User talk:AnyPerson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.114.206.48 (talk) at 05:45, 1 February 2009 (Added new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SWIFT Portal

Hi , Apparently you feel that the SWIFT portal is not deemed appropriate because it is the only article I have written. Is this a valid reasoning? I am currently carrying out research on the financial industry and am slowly building my knowledge of this industry. The base foundation of this network starts with SWIFT that very few people have ever heard about this - apart for the 'SWIFT code' or 'BIC code'. I believe it is important, especially today where banks and the financial industry are crippled, questioned, and investigated to provide information to the public that the system that links these banks is a seperate non-profit cooperative (as the UN - but do not get me wrong I am not implying that SWIFT is the UN of the financial world - simply the same spirit dominate it - an international political organisation who does not have self interests but that of a specific community) entity that mission is to provide a resilient and secure financial network for financial institutions. SWIFT was created by banks and national banks together in the 70's to replace the unsecure and un-encrypted telex for payments and financial transfers. The only advantage that SWIFT could gain from what was tagged as 'more like advertisement' is to put a face to the network and provide some re-assurance in the financial industry. I look forward to your response and hopefully find a solution to this problem. Nicolas39 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_MRNinja_ I want To know Why Ed Parker Can HAve A Wikipedia Page But Charles Mattera Can Not. He Had one and A good A awhile ago. Where did it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrN1NJA23 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP AH

This user wants you to join
WikiProject
Alternate History
.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket series

Because its already linked earlier in the article. See WP:OVERLINK. Thanks by the way for the good edits, I've been meaning to work on that section some more but always got sidetracked. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AnyPerson! I am Jake Wartenberg and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Jake WartenbergTalk 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please do not substitute {{db}} templates. Such templates are not supposed to be substituted. For more information, see Wikipedia:Template substitution. -- IRP 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Said: "You are making changes to the Philippines which are sourced to a site, but you are changing the information and making it look as if the source is supporting your edit. You will have to provide another source. I'm reverting your edit till you do it right. AnyPerson (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

I ask: Where did you get that freaking idea?

Take this source: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Chinese_Filipino_-_Chinese_Mestizos/id/1223154

Heres a direct quote from the 1st page...

"Chinese mestizos are those in the Philippines of mixed Chinese and either Filipino or Spanish (or both) ancestry. They make up about another 20% of the country's total population (those who are pure Chinese make up 2% of the population). A number of Chinese mestizos have surnames that reflect their heritage, mostly two or three syllables that have Chinese roots (e.g., the full name of a Chinese ancestor) with a Spanish phonetic spelling. The Chinese mestizos may also be known as Chinoys or Chinitos, although these terms may also refer to the full-blooded Chinese Filipinos.

Starting from the Spanish period, the mestizos have been afforded several opportunities that the full-blooded Chinese or the native Filipinos do not have access to. Historically, the mestizos have been economically more successful than the local population. Even to this day, a large percentage of land or plantation owners in the Philippines are the Chinese mestizos. Due to their fairer complexion, which is a coveted attribute among Filipinos even to this day, a large number of people in the film industry are mestizos."

Stop reverting my work when you know that it's based on solid evidence. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Standford source said 3.6% of the Filipino population have European genes. I think that's true. I put that fact in the statement that the Philippines population only has 3.6% European mestizos. But the term mestizo isn't limited to Europeans, boy. There are also Chinese-mestizos and Arab-mestizos and whatnot. Which means up to 30% of the Philippines is multiracial but out of that only 3.6% have European genes. Cappish? I myself am of Chinese-Mestizo ancestry.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos#Philippines

Now revert it back to the correct statement. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced site whom you soo fanatically defend, explicitly said that 3.6% of of the Philippines have European genes. The same sourced cite also said that Chinese genes dominate in the Philippines especially Southern Chinese and the same source explicitly stated that they do not know the exact amount of European genes in the Philippines.

Page 432–443 (Part 3/12 of the internet PDF)

DIRECT QUOTATIONS:

European Chromosomes in Southeast Asia and Oceania

"our data-set may be missing European hapoltypes present in the region" "...these must be taken as approximate"

Also in the same page but this time on the topic: "A Melanesian origin to East Asia Y Chromosone" it said:

"Chromosome diversity among the mainland samples (49 chromosomes from India, Mongolia, Southern China and Taiwan) is also substantially lower than in than in Southeast Asia and Melanesia..."

~this means Southeast Asia in general (Which includes the Philippines) is more racially mixed than India, Mongolia, Southern china or Taiwan.

The source whom you so fanatically defend and refer to in order to revert my righteously updated edition of the Philippine ethnicity sub, in fact supports my thesis!!!!!

Undo your undo of my reversion now please. Thank you. ^___^ If you won't Ill undo it myself. (;-P)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reverted sub is dumb & grammatically incorrect.

It said: "Mestizo those of multiracial individuals form an estimated figure of about 3.6% of the population."

It is supposed to be: "Mestizos, those individuals of multiracial descent form an estimated figure of about 3.6% of the population."

You attacked and persecuted my righteous and updated edition of the Philippine Ethnicity sub yet you replaced it with a reversion that was grammatically incoherent. (:-()

Please undo your revert. Thank you.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 03:38 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Panama and Kosovo

Of course, this is news. Panama was a member of the UNSC when Kosovo declared its independence in 2008. But as Kosovo independence is a rather controversial topic, all UN member state recognitions may well be worthy a brief note and inclusion in portal:current events. --Hapsala (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, every other recognition after the "first wave" have been "recognized" also at portal:current events (and they are still there, should you not already have deleted these inclusions...). --Hapsala (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Re: Welcome to Wikipedia Yes. It was sarcastic in that "Welcome to wikipedia" was writ to me as I have been a user over three years. And it has certainly changed quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbulwink (talkcontribs) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at {{Uw-vandalism1}}, the level one vandalism warning, you will see that it is part of the template. I was assuming good faith in the warning so I went with a level 1 warning instead of the more harsher levels. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Inre your delete as WP:Crystal at this article's AfD: Ctystal for film refers only to those films whose principle filming has not yet begun. This one has, and many actors are speaking about their parts in the past tense, indicating it is now in post production and so Crystal does not apply. And as for WP:NFF, it states that a film should usually not have an article unless filming has begun. Filming is finished. Might you care to revisit the article and advise further? Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I removed the "official website" cause it ain't up yet... but that's on them. IMDB does not confer notability, only provides directions to look to verfy cast and crew... which I have done through the provided references and sources inre WP:GNG show notability. newnownext announced the beginning of filming. As far as the film having been completed, their official myspace page has production stills and the announcement that filming has finished. And a number of the principles have written about ther completed work on the film on their own websites. I do not think much of myspace as a source... but this allows me to assume good faith that the official announcement of such will be in the trades in a matter of days. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? I know its not a reference source, and I did not use myspace... nor the websites of the actors who have competed their filming. However, these hints allow my WP:AGF to believe that further sources confirming post production will be available soon. And it sure is not WP:Crystal. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re from Ched

OK ... I'll admit I haven't read the hidden comments. Give me a few minutes to sort this out. I agree, this isn't a place for "fake" stuff - it look(ed) to me like a real TV show that he was working on ... let me do some research and talk to the user, he/she is brand new. I'll explain about not posting the fake stuff to them - but when i looked at the user history, they only have a couple edits - so I hate to see their "User Page" deleted before they ever got started. .. Please? Ched (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this Big Brother (U.S.), but am still not clear on where the user is going with his efforts. The hidden comments I found in the page revolved mostly around consensus on whether people were called houseguests or housemates. If indeed it is just some made up stuff, then I agree with you 100% that it doesn't belong. But maybe rather than deleting a user page, it should be blanked. I've left him some stuff on his/her talk page, I don't know at this point if the user is interested in being a wiki editor - or as you said - just looking for a hosting type site. Let me know what you think, and I'll do what I can to make things right. Thank you for being patient with me and the user. ;) The (second or third) post on the AfD page that I made was prior to seeing your comment about it being fake .. Ched (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I pointed him to the WP:NOT page, I haven't heard back, and he hasn't posted. Oh well, it was worth a shot, lol. I hadn't seen the beauty pageant stuff, but I haven't been editing very long either. I'll stop back over at the delete page, and change my opinion to delete. Guess I'm just a "wiki-hugger" at heart - no harm in trying I guess. I appreciate your patience, thank you. You have a wonderful day now ;) .. Ched (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO .. if it's not a word - it should be. We could always forward it the George W. Bush library, lord knows he loves new words. Ched (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were times I wasn't sure what language that man was speaking ;) .. Ched (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie

There was a movie a while back that I read about, and wanted to add to my collection. It was an alternate history movie about the south wining the civil war, and what the US would be like now. I can't remember the name of the movie, but I think it was fairly well known, at least by civil war buffs and alternate history fans. Have any idea which movie I'm looking for? Ched (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found it ... Confederate States of AmericaChed (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, now I've gotten side-tracked again, and won't get anything done today. I guess I was thinking about C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (which was linked at Confederate States of America), but I thought it was a theatrical release rather than TV. I'm not even sure at this point if it is on a DVD. That will teach me to follow links lol. I enjoy sci-fi, time travel and such, so I just had to click on that "alternate history" link ... Oh well, don't be surprised if you see me pop in at that group from time to time. Really appreciate you time, cheers .. Ched (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:98.223.164.233

Which is why I said "most of his recent edits". :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. It should just be investigated more closely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was an appropriate course of action. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a user vandalized a week ago, but now they're making good-faith contributions, we should always assume they're vandalizing? I'm also not sure why you're so set on getting this particular user blocked. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've alerted Tanthalas39. Perhaps he can provide you with a better explanation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy delete - criterion A7 - candidate. Please note that A7 only applies to real people, organisations and web content, it specifically excludes articles about their works (in this case an album). I have retagged the article as an A9 candidate - A9 applies to musical recordings where importances isn't indicated and the artist's page does not exist or has been deleted (as appears to be the case here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know per your use of the {{selfpublished}} tag on the Riverbank High School article that I am not a publisher of the Modesto Bee, but I suppose that is a flattering compliment. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woe of Tyrants

Could you send me the page of Woe of Tyrants before it was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkempton (talkcontribs) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGP 2009

Re this: I wasn't done yet :-). Now I'm done. Have a look. --Bensin (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'll do the same to 2008. --Bensin (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is requested in the related talk pages.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]