User talk:HelloAnnyong

Something to say? Add a new thread.

links
archive 1

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For consistently providing quality work to various points throughout Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of our association on that ice cream thing, I notice you when I run into your contributions. That seems to happen a lot. Most recently, while providing an editor review on another editor, I saw you at 3RR. Recently when another admin asked my opinion on who might help with a delicate situation, your name was one of two to come to mind. (That situation went dormant; don't worry. :)) I just wanted to let you know that your efforts are observed & appreciated. Kudos! Keep it up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks so much! And I forgot to say this at the time, but congrats on adminship. You've certainly earned it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Steam

Okay. I have no knowledge of this subject at all, but that may be a help rather than a hinderance! At least I'm neutral. Obviously I've now locked down the four edits by the new account, so if it could be detailed on the talk page the impact of them (acceptable or not), and other proposals where there is now consensus then I'll pop them in. It would be nice if we don't have to protect again after this. I'll look at the whole thing shortly to try and familiarise myself. Pedro :  Chat  14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great. I'll put down the details you're asking for. The big question that's pending on the page is what to do about unreferenced statements in the new section of the page. Do we keep them in, or take them out? And of course, a glance at all of it to make sure that it's a decent page, and a marked improvement over what was there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is to remove anything unreferenced. For consensus gathering however, let's detail the lines to be removed and see if anyone can find references. If they can, great, straight back in. If they can't, then sorry but they stay out. May as well see if we can get this coming up on GA class whilst we're about it! Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi – sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, but there are only 24 knitting days left before Christmas and my daughter was hospitalized yesterday (food poisoning, probably Salmonellosis but we won't know for sure until the stool cultures come back). I concur with Pedro's note above. While I'll keep an eye on the new version's progress – which is so magnificent in cooperation and content it should be shouted from the Wiki-rooftops – Pedro should take the lead on protection/unprotection until I can get back here on a more regular basis. Good work, guys! - KrakatoaKatie 15:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Money bomb edit

My edit was perfectly legitimate and held no malice at all- the fact that Romney and Obama supporters had a copycat money bomb event was not mentioned at all in the reference presented, but Fred Thompson's was. I merely cleared it up, and if another source can be found regarding Romney or Obama's efforts, then it can be added. Monsieurdl 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind- it was clarified in the Talk page... I didn't realize the material was removed that sourced the Romney and Obama events. Monsieurdl 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that's alright. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi in the paragraph-- Supporters also reenacted the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor by tossing banners that read "tyranny" and "no taxation without representation" into boxes that were in the harbor.Other supporters also planned to reenact the event by dumping tea from a blimp into the Boston harbor.The blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution."

You will notice that every word is a direct quote from a mainstreem published paper (the AP and the Boston Globe). I would be nice of you to check my refrences before deleating my hard UNbiased work. Also the reenactment supporters is a larg part of the money bomb information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 19:47, December 22, 2007

No. Just because it's properly referenced doesn't mean that it's unbiased. The reenactment stuff is off-topic, as it has nothing to do with moneybombs as a concept; it has to do with a specific moneybomb. We've been trying to keep the page from having a Ron Paul slant, and you're not helping. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. But if you deleate it again a third opinion will have to sort it out. As I disagree it is off topic. As well I understand your need to keep the Ron Paul slant to a minimum but it was the two Ron Paul large money bombs that put the term in common parlence (hard not to have a bit of a slant). Best to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally started editing this page due to a third opinion. Either way, 3O doesn't apply here, as there are a number of editors - me, Monsieurdl, and John J Bulten - that are against your edits. 3O only applies if it was just the two of us editing. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am learning the roaps here. So as of late, and every thing from now on I post will be refrenced or a direct qulote form mainstreen media. As I believe accurate unbiased-reporting is the relaying of facts (it should not matter if we like them or not). However as soon as a mainstreem sorce states an amount of 6.4-6.6 million raised in one-day (I will delete Hillary Clintons [unoffical] record). It may not be reported untill the end of the 4Q. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding the issue at hand. Your most recent additions to the article, about the actions of the Boston Tea Party moneybomb, are off topic to the article. They're better suited for the page about Ron Paul's campaigning. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a section over at Talk:Moneybomb#Boston Tea Party additions. Let's continue this discussion over there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb Talk Page

I wasn't trying to be "uncivil" as it seems it was considered. The fact is, I put something in the talk page and you responded with something unrelated to it that you could have easily left just on my user talk page. I haven't used the talk pages before since I don't edit much so I had no problem with you bringing to my attention something I wasn't doing, however, I'd rather you not put it directly on that page because I felt it was inappropriate to the discussion.

I first saw it on my user talk page anyway so it was completely pointless to put it there. I'd rather you remove those comments so they don't distract anyone who might actually have suggestions on it. Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Request for Third Opinion

You removed my Request for Third Opinion stating: "there's an RFC for it; three remain". The issues remain the same, and edit warring continues even after the placement of the RFC's and 'page protection'. I was under the impression Third Opinion was the next step after those avenues failed. Jim (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC generally trumps a third opinion. How long has the RFC been up? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The original two were placed 18 November 2007, with no responces. I tried placing a third one today, and it doesn't seem to be posting. Jim (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Alright, I'll add it back to the 3O list. But in general, RFC works better, and is far better at building consensus than 3O. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reposting my 3O request. We got a 3O, and still nothing from the RFCs. Thanks again, Jim (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Steam (content delivery)

Hiya. I'd go with additions you feel best, assuming they're referenced. If you encounter any problems or wars let me know. I'm usually around Tue-Fri 0800-1700 UTC. If it's outside of that time my response may be slow, so if it's urgent better head to WP:RFPP again. It's on my watchlist and I was suprised there was no activity. Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

instead of reverting everything why dont you try and work with me here? the history of steam starts off badly, it is well referenced and relevant to the history section. so instead of just reverting it why dont u change it so it is more appropriate?--Zorgness (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just copying and pasting parts. And you're adding undue weight to the criticisms of Steam. We've extensively discussed the entire page (see this page) and everyone else was okay with the History section. Just because the section is only one paragraph long doesn't mean that we should steal a part of another page and put it there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am awesome, you asked for help and views from others before discussing it with me, so instead of forwarding me to policies and 100 pages of previous discussions which mostly dont seem to have anything to do with it you could explain to me why the history section must remain short and not include problems that happened when half life 2 was released. why should it not be included?--Zorgness (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again: it's because you're adding undue weight onto criticisms. If all you focus on is the negative, then the article takes on a negative spin. Read WP:UNDUE for more.

On a side note, can you start using the citation methods listed at WP:CIT? Just putting in a link is insufficient; it needs to be properly cited. I've fixed it for you several times now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is stopping you from adding positive views? As I said in my edit summaries.--Zorgness (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a low priority job that can be done at a later date--Zorgness (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIT is a guideline so can you stop harrasing me about it, if you feel so strongly about it then why dont u add the citation stuff yourself instead of whining about it--Zorgness (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at WP:30. I must have misread it. GJ (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop now

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

this comment could also be considered a personal attack, I can remove comments from my talk page so this post could also be considered a personal attack, so read the talk page guidlines before you post another warning, which would go for this one too. As from now, use the article talk page and not mine. --Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. :) I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thank you again for your participation, and I look forward to working with you in the future, --Elonka 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Redir Moneybomb -> Ron Paul

I meant it; I wasn't commenting about John's edits. It's increasingly becoming clear as more cites come in that this term is exclusively germane to Paul.

--- tqbf 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be WP:COATRACK. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to convince you to agree, just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was just trying to pick a fight. --- tqbf 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, nah. No worries. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester futsal club

I do not understand why you have added the copyvio notice back here. It was a copyvio but the editor who started it, altered the article considerably and made it very small. That does not seem to be a copy to me. You also removed the link to futsal which I added after searching to find out what futsal actually is. --Bduke (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw the page was still listed for CSD but the information wasn't there, so I just readded it. I've removed it now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about notability as I know nothing about futsal. It does look however that if any futsal team is notable, this one might be. It needs more sources however. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jocko Milligan speedy declined

Hello, I've declined the speedy on this as it appears to make sense, asserts notability, and has reference source. Dlohcierekim 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I was probably too hasty on that one. Sorry! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: December 2007

As per the Wikipedia code of conduct, I am alowed to make nonconstructive edits if they are funny, if they make a good political point, or if I am testing the project's revert time. --74.12.157.146 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Faculty of Engineering Al-Minya University

Just a friendly headsup on Faculty of Engineering Al-Minya University. You tagged it for speedy deletion based on being a transwiki'd dictdef. I don't read Arabic, but given the length and subject of the article, that seems unlikely. I've tagged it for translation instead. If it really is a dictdef, please let me know. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re.:WP:3O

Answer is there. In a nutshell, UFO Watchdog is used to criticize people who are pro paranormal, paranormal investigators, yet is NOT allowed to beused to criticize skeptics on Wikipedia. In actualality, UFO Watchdog does criticize both sides. Either allow it to be used as evidence of criticizim of skeptics such as Philip Klass OR remove its reference from the Linda Howe article, the Richard C. Hoagland article, related articles. The reference regarding Philip Klass is referred to on ufowatchdog.com, in its "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list". 65.163.112.128 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dethzone

Would you take a look at iHate You as well? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Single Subject Design

Hi! I put a 'hangon' tag and the article was still deleted -- what did I do wrong?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding the hangon tag doesn't mean that the page won't not be deleted. It can still be deleted if the page does not meet Wiki criteria. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh -- I thought it would slow the process down (for more than 30 seconds-Geez you guys are fast!)...I've updated conteent/context...and think its ok -- but I don't want to be viewed as a troublemaker (by re-starting something twice deleted) -- what should I do?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're going to be able to ever get that page passed through. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok -- I'll try -- please check it nowJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if the page meets Wiki criteria. The article has no sources, makes no claims of notability, and is just generally confusing. I really have no idea what single subject design is about, what field it's in, or why I should care about it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It has sources...here...I'll clarify what it is about. Thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at other articles in similar fields to get an idea of an appropriate tone for the page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008‎

Under the White supremacist endorsement section, This is such a charged statement and clearly biased towards anti-Paul that it does not belong in Wikipedia. And the FACT that it has been their since 23:38, 7 September 2007, is clearly an Offence. maybe I’ll go and start a similar discussion of Obama selling drugs or the death of Vince Foster on Hillary. I suggest you use good faith and help remove such blatant POV.--Duchamps comb (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's against Wiki policy to remove comments from talk pages. Your POV argument doesn't hold here, since it's not on the main article. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

asserting notability

Any assertion of notability prevents speedy as non-notable--it does not have to be enough to pass WP:N. If you think the notability is insufficient for WP:N, use Prod; if that fails, then AfD. DGG (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright.. what page is this in reference to? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. It just struck me as an advertisement/spam page. Maybe I should've tagged it as that. Anyway, it's your call, so of course I'll defer to you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Duchamps_comb

This is a reminder don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point and no personal attacks if you continue to edit and violate the civility and disruptively violations of the WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to harass neutral editors you risk being blocked.--Duchamps_comb

Yeah, okay. Says the SPA with a rather intricate history of inappropriate and disruptive edits. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 11:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michele Renouf

I've responded to your comments on the talk page for Michele Renouf. Robert Ham (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)