User talk:Cbrown1023

; Archives
	Current; March 2006 – October 2006; November 2006; December 2006; January 2007; February 2007; March 2007; April 2007; May 2007; June 2007 – August 2007; September 2007; October 2007; November 2007; December 2007; January 2008; February 2008; March 2008; April 2008; May 2008; June 2008 – August 2008; September 2008; October 2008; November 2008; December 2008; January 2009; February 2009; March 2009; April 2009; May 2009; June 2009 – August 2009; September 2009; October 2009 – December 2009; January 2010 – June 2010; July 2010 – December 2010; January 2011 – June 2011; July 2011 – December 2011; January 2012 – June 2012; July 2012 – December 2012; January 2013 – June 2013; July 2013 – December 2013; January 2014 – December 2014; January 2015 – December 2015; January 2016 – December 2021; January 2022 – ;

This user is a Meta-Wikian.

This user is an OTRS volunteer.

This user is a Commoner.

This user is a Wikiquotian!

This user loves the Incubator!

As a dedicated Wikimedian, I don't limit myself to just one project or just one language. Viva la wiki revolucion!

This user was a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Hi.

Ben Thompson

Thank you for you message on my talk page. However, if you look you will notice that I rewrote the section in an effort to reach a consensus. User:TheEditor20 reverted this back to his unreliable, POV edit. I have reported this as 3RR. Furthermore if you look through the history of him, his previous username User:Edgovan20 and the various IPs he has used you will see that he is a habitual vandal. However I do acknowledge that perhaps my reversions were excessive. --BMT 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sided with either user, you both violated WP:3RR and were both warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your intervention, however I'd like to ask a favour, I made an [1] which I think is a much fairer representation of the truth and an encyclopaedia, bearing this in mind, where should the article be left? --BMT 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, yours has POV as well and does not appear to have reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you deem both edits to have POV, what would you suggest would be the next step? I tried moving the section to the talk page but the other user kept on reverting. You've said that neither are suitable so is it a section to be deleted? Where does this leave the article? --BMT 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that BMT's sources do not carry the same validity as those I have provided for the section. The section has merit in explaining to the reader why the character Ben Thompson is not so well known in modern times, and I think just because one user disputes it does not warrant it's removal. I appreciate that everything should be looked at from a neutral POV, and if BMT can find a reliable source for the information he provided then by all means he can add it. However, this does not mean he can remove another, arguably more prominent POV. By reliable and valid souces I mean major stories in credible published newspapers, which would not have a bias for wanting to make him appear famous (such as a website devoted to selling Ben Thompson era mechandise).--TheEditor20 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article talk page to get more of the authors involved in the discussion. Cbrown1023 talk 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamgirls (film)

Can this article have a GA nom and a FA nom at the same time? Thanks. Real96 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is possible. But I would discourage it. Anyway, FA is higher than GA and gives you more stuff to work-on if it doesn't pass. Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Article On Armenian Genocide

Hi Cbrown,

I agree with u about that possible vandalism should be hindered. However, this article is completely different from that of Turkish version. It means that this issue can be understood different ways because of languages, and English is much more broader than Turkish. This is unfair. Because I want to remove conflict between both articles, and so that Turkish thesis can be given objectively, I demand unprotection on "The Armenian Genocide" article. On the other hand, one of the administrator, Arjun01, blocked my IP as marked vandalism. In my sentences, there is no vandalism considering wikipedia policy. Therefore,I think turkish and english version of the wikipedia explanation about this issue should be the same.

Than u!

Dakini1978 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)dakini1978[reply]

The artice is only protected from new and unregistered users because of the controversity of the topic and the likely hood of a future edit war. If you would like to edit it, then keep your account for a while. But please note that if you edit war and break WP:3RR, you will be blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Indian cinema assessment

Hi, I saw you gave start to a Tollywood film (Simhadri) that misses some of the sections we require for start. Minutes before I gave class stub to Okkadu, which has more sections. Just to be consistent with you, should we use other standards for assessing Indian cinema? - Actually I just saw that Supernumerary gave stub to Tagore (film), so I will pull Simhadri down to stub, until we are sure what is right to do. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Cbrown1023 talk 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning to user:Folken de Fanel

Thank you to be so insistent in writing this warning on my talk page. However I don't want it as I concider it totally undue.

First, it was the result of the personal vandetta of another contributor against me, as he reported the edit war way after everything was ended.

Second, the contributor that reported me has not been warned in any kind, while he was the one who started an edit war, as I've explained in the 3RR notice board: he had reverted me 3 times without any attempt at justifying his edits, without even reading my contributions to the talk page of the article.

Third, you say that "Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. " That's funny because that's exactly what I did.
Before editing anything in the article, I explained in a very detailed way what I thought of the edits needed in the talk page. I quoted various lines from various official Wikipedia policies to back up my claims. However my edits were blindly reverted, and the 2 contributors who did it didn't even bother to read my explanations in the talk page and to answer them. And I'm the one warned, and they get nothing ?

No, no, no, I'm not going to accept to be treated like this, I have been notified, it will show in the history of my personal talk page, however as I personally concider this warning totally undue, and since no one even bothered to take into account my explanations on the 3RR notice board, I will not display it. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I block you? No. I just gave you a warning because you were one of two editors engaging in edit warring. Which is in most cases totally unacceptable. Futhermore, I also gave the other user a warning as well. I'm not going to accept being treated like this either (well, acutally I am... I don't mind you asking me about this), I could have blocked you for 3RR, but didn't, I only gave you a warning. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to close AfD "David Horowitz Freedom Center"

You closed the "Discover the Networks" AfD [2] in a manner that I've criticized (in passing, not at length and usually only by implication, and without naming you, but still...) as a "drive-by delete". In the interest of AGF I'd like to invite you to close the "David Horowitz Freedom Center" AfD [3]. Been thinking about it for a bit, and the gesture has been somewhat devalued by the fact it's turned into such a rout, but I'd still like to make it. Andyvphil 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, teh article still has one more day before I can close the nomination. Well, technically, I can close it at any time, but I'd rather not close it until more than 5 days. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Hi!

I have seen you peer reviewed some film related pages. It would be very kind of you if you could also review Abbas Kiarostami when you have time. I've just sent a request for review. Thanks a lot in advance.Sangak 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info needed

Hi, if you're still online, please let me know. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now, do you still need something? Cbrown1023 talk 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massively Online Gamer

Can you head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massively_Online_Gamer. It was flagged for deletion 1 hour after it was created (but not flagged inuse). Can you help? I have stated in the talk page why it is a valid page yet, i'm unable to get in and complete the page or flag it as inuse.