User talk:Prezbo

hello

dear prezbo, i put up an article pertaining to someone named "nick scholz". while i counted on you guys eventually deleting it, i didnt think it would happen so fast (especially just 6 hours after i put it up.) so i was sondering if you could email me the article back (he still needs to see it) and also, if its possible, to repost it for just 5-10 minuets. we can schedule a time, so he can read it then you guys can re-delete it. the way i figure it, it will have more of an impact if its actually on wikipedia (rather than just seeing it). thanks for your time. -charlie- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girguru145 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the text of the article, try asking the admin who deleted it (User:Lectonar). It won't be reposted though.Prezbo (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you .

Kathy Shaidle

Hi, Prezbo: you recently edited the Kathy_Shaidle article. I have a dispute with another user over content, and I wonder if you'd like to comment? You might also want to read my comment at User_talk:NJGW#Kathy_Shaidle. Cheers, Chris B. 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk)

The Bogdanovs' case

It's about the case being barred because they were too late in their attempt to start prosecution.

End of the dispute between the Bogdanov brothers and the science publication Ciel et Espace.

The libel prosecution by the brothers Bogdanov, hosts of television programs on science has been declared void. It's all over for the two brothers as justice ended the dispute between them and the scientific journal, as the prosecution first brought by them was declared invalid by the 17th Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI of Paris), it was learned on Friday 13th October, confirming information from the newspaper Le Figaro. The two brothers were prosecuting for defamation as a result of an investigation on them by Ciel et Espace, published in October 2004, calling into question the scientific validity of their writings. The TGI of Paris held that the Bogdanov brothers had not met the legal deadlines for pursuing prosecution of the press. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, merely the timing. In its decision issued on September 4, the two brothers were ordered to pay the legal costs of the opposing party, amounting to 2,500 euros.
Cheers Dickie (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help.Prezbo (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzy Duck (band)

Hi! I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Fuzzy Duck (band). You tagged it as A1 (not enough context to identify the subject), but I think it's pretty clear from the infobox that the subject is a progressive rock band from England. Other criteria, such as A7, may be more appropriate in cases like this. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right.Prezbo (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my clarification of the Economics of Subtlety. I defer to you as to whether it should be deleted or not. Fx303 (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where?Prezbo (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fx303#Economics_of_Subtlety.2C_take_3._This_is_very_difficult_to_explain.

This is the beginning of 10 pages. The Autonomous Systems I believe will make or break it. I defer to you. Fx303 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there should be an article about this. It seems like what wikipedia calls original research.Prezbo (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding of Arabrein

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Arabrein, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cnilep (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair GA review

Hi Prezbo. I only just noticed your comments on the talk page - I've replied there. It was nice working with you on the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Pixelatique

Hello Prezbo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Pixelatique - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to redirects. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify bold issues before mass changes to FAs

Clarify these issues before mass changes to FAs, please. The guidelines on bold titles on pages are not solid and you will run up against some folks who spent hours on MOS issues while constructing FAs. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of a guideline is that it's supposed to be "solid." If you want to change it I'll wait.Prezbo (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?

In the page Bogdanov Affair you appear to have made a Revision as of 19:34, 29 July 2009 You added a reference tag <ref name="spires" /> that appears to be causing a cite error. Did you mean <ref name="bogdanov-spires"/> or <ref name="ekpyrotic-spires"> or something else? Could you please go back and make changes to clearup the cite error. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mumbai Encounter Squad

Hello Prezbo, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mumbai Encounter Squad has been removed. It was removed by Ninetyone with the following edit summary '(rm prod; try the bottom of the page..?)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ninetyone before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Your edit to List of states with limited recognition

Hi. Israel does claim the West Bank and Gaza as part of its territory (so much that it has blocked Libyan ships from providing aid to Gaza in the name of national security). Perhaps we should consider reverting your edit. Anyway, I'll wait for a response. Thanks. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just add some sources if you want to restore it. I'm no expert but to me the fact that Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza suggests that it doesn't regard them "as part of its sovereign territory." States frequently blockade other countries that they don't claim as part of their territory so that's neither here nor there.Prezbo (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, but since Israel considers at least the West Bank as 'disputed', this implies that Israel claims at least part of the Palestinian Territories (there would be no point to the dispute if it didn't). I've reworded the entry in hope of a closer approach to reality). Ladril (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, that's fine.Prezbo (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama anti-christ

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I retagged the Obama anti-christ article as a WP:ATTACK page and notified the creator. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to deleting my images

Why are you inserting speedy deletion tag for my images. The images are in public domain and can be used without copyright. Please desist from doing so. It takes a lot of time to upload images since i use dialup and today most of my time is wasted on trying to figure out why you are acting like that. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They aren't in the public domain. I suggest you stop uploading images until you understand wikipedia's rules for what kinds of images are acceptable.Prezbo (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed in public domain, please check them. Dont just delete them without reason. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just leave them and eventually an administrator will look at them and decide whether to delete them or not. I don't have the power to delete them. You aren't providing any evidence they're public domain. For the picture of Ghandy, the Hindu article just says that the photo is by "Special Arrangement." Why would you think it's public domain?Prezbo (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Hindu" online newspaper allows use of it's images, just check some of the cricket (which is popular game in India) pictures which are used by online forums and other website without attributions to "The Hindu". Newspaper in this part of the world are not copyright fanatics unlike some western counterparts which try to make money out of every picture. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Public domain" is a legal term, it doesn't just mean that a newspaper doesn't go after people who use its images. Like I said, read wikipedia's image policies if you want to understand this type of thing better.Prezbo (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok go ahead then delete those images. You seem to be happy to destroy other peoples work. I dont want to talk you again. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Why do you try and delete everyones pages Prezbo? Not cool man. I mean, sure some of the deletions were justified, but some of them weren't. Not cool at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vege head (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)