User talk:HelloAnnyong

did you read any of the previous post or even look at my edits, it some retard program called a bot that was at fault not me.

Something to say? Add a new thread.

links
archive 1

Ben & Jerry's

I'm glad to lend a hand. :) I almost suggested RFC earlier today. I see that there's a discussion on his talk page at the moment encouraging consensus. I think another day or so to allow that to develop would be useful. I will note, however, that the editor's userpage makes me suspect that consensus may not be easily reached. :/ --Moonriddengirl 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you reached consensus, and good job hanging on to patience. I know it's not easy. :) (I was thinking it might go Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues, since it's about naming conventions.) --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance fair

regarding the image you declared inappropriate...what makes it so? --emerson7 | Talk 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image has been discussed before, on the talk page and this page. It doesn't really have much to do with the Ren Fair; it's just some woman walking down the street. The image isn't named appropriately (Dc5.jpg?), and the page is image-heavy right now. A somewhat off-topic picture isn't needed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know there was an "images for deletion" page. Thanks a lot! Artemis-Arethusa 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Foster

Thanks for your assistance on Talk:Mo Foster. Reswobslc 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I'll keep an eye on the page for the next few days just to make sure that everything goes smoothly. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg Ohio

You recently weighed in on what is "not notable" on this page, which were things I had submitted. Frankly I am a bit annoyed by you and your compadre regarding your comments and holier than thou additude - though I respectfully have considered your viewpoint but still find myself disagreeing with what I feel are your own personal arbitrary standards, that while they may have some merit when strictly constructed fall short when considered in the big view of wikipedia.

Wikipedia, first and foremost stands for imparting information and defining things, and further states that it is important to adhere more to the spirit of the thing than to the "letter of the law."

I submit, and hope you will honestly consider the following:

Harrisburg, Ohio is a small village, and like thousands upon thousands of other villages in the United States that Wikipedia has chosen to define, it is recognized on Wikipedia and by other as a tiny dot on a map, a set of GPS coordinates and elevation level.

These small villages rarely have historical markers and monuments; no art galleries, museums, sport teams, or tourist attractions; are not seats of regional government, hallowed universities or birthplaces of industry.

These villages are defined by just two things. The people who stayed behind and live there to perpetuate the community, and those who have left and made a contribution to the outside world. Yes, those who went out into the world may not be John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Alva Edison, or Orville and Wilbur Wright, but by you trying to deny (by limiting recognition) and/or impose your defintion and standards for notable people - you limit these villages from being defined in Wikipedia.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is not worth spit unless it is read by people. This certainly then begs the question what knowledge will the reader be seeking when it looks up content. I think it is empirically sound that the vast majority of readers seeking knowledge about Harrisburg, Ohio will have ties to the village or be delving into the past of the village, and while certainly not expecting a great deal, would come away feeling they had gained something by reading about someone you would find far less notable in New York City or Columbus Ohio.

I believe you are censoring information others might want and I shall respectfully continue to post these things. I am not sure of how a full blown arbitration situation is accomplished on here, but I am willing to be part of one if you and the other person wish to push the matter further. I think I be derlict in my duty as a citizen and believer in free speech to do otherwise though I certainly would abide by a formal arbitration process, if I am allowed to choose some on the panel.

Zomboli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. First off, he's not my "compadre;" he posted on WP:3O because he needed some help, and I gave my opinion. We have no other affiliations. I am sorry if you're offended by any attitude you perceived, but there really isn't one. Wikipedia has standards, particularly in terms of notability and in the design and layout of articles. For example, in lists of notable people, biographies are not included. The larger idea is that, if a person is indeed notable, then there will be an article about them, and a link to that article is sufficient.

I understand your argument about Harrisburg, but I would urge you to read the article on ownership of articles. It's great that you've contributed as much as you have to that article, but you're not the only person who is allowed to edit it. We're all here working together to build articles to be the best they can. A direct quote from WP:CON: "Wikipedia works by building consensus."

Again, I merely gave my opinion as a third party, and made some corrections to the page. Fixing references is something that needs to be done to conform to the Wiki standard. As for the notable people, well, we can discuss that more. There are other steps to be taken before this issue escalates, and if you'd like, you can put in another request at WP:3O or a request for RFC if you'd like some other people to give their opinions. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks for your help on the citation parts, though I'm not sure i understand how to do it properly.

Regarding the other matter - thanks for a quick response. I do understand your point of view, I hope you consider mine. I do think this other editor (from some of the responses I read from his page) is going to escalate things. All he did with me, was send a copy of "the policy" and then said quit posting.

I think I have a least a soemwhat valid argument, but I don't think it would get anywhere with him. I think this is going to be formally mediated - though I certainly don't understand the process.

Finally, on a little lighter side, Jon Warden pitched more than one year, and he saved Denny McClain's butt the year he won 31 and the Tigers won the World Series. Jon Warden's record of 4-1 WAS AS A RELIEVER! May not be notable to you, but certainly was notable to the McClain and the Tiger Fans - Jon's still big hit at Clinics and such in Detroit area though he lives in Cincinatti. He'd kill me if he knew I put that up. He was basically a farm boy. In fact he lived on the farm just on the edge of town where the founder of Harrisburg originally lived.

See Ya - thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 October 2007

Alright, then, here's some tips.

First, stop making new categories for your comments. I keep moving yours down here, but you should post underneath my comment.
With regard to references, basically each page collects <ref></ref> tags and collects them wherever the <references /> tag is placed. Within each ref tag goes a citation, and there are templates that will help with this. You can view them all on this page.
Read up on dispute resolution. Informal methods such as 3O (third opinion) and RFC (request for comment) are preferred, as it allows the users to help each other out without taking the issue to the administrators.
Again, I would strongly recommend you to read WP:NOTE (Wiki notability standards) and reconsider the placement on the Harrisburg page. At the very least, other editors will probably tell you to remove the biography from Mr. Goetting, but more likely than not, they will clear out the entire section. If you are still unsatisfied, I would recommend you put in a Request for Comment, probably under RFChist, and bring some closure to this issue.

If you need any further help, please do not hesitate to ask. In the meantime, I will be keeping an eye on the Harrisburg page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice for me in settling this? I've submitted requests to Third Opinion once or twice before, but there was never disagreement after that. I don't want to have to go to mediation, since it's not a big deal, but I really don't want to see the disputed information on the page.

On the other hand, with the reference provided for the baseball player, I think he deserves to be listed; I'm going to create an article on him, since he surely played in a fully professional league as required by WP:BIO. Nyttend 12:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This doesn't need to go to formal mediation yet; either WP:RFC or WP:WQA would be the next place to go. You're right, it is a bit strange to see a user not accept the third opinion, but it does happen. BTW, on Jon Warden, it says he "was" a pitcher. Did he die? If he didn't, you should change the wording to "is a former American pitcher." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the whole process about formal arbitration but I'll try to slog through it. I will say this, in looking at Columbus Ohio I found more or at least equally obscure references to people when compared to the Doctor, and found a number of other areas with more obscure references. I would concede the bigraphical part might be better served to be placed elsewhere with a link as is done in other similar pages on Wikipedia. If I can figure out how to do it, I will.

I do want say I very much appreciate the changes you made to the associated header, I think it reads ad sounds much better.

Lastly, did I get this comment in the right place? John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talk • contribs)

Yes, but you added extra spaces where it wasn't appropriate. Tab your comments in using colons. As for arbitration: formal mediation is not needed yet. All possible avenues have not yet been explored; RFC and/or WQA should be applied before taking this up another level. My guess is that a claim for formal arbitration would be rejected on the grounds that insufficient dialogue has taken place.

If the two of you want, I can help you put in a RFC. Would that be okay? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me check with the other guy.

I also have another question. SOrry to take up your valuable time. I have another notable person, Joseph Chenowith (I don't want to hear he's not notable - he founded the village). He is worth a bio for a number of reasons - I seem to understand it should not go on base page but be linked to - how do I accomplish taht and where do I put the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do a RFC, let us discuss something. If we get other opinions and a majority of them say that Goetting does not belong on the page, will you accept that result and move on?

As for Chenowith, create a new article for him. You can search for Joseph Chenowith and click on the red link on the top. This is a quick link for you. Side note: Start signing your comments! Use four tildes - ~~~~ to do this. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3O response

Thanks for your reply. The reason why this has developed on my talk page is because Parradudes (AKA the IP mentioned) won't go there as far as I can tell. I take your point about the fact tags, but having said that everything that I tagged does need to be verified. If there's a better way to do that I'm all ears because I know just adding the main tag at the top isn't enough.

Would I be correct if I transferred the discussion to the AWF talk page - and informed Parradudes (on both his talk page and his IP's talk page) of the move? That way the discussion would be forced to the correct place and we can go from there. !! Justa Punk !! 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use {{unreferencedsection}} in each section, but I think it's most needed in the About and International Wrestling sections. As for transferring the discussion, I'm not really sure. You could put a note at the end of your page and say "This conversation has moved to (this page)" and add a link to the talk page, and then start a new section there. After that, if anyone added more posts, you'd probably be more justified in moving it. Hope that helps. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your advice and added the note on my talk page - and advised Parradudes of the move on both his talk page and his IP's talk page. On the first part - I don't know. It may look ugly but I hold the view that specifying what statements need verification and so on is better. It puts the pressure on to source them. Maybe it's overkill - but I happen to think that Australian wrestling as a whole will have big problems fitting in with WP:NOT due to it's apparent nature. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've AfDed another Australian promotion (EPW) for similar reasons - and I prodded a couple of others that were all but dead. I'm giving the AWF article a couple of months to be improved before I send it to AfD as well. It was previously prodded, but now that we have an objector we can't go that way again. !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News & Record reference

The original video of our broadcast was removed from their site, so for the moment I have pointed the reference at their reporter's print story on it. I am searching our archives for the proper video, and will upload it to YouTube and change the reference soon. PastorMatt 11:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steam (content delivery)

Hello – thanks for the message. Since an edit war is in a forced cease fire, so to speak, all changes need to be worked out on the talk page for now. Making a list of noncontroversial, necessary edits and getting all parties to agree is one way; you could also do it edit by edit by edit. Starting with undisputed edits is a really good method to get everyone working together. Get everyone to agree to the small stuff first, then move to the dispute.

You can ask for an admin to make changes at any time as long as there's consensus, and the place to get that consensus is on the article talk page. Whatever you guys do, don't make a subpage – subpages are only for user space, not article space. They are really, really messy, because they are another open battleground, plus there are GFDL attribution problems. Don't start a subpage.

If it appears there's no way to get agreement or if you think a third party is necessary, ask MedCab for help, or open a request for comment. There's a long, long way to go before arbitration, and it starts with baby steps. This particular protection expires in 30 days, but you can ask for an extension or re-protection if one of the parties uses the expiration as an excuse not to participate in the discussion. Good luck, and keep me posted if you like. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

curious

I recently added a picture of our beloved King, Ray Nelson. He was King at many Rennaissance faires including King Richards Faire in Kenosha Wisconsin, King Richards Faire in Carver Mass. He helped many, many people at the faires, and was loved by thousands. You deleted it, and I was curious as to why. Please get back to me at your convenience —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnorten (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I did it because I noticed you needlessly removed the Characteristics heading. But I see that the image is at least marginally useful on the page. It's currently a candidate for WP:CSD because it doesn't have any licensing information on it, so it could be deleted at any time. Also, the naming convention of the file isn't very good; you should probably rename it to something more meaningful, like King Richard Renfair.jpg or something. I'll undo my revert, more or less. In the meantime, please watch your edits and what you remove. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pike/Sarissa

Hi there, thanks for commenting in regards to my request for third comment. I think something needs to be clarified here in regards to the debate. My stance isn't that the Sarissa needs to be mentioned in the introduction but that the problem is the sentence "Pikes were used by European troops from the early Middle Ages until around 1700", this is very debatable and I have asked for citation needed only to have that tag deleted. There is no consensus amongst historians that this is a fact and it needs to be removed if it cannot be verified. I can provide a large list of books that use the word pike when describing the Sarissa and other weapons that existed well before the ninth century. In fact look at this quick search of google books;http://books.google.com.au/books?q=macedonian+pike&ots=ZG11ejdF1G&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=legacy which will show that military historians do not think that the Pike was used from the 10th century, and that many use the term to refer to a weapon used in Europe from around 300 bc. I don't think that needs to be in the article either, however I do think that the half sentence in question is a debatable fact and therefore should either be clarified or removed from the introduction. I also think that Larry Dunn's constant reverts and deletion of my request for citation shows that he isn't showing good faith in regards to me edits. I think the major point here is that there is something in the introduction could be debated but he is not willing to debate but simply reverts and edits away any request for citation. Master z0b 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry had to edit my post as I got some dates wrong, oops. Master z0b 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the pike talk page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can you have another look at this? Rather than providing a citation for the question at hand, the other editor has asked me to provide a cite proving he's wrong. That is not the way citations work and is exactly the king of circular logic that this editor keeps using to justify reverting all my changes, including the "cite source" tag that I added. Thanks Master z0b 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lunasa-otherworld-album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunasa-otherworld-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lunasa-redwood-album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunasa-redwood-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Fuck those people. I don't really care.

=] Oreo

That attitude won't get you very far around here. Vandalism is a serious concern, and as a Wiki editor, I'm supposed to handle it properly. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]