk page's history, for several practical reasons. Doczilla (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock charges are grave.

It's always easy to accuse someone of being a sock when you don't like the history of the edits he or she has done. Kindly desist from making sock charges, as it is unfair. Czarnykon (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? I think you're confusing discussion threads here. Pairadox (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Okay, here's why I ask: ThuranX, Wryspy, and I are constantly spotting socks of User:Creepy Crawler. We have never turned out to be wrong, but it's such as hassle every single time and that user does a lot of additional damage before finally getting blocked. I don't know what Czarnykon thinks I might be talking about. Doczilla (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: subtle charges of sockpuppetry. Bad manners. What I am concerned about is improving articles. I see your point and have removed any ambiguous pov statements from the article on Leo Yankevich. As to your suggestion that I claim to be an admin: nope I don't. I just prefer to stick to the rules, which even admins break. Czarnykon (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Czarnykon, Doc and I are discussing something totally unrelated to you. Pairadox (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse user names. Sorry. Czarnykon (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh.

Gah, I suspected that this guy had at least some experience, knowing what BLPs were and all that. I don't see anything in the block log, am I looking in the wrong place? He seems bent on my protection rationale - not the best, but hey - even though it would've been protected for a BLP dispute anyways. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the right IP address? I don't see a block in the log. If you're right, then it's a sock getting around a block to harasss an admin... Dreadstar † 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frak; I don't see it now; maybe I looked at the wrong tab? Sorry, folks, I may have cried wolf on this one. Pairadox (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I've got a coupla messes on my hands, if you find it that would be great, if not, it's no big deal. He said it'd be his last post on my talk, so it may have just sorted itself out, without unnecessary drama. Thank God. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pandora Jewelry

Rather than just slapping it with a tag, can you please explain why you think Pandora Jewelry reads like advertising? I thought I had done a good job of keeping things neutral, and everything in the article is taken from verifiable sources. Feel free to comment on the talk page or here or whereever.... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just removing a tag, perhaps you could wait for a reply or address the issues raised by that tag? Since you created the article, it's likely you won't see what another editor will.

It's a very well crafted article in many respects, but it still reads like advertising. There's the detailed products list, right down to a price range. There's the hype in the lead about their growth without a section in the body of the article that corresponds to it, nor any perspective to that growth. The tone of the entire article is one of unmitigated praise, right down to the PR-like mention of charity works. Pairadox (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well why don't you have a go at reworking it then? And I repeat, if you're going to slap something with an "ad" tag, why not be so kind as to explain on the talk page? I don't want to sound overly defensive but I think you're being slightly silly on this one. A few more points:
  • So you're writing an article about a range of jewelry, but wouldn't include what the actual products were?
  • The point of including the pricing is to convey the idea that there is an extremely variable price point (i.e. people can choose how inexpensive or expensive they wish to go)
  • The growth comment was something I picked out of an article which did not give any more context so how could I add anything. You'll see that it is referenced.
  • A completely NPOV sentence about things they sponsor is considered "PR hype" (to paraphrase you?) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• One other comment... I didn't take your tag lightly. You will see that I made numerous revisions to the article after removing it. I wouldn't mind getting a third party opinion on this, actually, because although the article is new I just don't see what you're seeing regarding the tone :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:PageantUpdater

PDC Book

I'm far enough along, although not finished, with the intial update to the The Purpose Driven Church. I am taking your advice and trying to dig up some positive, representative book reviews. (Although, there is several hundred on Amazon.com. How would one reference them?) Could you take a look at my Workshop page and tell me if I'm missing anything? I'd like to post it as is and then update it as I get more information. Thanks for the help. CarverM (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel up to right now, but I will look it over this weekend. Pairadox (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the Reference visible. I was just researching how to do that when your edit popped up. So much to learn! CarverM (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I wasn't able to pull it together to review your work before it went live. Hopefully people will read the talk page before savagely editing it. :) Pairadox (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries as sources

Just one comment on the obituaries as sources: most obituaries are written by family or friends (surely wouldn't be independent sources), but I believe that news obituaries are sufficient. Of course, that's different from the question of MULTIPLE sources, since some of the articles that you listed have no sources except a single obituary. Davidson is an obvious exception, since she had six sources listed when I looked at the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on "Intellectual controversy" section of Oxford Round Table

I have made a request for comment [8] on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, and while I essentially agree with your suggestions, I wanted to let the RfC draw in a few other people before commenting on it myself. At this point I think a broader range of opinions would serve to move this forward better than (yet another) comment from me. Pairadox (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

when i say i will slit his neck and drown him, then give me a warning, dont give me one for saying not to remove merge tags otherwise give one to him--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a warning for calling him a hypocrite. Any further personal attacks against anyone will be met with additional warnings. If they continue, a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will follow. Pairadox (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

-_- dude hypocrite is not an attack, so get off my back--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that "hypocrite" is a comment on the contributor, not the contribution, and is an attack on their integrity. Pairadox (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the line, "Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation." And profanity is hardly making your case. Pairadox (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

add another personal attack tag on my page and you will need to put a personal attack tag on my page, I have not posted and you keep fucking with me, just lay off me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue eyes gold dragon (talk • contribs) at 07:44, 3 February 2008

DONT EDIT MY FUCKING POSTS--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand why didnt YOU report me?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't tend to take comments personally. Once I saw that Vig had filed a report, however, I wanted to make sure there was a broader perspective for admins to consider. It shouldn't be all about your comments to me. Pairadox (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

• I just created this page a week ago Friday (Jan 25) and so far I have been the only editor of this page, but I would like to avoid having it deleted in the hope that other editors will collaborate on it with me.

• I want to let you know that many things have changed regarding this article since you voted to have it deleted.

• I have fully read and responded to every Wikipedia guideline that I have been referred to,
• I have modified my plans for the article and changed the way I view the subject in order to fit within those guidelines,
• I have explained my position and my goals in detail on the AfD for the page,
• and I have completely blanked the talk page of the article since most of the concerns about guidelines involved the talk page and not the actual article.

• I am sure you will find that I have made a great effort to contribute to the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia, and that my actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia and to keep Wikipedia neutral.

• I believe that the only guidelines my article can still be accused of violating are those concerning "notability" and "lists of random facts" and being that this is such a young article, I urge you to revisit the article, the AfD for the article, as well as the article's talk page, and make sure that you still feel that the article needs to be deleted right now.

• Thank-you for your time, and I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clutter-free!

Sincerely,

VegKilla (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy

Regarding List of Hispanics from the United States, when you say, "We generally don't inlcude redlinks in "List of" articles," could you cite the policy please? --evrik ^(talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Ideally each entry on a list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. And I'm so glad you asked before reverting for a second time, without bothering to incorporate the corrections I made at the same time. Pairadox (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "...but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." My reading of what you just quoted justifies leaving the names there. --evrik ^(talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a reasonable expectation. Did you look at what I removed? One was a name spammed across several different articles (which is what caught my eye), the majority of others were reality TV show participants. Unless you personally have plans to write up these articles, I don't think they have anything close to a reasonable chance of being created. So, like I've seen other editors do with the other Lists on my watchlist, the redlinks are removed. This is also standard procedure on all dates and months - redlinks are removed on sight. Pairadox (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your continuous welcoming of new users. MBisanz talk 08:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you so much! Pairadox (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Gemini (astrology)

Could you tell me with Gemini (astrology) why the sections - See also with Western Zodiac Template, References List and Category:Astrological signs can only be seen when editing? Kathleen.wright5 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody didn't close off the last <ref> tag. I've corrected it now. Pairadox (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fish

Just leave it. WP:AGF is a policy. Harassing users is grounds for banning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned this blatant trolling at AN/I, it is getting very tirespome that someone like this thinks they can run me off the site by continued harassment. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one that has to assume good faith here. Pairadox (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you can start by not posting to my user talk page unless you have specific concerns about specific edits I am making currently, and then if you do not adding images but posting in a polite and civilised fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are about the total lack of responsibility you are taking for the brouhaha you created. Your defensiveness and willingness to assume bad faith in others, as well as the constant name calling, are also serious concerns. Pairadox (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table

An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Coldmachine^Talk 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

see Talk:Heath Ledger#Cit[ation] format

Your changes are creating vast problems--many typographical errors; multiple inconsistencies; they have not got a consensus at this time. The templates are being incorrectly used and you have chosen inappropriate templates for types of publications. See the talk page discussion and please desist and revert your changes. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Vast problems" are apparently your way of saying you don't like the citation templates and refuse to use them, to the point of removing citations that had used the templates and replacing them with your personalized formatting. Pairadox (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are false accusations and not at all responsive to the actual typographical errors that your changes to the citations have introduced in that article. Please read up on types of citation templates and choose the proper ones. I restored the corr. information in an entirely-proper citation format used throughout Wikipedia articles in order to provide the information for your to work with (title in quotation marks, date in one set of angle brackets, and so on). It is true that I myself do not like using citation templates; therefore, I am not participating in the conversion. But my previous citations have the necessary information for making a proper citation in any format; please use it consistently. Right now, the article is a hodge-podge of inconsistent citation templates and normal "ref" formats (which are correct and not at all my "own personalized formatting") [the only diff. between what I normally construct is the way the "Retrieved on [date]" is given and that is out of deference to prevailing format of notes when I first encountered it; I've already explained everything on the talk page of the article and in editing summaries in the article]; I suggest that you take a more thorough look at Wikipedia:Footnotes (all of it, not just the parts on citation templates) and WP:CITE, which do not require or even recommend the use of citation templates. If you are not going to make the article's notes consistent in one edit, there will continue to be these inconsistencies. Perhaps you should work on it offline and then copy and paste your changes into the text? Just some suggestions. Editing online is highly time-consuming and unwieldy. (I'm not going to be in Wikipedia for the rest of the week and possibly more. So please comment in the talk page of the article about your changes prior to making them if you are using templates that you are not entirely familar with.) The advice you have already gotten there from another user is helpful. Thanks. [Again: Please do not respond on my talk page. Thanks again.] --NYScholar (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[Just a further reminder: I've already pointed out that I don't see need to use "/" in the "ref name=" codes between angle brackets, because they work the same way without the "/". I think Wikipedia set it up to default to same process for both using the "/" in that coding and not using "/"; it works fine and is easier to type. Many, many editors do not use the "/" in the coding for that reason. --NYScholar (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]

Trout

Hilarious. I had no idea there was a trout template. Wjhonson (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a {{minnow}} (which I just discovered myself). I'm still looking for the whale... Pairadox (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like whale would be disruptive. I see bad things.Wjhonson (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Todd Karr

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I've deleted the article (G7) and apologized to the user. Many thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

J Greb

Sadist. Pairadox (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moi? : ) - jc37 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

This is my BIG ORANGE BANNER

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

Lostanos

Heh. You and I posted this at the same time.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Pairadox (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tardyness

Re: he's dead, not tardy

And I immediately knew exactly what that had to be about. Doczilla (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL I really hate euphemisms about death. "Dearly departed" always reminds of "Elvis has left the building." Pairadox (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

You commented on this earlier. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The Barnstar of Good Humor is awarded to Wikipedians who lighten the mood and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. Thanks for the periodic laugh. Doczilla (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd thank you for the vote too, but that would probably be premature. What if you change your mind, eh? Best, Doczilla (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What, and risk having you stomp on me? Pairadox (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of temporary injunction

Hi Pairadox, I noticed you added a {{notability}} tag to an article about a television episode[9][10], but there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So noted. I hope you also will be diligent in informing me when the injunction is lifted. Pairadox (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Pixelface (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox, would you mind breaking this down for me? Seems like this "case" is about any and all characters regardless of notability being allowed to have pages. That's a bothersome thought. There are many, many soap characters people like that only last a couple weeks. They make unnecessary pages that three months later are never touched and end up as barely a stub article. Is that what this is about the allowability of all character pages?KellyAna (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is "currently existing article" as of the date of the injunction, February 3. So new articles should be outside the scope of this. Does that answer your question/concern? Pairadox (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy's Big Bite

I think so. I'm just concerned that this "directive" could end up with there being hundreds of episode articles and hundreds of character articles that shouldn't exist. You know? I think "Pilots" and "Series Enders" should be the only episodes to have articles. The rest is just unnecessary and can be found elsewhere. Oh, and I have an article I could use your help on if you don't mind. It's the Guy's Big Bite article. It needs tables, I think. No one else seems to bother with it so I want to make it look nice and could use the help of someone more knowledgeable about things like you. I started working on this when I was very knew and it could definitely be nicer. KellyAna (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of table are you wanting? I could see a basic two column one for the individual episodes. Pairadox (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I could see a two column since the eps are constantly repeating it's hard to find first air date. Right now I've linked each ep to the page at Food Network (I did that before I knew about references). Should I turn those links into references? I think I should. I just want it to look better and not be full of lists. I just don't know how to have a table be page wide but not equal columns. KellyAna (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done season one. I tend to think that stretching the table beyond the data it contains looks less professional so I've just let the text set the width. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. Pairadox (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. Should I change the episode links to references and then make a reference list at the end? KellyAna (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't. I think a list of references in this case would just make finding the link one wants harder to find (there would be 30-40+). Visually I think it's better this way. I can't really give you a guideline or anything to back this up, but when all else fails it's possible to invoke Ignore All Rules. So, you think you've got the gist of how to do the rest yourself? Pairadox (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I copy what you've done and replace it with what's left. I'm usually good at copying other templates there, I just have yet to learn how to do some of the little stuff like the text width and stuff. Thanks for the help. KellyAna (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

De nada. I may end up trying some of those recipes myself, so I probably should be thanking you. Pairadox (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried more than a few. I learned how to make tamales from his show and some other great things. He's very "real world" in his cooking and doesn't confuse the average person with too many technical terms, overly fancy kitchen gadgets, or froo-froo ingredients. So much better than some of the other Food Network stars. You'll enjoy whatever you choose to make. KellyAna (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

This is my BIG ORANGE BANNER

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

Hydroactivo

Apologies looks like I accidentally overrode your AFD entry on this article. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I can live with it. :) Pairadox (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)