User talk:Firsfron/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Firsfron's talk page

on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Evolution-tasks2.png Guidelines

Please post your messages in accordance with these suggested guidelines:

  • Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page -- click here to do this automatically.
  • Please use headlines when starting new talk topics.
  • Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
  • As a general rule, expect responses on your talk page.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Vista-file-manager.png Archives

These pages are kept for archival purposes only. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made at the bottom of this talk page. No further comments should be made on the above pages. Thank you.

Nuvola apps date.png Messages


Messages here[edit]

Messages here[edit]

Network television schedules[edit]

The first "NBC Week" was in 1965, not in 1964, and My Favorite Martian premiered in 1963. I know you mean well, but that doesn't mean you can destroy the feeling of these schedules for the rest of us, especially when you ignore what the newspaper microfilms have to say, or disregard the ratings as listed by

Therefore, I am going to have to revert the schedules to what they were before; if you have a problem with that, please take your wrath out in the sandbox. (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All reverted back to your (Firsfron's) version as pure edit-warring vandalism. Anon user should be blocked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem :) Let me know if I can be of assistance in your updating of the pages. Take Care...NeutralHomerTalk • 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, wise guy:[edit]

I've had too much with your acceptance of the book "Watching TV" as gospel truth. You must refer to newspaper microfilms. They'll show you that there was no "NBC Week" in September 1964. (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

About those television schedules[edit]


I realize now that you're too crazy about color coding the schedules, so I'm taking your suggestion and will show each of the top 30 programs of each season with its respective (rank/rating), as determined by Nielsen Media Research. I intend to use the ratings charts at as my primary source.

In addition, if I find anything in your commentary to these schedules that I feel doesn't ring true, I'll let you know as reasonably as possible so you can dip into the appropriate further research. (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I discovered in the Brooks/Marsh book that Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts and You Bet Your Life were actually tied for 3rd in 1953-54, so I added bronze to the latter; I hope you don't mind. By the way, I'm using a capital "T" in the rankings to indicate a tie. (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to include Rawhide in the 1958-59 schedule because it finished in the top 30. Please try to understand. (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1963-64 The Fight of the Week wasn't new; it was just on a new night. It had been running on Saturdays under that title since 1960. IYMK. these were the shows that "the new ABC" listed as new in fall 1963:

  • The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters
  • Arrest and Trial
  • 100 Grand
  • The Outer Limits
  • Breaking Point
  • The Greatest Show on Earth
  • The Fugitive
  • The Patty Duke Show
  • Channing
  • The Jimmy Dean Show
  • Sid Caesar alternating with Edie Adams
  • Burke's Law
  • The Farmer's Daughter
  • The Jerry Lewis Show

I also suggest that you look further into Castleman/Podriazik's TV Schedule Book which does include mid-season schedules. (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Independence, Iowa[edit]

First off, let me state that this was an error on my part: I seem to have looked at the article about Independence, Kansas, as "governmentally independent" is a Kansas term that really does apply to the Kansas city, and I have a vague memory of thinking that this was a Kansas township.

Secondly — this Census Bureau map says the same thing as the map you provided. If you open this file and look at cities that really are separate from their township, such as Waterloo, you'll see a slightly more solid city border and a little º next to the city name, but neither is present in this map's version of Independence.

Between what I've said in the first and the second paragraphs, I've realised my error and reverted to what you wrote. Thanks for pointing out the error! Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG[edit]

File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Have I stirred up some kind of controversy with C/Galverpeton? I'm grateful you stopped by, but I'm wondering why this incident is getting so much attention. :P Abyssal (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption[edit]

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.


Hello Firsfron,

Thankyou for mentioning that you have to provide a source to your text.I will do this from now on.I have read the links you provided and i understand completely (i think).


Dan6534661 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan6534661 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Firs;

My regular library only got Annales de Paleontologie through 1996, and it doesn't look like they've signed up for online access. That said, I've been surprised before. I will probably be doing a library run next Friday and I'll be sure to check it out. J. Spencer (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Fourth television network[edit]

Hey Firs!! Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner - work really got nuts on me the past month. I found several newspaper articles that may be of interest to you, which I copied. Although they should be public domain, I got them from the archive site I'm subscribed to, so I don't want to post them here. If you're comfortable doing so, send me an e-mail and I'll respond with the articles attached. My wikipedia handle at serves as my e-mail address. Otherwise, we can figure something else out. dhett (talk contribs) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How odd! I never received your e-mail. Let me try one more time, just in case I misled you: dhett at q dot com. dhett (talk contribs) 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
HA!! Got it this time! That address looks familiar - I probably should have scoured my archive and could have sent you the articles last week. Oh well, they're on their way. dhett (talk contribs) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello and sorry[edit]

Hello Firsfron i'm brisio and im sorry 4 modifyin these page without sources At first i didnt realize u were da one who gave me a "welcome", thank u

I'm a boy interested in palaeontology and id like helpin wikipedia pages by uploadin them and make people think wiki is ver accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talkcontribs) 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


I know the scientific name should type in Name. But i see lots of scientific name in wikipedia were type in "Name". Why?

Is that official rules that Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum, Nomen dubium should type in "Name"? or it is just a wikipedia rules? 01:43, 26 Nov. 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfish1962 (talkcontribs)


i read WP:STUB. i'm still not sure why this article wouldn't be under the purview of sauropodomorph-stubs. what am i not getting? Μετανοιδ (talk, email)

i don't see why a stub tag shouldn't be added to an entry that is clearly rated as "stub-class". please explain. Μετανοιδ Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, Firs;

I noticed you reverted (talk · contribs) on "Bayosaurus". Having fixed a string of their edits this morning, I am 99% certain that this is the latest version of an editor who was recently blocked at (talk · contribs) for inserting false dates, locations, and other information to paleo articles, and false episodes and voice actors to television shows. Something to keep an eye on, I suppose. J. Spencer (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on that! J. Spencer (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of some chemical elements[edit]


Following a recent specific case at Vanadium, I have reviewed the semi-protection status of all chemical element articles, and found that many of them were either not warranted or have excessive protection lengths.

Keeping in mind that it was concluded that Vanadium's protection length of 6 months was too long given the circumstances, and that it has been shortened to 24 hours, I invite you to reconsider the indefinite semi-protection you granted to Iron, Calcium and Beryllium.

Please bear in mind Wikipedia's semi-protection policy, specifically its suggestion that indefinite protections should be considered only as a last resort after other measures have failed.

You may also want to review other indefinite protections that you have granted in the past. Thank you. (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi 124,
I semi-protected these articles because of user requests to do so. There were simply few or even no good IP edits to the articles in question. I'm not sure what other measures you would prefer to have stopped the rampant IP vandalism occurring on Iron, but it's nice to see the article has actually been improved during the months it's been semi-protected: previously, logged in edits were only removing the IP junk: the vandalism was not only adding junk to the article, it wasn't allowing anyone time to make any good contributions. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please reply on your talk page if at all possible, so we can keep this conversation in one place.

"I semi-protected these articles because of user requests to do so. There were simply few or even no good IP edits to the articles in question"

These reasons per se are not sufficient for an indefinite semi-protection. Please have a look at the policy and guidelines.

In the case of Iron, although I think your argument is debatable (in particular arguing that vandalism was completely stopping development on that article seems extreme), it is certainly reasonable. Then again, I feel pretty much the same way as User:Griffinofwales did when s/he asked you to reconsider your indefinite semi-protection of Nitrogen (see User_talk:Firsfron/Archive_13#semi_protection_of_nitrogen).

Your explanation is somehow weakened in the case of Calcium, which was arguably not suffering from unbearable vandalism, did not have any previous termed protections, and was seeing meaningful non-autoconfirmed contributions. When it comes to Beryllium however, the levels of vandalism and contributions did not seem to justify a protection at all, let alone an indefinite one.

The problem with indefinite protection is that everybody tends to forget about it. I think that the rationale behind this aspect of our policy is that the vast majority of non-autoconfirmed users wishing to make "good" changes can't be bothered to post them in the discussion page (assuming they realise there is one), let alone look up which admin protected the page, and even less likely figure out how to request in the appropriate fora to unprotect it.

Therefore, I would kindly ask you to be more careful with indefinite protection in the future, and again to reconsider your other past indefinite protections. Thank you. (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,
I'm well aware of the semi-protection policy. I semi-protected Beryllium with the summary Excessive vandalism: persistent daily IP vandalism. Contrary to your claim above ("the levels of vandalism and contributions did not seem to justify a protection at all"), the article was indeed suffering from persistent daily IP vandalism. Please note that the article had been vandalized three times on March 10th, twice on March 9th, once on March 8th, once on March 6th, once on March 4th, five times on February 26th, once on February 25th, once on February 22nd, etc. While there were a couple of "good" IP edits, nearly all of it was garbage, and all of the vandalism came from non-registered users. I stand by my protection of the article, and am gratified to see that the article has improved since the IP disturbance has stopped. Semi-protecting the article has allowed logged-in editors the chance to improve the article, instead of spending their entire time reverting the garbage. If some other admin is willing to un-semi-protect, I won't re-semi-protect, but I'm not going to unprotect an article which has clearly benefited from semi-protection. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll perform semi-protection over blocking IPs most of the time, given that accidents have happened in the past. Semi-protection means anyone can still edit, they must first make an account. It is an essential policy if editors are to spend time enlarging and improving articles rather than just reverting vandalism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cas. I do sympathize with IP editors wanting to make good contributions, but enough's enough. There's no way an article can improve while under daily vandalism. There just isn't much energy to revert every single day and add sourced, verifiable content from reliable sources on articles which get that level of vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, between February 22nd and March 11th when I semi-protected the article, there were 40 edits, nearly all of them IP vandalism or removal of said vandalism by logged in editors. The article made almost no improvement. One typo ("alleric") was fixed, one uncited sentence ("Beryllium has also been proposed as a cladding material for nuclear fuel, due to its combination of mechanical, chemical, and nuclear properties.") was added, and a {{fact}} tag was added to the end of every paragraph. That was the "progress" under no protection. Compare the next 40 edits made under semi-protection: [6] Three in-line citations, several paragraphs of sourced text, and two science links are added during those 40 edits. It's pretty clear semi-protecting this article only improved the content, allowing serious editors relief from the vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Firs;

Thanks for the news! I don't speak Hungarian, but I trust that they got it right.

Oddly enough, I ran into "Teleocrator" a few days ago researching the Portland Formation. I was looking for information on Anchisaurus, Galton and Cluver 1976 is about anchisaurids, and there it was. They were under the impression it was named by Charig in 1967, and provided a species (the former "Thecodontosaurus" alophos Haughton 1932; they spelled the species alphos for some reason), a specimen (two cervicals, SAM-10654), provenance (Anisian-age Manda Formation of Tanzania), and a classification (pseudosuchian). Now I have to wonder if they'd didn't accidentally name the genus, although I don't think they included a diagnosis. J. Spencer (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

it's -> its[edit]

I see you have corrected one of these recently. Hopefully you sometimes go on the hunt for them. I'd offer you up a barnstar for it, but simple appreciation will have to suffice as I'm too busy correcting this stuff to design any :) Best regards and thanks for your many good works over the years. LilHelpa (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Oooh.. that was on a "to it's" campaign! Mucho kudos!! LilHelpa (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work SunCreator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging[edit]

Thanks. I'm going to quote your message on my user page as a reminder to me, if that's all right with you. Robert K S (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Your dinosaur article résumé is most impressive and your work is much appreciated. Robert K S (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Program guides[edit]

Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Tawa (dinosaur)[edit]

Current events globe On 11 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Tawa (dinosaur), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
--BorgQueen (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Re: Cope[edit]

Letting you know that I've formatted what you've added. Thanks for the additional content :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome back.  :) Woogee (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your link not working?[edit]

You posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#.22Extinction_dagger.22_guideline_needed:
"There was a past discussion about daggers back in 2005 on Wikispecies, here, where the cross-like shape of the dagger was deemed offensive by non-Christians",
where "here" was (I think) . This seems not to be working, and I posted a note about this to the WP:Paleontology discussion.
Wassup with that? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) -- The link provided (Wikispecies:Village_pump/Archive_2#Extinct_dates)

Cass District Library Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you for the nice words left for me for the work, I am doing to try and document some of the unique history and historical relevant part of Cass County and Southwest Lower Michigan. It just happens that I was up in Michigan for the holidays and I was able to snap some images for the articles. If you get a chance take a look. Jsgoodrich (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Don't worry, they're only temporary. I needed to know how many of each article there are to base some splitting decisions on, and to see how many I have yet to add info on the species content (these are in the category:Formations with Y dinosaur genera). Abyssal (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Abyssal (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just editing this to remove your talk page from the maintenence category. Sorry for the interruption. :D Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Plateosaurus is ready for Good Article, methinks ;) Thank you very much again for your invaluable help! HMallison (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Firs! :) HMallison (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern about User:Station Agent 836[edit]

This user has been removing the "The" from The CW Television Network just like now indef block sockmaster User:Rollosmokes. Since Rollosmokes was the only one who did this removal, I am beginning to think that Rollosmokes has come back with a new sockpuppet. Could you ask for a checkuser and possibly a range block to keep him out. Thanks. - NeutralHomerTalk • 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI started here. - NeutralHomerTalk • 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an update, User:Station Agent 836 was blocked as a sock of Rollosmokes. Wouldn't be surprised if there were others. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass prodding[edit]

I've just removed the prod templates from some of the articles you nominated for deletion in cases where there was a reasonable claim of notability and no material that would raise BLP concerns (beyond the lack of a reference). I'd suggest that you slow down and consider whether articles should go to AfD or take the time to look for sources rather than delete inoffensive articles on people who are probably notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom courtesy notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Orderinchaos 04:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Cini Boeri[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Cini Boeri, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Just for info, I started reviewing this but withdrew because of the objections of another editor (HMallison). I've left the article in the queue and deleted the review page so hopefully no harm done, and it's as it was, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In case my comments are any use to you, I've recreated them here. After my review of Semicassis granulata degenerated into an edit war and automatic fail, I became less prepared to get enmeshed in this sort of argument Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, GA review back. My apologies, I don't usually flounce like this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Mary Ellin Barrett[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Mary Ellin Barrett, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Salawa Abeni[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Salawa Abeni, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I've noticed that you're doing quite a few of these. If you would prefer not to receive these notices, please let me know, either here or on my talk page. Best, RayTalk 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Firs, sorry about the Plateosaurus mess. You may think the world of the reviewer, I, however, can't help but feel mucked about when someone says something is 'a mess' because I do not give page and issue numbers for publications that are accepted or submitted. Simialry, if said person refuses to clarify when I do not understand what he means, and instead whine that I want to argue instead of fixing. Anyways, I took anything that might ire him out, and pasted a ton of useless duplicate citations in - I am sure I missed a billion possible ones, but I tend to know only the main sources for something by heart. So repeating the same citation for six or seven sentences in a row will have to do.

The pics had to go because of copyright issues; I'll have to check the Swiss pic, which may also be questionable. Best!HMallison (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand the policy in the message above yours - it seems logical to go straight to the page. Sorry about the late isbn problem, there aren't actually many book refs,and i just overlooked it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs in the Signpost[edit]

Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical research in San Diego[edit]

You asked about finding archival material about television stations in San Diego in the 1940s. That's a tough one. The current major newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune at , does not archive material older than about 10 or 15 years (that's about when the Union and the Tribune merged). And the San Diego Historical Society probably can't help you, they are struggling financially right now. Here's a thought, see if you can find someone to ask in the history department of the University of San Diego, at . Their history department has by far the most information about local history of any local university. They might be able to direct you to a source. Sorry I couldn't be more help! --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

I request you to delete my user page with the whole story, because I do not want a user page files should private information. Thank you immediately. --Žiedas (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Symphonic rock[edit]

Thanks for the grammer catch! Firstlensman (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull article[edit]


Thank you for taking the time to review the article. As you can probably see from the changes page, the article is vandalized fairly frequently, so if you see something that does not look quite right, it may be that someone has gone in to ensure their POV is in the article. Thanks again! Astro$01 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I generally shoot too-short articles on sight, but I should have checked your previous contribs. I've restored that stub for you. I know it will be expanded. Sorry about the inconvenience. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  • You too.  :) Have a great weekend and thanks for being a good sport. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AWB broke image link[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that an AWB edit you made broke an image link by adding a comma to the file name here. No big deal, it's fixed, just thought you might want to keep an eye on that. Cheers. Wine Guy~Talk 09:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably already noticed, but in case you haven't, it's fixed. Thanks for filing the report, as I'm a Mac user I don't use AWB, and am relatively unfamiliar with it's workings. Wine Guy~Talk 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with sources[edit]

I did an Article on the Historically Black College or University band at Tennessee State University, the Aristocrat of Bands. Most of the sources (especially for the older history) for this article are either video proof that is part of a documentary, people who are still alive (myself included) that participated with this program, and old newspaper articles that are in the school archives. What else could be a "credible third party source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhbeard (talkcontribs) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Abydosaurus[edit]

Current events globe On 25 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Abydosaurus, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello - Hola[edit]

(I don`t speak very well the english idiom)

I not only felt, attempt to collaborate and data regarding the funeral of Michael Jackson, I have not lied, I have sources (in Spanish) which speak of figures of 2.5 and 3 billion viewers.

Yo no sólo experimentaba, intento colaborar, y respecto a los datos del funeral de Michael Jackson, yo no he mentido, tengo fuentes (en español) que hablan de cifras de 2,5 y 3 billones de telespectadores.

A greeting! - Un saludo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


I don `t speak very well the English idiom.

I do not think you should have blocked me without talking to me before.

This does not seem a good way to proceed, I can tell from respect.

All the figures I have set, because I've put the information sources to prove it.

I do not invent anything.

Regarding the funeral figures ranging from 2.5 to 3 billion.

Regarding viewers Aloha From Hawaii, the figure is 1 billion, and there are sources for this.

A greeting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


I deleted my article From Wikipedia. still be found on be deleted from Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexio2 (talkcontribs) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]


Thank you for cleaning up the West Point Sword story that I've been working on for years, you really did a great job.

I have had just one change to the contents that you can see. I have so many photo's that I've taken and photo's from book's that I've copied but I am having trouble posting because of copyright laws so I add the line that all photo's can be seen at the ebay review see link at the bottom of this page. I wish that I could post them all. I'm work with the West Point Museum to get the photo's from them as well as permission.

If there is anything I can do to make this better please let me know.


Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your semi-protection of List of dinosaurs[edit]

Hello, could you please review your protection of List of dinosaurs? It appears to have been excessive. Thank you. (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, apologies, just noticed it's been unprotected since. (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your protection of Template:Dinosaur-stub[edit]

Hello, could you please review your protection of Template:Dinosaur-stub? It appears to have been excessive. Thank you. (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite protection of Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Hello. Could you please reconsider Your indefinite protection of Dromaeosaurus? It seems to have been excessive. Thank you. (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this has been unprotected. (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your semi-protection of Deinosuchus[edit]

Hello. Could you please reconsider Your semi-protection of Deinosuchus? It appears to have been excessive. Thank you. (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. :) Can you possibly use your logged-in account so the multiple editors you're informing of "excessive semi-protection" can have a centralized discussion? It appears you're not actually interested in editing any of the pages in question, and I am concerned that several of the articles where you've asked for semi-protection removal may since have been vandalized. Also, since your IP address is dynamic, it makes it look as though these un-semiprotection requests are coming from different IP editors.
If there are specific articles you'd like to edit, I'll be happy to un-semi-protect. I didn't respond to the earlier requests because it was clear there were more requests coming in, and I'd prefer to have one conversation instead of the four threads you've added on my current talk page, earlier threads on my talk page, threads on Cas' talk page, and threads on other users' talk pages. I am concerned that your requests are becoming excessive.
If semi-protection is preventing you from editing the articles listed above, and you actually want to edit these articles, I'll remove the semi-protection: the semi-protection would be preventing a good-faith editor (you) from being able to improve articles, and thus would be harmful. However, if you have no actual interest in editing any of the above articles (or the articles you've listed on other pages), and your only objection is that the semi-protection of the articles is, in your opinion, excessive, I'll un-semiprotect and ask that you add each of the articles to your logged-in account's watchlist so that you can share in the duty of reverting the IP vandalism which occurs on these articles. After a few years of just a few editors reverting the IP garbage on a daily basis, semi-protection on a few select articles (out of about 1,300) seemed like the best answer, since the policy on semi-protection states "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism"; sadly, it doesn't give a number, which I think would be useful here: you and I appear to disagree on the amount which constitutes "excessive". But if you're willing to help revert, there's no need for semiprotection. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that you stand by your claim that Deinosuchus was indefinitely semi-protected because of excessive vandalism? (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this and other articles. [7] Looks like there were no "good" IP edits in the recent history of the article. But if you're willing to watchlist the articles above, it will give other editors a chance to breathe, and I'll remove semi. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it looks like we disagree, not only on the definition of "excessive", but also on the definition of "vandalism".
To get an idea of what other admins mean by this, I invite you to take a look at WP:RFP#Fulfilled.2Fdenied_requests and study which requests are being granted (and with what duration), and which were denied because there is "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection".
Please let me know if, after doing this, you are still unwilling to unprotect the article (unconditionally). Thanks. (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'll remove the semi-protection if you're actually interested in editing the articles in question (via IP), or are willing to add the articles to your (logged in) watchlist to assist in IP vandalism reversion. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of The Kennedy Report[edit]

I don't know why you would delete the page of The Kennedy Report, significance was displayed so obviously that only a complete and total moron would do something like this. There were over fifteen indications of cultural significance, and overall importance to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drheydari (talkcontribs) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pit Bull/GA2[edit]

Left a comment there. At this point I'd just fail it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my page. Please review.[edit]

On 02:48, 11 February 2010 you deleted the page Creation through realm leakage For reason "A7" (No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) On that page, it was stated that it was simply an idea that I put out for input from a large audience. If there is a tag you can put up saying that it is just an idea, please do so and un-delete the page. It also showed no indication that it shouldn't be included for the public to have heard all opinions on the matter. I would also like to point out that the most widely-accepted creation theory is based on cloud-man making the human race out of dirt and ribs. You can't do worse than that. --Owndapwn. Thinker, gamer, troll, and ninja. (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Firsfron. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary's length[edit]

I'd suggest respectfully that the edit summary line is for the briefest possible indication of what you did and not for a dissertation on, for example, the use and misuse in English of the apostrophe mark.--SilasW (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Cheers for the warm return! I've now finally got a chance to spend some time on wiki, so I thought I'd return. I've made some alterations to the metriorhynchid articles. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification!

It is embarassing that I, as a native speaker, did not know how to use 'it' properly - I blame the Australian School System!

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeezor7 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


I wondered if you could join us at this delightful conversation here? Parrot of Doom 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Canning bling[edit]

Good work tightening up the prose on Elizabeth Canning's FAC. • Ling.Nut 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for telling me that the end of the Cretaceous was 65ma. I could have sworn that I read something that said that is was 66.5ma!

JRLivsesey, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Karel article[edit]

TY for catching my error, How embarrassing. I Taught this: it's=conjunction and its= possessive~! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kindly asking for your advice[edit]

Dear Firsfron, I have prepared an article covering the International Television Expert Group (see User:Mentalmoses/ITEG) - and I am now looking for advice by a more experienced editor and fellow TV group member. I thought you might want to recommend an editor that could be willing to give me some support? Many thanks and best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time and giving such helpful advice! Best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Eremoryzomys just got promoted, though some of your concerns were unresolved. If you have additional comments, perhaps you can add them to the article talk page or here. Ucucha 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurasian Crag Martin[edit]

Thanks for reviewing this article, I'm sorry it's taken a while to respond (new kitchen ...aargh), but done now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way, first job was to have all the walls replastered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, perfect timing, today's kitchen crunch day; new sink and units being fitted, so no water half the day, chaos and disruption :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC: Lemur evolutionary history[edit]

If you have a moment and feel like commenting, the FAC for Lemur evolutionary history has been restarted. Your comments and/or support would be greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


I'll take a look at it later tonight. I don't know how much help I'll be, as although I do well enough copyediting, I'm still not up to par for FAC (I've had a lot of help with the FAs I worked on), but we'll see how it goes. Hopefully it's enough to push some more editors to support the nomination. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through and made some changes, please take a look at them, and if you think any of it should go back, feel free to revert. I'll leave some comments on the talk page of the article that are hopefully helpful in further improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad the comments were helpful, and I hope the article passes FAC. I may take an article to FAC in the next month or two, so I'll be sure to have you take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AN thread[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_on_Larry_SangerDark 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)