User talk:Woogee/Archive 1

I see you have removed all the work i just did. I was simply adding lists of bibliography etcetera. It's odd that for instance Mark Billingham is allowed a bibliography (which lists every foreign edition of all his books as well as the first editios) and yet you have removed all of mine. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidofelix (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome...

Hello, Woogee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. 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! Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Omarnimri

The bank is updating its page on Wikipedia and respects the neutral point of view policy. (talk)

OG RON C deletion

OK So If I trim it down a bit and speak just of the things he as done as a CEO for Swishahouse and the albums and mixtapes he as done as a dj will you let it stay?!?

chopnotslop (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

• I've received a message from you about some changes I made in the Venezuela page. Your comment is: "Please read WP:NPOV. Please don't add your personal opinion into articles. Plus, is there really tundra in Venezuela? Woogee (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)"

So, tell me: where have I added personal opinions? Are you venezuelan? Do you speak spanish? Well, if you speak spanish read this wikipedia page link about the venezuelan flag: [1] ]

1.    Amarillo: representa las riquezas del territorio.
2.    Azul: representa el mar y el cielo .
3.    Rojo: representa la sangre derramada por los patriotas en la Independencia.

I'll read this in english for you: RED, for the blood shed by the heroes of independence.

• And about the "tundra": yes, I wrote Polar or Tundra climate. This is because according to Köppen Climate Classification, the mountain climate above 2,800 meters (known as "Páramo" in Venezuela), is "Polar or Tundra" Climate. You can easily check this by READING A BIT the page about Tundra: "Alpine tundra occurs in mountains worldwide. The flora of the alpine tundra is characterized by dwarf shrubs close to the ground. The cold climate of the alpine tundra is caused by the low air pressure, and is similar to polar climate". Also check the Köppen climate classification page:

GROUP E: Polar climates

These climates are characterized by average temperatures below 10 °C (50 °F) in all twelve months of the year:

Tundra climate (ET):[18] Warmest month has an average temperature between 0 °C (32 °F) and 10 °C (50 °F). These climates occur on the northern edges of the North American and Eurasian landmasses, and on nearby islands.(...) ET IS ALSO FOUND AT HIGH ELEVATIONS OUTSIDE THE POLAR REGIONS, ABOVE THE TREE LINE — AS AT MOUNT WASHINGTON, New Hampshire and Jotunheimen, Norway."

If you want to read more, check this page of the venezuelan government: [2]

"De tundra

Se caracteriza principalmente porque el mes más cálido registra temperaturas entre 10 y 0° C. Este es el clima propio de los páramos andinos. Se localiza muy porencimade10s 2;800 metros sobre el nivel del mar.

Solamente domina sobre algunos pequeños sectores elevados de los estados andinos: Mérida, Táchira y Trujillo. "

In English:

"Tundra

It is characterized mainly because the hottest month recorded temperatures between 10 and 0 ° C. This is the climate typical of the Andean highlands. It's located 2, 800 meters above sea level."

So please, unless you have serious (and scholarly supported) reasons to block my contributions, let me improve the articles I want to. I'll repost my contributions with its reliable sources.

And I hope you're satisfied. Thanks.

Hiddendaemian (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Midland Metro

I've already asked for resultion - basically Haskanik reverts any change that isn't his "blessed" version of the article and has been systematically doing this for two weeks. His material is seriously slanted and contains various worrying things such as unreferenced probably defamatory claims about the Metro as well as figures in direct conflict with referencable material.

Awaiting disputer resolution - would welcome a third opinion on the article neutrality and referencing of the versions.

Alan Cox (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

My apoligise

I was removing vandalism, many users appear to be adding fake episodes to the guide on a daily basis, pretty annoying, since i've worked on that guide for about 3 years trying to complete it and make it better. Jack haywood (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied further. Tiderolls 02:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with that article

I edit-conflicted with you trying to rework the first paragraph. Looks like some vandalism got in there. Enigma^msg 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hello! i responded on the keshia chante talk page!--FrossBitten (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Several editors jumped on this and some might be looking at "removal of information" only, without reading it. Timing problem, which should settle soon. I suggest reading and thinking what to delete there next :-) Cheers Materialscientist (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of songs

I'm not attempting to write an article on every song on the album, I started that article because it has been red on the Sublime template for a long time, and it's one of the most played songs by that band, at least where I live.Iminrainbows (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kaiane Aldorino

I'm afraid not but thanks for pointing it out. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kshatriya talkpage

Sorry, did i make any mistake ?... I don't understand what do you mean... Rajkris (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've understood. I did nothing wrong. It was a vandalism, someone changed this sentence, i just redited to the initial version. Please check before blaming me. thank you.Rajkris (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!... In the future, i will add comments in Edit Summary when i do changes.Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hi Woogee, I just wanted to say welcome back to Wikipedia. :) Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hussain Muradi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hussain Muradi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussain Muradi. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced speedy deletion warning

Hi, Woogee. I've reverted your CSD message to ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) because he isn't the creator of CraveOnline. Speedy deletion warnings only belong on the talk page of the creator, not on the talk pages of the other users who edit the article. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection

Thanks for the heads up. I put up a request, but he's blocked already so the problem will be gone for the next month. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

Thank you for your concern regarding the article. Even though, I know a lot about the person, I can't make it a better one because it lacks good sources although I found some valuable one's but still it lacks to be a B-class article. Can you help me find good sources? The past version of that article is full of sources however, one user remove it because he said that it isn't reliable (even though I know it's true and accurate) I let him remove it because I think he knows what is right :)

Velirs Wiki Page

Hello, someone called Chola yadava is vandalising this wiki page. I have provided many references written by different scholars to illustrate what i have written. He has removed all my ref; it seems he has done such things to other wiki page. he wants to put his POV, it is not normal. Please do something to prevent such vandalism. ThanksRajkris (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Barnstar from User:GoRight's Page

Hi Woogee. I awarded User:GoRight a barnstar. It appears you removed it. May I ask why? Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because GoRight was a few hours away from having an administrator block him "for being a complete waste of time"?[3] Piano non troppo (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted question on malysz

Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit on Noah Cyrus

Thanks for the edit on Noah Cyrus.[4] I was drawn into being a regular watchdog, noticing that the article was regularly defaced or trivialized. Odd the way Wiki works, since I probably couldn't recognize her, and I'm sure I couldn't recognize her voice. Nice that your meander after being an administrator brought you back to Wiki. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sources

You reverted my edit on Garrett Gilbert with the reason "blogs are not reliable sources, and this is not a newspaper, we can afford to wait to report this with a valid source." I referenced the Los Angeles Times blog, which is an acceptable source according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Specifically, footnote #4 states:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

Best, Goodralph (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question...

It looked as if it had simply been cut and pasted from another source, so I'm erring on the side of caution and claiming that the facts as presented had to come from another source and are therefore copyrighted. Just my two cents'.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. There wasn't even so much as a sentence in all of that text. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Enax99

Reports to AIV have to be on ongoing, recent vandalism. If the vandal has stopped that's what we want. If you want action on a colder report take it to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It only says "Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent." That does not mean that the opposite must be applied to registered users. It's a matter of administrative discretion, and I prefer to apply policy equally to registered and unregistered users in that department absent a policy directive to the contrary.

Anyhow, if nobody else has done so, I will review the AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"And why did ATren insert himself in the middle of this mess?"

Because Abd, like me, is quite familiar with GoRight's case, and I believed his statement was relevant. Note that Abd was involved heavily in GoRight's RFC several years ago, long before the conflict which led to his ban, and Abd did extensive research which (IMO) exonerated GoRight against trumped up charges from Raul654 and WMC. This was a revival of that old conflict, and therefore I believe Abd had something to offer.

I think everyone needs to lighten up a bit. Abd's comment wasn't a wall of text, it wasn't uncivil, it just stated his opinion. Removing it was aggressive and unnecessary, even if it may have violated the letter of some ban (still not even sure that it did, because it did appear to be a vote at the time he commented). But anyway, I backed off, Abd was beaten down, and everyone is happy now. ATren (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Enax

You're welcome, despite the apparent lack of interest in dealing with the guy. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

request for sources

Hi Woogee, and welcome back (if that's approptiate). If you check the history on this one, this was a user who was trying to make info disappear, in keeping with a long history of local boosters who want to make an unwelcome resident invisible. If we look at lists of notable residents for locales, there's no standard practice of taggin each one. OK, letter-o'-he-law. But Lnet's note: it clutters things, it's inconsistent, and it's cooperating with somebody who's gaming the system against wikiprinciples. DavidOaks (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

I hope that I've improved since you last ran across me. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much...

I am genuinely grateful for your helping to revert that idiotic vandalism on my talk page. I have therefore granted you rollback rights. This really neat tool will allow you to revert multiple instances of vandalism from a single source with a single keystroke. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• My pleasure, believe me.  :) Enjoy the new tool. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

SHAWN CHAPMAN HOLLEY

Hello: Re copyright issues for my Shawn Chapman Holley article, I wrote the bio on kwikalaw.com, therefore there are no issues, correct? please let me know. thanks!

Jentry71 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Wikipedia:Rollback is only meant for reverting vandalism, not good faith edits. Your use of rollback here is a misuse of rollback. If you disagreed with the edit, you should have used the undo button instead. Salavat (talk · contribs)'s edit was constructive and justified because the tag you placed no longer applies; the image license for File:objfashion1.png has been updated. Your warning on Salavat's talk page is inappropriate as he is obviously not a vandal; please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Further abuse of rollback may result in its removal by an administrator. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Woogee (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary here: please explain why this edit is vandalism, which is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Objfashion1.png

I only requested a source for the image which was supplied. if someone wants to follow it up because they have doubts then that entirely up to them. but for now the image is no longer up for deletion and i have no intention on following it up. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is currently not tagged for deletion, so removal of the tag was valid. Whether or not the license is a valid one is up for debate. If you believe that the image license is incorrect, feel free to nominate it for Wikipedia:Files for deletion or tag for speedy deletion again (if a criterion applies). I have limited knowledge about image licenses, so I can offer little advice as to what should be done here. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Croposition

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at Arbitrarily0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again!  :-) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'Vandalism' on 'jim bell' page?

Except for a flurry of ill-considered (and, quite possibly, completely NON-considered) 'reversions', the reversions themselves constituting 'vandalism', there was no 'vandalism' on the 'jim bell' page.

   Apparently, the people who feel they are in a special position of control over WP think that they don't have to follow any of the rules:  'Rules' are made to be applied to others, not 'the beautiful people' you have now become.
   I will quote the page, WP:  Vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

                                (end of quote from Wikipedia: Vandalism)
Please note the comment:  'Any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is NOT vandalism.'  That's the rule.  But that's NOT the way 'the beautiful people' act.  They used the term 'vandalism' as if to mean,
      'Any edit that I don't like, or edits that I didn't do that my buddies don't like, is 'vandalism'. So there!  Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!'
Here's what one person did:

(cur) (prev) 06:18, 10 February 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) m (24,341 bytes) (Protected Jim Bell: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC))))

   I happen to believe that anyone 'reverting' non-vandalism, especially if he calls it 'vandalism', is actually COMMITTING vandalism, himself.  Actually, it's the worst form of vandalism possible.   Naturally, you will be aghast at such a logical conclusion.   By saying that there was 'excessive vandalism' on the article 'jim bell', he has demonstrated himself to be A VANDAL.    Therefore, I challenge you to show that there was ANY 'vandalism' on the article 'jim bell' on 2/9/2010, OTHER THAN repeated vandalism by means of reversion of non-vandalism edits.
  I did a test:  There was a repeated error in the article, stating that the AP essay was written in 2006.  I know differently:  It was actually written in 2005.  Changing the incidences of "2006" to "2005" cannot possibly be described as 'vandalism'.  But for people to repeatedly REVERT such edits, going back to ERRONEOUS information, can only be described as deliberate 'vandalism'.  How do you like the company you keep?
    Show us that there was, actually, 'vandalism' on 'jim bell' article, OTHER THAN the repeated reversions.  Or go away.  I predict you won't even try.

71.36.125.36 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUI

I note you've reported a number of images at PUI but they haven't been tagged properly on the file page. Some of the images are blatant copyvios, found by a simple google image search. I've tagged these appropriately for speedy deletion. You might find it a lot easier if you do the same, rather than going through the PUI process unnecessarily. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies, etc

If you haven't noticed, I've noted more details about this IP hopping edit warrior at ANI. This was his 4th IP, all focussing on the same 4 or 5 articles (one being Republic of China). Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Allow me to apologize for my arrogance. I'm sorry for violating the terms here, and I won't be doing it again. Thanks for understanding. Tyler Hickman 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism on my userpage. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

i m trying the best of my knowledge and provide the proper reference (Anaskhankhurai (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)) Anaskhankhurai

Danielle Campbell

This is a little bit out of my area of knowledge, but if Danielle Campbell is the star of a new Disney movie the she probably meets WP:ACTOR. You have two chances here - either write an article in a user sandbox, or start it at the article incubator. Either way, once the article is in a fit state for transfer to mainspace, there is WP:DRV to get the salting of the title undone. A well-prepared article that meets WP:ACTOR, WP:V, WP:CITE etc will have a good chance of making it to mainspace. If you need help in creating a personal sandbox give me a yell. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thought you were making the request! As you know who this is meant for, would you be kind enough to pass it on? Perhaps the editor will heed the advice instead of edit warring and getting themselves blocked. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Angel

Yes, they are. Especially if they're not American. Any 5 year old kid in Brazil knows who Angel was.

Libertyville, Illinois

Oops, That was my mistake, I don't know how I didn't see that! :) Thank you for notifying. And please, feel free to notify me if I made any mistake again; you know... To Err Is Human :) Thank you.Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cities of Turkey on the river

I don't know why a "deletion" tag placed on this article. I was just discussing with another admin to improve the article. Article will be improved for sure.Seyhan668 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

warning vandals

Thank you for your work reverting vandalism. To save your creative efforts for more worthy causes and to quickly and efficiently warn vandals, consider enabling WP:Twinkle. Then you can click on the warn tab for to issue most common messages (which are fairly standardized). The default warning is level 1 vandalism which is provided by template {{uw-vandal1}}. This means you can give a level one warning in three clicks—four if you count accessing the user's talk page. It even gives a great edit summary. Thanks again. —EncMstr (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

I've responded to your comment at the FAC for Pilot (Parks and Recreation) and was hoping you wouldn't mind taking a look. — Hunter Kahn 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if you have a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy, I guess I can't argue with your taking that position. I hope you'll consider, though, that I've worked diligently on this article since I created it more than 10 months ago, and worked hard to get it to what I think is FA quality. I don't think it's particularly fair to cast an opposing vote for something that is in fact not in violation of Wikipedia guidelines... — Hunter Kahn 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • :( Alright, well...best of luck with that. — Hunter Kahn 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I know, and I respect your position; there are plenty of Wikipedia policies I disagree with too. I'm sure you can understand my frustration, though, at now facing an oppose vote for a matter that isn't actually in violation of the rules. But I'm not trying to be uncivil, so it's cool... — Hunter Kahn 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Well, let me ask you this. 1) Do you consider the official Parks and Recreation site a WP:RS? Because if so, this text episode recap and this two-minute video recap will serve as a source for much of the plot section, and I can use other sources to fill in any blanks. And 2) If I cite the plot summary, would you be willing to do a full review on the rest of the page and cast your Support or Oppose vote accordingly? My last FAC failed in part due to lack of reviewers participating, and I'd like to avoid that this time around... — Hunter Kahn 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that being the case, I can probably find enough reliable third-party sources to cite most, if not all of the plot summary. However, there are small details in there that I might not be able to find sources for, at least without using the primary sources I brought to your attention. I'll work on it a bit, but if I have to tear up and chop up the existing summary too much to make it conform, then I'm not going to bother, because I don't want to make the article worse than it currently is just to address an objection that isn't actually in violation of any rules. If I'm able to source the whole thing without facing this problem, I'll get back to you. Otherwise, I'll move on. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, by the way, I nearly forgot, you didn't answer my other question? If I add sources to the plot summary, do you plan to review the rest of the article? Or would you just strike the oppose and leave it at that? — Hunter Kahn 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, I've sourced up the plot section. The only somewhat unorthodox one is the Michael Schur commentary track (currently ref #2) which I used because the other source for that first paragraph doesn't mention the meeting in the elementary school. The commentary track does, as you can see from the use of that source in the first paragraph of the "Writing" section. I think everything else is covered by the citations, but take a look and let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Woogee. Now that this is finished, I hope you'll follow through and review the rest of the article, and either cast a Support vote if you're satisfied, or cast another Oppose so I can work through any other comments or suggestions you may have... — Hunter Kahn 07:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's opinion of Dr. Jones is contrary to Wikipedia's definition of Professor Emeritus as "A full professor who retires in good standing."

Arthur Rubin's opinion of Dr. Jones is contrary to Wikipedia's definition of Professor Emeritus as "A full professor who retires in good standing."

The Wikipedia public does not care what Arthur thinks of Dr. Jones. It is inappropriate to put in Wikipedia. It adds nothing to an understanding of Dr. Jones' scientific research.

It does not follow the principles: Be Polite, Assume Good Faith, Avoid Personal Attacks, or Be Welcoming.

Arthur Rubin needs to find a source from a BYU Administrator that contradicts his status as Professor Emeritus, retiring in good standing, which only the best professors are awarded. Most professors simply retire. Dr. Jones was honored in this way by BYU.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the proper place to respond. The lead paragraph is not the place for Arthur's opinions of Dr. Jones. Indeed they have no place in Wikipedia at all. A Professor Emeritus deserves the benefit of the doubt. Indeed most people do. The retirement arrangement of Dr. Jones and BYU is between them, was probably confidential, as most are. It is inappropriate to speculate and put in a leading phrase such as "relieved of his duties." We can say that of anyone who retires. The fact that he was retired with the honor of Emeritus speaks volumes about how BYU feels about Dr. Jones. Cicorp (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Michael Riley (film producer)

Hello Woogee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michael Riley (film producer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse

I have been working for several weeks to keep vandalists from reverting the pricipal of perryville high school, yet you seem to be the only one not getting the picture. There is a new principal, Mr. Darren Isenhart, and wikipedia should he honored to have this update before anyone else. Thank you. PeitaCandy1 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hackers

After referring back to my previous "edits", I can conclude only one thing: Hackers.

I can assure you that I was not responsible for any of these, and am really rather irritated at this reocurring event.

You see, I was at one point a Wikipedia administrator, until my account was hacked and deleted. I am of the understanding that it was the very vandals that I worked so hard to dis-encourage.

I apologize for my rude response earlier today. As I mentioned earlier, I have been growing in frustration for quite some time now, and realize it is going to be a struggle to continue my pursuit of wide spread knowledge.

Your friend,

PeitaCandy1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeitaCandy1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I might have been a little intemperate in the edit summaries, for which I apologize. I think you have misunderstood my intentions. For many articles I have provided tons of reliable sources, and I in fact consider reliable sourcing to be quite important. However, at the same time not all infobox listings need to be attached a reference tag (that would just overcrowd the infobox and confuse people). All precedents show that most infobox entries do not have reference tags. I was discussing practical considerations of over-demand of reference tags, not the concept of reliable source. Wandering Courier (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reaction"

The week after the performances, the songs always surge on the Hot 100 and Hot Digital Songs tracks, so I put in the new sections to showcase what happened to the songs on the chart after the performances. Tcatron565 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's actually on American Idol 8 and 7's pages. Tcatron565 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of image from Michael Doret

In this edit you removed File:MDoret.jpg from Michael Doret with the edit summery (rm copyrighted image). However, the image is tagged as "Creative Commons Attribution 1.0", a free license. Do you think it is miss-tagged? if so, why? DES ^(talk) 14:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

again. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kirby Lester Pharmacutical Automation

When I reverted the text in the article I did not realise that the tags had also been removed by the reversion. Please accept my apology for the inexperiencewd oversight. I understand what you mean by "edit warring", it is not my intention to either start or adopt such tactics. I have only recently been involved with this article; a few hours last night (22.00 onward) and today. I had experience in the industry for a while 30 years ago, and thought it would be of interest to provide information on a technology that is now taken for granted. I was aware of the self-promoting slant to the article content and am trying to improve it. Unfortunately, I am both relatively inexperienced with Wiki and also slow at typing due to suffering with macular degeneration.User:Francis E Williams Francis E Williams (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kirby Lester Pharmacutical Automation Update

I have re-written much of the article content and have included some internal wiki links to assist the reader. Refernces to past events are being sourced and will be included at a later stage. Please feel free to advise me of any further alterations neccessary. I am not the author of the original article. Thanks for the help. Francis E Williams (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit

It was an accident, sorry about that!! must have been a bad cut & paste job or something, I really have no idea how that happened. I was typing on a different section.Soledad22 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kellan Lutz

Yes, I was in the process of writing them a note after my last revert. Template:Scarce signature. 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

David Bradford (businessman)

Considering the sockpuppetry on the article, I've protected the page for a week. Do you want me to file the WP:SSP case, or do you want the honor? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The more I dug, the seedier it got. If I've missed anything, please make sure to add it in. Cheers, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted to go in and indef the whole bunch, but by now I think I qualify as an "involved admin". Plus I think the CU result will be useful. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I literally laughed out loud

The unban request made me nearly spit my coffee on my laptop. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's wrong to taunt vandals, but it would be more entertaining if they were more original in their personal attacks. Woogee (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• He emailed me to ask what I found so funny. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Snort. Woogee (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:The Pythons

You are right, sloppy cleanup on my part. :-) Bearian (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe Fine

Thank you for the feedback. I'm still learning about the community's expectations so I appreciate hearing that. I do have a question, though. I see that the discussion page is gone. It must have been there for you to see my note. Did you delete that? (Again, still climbing the learning curve.) Thanks again for your help. Scattered0 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again. Scattered0 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deven lind

Done. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur

I've recently blocked Gonzinuk for a combination of conflict of interest, attempting to own the article, edit-warring, and eventually just blanking out the article. They asked to be unblocked (with a legal threat as a cherry on top), but in the course of their rant against Wikipedia I realized that the information in the article that they are objecting to is completely unverified. I did a search for sources on the article, and found nothing. I can't even reliably state that the school exists. I'm proposing the article for deletion, and thought you should know (if you disagree, just remove the deletion tag, but please find sources if you do). Thanks! -- Atama頭 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kirby Lester Pharmacutical Automation

Hello again, Can you advise if the article now meets the criterion required by the tags?. If so, who can add or remove them? Francis E Williams (talk) Francis E Williams (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (message moved from previous position in list)

Update Kirby Lester

Hello again, I have simplified the introduction. Who can add or remove tags to articles?

It is recommended that children not put their real names on WP. See his talk page. Qpwoeial (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He's in high school. Besides, I left his user page alone after the first suggested revision. Qpwoeial (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at Nefariousski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Tread carefully"

Admins who participate often at ANI sometimes lose themselves, almost understandably. It's kind of the asshole of Wikipedia, like the bar scene in Airplane!. I would not take the "tread carefully" comment too seriously. It might imply some sort of punishment is being threatened, but there's nothing anyone can do to you for the comment you made. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:46, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• He linked the contribution list for the wrong fuggin editor while calling you rookie. He linked to some guy who hasn't edited in 2 years. Way to pay close attention when being a WP:DICK. I just called him on it in the ANI thread. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My apology at AN/I was sincere. I overstepped, and to make it worse, mislinked. Please accept my apology. Keeper | 76 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Point Re: King Muzik, But Can You Help?

You're right--that was a user-created page, so I agree with the revert. However, its generally acknowledge that the title is going to be King Muzik. Hip-hop sites have been reporting it for the last 2 weeks. Maybe you could help out by finding a reliable source? This is going to become salient rather quickly on account of the fact that the first single to the album was just released today ("I'm back").

World Net Daily

Thanks for sharing. I found the "Period" exceptionally useful in helping me to judge the weight I should assign to the first statement. Myself, I don't hold strong opinions on it one way or the other. When I saw a new editor remove citations (poorly) from an article with a declaration that WND is not a reliable source, I chose to fix the resulting broken cites by undoing his removal. If we have a consensus that WND is not a reliable source, then removing all of the WND cites from that article with an edit summary that references that consensus would not trouble me at all. Celestra (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mathews

The edit at [5] wasn't vandalism and shouldn't have been rollbacked, and you certainly shouldn't have threatened the user with blocking. Please try to be a little less WP:BITEy. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullpucky. He had been warned three times before. I was the fourth person to revert him and issue a warning. Mine just happened to be a v-4 warning. Woogee (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And if it hadn't been a redirect already, it would have been a clear db-bio. You revert, I'll take it afd. Woogee (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to give someone a more specific warning — the user is editing in good faith, clearly hasn't a clue what an nn-bio is, and threatening him with blocks is exactly what WP:BITE asks people not to do. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Garciaparra

No its not true. A team does not go into the infobox unless he plays a game with that team. Nomar did not and will not play a game with the Red Sox in 2010.--Yankees10 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to. This is what has been agreed to at WP:Baseball. The only ones that are adding it are IPs and new users.--Yankees10 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at Turian's talk page.
Message added 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Turian (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Evony Edits

Sorry, didn't get your message until after the edit was completed. I was fine-tuning it to be more informational. Am I to understand that were a site like Bruce On Games or The Guardian to publish the information, only then would it be acceptable to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.195.4 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Salton City, California

I'm not quite sure why you removed references from Salton City, California here with edit summary rm links. Editor cannot be trusted. The one I can see is perfectly good and the editor's few contributions seem OK? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... I looked at the contribs. The reference I reinserted is on Google Books here and seems perfectly reliable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Do you want your user or talk page semi=protected ? Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to ask if needed; you know how it works. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Country data SCT CSD tagging

Please don't mark articles on Wikipedia as copyios of other articles on Wikipedia as that's not possible with the licensing. In this case, the template should have been tagged as being a recently-created duplicate of an existing article (WP:CSD#A10). Thanks for your hard work. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Workplace Strategy

Woogee, I am new to wikipedia and trying to establish articles on Workplace Strategy and Workplace Consulting. These are relatively new (40 years) fields in architecture and a growing profession. I would appreciate help on how to improve articles rather than simple deletion. Oseland (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date

You beat me to the draw. Beyond messing up the table, and Fleet Walker's name, he failed to notice that the list is about players coming up since the color line was ended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woogee. You have new messages at Joe407's talk page.
Message added 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joe407 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Arcuri

Regarding [6] it looks like the sources for the claims are there just not properly formatted. Look in the references section. The numbers correspond to the numbers listed there in the badly formatted outgoing links. The solution is probably to restore the material with proper citations (and maybe tone it down a little. None of these should be as long as they are in that version but should probably be included). I would do it but need to head to bed now. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking over that slightly. The Spitzer connection is much too tenuous and should be dropped completely (it amounts to a pretty nasty smear that the sources don't support strongly enough to justify inclusion). The Independent party thing is an actual issue. And the DMV thing should also probably be included. Ok. Now bed. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

F@@K OFF

Never leave me a message again, you moron. My eddit was quite correct, and you are simply a tw@t.