User talk:HelloAnnyong

archives
1 2 3 4

Jewel State and 7 Days episode "Empty Quiver"

According to Schedules Direct, the original air date of this particular episode was Wed March 21, 2001. This means that although 7 Days aired from 1998 to 2001, Jewel appeared in only this one particular episode as the character "Molly". I'll know more of the name come Dec 23, 2008 when this episode airs again on Spike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.26.141 (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email spam discussion is still difficult

Hi HelloAnnyong, thank you very much for giving your opinion about email spam article ☆ Nevertheless, the debate is very difficult. So I want to resign. I you want, you can see the state of the debate looking at Talk:E-mail_spam#Postage-due and also the comments in the edit history of the article itself. But I think I will no more participate, at least for a quite long time, because for example I have no idea of how a consensus would appear. But, once more, thank you very much for your help. Almeo (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be a little busy in the next day or two, but I'll try to stop by the page and give my thoughts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thanks for your efforts to help with 3Os. In future, please make sure to always take my side. Ho ho ho!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Price page

thank you for your review.

the reason why there isn't discussion on the Price page is because the editor in question (Realkyhick) started making comments on my username page and I felt it best to keep the discussion where it started. I am not calling into question orangemike's credibility, but if you look at the bottom of his talk page User talk:Orangemike, you will see (Realkyhick), the editor in question, asking orange to review it.

Shortly after wards, orange deleted my 3rd party request and made an edit on the price page giving an incorrect reason for it.

This did not smell like an objective 3rd party review to me and in fact was more like "teaming up"/meatpuppetry.

I am just trying to make a decent article on a household name in architecture and noted in the creation tag less than 48 hours ago it was going to be expanded upon. I will leave the page to others to sort out now that it has come to this destructive end.

I've lost a lot of respect for this site in this process —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynewart (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had such an awkward start with editing here, but you have to understand that there are a very well-defined set of rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, and they need to be followed. As a follow-up, if Travis Price really was a household name in architecture, then there would be a lot more articles about him; a person doesn't get famous without having anything written about them. Find sources for what you wrote and you'll be good to go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for being human about it! As I mentioned, I planned to add tons of citations I had for the page. Most are in actual BOOKS, so it takes a second to compile them to meet wiki standards. It was Christmas yesterday and the page is less than 2 days old, so time has been an issue. I have spent more than double the time responding to all these issues than I did writing the initial page. Frankly, know I give up because I feel anything I do will be biased by the editors in question. They complain about something not being there, after the erroneously delete it from the page themselves. It is almost insane. If they knew the subject they would let creators get the page going before they destroy it - especially when I noted I would be adding citations- its just a holiday. And if they were a smidgen kinder like you are, this would never have happened. I have no emotional investment in the subject other than the fact I know the work and saw him lecture at harverd. there are tons of articles about him. Eventually someone will squeak a page through about him. this one is a mess now and anything I do will be deleted by Realkyhick, I can tell. I meant he went so far as to subvert my request for a review? What kind of person does that lol-- Nynewart (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you shouldn't have created the article without making sure that the notability criteria were satisfied. I just added two sources that I found, one from the Washington Post and one from the NY Times, so I believe that notability has been met. Be careful with your additions, though - don't add anything that can't be cited, avoid any sort of editorializing, and echo exactly what is in the sources. I'm watching the page now, so I'm going to make sure that it holds up to both Wiki's and my standards. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ann; that's all I was looking for (although Nynewart thinks differently). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I put a citation back in where you asked for one. It had existed before but was deleted by Mike, I believe erroneously as he thought it was Price's site and it is not. I also mentioned in my dialogue with Realkyhick that I would be posting those sources you used along with others - in between opening kid's presents. I will actually keep to my word now and leave the page to others so the admin don't think I am trying to own it. Thanks for keeping it alive though and have a great new year! -- Nynewart (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continuing uncivil comments by Realkyhick

Hi Ann,

I have laid this issue and page to rest, but Realkyhick continues to keep opening the wound by posting uncivil remarks on my talk page (see the history at: User talk:Nynewart). Would you please have a word with this User talk:Realkyhick? It's getting to the point of harassment. I've asked several times for him to stop and cool off, yet he keeps coming back making snide comments. I've given up on the Price page as you know and wished him well. If you aren't an admin, can you point me to one that can get him off my back? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynewart (talk • contribs) 03:47, December 27, 2008

Sorry man, but that's not my fight. You chose to open a WQA against him, so you need to accept the consequences of your actions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USER WASP12345

User WASP12345 is a repeat vandaliser of the MISS TOURISM WORLD entry simply becasue he / she does not like the facts, even though factual sources are provided can the page not be protected to stop this vandalism (411GURU (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Third opinion - List of tools for static code analysis

Greetings HelloAnnyong! I see you provided a third opinion on a separate but similar issue to one I'm having on Talk:List of tools for static code analysis. I was wondering if you could also take a look at the sections titled "GrammaTech" and "CP Miner", where there appear to be issues with the meaning of WP:N and what is and is not appropriate in Stand alone lists. The current discussion is regarding the appropriateness of a product called PC-Lint, but I'm more interested in the question in the generic sense. Thanks, and happy editing! -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.155.139 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I'm pretty sure that this edit is vandalism. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering 3rd opinion on No-Kill Shelter

I followed your suggestion and filed an edit warring complaint. Hopefully this editor will adjust his editing style to be friendlier and more compatible with Wiki standards. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will, after he admit to being spiteful, dense and incapable of basic reading comprehension.--Dodo bird (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page of No-kill shelter. Your comment above, however, does border on WP:NPA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Komapsamnida

Cheers for the page protection on North Korea, im glad theres others sorting these pages out and keeping a close watch.--CorrectlyContentious 08:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Qasimiya

You changed the article to a redirect. Actually there are two orders at Mohra Sharif that claim to be the current custodians of the shrine. That is why in the main page I only mentioned their names and then have created two different pages to further describe each order. Please advise if you have any thoughts/concerns about it.

خرم Khurram (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected since both pages are essentially identical. The text on this edit of Qasimiya and this edit of Mohra Sharif have so much in common that they're basically the same. If you want to discuss the claims, then do it on the same page. There's no reason to have two separate pages.

By the way, while we're on the subject, your edits on both pages are entirely inappropriate. For one, you cite no sources for anything, so as far as I know, it's all original research. Second, the tone of the articles is all wrong. Phrases like "to propagate the beautiful teachings" and "as done by his forefathers" should not be used on Wiki articles. This isn't a place to venerate people you respect; this is supposed to be a neutral place where you just describe the people and what they've done. Claims like "He was loved and respected by millions across the world" need sourcing - you can't just make claims like that and expect them to stay here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I did not write that page. I just transferred it and made a few modifications (minor ones at that). I only cleaned up the Mohra Sharif page and reorganized it. I shall work to clean up the Qasimiya page as well and make it like Nisbat-e-Rasooli but currently just in the initial phases of this work. I completely agree with your comments regarding Qasimiya but need more time to make things up to the standards. خرم Khurram (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now engaged :o), can you please help me cleaning up Nisbat-e-Rasooli page? The things reported are present in books written in Urdu and I am confused as to how to reference them? Also you might be a better person to judge the tone of the article since I cannot be completely neutral on the subject.

Many Thanks. خرم Khurram (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about these topics at all, but I can certainly attempt to check the pages for tone and such. As to the question of references, take a look at WP:CITE. For the reference tables themselves, take a look at WP:CITET. I can help with that as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started cleaning up Qasimiya and it shall take some time. Please bear with me during this time :o). I shall have a look at the citation pages as well. Thanks for the reference.

خرم Khurram (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Guidance

We are trying to be good Wikipedia citizens and follow the rules, and to do so overtly as User: GrammaTech. When someone created the GrammaTech page on January 23, a customer contacted us to say "Hey, your page is tagged for possible deletion. You should probably fix it.", we felt it appropriate to step in and, with your participation, address the issues you had raised. Being rank novices at this, we greatly appreciate your advice in what we do now.

GrammaTech (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]