User talk:CutOffTies/archive4

Tony Johnson

You're going to have to fix the 1996 nfl draft page, as the Tony Johnson there taken in round 6 links to the wide receiver one. The reason I was changing it to TE, is because the one listed there IS actually a tight end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.40.19 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between what I put in and what she/her staff put in? Why put back in her claims that her bill was "heralded" by the military and veterans groups, but not the source for that clearly non-objective claim? Surely if you felt the need to put that section back in, it was because you knew it to be true and had the citation for it. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.195.67 (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:96.10.92.234

This user's behavior rises to the level of abuse and even harassment. As well, there may be legal ramifications for the content that was posted.

I suggest making note of this user's repeated behavior and report this to Time Warner Cable Abuse.

abuse@twcable.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.18.32.91 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Beaufort High School - Severe Vandalism

I do my best as a minor user to patrol for vandalism. However I ran across "Beaufort High School" and found that fact and fiction have become so intertwined that I do not know how to revert to last good article. Is it best to just do a blanket edit and go through line by line edits or something else?

Thank you,

Wiki user: "bigcats_lair" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.1.106 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists#List_of_initial_22_wanted_terrorist_fugitives

Wiki page: FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists#List_of_initial_22_wanted_terrorist_fugitives

I have tried over and over with no success to fix the formatting on this page and decided I would refer it.

There are several sections where the pictures overlap the text. It is probably a simple fix. Please let me know if you are able to fix it and how. I have come across several pages with problems like this that I would love to be able to correct.

Thank you,

Bigcats lair (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, looks fine to me in Firefox. I would suggest posting on the talk page --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CutOffTies. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
Message added 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The V-Roys

On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The V-Roys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bencherlite^Talk 07:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thus Always to Tyrants (album)

On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thus Always to Tyrants (album), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium

How do we get a person to stop adding an unofficial nickname to the Cowboys Stadium infobox? There is an individual, "NThomas" who keeps wanting the infobox to read "JerryWorld" (which isn't even grammatically correct) for the nickname. This however is unofficial and already covered in the article about nicknames. He wanted to debate it in the "Talk:Cowboys Stadium" so I stated my point and thought that we should get feedback from others. He then sent me a message that said, "I'm not interested in getting into an edit war. Please do not revert the article again as the nickname within the infobox is acceptable even if it is in the body of the article."

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated and welcome!

Thank you, Bigcats lair (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you need to get consensus. There are a lot of different ways to try to elicit opinion of others. You could do something like third opinion, but that's random editors. For this case, I would try to get members of related projects involved. I thought there may be one for the Cowboys, but according to the CB's talkpage, there is one for Dallas/Ft Worth and another for the NFL. I would start by posting on those project's talk page to see what they think. Good luck. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had added to the talk page but for some reason it did not take. It is there now and I have also added a topic on the Cowboys talk page asking for input. Hopefully I have it written well enough to state my case. Thank you for your help!

Bigcats lair (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nik Caner-Medley

Hello, This is the second time i noticed you undid my revisions to the Nik Caner-Medley page. This time I noticed that you listed the reason being a "non-notable quote"

However, I attended Maryland during the year we won the championship and the Gilchrist era that followed. One of the most notable things was the arrest of Caner-Medley and his memorable quote. I am unsure what your motives and wanted to ask you personally to clarify.

Thank you, ~amadib —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have been notable to you, but you have to find reliable sources that cover the quote/incident significantly to establish notability. Answer this - Is the reason the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia due to his play on the court, or something he may have shouted in a drunken outburst?

The fact that you found a ref for it and are asking me about it is a good effort, but I can't see it why it belongs. The refs mention of the quote is pretty trivia.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Otis Wiley

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Otis Wiley. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otis Wiley. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your warning

I am new to Wikipedia and was unsure on how to edit. I will be careful, as I now know you are not allowed to do what i did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohni111 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for writing the article about our friend

Michael Wardian is a good dude

```` Mark Cody & Sima Fishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.175.114 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thad Cockrell

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thad Cockrell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vermont cats

Look great! Thanks for working on these. H0n0r (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a great way to learn about people and geography from a state. Also if you can expand the history of Lamoille County, Vermont, it could use some work. I couldn't find any references. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytown

In rereading, I realized that I missed addressing a pretty important part of your question, so I added another comment just now. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

erroneous fierce tibetan gods edits on greg hawkes' wiki

Hi..Andrew here of Fierce Tibetan Gods...could you do me a big favour and not keep editing us out of greg hawkes' wiki? Greg records with the band, ok? He's been recording with us since 1998. Hes on all 3 of our Cd's. He's been a personal friend of Perrys from the band for 25 years plus. He's on all of our cd credits, and is in all group photographs on the cd's posing with other band members. He's on 3 of of our you tube promo clips posing with the other band members. He's on the official ftg website listed as a player...www.fiercetibetangods.com.....please stop removing mention of us on his wiki, its a big unessecary hassle for me to have to constantly replace the info, and its also very annoying, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.47.195 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

??? My last edits did not remove the info. See the wp:history of the page here. My last edits involved fixing categories and removing a wp:peacock term --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Len Bias

I don't want to get into an edit war over this. I did reword it. Didn't you see the change? "considered by some experts" should be an acceptable phrase. ESPN and Slam (two articles) are basketball experts.Hoops gza (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will give you a few hours to respond here or on my talk page before changing your edit back on the article.Hoops gza (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I agree with you on "experts" being a bit strong. Perhaps "sportswriters" would be much better.Hoops gza (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, the feeling is mutual. I understand that many of these articles are frequently vandalized by people with no good intentions, and we have to protect against that, and so it is frequently necessary to be prudent with edits that push the limits of Wikipedia policy. I look forward to future cooperation between us, and am glad to resolve any issues of this sort on our talk pages. Feel free to post on my talk page at any time. Happy editing.Hoops gza (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrine Brown, the madame from Florida

1 2...3 4 5 Gators aint gonna take no jive. Go Gatas!!!

I wanna gradulate you on catching the inaccuracy in the Corrie Brown article.

Go Gatas!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastal cowboy (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Traditions

I'm not sure what your agenda is here, but those random comments do not constitute a consensus. If you would like, please create a specific "Traditions" discussion topic and let people comment on it. I am not saying all of the items in the traditions section warrant inclusion, probably some additional cleanup is necessary, but I think it is easily a valid point to have sports traditions for my school included in a college sports page.Umdgrad88 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This was not a specific "Traditions" discussion? Talk:Maryland_Terrapins#Proposal_for_revamping_this_page How can you get more specific?

I stated "A huge amount of this page is about either silly fan traditions or rivals -- which both pertain to Football and Men's Basketball. The fan traditions are frankly not that interesting, or even unique to Maryland" and "Please note, my reasoning for updating the page is because I think there is too much emphasis on fan traditions and rivalries. Since the article is a general overview of the entire athletic program, I believe that the main focus should be the notable athletes and teams.. rather than fans and opposing teams."

One user replied with "agree. This page is a mess with a lot of superfluous junk on it right now, and it needs a serious overhaul. Most of the stuff on here really doesn't belong. I support the changes Omarcheeseboro made. For instance: The part explaining pumping fists to the fight song (???), teenage mutant ninja turtle theme, and "Na Na Hey Hey" song parts... What does any of this add to the article? This is trivial at best, unsourced, and written in an un-encyclopedic manner. (The part about the "You Suck" song is in my opinion noteworthy--and Omar left it in place. Having attended the university around the 2001 timeframe, I can attest that it was a big thing, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe the school was one of the first to do this. But it needs sourcing.)"

Another user replied with "The items on traditions and fan incidents, as pointed out above by Omar, are either not noteworthy or unique to U. of Maryland and are out of place when compared to pages on other collegiate athletic programs."

This is what you call random comments, and no consensus?

My agenda is to have a Maryland Terrapins page be about the teams and players. You and User:SportsNut2k's sole purpose is to add "traditions" to this page. Interesting. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your agenda is to have a Maryland Terrapins page be about the teams and players? Why then are there selective entries left for the traditions page such as the student support and "Hey You Suck?" Doesn't make any sense. Further review of the discussion page shows a comment "Limited, local consensus" by a third party on a discussion of which traditions was a bit part. Umdgrad88 (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments I highlighted show consensus. The third opinion comments were before another user commented on the situation. The traditions was not a bit part, it was the major part of the dispute, as reflected in the other user's comments. Strikehold explained why the Hey You Suck is still in.

If you really believe that having completely unsourced fan "traditions" in an article about a collegiate athletic program with a 100+ year history, where there has already been clear consensus against keeping this content.... Well, we could go to third opinion and other forms of wp:dispute resolution once again. I have a difficult time believing that you really think that the result is going to be any different than what it was previously. Also, again, it sure is quite a coincidence that there are two users where almost all of their limited contributions to Wikipedia has been trying to add these peculiar traditions. SportsNut2k... see edit here [1] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You can choose which avenue to take whether third opinion or dispute resolution - either way fine with me considering previous limited local consensus, which will end in one of two ways: We can be rational and have users discuss which UMD traditions warrant inclusion (considering AGAIN this is a overall UMD athletics page) or we remove Fan Support / Songs and Chants headings entirely. There cannot be a double standard. I don't really understand why you are taking this issue to this degree, but I certainly don't take too kindly to a page bully that only feels their edits are correct which seems is your reputation in the history.Umdgrad88 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Page bully, that's funny. Yeah, calling me a page bully after the talk page reflects going to third opinion and enlisting comments from other editors in previous disputes, and after I just said that we can go third opinion again. Yeah, "page bully" makes so much sense.

If you want to remove fan support / songs and chants entirely that is totally fine with me, can't speak for anyone else.

Oh, and by the way, about being "rational and have users discuss which UMD traditions warrant inclusions" - it's already been done. Read the talk page.

What should be your nickname? "Beanies"? or, SportsNut2k? or TestudoTT? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean by the 2 users/aliases Strikehold and Apathyjunkie? Very convincing. Umdgrad88 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umdgrad88 (talk • contribs)

Interesting how you never denied wp:sockpuppetry. We have three users - TestudoTT, SportsNut2k, Umdgrad88 - Single Purpose Account users, all similar edits about U of Maryland sports. Also seem to know their way around Wikipedia in their very first edits. Case in point, you going deep into a history of a page and restoring content that SportsNut2k kept on trying to put back in.

I suppose your argument for myself/Strikehold/ApathyJunkie being sockpuppets is that our extensive body of contributions to Wikipedia include edits to University of Maryland articles, and for some crazy reason, we don't want a large section of Maryland Terrapins to consist of unsourced fan traditions. You have a strong argument there.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in addition, it looks like the entry at the very top of the talk page furthers the consensus for removing traditions. Talk:Maryland_Terrapins#Traditions. [2] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You are referencing a "random" unsigned comment. Right.Umdgrad88 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the comments in the third opinion debate add a lot more to the clear consensus. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric Church.

Wanted to show you this. I figured I would just let you take him off.

[[3]]

Third Paragraph.

Thanks.

Grhomes (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi Omarcheeseboro, Can wikipedia editors not link to videos from sites like yahoo video and youtube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerockwellsax (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jakerock, I would suggest reading WP:YOUTUBE. Thanks for your inquiry and welcome. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Vovak changes

Today you have taken a great interest in extensively updating my page on Wikipedia, which I appreciate. However, I want to fairly give you the chance to correct a few errors you have made. First, the link regarding my monthly column should not be deleted, since it is monthly and our parent groups has well over 1000 members. Secondly, your tag for reliable third-party sources should be removed since extensive articles about me appear vastly through the internet and there are now 25+ references on my page. Thirdly, Ballot Access News is a thoroughly reliable website with links put on it daily by an expert in the field: http://www.ballot-access.org/. Fourthly, the tag about me editing my own page should be removed because my changes are usually neutral. Lastly, your push for "goof" and "joke" is not unbiased of yourself, which you can see through sizable coverage here: http://bluedressmovie.com/about/. Regardless, I think you will be surprised at how much of your changes I will allow, though please do not diminish my accomplishments and extensive media coverage, which seems to be what you are trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

About the monthly column, the info you gave to me does not indicate to me that the club is notable at all for several reasons (first and foremost, it is not covered by a reliable source).

Third Party sources - yes there are some third-party sources but the article also uses primary sources. See all the refs for "Greenwich.." However, Since there are plenty of third party sources, I removed the tag.

Ballot Access News - The info you gave me does not indicate that it is a reliable source. You need neutral verification of this rather than just telling me it is reliable.

The autobio tag - I don't see what you are saying has to do with what the tag says, which is basically nothing more than that the subject has extensively edited the article.

"Goof and Joke" - Taken right from the wp:reliable sources. It is not a push.. I'm just reflecting information taken from the sources. The movie link you gave goes back to the primary source issue.

About "changes you will allow".. Hmmm, perhaps you should read wp:ownership.. Even bringing up what you will "allow" is a ridiculous notion that is completely against the pillars of this project. If you're interested in having full control of web content about yourself, perhaps your own website is what you want.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's begin with a simple argument. Are you claiming the Washington DC Film Society is not a reliable source: http://www.dcfilmsociety.org/ ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about the club being a reliable source. I said it is not a notable club. At the very least it goes against the guidelines of the wp:lead. The fact that the subject leads a group that meets weekly at Barnes and Noble is not exactly a summary of the "important aspects of the subject". Perhaps it has a place somewhere else in the article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you been to the website I have referenced again and again? This "club" is bigger than weekly, as we are the largest "club" in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. Please look at the multiple pages within our website and the access to unreleased movies that we have before you respond. By contrast, you are telling the Wiki world that my monthly column is not worth noting.DanielVovak (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've been to the website. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good! Thus, it is a notable club. Further, it verifies my credentials within the movie industry, thus belonging in a lead. Personally, I have been a newspaper editor and am quite familiar on the topic of leads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I am thankful that you value the importance of journalists and sources. Following many stellar reports from paid journalists, a college student wrote "obviously a goof" in his online campaign diary. Though I accept the account of his observation and believe he is certainly allowed to editorialize in his online diary, I disagree with your push to use a diary comment in this paragraph, since it discounts the state-wide award from a serious journalist editor of a daily newspaper. It's possible you can work in the college student's comment, though it would have to weigh less heavily in the paragraph. I also stress that Ballot Access is a great source for multiple campaigns, mine being only one of them. Actually, you and I may share similar outlooks and I am welcome your additions, most of which I will keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your continuation of the "I welcome your additions, most of which I will keep" (along your earlier "changes I will allow") shows to me that you either haven't read, and/or understand this project's guidelines on wp:ownership, or wp:autobiography. In addition, your comments regarding what makes a club notable, how to write a lead, and reliable sources shows a lack of understanding on the wp:notability, wp:lead and wp:reliable sources guidelines. I suggest you take time to read these links in order to understand this project better. One more thing– regarding the Iowa Newspaper award, there's a clear issue of verifiability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this daily newspaper state-wide award is not real? I assure you Randy Cauthron is a real editor who received a real award in February 2004. Please suggest 5 more notable movie clubs in Washington, D.C. In addition, I am reviewing your comments on major sites, though I have no interest in a Wiki war, and see few aside from articles aimed at a young generation. I tried to reason with you, which has little value. You will notice that a number of Wiki editors have weighed in on the wiki page about me and have kept it largely intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to this, it might be the biggest movie club in DC and has a website, but unless there are multiple reliable sources about it (news articles, for instance) then it's not notable for Wikiedpia. As Omarcheeseboro mentioned, please take a look at wp:notability for more on this. --AW (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have much more time for this, but the following on wiki certainly applies: "Finally one should also make considerations of time and effort upon the Wikipedia community, as well as one's reputation. Even if you do manage to pull off a neutral, verifiable autobiography, the very fact that so many autobiographies have not been that way has trained Wikipedians to expect the opposite—and hence one may be wasting their time or effort if they become provoked by the fact it's still an autobiography, regardless of policy compliance. Furthermore this may also result in a reputation hit not only because you violated the guideline but also because you may have wasted someone's effort." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Superdrag

Can you elaborate on what is original research on the Superdrag talk page? Thanks --AW (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple Question

Are you Anti-Whig or just anti-Ballot Access News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.133.78 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John Annarumma?

Is there a reason that you continue to change the Florida Whig Party site Clayton Schock and John Annarumma sites? You say Mr. Annarumma's reads as an advertisement but it reads only facts and differes from no other political candidates bio. You decided that Muncie free press is not credible becuase of its looks? Take a look at the Drudge Report and say it appears any better. Your continued actions over the last couple of weeks have come across as a personal mission by you and are on the verge of Vandalism. You even at one point claimed that this persons official campaign site was not considered reliable. What is your personal attacks on these 3 sites I listed intended purpose? You asked for changes they were made and now you found another reason to alter them. Why?Rigga101 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am simply following the wp:copyvio, wp:reliable sources, and wp:notability guidelines as laid out by the project. Why would a person's official campaign site automatically be considered reliable? I don't recall saying that, but I do know that in the next few hours I could say I'm running for office in some minor independent party, create a website and make up all this stuff about my credentials. Would that make it reliable? I'm not saying that's what these candidates did, but it drives home the points made in the wp:reliable sources guidelines better.

Your allegations of vandalism and personal attacks are laughable. Every edit I made is clearly backed by an established Wikipedia guideline. Perhaps you should read the wp:pillars of this project to understand better. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Running

We would welcome you to renew your involvement with WP:WikiProject Running. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

legitimate and verifable contributions

some of my contributions may be unpleasant but not "Negative and controversial" my disclosures to the school authority and the Police are on record the school's achievements need to be in the context of the adversity we faced and this included sexual abuses by a few teachers. sadly some boys suisided as young adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vctm64 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

LeRoy Rooker

You are vandalizing the page on LeRoy Rooker by blanking valid criticisms. Rooker was a public servant/government employee for a very long time. His agency, the US Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance has a long history of failing to enforce the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Case numbers could be provided to support this fact but, as these pertain to confidential student records, they cannot be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.193.9 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the guideline on biography of living persons:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

You and another user, User:FERPAExposed (unless they both are you, very difficult to assume good faith with a name like that) have only added criticism without a trace of a reference to back the material. I suggest you read about reliable sources, verifability and citing. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Welch

The overhaul looks great. I'll keep an eye on the article and help with any GA review issues. Bms4880 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Miklasz

You edited my entry to Bernie Miklasz despite providing 3 links to the source of the controversy. 2 of those links were to articles written by Bernie himself. Not in violation of any wiki guideline. Please explain.

As said in my edit summary in the history of the page, there were no reliable sources cited to support your content. Per the policy of biographies of living persons, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the policies to which you refer: "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." 2 of the linked sources were from Bernie himself, the third established the nature of the public controversy.

There were no reliable sources in your edit.

If it is your opinion, or some user on a message board's opinion, or some user on Bleacher Report (which is self-published, and has no editorial oversight, like a prominent newspaper or magazine has) that his columns drove Warner out, that is not suitable content. You need to cite wp:reliable sources stating this. Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree. By the way, the article was not "some user on a forum", rather a correspondent of the site. Here's another with Bernie ripping on Warner, again documentation of SELF-PUBLISHED articles. http://www.clanram.com/forums/f11/bunch-bernie-posts-3370/ If you want to tone the criticism down, then re-write the article. Deletion is unwarranted given the links provided. Something to note, since Miklasz is a media figure, we should not and cannot only include the writings of fellow professional media. Doing so allows the fox to guard the chickens. Evidence of his censorship can be found here: http://www.clanram.com/forums/f92/joned-forum-after-bernie-miklasz-went-nuts-me-39205/

If you have an issue with Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm sorry, but posting on my talk page won't get your very far. As for the self-published issue, the guideline you posted simply says that we can use a subject's blog posting or tweet, etc. as a source. I only glanced at the message board links you gave, but it doesn't look like Mr. Miklasz is the actual author of the postings on the message board (meaning the user who logged in, not what was copy and pasted). Thank you and good luck. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess we are at at impasse.

Yep and when this occurs, other editors get involved to form wp:consensus. Good thing we have guidelines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Keeping up the edit war will result in blocking and banning.Sdiver68 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not really interested in getting others involved. Perhaps if nothing else, I suggest this. Think for a minute of why it may be a good thing that Wikipedia has these guidelines about reliable sources and no self-published sources. There's a place for message boards, blogs, etc. where people can say anything where they want. But not every site has to be like that. Is it wrong to strive for a little more credibility? Strive being the key word. No reply needed. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the controversy section several times and offered to let you rewrite it as long as it contained the relevant info, but each time you've simply hit the undo button. Ask yourself why you've done so, and why it may be a good thing that Wikipedia allows for edits and "negotiations" via the talk page before undoing the well researched work of others. Also, as someone who presumably does not live in the St. Louis area, ask yourself why do you care? Sdiver68 (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was categorizing people from Maryland. He was in the generic People from Maryland category, but shouldn't have been since he was already in the subcategory People from Baltimore, Maryland section. That's how he got on my watchlist. I like to keep an eye on things to ensure the guidelines of this project are followed. Sometimes they are not. Good luck with everything, I'm going to archive this soon. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Dillon

You want to delete it?!? Well, I will contact her manager, and they can get back to you regarding this. You are NOT going to be popular, I can tell you that much --Sparviere (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shalane Flanagan

I was cleaning it up because I though there was too much redundant information. Sorry for not explaining it when I did the edit. For example, do we need to list where she is born and the date she was born when it says it in the beginning of the article? Also, why is her best times listed when it is already listed below her biography? There was other things I though were unnecessary. If you disagree please tell me. Thank you.

Thanks. I understand that it is a bit redundant, but it's always been my impression that that isn't an issue. For instance, I saw you removed birthdate. Don't all infoboxes for bios have a dob, and of course that's always in the lead. Perhaps PBs make it a bit cluttered.

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics is a good place to try to get some consensus on it? I really don't have a preference either way, but since I added them to a bunch of runners I keep an eye on, I would to know for consistency purposes. Thanks

Oh yeah, I'm glad you made that edit because I totally forgot to check how she did at her Half debut!

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I will start up a new discussion right away. And yes she did very well, I'm really happy for her!

Thus Always to Tyrants (album)

Hi.

I rated this album a stub, while is a good article, it lacks some small but key elements for its C rating, for starters i t needs artist category and the missing fields in the infobox, finally the review should be placed in the reception section.

Whit just this small chnages it will be a C, i`m not even gonna remove it from the requesting section, just let me know when is readyu to reassess it.Zidane tribal (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about placing the review from the infobox to the reception section, I actually removed the AMG review from the infobox right before you posted the assessment, so you may have missed that.

Can you please tell me what you mean by artist category? There's an article category for the type of album and year, and a value in the genre parameter in the infobox. In addition, I added length to the infobox.. cannot find when it was recorded. Thank you --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the review template and the category, i`ll now rate it a C, you can of course, get more reviews, add the singles (if there were) in the infobox along with the album chronology also in the infobox, all this as help to get it to B, also the category i added does n`t exist, if you want i can create it. Let me know anything you need. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I missed the part about the category on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Quality_scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. I'll create the category. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - I added another review I could find, and added some more to the new review template.. There were no singles. I also added the album chronology to the infobox. Thanks again for your help. For review of B Class should I submit another assessment? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. You don`t have to submit it again, i can do it, I`ll rate it B, it still could use some improvement if you want to take it all the way to GA though. Zidane tribal (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look to other B rated albums so you know which improvements you can make. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.. I'm going to leave it alone for now. It would be a good challenge to get to GA with the limited coverage. Right now I'm focusing on Gillian Welch. Thanks.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Ochs

Thanks for your kind words. I'm also too young to have seen Phil in person. I have the Kind of Like Spitting album. I'd never heard of the band before, but you're right, it's a very good album. If you'd like to hear a variety of covers, in different styles (but mostly folk-y), you should look for What's That I Hear?: The Songs of Phil Ochs. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Knock, knock

1. Correct it and 2. skip the reprimand.

Because having an account and contributing are two different things.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

John Annarumma

Thanks. I'm new at this so am trying to get the AfD process down right.SoxFan999 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your guidance and understanding. Reading the directions is an amazing thing! I think I have it correct, but please by all means let me know if it is still in need of fixing.SoxFan999 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:65.71.52.100 - more vandalism

Another recent example of vandalism from this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogeyman&diff=prev&oldid=339957000

(I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures to take any action myself.)

05:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.31.127 (talk)

DYK for Gillian Welch

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gillian Welch, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many apologies

for the unconstructive edits. Won't happen again. ShandraShazam (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:82.16.127.4 - more vandalism

User: 82.16.127.4 made some unhelpful edits here that I've reverted. From browsing 82.16.127.4's talk page, I have doubts that the edits were good faith. 82.16.127.4 has already had a final warning, but it appears this is the first disruptive edit made in the last month. Is a block appropriate at this time? Geeky Randy (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

At wp:AIV, they may say that the warnings aren't recent enough. I would give template:uw-longterm and then if the IP vandals again anytime soon, report to wp:AIV. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I inserted template:uw-longterm to User talk:82.16.127.4. --Geeky Randy (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Welch GA

Just a note that I'll be reviewing Gillian Welch at GAN for you. I'm working on comments right now. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasay's Personal Records

Hasay running a 4:38 is her personal record for the mile. Almost all of the "personal records" on that page are not records of any kind. If you are opposed to non-records being posted, you should have deleted the whole table above the collegiate one. I added the collegiate section because it appeared as though some people did not want to overwrite her high school marks. Certainly her 4:38 is a personal record. A personal record means personal best, not an actual record. I just found it odd that most articles list an athletes personal bests (see Shalane Flanagan, Amy_Yoder_Begley in the corner, etc). However, in this article they list her high school bests, which are not her best marks for at least one of the events. I kind of like the Amy_Yoder_Begley article where the overall personal bests are listed to the side. Would you prefer this? I would also prefer to relabel the title as personal bests as opposed to personal records. MATThematical (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I mistakenly didn't see it as just a personal best, though the section header does say 'personal'. I think the way it is on Flanagan's page is much better, and as far as I know, is the standard. If you're not a member, I invite you to WikiProject Athletics to see what others think. Sorry and thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzie deletion

Thanks for your guidance. Please revist buzzie I think you will see the 18 references should now, once and for all establish notority via storied artists being a part of Buzzie's recording history and recent show in the summer of 09. If I am missing something please let me know, here, on the TALK page of buzzie or on my Talk page. Thanks. --jmacofearth 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacofearth (talk • contribs)

Your welcome. Unfortunately, the new refs either are not reliable sources or do not mention Buzzie at all. The article is about the band, not individual members. Also, a wikipedia article should not be used as a ref. The first two refs you had were okay (in that they actually cover the band), but appear to be minor websites as opposed to reliable sources.

Unfortunately I'm busy working on another article tonight, perhaps try this link Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Gathering_references --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stats

What is wrong with adding Maryland's all time scoring list to a page about Maryland men's basketball? I don't get it. I spent a lot of time compiling this list and I think it adds a lot to the entry. Many people spend time searching for this info and cannot find it easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read this guideline - WP:NOT#STATS. By the way I have no idea why it would've taken you a long time to compile the list, since it's readily available on md's official site - http://www.umterps.com/sports/m-baskbl/recordbook/individualcareer.html --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did see the list on MD's official site, but not until I used other sources which required looking up individual player's stats. As for my list, it included players who are MD all time greats who did not make the top 20 because they did not play all four years at MD (like Joe Smith). Anyway, I saw the guideline on "excessive" stats. Thanks. I still feel a stats section including short lists of the all time leaders in major categories would be appropriate since the entry is about a sports team, but I will leave that for others to weigh in on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked for good articles and/or featured articles to see if any include statistics like that, and (as expected) didn't see any. A comparable article is Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball which is a good article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Omar Little and his associates

I was the one who made the edit. I wasn't logged in yet. I just watched an episode from Season 2 back from 2003 and Omar is on trial and says that he's been doing his actions for at least nine years so I assume 1994 was the starting point of his actions. (User talk:Jabrona) (talk) 019:54, 7 February 2010

How do you know the trial took place in 2003? Which I suppose brings up the question of how we know it was 2008 when he died. I don't think when the episode aired is an indicator. I think the use of that infobox is wrong because they're fictional. Anyway, if you want to add it again go ahead. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put the date back up there then. (User talk:Jabrona) (talk) 021:59, 7 February 2010

Gillian Welch

This user helped promote Gillian Welch to good article status.

- Congratulations and well done. You deserve this:

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work improving articles related to Americana, old-time, and bluegrass music, especially Gillian Welch, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Omarcheeseboro! I've actually spent quite a lot of time here on En.Wiki... but haven't bothered logging in for a long time. Must admit the revert button and the power to block might come in handy again sometime if I find some more vandals. :) 140.247.238.173 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hey sorry, i deleted it before you sent me that message though.............. and dont be mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.187.179 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gold Label

Hi Omar, I was going to create an article for all the IAAF's "Label Road Race" events (gold/silver/bronze) as it makes sense for them to be together. I believe the selection criteria are based on history, participation, race quality, facilities etc. I'll dig them out from the online handbook and get an article started.

My main purpose for putting together the templates is to provide meaningful links between related articles, but I haven't got around to creating the parent article yet! I found that articles such as World's Best 10K for instance had very few links back to them. I imagine that most people saw the pages via google searches rather than through the wiki itself. I've been focusing on creating race articles because their absence becomes a vicious cycle sometimes (i.e. because there isn't an article people assume it's not notable and don't put the info in – perfectly good races, like the Beppu-Ōita Marathon, simply fall off the map). My thinking is that if we create enough articles about the large majority of major races, and link the winners, then athlete biographies will half-write themselves through the "what links here" button. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)<sup>Join WikiProject Athletics!</sup> 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And away we go! (IAAF Road Race Label Events) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)<sup>Join WikiProject Athletics!</sup> 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Great work as usual. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Running

Sorry to see that you are leaving the Project. We appreciated your help while you were here. I hope you will be able to come back at some point. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)