User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Westboro Baptist Church

Re: Phelps. Usually, I'd agree with you that such a line would be "loaded". With Phelps, he's loud, proud, and unabashed about it. Since, it's his central message, I think it's quite appropriate to state forthrightly that his politics are largely driven by anti-homosexual views. I don't think he could possibly be any more blunt about that. Derex 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I should've clarified; I meant the line about him being a Democrat. It seems kinda loaded to say his political views are driven by his being anti-homosexual, and then that he's a Democrat, as if to link the two. Though that could be my perception... HelloAnnyong 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wood's Tea photo

Hi, thanks for your note. The issue here is that we need, as much as possible, images that can be reproduced by anybody for any reason, including commercial, without permission. Most promotional photos do not meet this criteria (for instance, if a media outlet that Wood's Tea Company disapproved of put the photo on their web page, the band could ask them to take it down). In order to use this or another photo, it must be licensed in this fashion. If you want to ask them if they'll license the photo under the GFDL, the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, or if they'll simply release it into the public domain, that'd be great. Alternatively, somebody could take a picture of them performing and release it under one of those licenses. —Chowbok ? 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi... I saw that you received permission to use this photo, but you didn't say what type of permission. Can you elaborate? —Chowbok ? 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh... how much more do you want? I asked if we could use that photo on the page, and they said yes. HelloAnnyong 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As I explained above, that's not sufficient. It needs to be usable by anybody, not just us. They have to release it under one of those licenses or into the public domain. —Chowbok ? 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine. As an alternative to all this, can I add fair use rationale to the photo? The picture is essentially unrepeatable, as one of the members of the band has passed. And what's the difference between {Promotional} and {Promophoto}? HelloAnnyong 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

I recently added a favorite slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church (Semper Fi Semper Fag). You deleted it, and I was curious as to why. Please get back to me at your convenience.--MKnight9989 12:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

MKnight, check your user talk page. HelloAnnyong 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I just readded that slogan, so you don't have to worry about it.--MKnight9989 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Ride the Whip

Hi, I'm "Wannatouchmyfro2," and I would like you to stop removing what I post on the "Ghost Ride the Whip" page. The information I submitted is as valid as anything on there, and I even cited it. It is not biased, it's fact. If you have a problem with facts on Wikipedia, maybe you should stop editing pages. Thanks for understanding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannatouchmyfro2 (talkcontribs)

You posted your own video and linked to it on the page, and "Nerd Wars 2" is not notable for anything. It's not a credible source; all it is is a video. We don't link to Youtube videos, and even if we did, your video probably wouldn't be selected. Perhaps you can give me a good reason why your video is so much better than the multitude of others out there? Or why you should have a venue for self-promotion? --HelloAnnyong 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
While I agree posting "Nerd Wars 2" is self-promotion, I don't see why it's not a credible source. This isn't a page devoted to rocket science; it is a page devoted to ghost riding the whip. Considering I don't see anything else on there that shows a legitimate act of ghost riding, I don't see how posting that link diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. No one is saying it is "better" than anyone else's videos. Please don't make assumptions. Do you consider yourself better than me because you think I am arrogant? That is your opinion, it's not credible. Should i delete it from Wikipedia? Anyone can post videos on YouTube, and every one that shows an example of ghost riding is a credible source. Thanks for understanding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannatouchmyfro2 (talkcontribs)
The link doesn't diminish Wikipedia's credibility, but it's self-promotion, which is not something Wikipedia does. I'd remove the link if I were you, but we can always take this to Wiki third party/dispute resolution, if that's an avenue you want to explore.. --HelloAnnyong 02:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I feel our issue has been resolved. My addition to the page shows a credible example of ghostriding, regardless of self-promotion. It shouldn't matter who adds things to Wikipedia, as long as said information is factual and supportive of the topic. What I submitted fits that, so I don't see why there should be any further problems. You just seem to have some kind of grudge against me because you think I am using this site to promote a video my friends made. If someone representing "Veronica Mars" were to post their ghostriding information on the site, would you attack them for self-promotion? You should not be worried who is posting things on Wikipedia. You should be worried about the credibility of said posts. We can both agree that my post fits ghostriding and supports the topic. I'm fine with taking this to a third party to resolve the issue, but at that point you're becoming a bit obsessive. You've done your job: you've checked for the credibility of what I posted. It is clearly a video of people ghostriding a whip. Don't worry about anything else. Just keep on moderating :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannatouchmyfro2 (talkcontribs)
That's fine. I'm going to ask for a third opinion on this. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy yourself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannatouchmyfro2 (talkcontribs)

My opinion: First, Wannatouchmyfro2, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~. As for the issue at hand, Wannatouchmyfro2's addition of their own video is clearly conflict of interest; if your "movie" is really that notable then other people not connected with it should be wanting to add it (BTW, that is not an invitation to ask an associate or fan to try to add it for you). At any rate, from what I can tell it is completely not notable, and falls under the "Other entries may be too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all" portion of Wikipedia's guideline on trivia in articles. As for your question regarding Veronica Mars, it would similarly be conflict of interest if someone connected to that show were to add a mention of their show with a link to their video; however, their addition might well be kept, since the appearance of a minor subculture phenomenon in a TV show aired by a major network is far more notable than the appearance of a minor subculture phenomenon in a self-published amateur video. Anomie 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this one. (And so timely, too!) Based on this, I'm going to roll back Wannatouchmyfro2's edit. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with Anomie and HelloAnnyong. The video should be removed and not re-added, for the aforementioned reasons. cacophony ?? 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Inside Man

Sorry 'bout the excessive edits on Inside Man, you're totally right to call me out on that one. I've been wiki editing for long enough; I should know better by now! By way of explanation, I was just psyched and probably a little overcaffeinated when I came across the page, and saw how informative it was and the few places I could contribute. I am a little trigger happy with the 'Save' button when patience dictates I ought to 'Preview' more carefully.

In light of my unforgivable indiscretion, I hope you find my (overall) changes to the article to be of benefit. Since I gather this is an article that has mattered to you for some time, I defer to your judgment: My poor change-control methods aside, How do you feel about the (hopeful) improvements I've made?

Happy to hear your critique, here, on my talk page, or on the Inside Man talk page. Cheers!


ManfrenjenStJohn 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Renaissance fair

Hi, thanks for reverting to my edits after removed them. As I said on its Talk page, I had carefully considered the illustrations and felt that the Mary Queen of Scots image was an excellent one for the top of the article (rather than a cluttered and unclear swordfighting one). I also had removed a picture of a costumed visitor which was atypical of Ren fairs and not a helpful illustration. Since didn't say anything, we'll never know why they thought to reinstate them. I appreciate your taking care of it (I also find your list of edits interesting, although I wonder how you happened on Renaissance fair). Artemis-Arethusa 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to help. And I'm glad to see that someone went ahead and did something to clean that page up somewhat; I had been thinking about it for awhile, but couldn't quite figure out what to do. We'll keep working on it, then. As for my list of edits, I look at a lot of random pages. Sort of a combination of all my interests/hobbies, and random stuff that I've looked up. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have some ideas for improvement which I plan to post on Talk:Renaissance fair before implementing. Artemis-Arethusa 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 's'me again. I've just finished a streamlining overhaul of the Renaissance fair page. It still needs citation tags, but my eyes are too blurry to go through right now. But hopefully it's more clear and informative. Artemis-Arethusa 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

*tips his hat to you* You did a better job on that article than I ever could have done. It's much, much better now. I wish we could get something in there about the REC, but they're such an elusive company with little information published about them, so it may just have to fall to the wayside. If I have any complaints at all, it's that it's a bit picture-heavy. The last line of the first paragraph in "History of the fairs in America" is cut off by a picture. For me, at least.
Yesterday, I did a huge rewrite of another page I've been poking at here and there, so I know how you're feeling. Take a break and relax; you more than earned it for this one. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing (again!) that wretched "Playtron" picture. I just posted for some help at Wikipedia Village Pump (Assistance) because of its constant re-posting (I suspect by the same person). The article is a little too picture-heavy as it is. It certainly doesn't need irrelevant images (My argument at the pump was just because someone wore it to a Ren Fest doesn't mean it should be included; I also brought up Klingon and cowboy outfits by way of comparison). (Slightly Later Edit): Not quite related to this, but I wonder if you've seen the Bristol Renaissance Faire page, which I'm mostly responsible for.Artemis-Arethusa 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't taken a look at the Bristol page in awhile; probably not since you've worked on it. Do you want me to take a look at it? (And is it your home fair?) — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Take a glance at the bottom of this page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The original poster (and uploader) of that unwanted image is "Beachnut4" (circa. 20 May 2007), who is probably also the anonymous re-poster of the picture (and maybe also "Beachnut5"). Their contrib log is chock full of fetishy stuff. And yes, the Bristol Renaissance Faire is my local fair. I'm afraid most of the individual fair articles are pretty poor, but this was the only fair I knew enough about to write up. Somebody else loaded some pictures, but the man in the brocade doublet is mine, and I lucked into that amazing joust image with the exploding lances. Artemis-Arethusa 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Okay!

You can remove the Best Battles from Iron Chef. (The Best and worst dishes were from DarkFireYoshi 8:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Great Divide (Scott Stapp album)

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Great Divide (Scott Stapp album), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: The Great Divide. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was disambiguating the page. It's fixed now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's

I'm glad to lend a hand. :) I almost suggested RFC earlier today. I see that there's a discussion on his talk page at the moment encouraging consensus. I think another day or so to allow that to develop would be useful. I will note, however, that the editor's userpage makes me suspect that consensus may not be easily reached. :/ --Moonriddengirl 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you reached consensus, and good job hanging on to patience. I know it's not easy. :) (I was thinking it might go Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues, since it's about naming conventions.) --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance fair

regarding the image you declared inappropriate...what makes it so? --emerson7 | Talk 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That image has been discussed before, on the talk page and this page. It doesn't really have much to do with the Ren Fair; it's just some woman walking down the street. The image isn't named appropriately (Dc5.jpg?), and the page is image-heavy right now. A somewhat off-topic picture isn't needed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was an "images for deletion" page. Thanks a lot! Artemis-Arethusa 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mo Foster

Thanks for your assistance on Talk:Mo Foster. Reswobslc 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll keep an eye on the page for the next few days just to make sure that everything goes smoothly. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Harrisburg Ohio

You recently weighed in on what is "not notable" on this page, which were things I had submitted. Frankly I am a bit annoyed by you and your compadre regarding your comments and holier than thou additude - though I respectfully have considered your viewpoint but still find myself disagreeing with what I feel are your own personal arbitrary standards, that while they may have some merit when strictly constructed fall short when considered in the big view of wikipedia.

Wikipedia, first and foremost stands for imparting information and defining things, and further states that it is important to adhere more to the spirit of the thing than to the "letter of the law."

I submit, and hope you will honestly consider the following:

Harrisburg, Ohio is a small village, and like thousands upon thousands of other villages in the United States that Wikipedia has chosen to define, it is recognized on Wikipedia and by other as a tiny dot on a map, a set of GPS coordinates and elevation level.

These small villages rarely have historical markers and monuments; no art galleries, museums, sport teams, or tourist attractions; are not seats of regional government, hallowed universities or birthplaces of industry.

These villages are defined by just two things. The people who stayed behind and live there to perpetuate the community, and those who have left and made a contribution to the outside world. Yes, those who went out into the world may not be John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Alva Edison, or Orville and Wilbur Wright, but by you trying to deny (by limiting recognition) and/or impose your defintion and standards for notable people - you limit these villages from being defined in Wikipedia.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is not worth spit unless it is read by people. This certainly then begs the question what knowledge will the reader be seeking when it looks up content. I think it is empirically sound that the vast majority of readers seeking knowledge about Harrisburg, Ohio will have ties to the village or be delving into the past of the village, and while certainly not expecting a great deal, would come away feeling they had gained something by reading about someone you would find far less notable in New York City or Columbus Ohio.

I believe you are censoring information others might want and I shall respectfully continue to post these things. I am not sure of how a full blown arbitration situation is accomplished on here, but I am willing to be part of one if you and the other person wish to push the matter further. I think I be derlict in my duty as a citizen and believer in free speech to do otherwise though I certainly would abide by a formal arbitration process, if I am allowed to choose some on the panel.

Zomboli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talkcontribs) 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. First off, he's not my "compadre;" he posted on WP:3O because he needed some help, and I gave my opinion. We have no other affiliations. I am sorry if you're offended by any attitude you perceived, but there really isn't one. Wikipedia has standards, particularly in terms of notability and in the design and layout of articles. For example, in lists of notable people, biographies are not included. The larger idea is that, if a person is indeed notable, then there will be an article about them, and a link to that article is sufficient.
I understand your argument about Harrisburg, but I would urge you to read the article on ownership of articles. It's great that you've contributed as much as you have to that article, but you're not the only person who is allowed to edit it. We're all here working together to build articles to be the best they can. A direct quote from WP:CON: "Wikipedia works by building consensus."
Again, I merely gave my opinion as a third party, and made some corrections to the page. Fixing references is something that needs to be done to conform to the Wiki standard. As for the notable people, well, we can discuss that more. There are other steps to be taken before this issue escalates, and if you'd like, you can put in another request at WP:3O or a request for RFC if you'd like some other people to give their opinions. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thnaks for your help on the citation parts, though I'm not sure i understand how to do it properly.
Regarding the other matter - thanks for a quick response. I do understand your point of view, I hope you consider mine. I do think this other editor (from some of the responses I read from his page) is going to escalate things. All he did with me, was send a copy of "the policy" and then said quit posting.
I think I have a least a soemwhat valid argument, but I don't think it would get anywhere with him. I think this is going to be formally mediated - though I certainly don't understand the process.
Finally, on a little lighter side, Jon Warden pitched more than one year, and he saved Denny McClain's butt the year he won 31 and the Tigers won the World Series. Jon Warden's record of 4-1 WAS AS A RELIEVER! May not be notable to you, but certainly was notable to the McClain and the Tiger Fans - Jon's still big hit at Clinics and such in Detroit area though he lives in Cincinatti. He'd kill me if he knew I put that up. He was basically a farm boy. In fact he lived on the farm just on the edge of town where the founder of Harrisburg originally lived.
See Ya - thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talkcontribs) 04:58, 9 October 2007
Alright, then, here's some tips.
  • First, stop making new categories for your comments. I keep moving yours down here, but you should post underneath my comment.
  • With regard to references, basically each page collects <ref></ref> tags and collects them wherever the <references /> tag is placed. Within each ref tag goes a citation, and there are templates that will help with this. You can view them all on this page.
  • Read up on dispute resolution. Informal methods such as 3O (third opinion) and RFC (request for comment) are preferred, as it allows the users to help each other out without taking the issue to the administrators.
  • Again, I would strongly recommend you to read WP:NOTE (Wiki notability standards) and reconsider the placement on the Harrisburg page. At the very least, other editors will probably tell you to remove the biography from Mr. Goetting, but more likely than not, they will clear out the entire section. If you are still unsatisfied, I would recommend you put in a Request for Comment, probably under RFChist, and bring some closure to this issue.
If you need any further help, please do not hesitate to ask. In the meantime, I will be keeping an eye on the Harrisburg page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Any advice for me in settling this? I've submitted requests to Third Opinion once or twice before, but there was never disagreement after that. I don't want to have to go to mediation, since it's not a big deal, but I really don't want to see the disputed information on the page.
On the other hand, with the reference provided for the baseball player, I think he deserves to be listed; I'm going to create an article on him, since he surely played in a fully professional league as required by WP:BIO. Nyttend 12:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey. This doesn't need to go to formal mediation yet; either WP:RFC or WP:WQA would be the next place to go. You're right, it is a bit strange to see a user not accept the third opinion, but it does happen. BTW, on Jon Warden, it says he "was" a pitcher. Did he die? If he didn't, you should change the wording to "is a former American pitcher." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the whole process about formal arbitration but I'll try to slog through it. I will say this, in looking at Columbus Ohio I found more or at least equally obscure references to people when compared to the Doctor, and found a number of other areas with more obscure references. I would concede the bigraphical part might be better served to be placed elsewhere with a link as is done in other similar pages on Wikipedia. If I can figure out how to do it, I will.
I do want say I very much appreciate the changes you made to the associated header, I think it reads ad sounds much better.
Lastly, did I get this comment in the right place? John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talkcontribs)
Yes, but you added extra spaces where it wasn't appropriate. Tab your comments in using colons. As for arbitration: formal mediation is not needed yet. All possible avenues have not yet been explored; RFC and/or WQA should be applied before taking this up another level. My guess is that a claim for formal arbitration would be rejected on the grounds that insufficient dialogue has taken place.
If the two of you want, I can help you put in a RFC. Would that be okay? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
fine with me check with the other guy.
I also have another question. SOrry to take up your valuable time. I have another notable person, Joseph Chenowith (I don't want to hear he's not notable - he founded the village). He is worth a bio for a number of reasons - I seem to understand it should not go on base page but be linked to - how do I accomplish taht and where do I put the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomboli (talkcontribs) 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Before we do a RFC, let us discuss something. If we get other opinions and a majority of them say that Goetting does not belong on the page, will you accept that result and move on?
As for Chenowith, create a new article for him. You can search for Joseph Chenowith and click on the red link on the top. This is a quick link for you. Side note: Start signing your comments! Use four tildes - ~~~~ to do this. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

3O response

Thanks for your reply. The reason why this has developed on my talk page is because Parradudes (AKA the IP mentioned) won't go there as far as I can tell. I take your point about the fact tags, but having said that everything that I tagged does need to be verified. If there's a better way to do that I'm all ears because I know just adding the main tag at the top isn't enough.

Would I be correct if I transferred the discussion to the AWF talk page - and informed Parradudes (on both his talk page and his IP's talk page) of the move? That way the discussion would be forced to the correct place and we can go from there. !! Justa Punk !! 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You could use {{unreferencedsection}} in each section, but I think it's most needed in the About and International Wrestling sections. As for transferring the discussion, I'm not really sure. You could put a note at the end of your page and say "This conversation has moved to (this page)" and add a link to the talk page, and then start a new section there. After that, if anyone added more posts, you'd probably be more justified in moving it. Hope that helps. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and added the note on my talk page - and advised Parradudes of the move on both his talk page and his IP's talk page. On the first part - I don't know. It may look ugly but I hold the view that specifying what statements need verification and so on is better. It puts the pressure on to source them. Maybe it's overkill - but I happen to think that Australian wrestling as a whole will have big problems fitting in with WP:NOT due to it's apparent nature. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've AfDed another Australian promotion (EPW) for similar reasons - and I prodded a couple of others that were all but dead. I'm giving the AWF article a couple of months to be improved before I send it to AfD as well. It was previously prodded, but now that we have an objector we can't go that way again. !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

News & Record reference

The original video of our broadcast was removed from their site, so for the moment I have pointed the reference at their reporter's print story on it. I am searching our archives for the proper video, and will upload it to YouTube and change the reference soon. PastorMatt 11:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Steam (content delivery)

Hello – thanks for the message. Since an edit war is in a forced cease fire, so to speak, all changes need to be worked out on the talk page for now. Making a list of noncontroversial, necessary edits and getting all parties to agree is one way; you could also do it edit by edit by edit. Starting with undisputed edits is a really good method to get everyone working together. Get everyone to agree to the small stuff first, then move to the dispute.

You can ask for an admin to make changes at any time as long as there's consensus, and the place to get that consensus is on the article talk page. Whatever you guys do, don't make a subpage – subpages are only for user space, not article space. They are really, really messy, because they are another open battleground, plus there are GFDL attribution problems. Don't start a subpage.

If it appears there's no way to get agreement or if you think a third party is necessary, ask MedCab for help, or open a request for comment. There's a long, long way to go before arbitration, and it starts with baby steps. This particular protection expires in 30 days, but you can ask for an extension or re-protection if one of the parties uses the expiration as an excuse not to participate in the discussion. Good luck, and keep me posted if you like. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I recently added a picture of our beloved King, Ray Nelson. He was King at many Rennaissance faires including King Richards Faire in Kenosha Wisconsin, King Richards Faire in Carver Mass. He helped many, many people at the faires, and was loved by thousands. You deleted it, and I was curious as to why. Please get back to me at your convenience —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnorten (talkcontribs) 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At first, I did it because I noticed you needlessly removed the Characteristics heading. But I see that the image is at least marginally useful on the page. It's currently a candidate for WP:CSD because it doesn't have any licensing information on it, so it could be deleted at any time. Also, the naming convention of the file isn't very good; you should probably rename it to something more meaningful, like King Richard Renfair.jpg or something. I'll undo my revert, more or less. In the meantime, please watch your edits and what you remove. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, thanks for commenting in regards to my request for third comment. I think something needs to be clarified here in regards to the debate. My stance isn't that the Sarissa needs to be mentioned in the introduction but that the problem is the sentence "Pikes were used by European troops from the early Middle Ages until around 1700", this is very debatable and I have asked for citation needed only to have that tag deleted. There is no consensus amongst historians that this is a fact and it needs to be removed if it cannot be verified. I can provide a large list of books that use the word pike when describing the Sarissa and other weapons that existed well before the ninth century. In fact look at this quick search of google books; which will show that military historians do not think that the Pike was used from the 10th century, and that many use the term to refer to a weapon used in Europe from around 300 bc. I don't think that needs to be in the article either, however I do think that the half sentence in question is a debatable fact and therefore should either be clarified or removed from the introduction. I also think that Larry Dunn's constant reverts and deletion of my request for citation shows that he isn't showing good faith in regards to me edits. I think the major point here is that there is something in the introduction could be debated but he is not willing to debate but simply reverts and edits away any request for citation. Master z0b 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry had to edit my post as I got some dates wrong, oops. Master z0b 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded on the pike talk page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry can you have another look at this? Rather than providing a citation for the question at hand, the other editor has asked me to provide a cite proving he's wrong. That is not the way citations work and is exactly the king of circular logic that this editor keeps using to justify reverting all my changes, including the "cite source" tag that I added. Thanks Master z0b 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lunasa-otherworld-album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunasa-otherworld-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lunasa-redwood-album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunasa-redwood-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Fuck those people. I don't really care.

=] Oreo

That attitude won't get you very far around here. Vandalism is a serious concern, and as a Wiki editor, I'm supposed to handle it properly. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

World War Z‎

did you read any of the previous post or even look at my edits, it some retard program called a bot that was at fault not me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:10, November 12, 2007

Yes, that's nice. You still were excessively reverting. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For consistently providing quality work to various points throughout Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of our association on that ice cream thing, I notice you when I run into your contributions. That seems to happen a lot. Most recently, while providing an editor review on another editor, I saw you at 3RR. Recently when another admin asked my opinion on who might help with a delicate situation, your name was one of two to come to mind. (That situation went dormant; don't worry. :)) I just wanted to let you know that your efforts are observed & appreciated. Kudos! Keep it up! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks so much! And I forgot to say this at the time, but congrats on adminship. You've certainly earned it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Okay. I have no knowledge of this subject at all, but that may be a help rather than a hinderance! At least I'm neutral. Obviously I've now locked down the four edits by the new account, so if it could be detailed on the talk page the impact of them (acceptable or not), and other proposals where there is now consensus then I'll pop them in. It would be nice if we don't have to protect again after this. I'll look at the whole thing shortly to try and familiarise myself. Pedro :  Chat  14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great. I'll put down the details you're asking for. The big question that's pending on the page is what to do about unreferenced statements in the new section of the page. Do we keep them in, or take them out? And of course, a glance at all of it to make sure that it's a decent page, and a marked improvement over what was there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My first reaction is to remove anything unreferenced. For consensus gathering however, let's detail the lines to be removed and see if anyone can find references. If they can, great, straight back in. If they can't, then sorry but they stay out. May as well see if we can get this coming up on GA class whilst we're about it! Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi – sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, but there are only 24 knitting days left before Christmas and my daughter was hospitalized yesterday (food poisoning, probably Salmonellosis but we won't know for sure until the stool cultures come back). I concur with Pedro's note above. While I'll keep an eye on the new version's progress – which is so magnificent in cooperation and content it should be shouted from the Wiki-rooftops – Pedro should take the lead on protection/unprotection until I can get back here on a more regular basis. Good work, guys! - KrakatoaKatie 15:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Money bomb edit

My edit was perfectly legitimate and held no malice at all- the fact that Romney and Obama supporters had a copycat money bomb event was not mentioned at all in the reference presented, but Fred Thompson's was. I merely cleared it up, and if another source can be found regarding Romney or Obama's efforts, then it can be added. Monsieurdl 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind- it was clarified in the Talk page... I didn't realize the material was removed that sourced the Romney and Obama events. Monsieurdl 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, that's alright. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi in the paragraph-- Supporters also reenacted the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor by tossing banners that read "tyranny" and "no taxation without representation" into boxes that were in the harbor.[1]Other supporters also planned to reenact the event by dumping tea from a blimp into the Boston harbor.[2]The blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." [3]

You will notice that every word is a direct quote from a mainstreem published paper (the AP and the Boston Globe). I would be nice of you to check my refrences before deleating my hard UNbiased work. Also the reenactment supporters is a larg part of the money bomb information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talkcontribs) 19:47, December 22, 2007

No. Just because it's properly referenced doesn't mean that it's unbiased. The reenactment stuff is off-topic, as it has nothing to do with moneybombs as a concept; it has to do with a specific moneybomb. We've been trying to keep the page from having a Ron Paul slant, and you're not helping. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point. But if you deleate it again a third opinion will have to sort it out. As I disagree it is off topic. As well I understand your need to keep the Ron Paul slant to a minimum but it was the two Ron Paul large money bombs that put the term in common parlence (hard not to have a bit of a slant). Best to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talkcontribs) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I originally started editing this page due to a third opinion. Either way, 3O doesn't apply here, as there are a number of editors - me, Monsieurdl, and John J Bulten - that are against your edits. 3O only applies if it was just the two of us editing. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am learning the roaps here. So as of late, and every thing from now on I post will be refrenced or a direct qulote form mainstreen media. As I believe accurate unbiased-reporting is the relaying of facts (it should not matter if we like them or not). However as soon as a mainstreem sorce states an amount of 6.4-6.6 million raised in one-day (I will delete Hillary Clintons [unoffical] record). It may not be reported untill the end of the 4Q. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talkcontribs) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You're not understanding the issue at hand. Your most recent additions to the article, about the actions of the Boston Tea Party moneybomb, are off topic to the article. They're better suited for the page about Ron Paul's campaigning. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've created a section over at Talk:Moneybomb#Boston Tea Party additions. Let's continue this discussion over there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb Talk Page

I wasn't trying to be "uncivil" as it seems it was considered. The fact is, I put something in the talk page and you responded with something unrelated to it that you could have easily left just on my user talk page. I haven't used the talk pages before since I don't edit much so I had no problem with you bringing to my attention something I wasn't doing, however, I'd rather you not put it directly on that page because I felt it was inappropriate to the discussion.

I first saw it on my user talk page anyway so it was completely pointless to put it there. I'd rather you remove those comments so they don't distract anyone who might actually have suggestions on it. Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Request for Third Opinion

You removed my Request for Third Opinion stating: "there's an RFC for it; three remain". The issues remain the same, and edit warring continues even after the placement of the RFC's and 'page protection'. I was under the impression Third Opinion was the next step after those avenues failed. Jim (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC generally trumps a third opinion. How long has the RFC been up? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The original two were placed 18 November 2007, with no responces. I tried placing a third one today, and it doesn't seem to be posting. Jim (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Alright, I'll add it back to the 3O list. But in general, RFC works better, and is far better at building consensus than 3O. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reposting my 3O request. We got a 3O, and still nothing from the RFCs. Thanks again, Jim (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Steam (content delivery)

Hiya. I'd go with additions you feel best, assuming they're referenced. If you encounter any problems or wars let me know. I'm usually around Tue-Fri 0800-1700 UTC. If it's outside of that time my response may be slow, so if it's urgent better head to WP:RFPP again. It's on my watchlist and I was suprised there was no activity. Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

instead of reverting everything why dont you try and work with me here? the history of steam starts off badly, it is well referenced and relevant to the history section. so instead of just reverting it why dont u change it so it is more appropriate?--Zorgness (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just copying and pasting parts. And you're adding undue weight to the criticisms of Steam. We've extensively discussed the entire page (see this page) and everyone else was okay with the History section. Just because the section is only one paragraph long doesn't mean that we should steal a part of another page and put it there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am awesome, you asked for help and views from others before discussing it with me, so instead of forwarding me to policies and 100 pages of previous discussions which mostly dont seem to have anything to do with it you could explain to me why the history section must remain short and not include problems that happened when half life 2 was released. why should it not be included?--Zorgness (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll say it again: it's because you're adding undue weight onto criticisms. If all you focus on is the negative, then the article takes on a negative spin. Read WP:UNDUE for more.
On a side note, can you start using the citation methods listed at WP:CIT? Just putting in a link is insufficient; it needs to be properly cited. I've fixed it for you several times now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And what is stopping you from adding positive views? As I said in my edit summaries.--Zorgness (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a low priority job that can be done at a later date--Zorgness (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIT is a guideline so can you stop harrasing me about it, if you feel so strongly about it then why dont u add the citation stuff yourself instead of whining about it--Zorgness (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at WP:30. I must have misread it. GJ (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop now

Information.svg Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

this comment could also be considered a personal attack, I can remove comments from my talk page so this post could also be considered a personal attack, so read the talk page guidlines before you post another warning, which would go for this one too. As from now, use the article talk page and not mine. --Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Admin mop.PNG

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. :) I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thank you again for your participation, and I look forward to working with you in the future, --Elonka 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Redir Moneybomb -> Ron Paul

I meant it; I wasn't commenting about John's edits. It's increasingly becoming clear as more cites come in that this term is exclusively germane to Paul.

--- tqbf 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be WP:COATRACK. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to convince you to agree, just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was just trying to pick a fight. --- tqbf 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, nah. No worries. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester futsal club

I do not understand why you have added the copyvio notice back here. It was a copyvio but the editor who started it, altered the article considerably and made it very small. That does not seem to be a copy to me. You also removed the link to futsal which I added after searching to find out what futsal actually is. --Bduke (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw the page was still listed for CSD but the information wasn't there, so I just readded it. I've removed it now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure about notability as I know nothing about futsal. It does look however that if any futsal team is notable, this one might be. It needs more sources however. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jocko Milligan speedy declined

Hello, I've declined the speedy on this as it appears to make sense, asserts notability, and has reference source. Dlohcierekim 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I was probably too hasty on that one. Sorry! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: December 2007

As per the Wikipedia code of conduct, I am alowed to make nonconstructive edits if they are funny, if they make a good political point, or if I am testing the project's revert time. -- (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Faculty of Engineering Al-Minya University

Just a friendly headsup on Faculty of Engineering Al-Minya University. You tagged it for speedy deletion based on being a transwiki'd dictdef. I don't read Arabic, but given the length and subject of the article, that seems unlikely. I've tagged it for translation instead. If it really is a dictdef, please let me know. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Answer is there. In a nutshell, UFO Watchdog is used to criticize people who are pro paranormal, paranormal investigators, yet is NOT allowed to beused to criticize skeptics on Wikipedia. In actualality, UFO Watchdog does criticize both sides. Either allow it to be used as evidence of criticizim of skeptics such as Philip Klass OR remove its reference from the Linda Howe article, the Richard C. Hoagland article, related articles. The reference regarding Philip Klass is referred to on, in its "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list". (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on User talk: — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm addressing a concern that UFO Watchdog is used to criticize pro paranormal people, NOT skeptics, when in fact, it does, it even criticizes Philip Klass. Hope this helps. (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC) :)
Everytime someone else, or I place it on a article concerning a skeptic, it gets thrown out, while it is permitted to be on a article concerning a believer, investigator of paranormal matters. It criticizes both skeptic and believer alike. It claims to be neutral to both sides. Either let the website's info be used to indicate that skeptics are also criticized by it or remove all references to UFO Watchdog. Can't use it to criticize one side, not the other side, when it criticizes both sides. Agree ? (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Would you take a look at iHate You as well? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Single Subject Design

Hi! I put a 'hangon' tag and the article was still deleted -- what did I do wrong?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding the hangon tag doesn't mean that the page won't not be deleted. It can still be deleted if the page does not meet Wiki criteria. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh -- I thought it would slow the process down (for more than 30 seconds-Geez you guys are fast!)...I've updated conteent/context...and think its ok -- but I don't want to be viewed as a troublemaker (by re-starting something twice deleted) -- what should I do?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're going to be able to ever get that page passed through. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok -- I'll try -- please check it nowJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if the page meets Wiki criteria. The article has no sources, makes no claims of notability, and is just generally confusing. I really have no idea what single subject design is about, what field it's in, or why I should care about it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It has'll clarify what it is about. Thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look at other articles in similar fields to get an idea of an appropriate tone for the page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎

Under the White supremacist endorsement section, This is such a charged statement and clearly biased towards anti-Paul that it does not belong in Wikipedia. And the FACT that it has been their since 23:38, 7 September 2007, is clearly an Offence. maybe I’ll go and start a similar discussion of Obama selling drugs or the death of Vince Foster on Hillary. I suggest you use good faith and help remove such blatant POV.--Duchamps comb (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's against Wiki policy to remove comments from talk pages. Your POV argument doesn't hold here, since it's not on the main article. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

asserting notability

Any assertion of notability prevents speedy as non-notable--it does not have to be enough to pass WP:N. If you think the notability is insufficient for WP:N, use Prod; if that fails, then AfD. DGG (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright.. what page is this in reference to? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it. It just struck me as an advertisement/spam page. Maybe I should've tagged it as that. Anyway, it's your call, so of course I'll defer to you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Information.svg Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Duchamps_comb

Nuvola apps important.svg This is a reminder don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point and no personal attacks if you continue to edit and violate the civility and disruptively violations of the WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to harass neutral editors you risk being blocked.--Duchamps_comb

Yeah, okay. Says the SPA with a rather intricate history of inappropriate and disruptive edits. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 11:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michele Renouf

I've responded to your comments on the talk page for Michele Renouf. Robert Ham (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Badminton biostub speedily deleted

Hi, I have seen that you have tagged an article requesting that it should be speedily deleted. This articles is Sawendah Kusumawardani, but she was medalist at the World Badminton Championships. Isn't it notable enough? You can check it at the article of this World Championship, with external links in that article. Walint (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I Googled the name, and only five hits came up, four of which are Wiki links. That doesn't really strike me as notable. I don't think we need articles for every single person who's ever won a medal there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the db tag, and I think there will be a lot of people on Wikipedia who disagree with you and who feel that any medal winner should have an article. The medal is a claim of notability- if you still believe the article should be deleted, I reccomend AfD. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I won't push it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is borderline-speedy, but as a friendly suggestion --- if you have any doubts at all about whether to speedy something, use PROD instead; works the same way for you, but is friendlier to everyone else. I think you should AfD this article; it's cruft. --- tqbf 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not really in the mood to cause a fuss over it. Truth be told, I'm a little burnt out these days... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Could you please tell me why you have reverted (or whatever the hell you've done) my page on the Yuktopus. You've said it should be merged with the page 'List of Crash Bandicoot Characters' yet the post I made on that page about the Yuktopus has since been deleted. And now when I type in Yuktopus to go and see the page I spent about an hour creating I find that I'm being redirected to 'List Of CB Characters' where nothing actually exists about the character in question! Would it not be easier for you to just leave my page alone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talkcontribs) 12:10, December 30, 2007

Your article was fancruft - in other words, the information there appealed to only a small group of people. There wasn't enough content for the page to stand on its own, and there was more information at the Crash Bandicoot list page. The redirect was upheld by another editor, so it was probably the right thing to do. I'd also remind you that, as per WP:OWN, it's not your page; on Wikipedia, everyone has the right to edit every article. However, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a Yuktopus section on the List page, and you should definitely add as much information to that as you can. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking semaphore line

I've noticed you erased the article I was working on, out of good faith I'm sure, asserting it was a copy of semaphore. I'm currently splitting Semaphore into several articles, which is why I created a new page in the first place. I was hoping the template:inuse would be enough to prevent this kind of errors. Please wait or ask in the future.--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the tag there; it was just under the tag placed by CorenSearchBot. I've reverted my edit. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Banner

I wanted to apologize for restoring this article, however briefly. You tagged it as being non-notable, and I completely agree -- however, I was in the process of putting it through Articles for deletion because I wanted to ensure that this hoaxing page wasn't permitted to be recreated in the future and possibly sneak through. I hope you'll forgive me for over-ruling your judgment for this reason. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I saw your addition, so I commented on the AfD. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Slaveevi Noshti


I'm declining the speedy on this article as it does make sense, it asserts notability, and has plenty of reference sources. This is a national festival and competition which has been held for more than 37 years and is dedicated to the most famous and beloved Bulgarian composer. There's plenty of references and newspapers articles written about it, they are just not in English, but in Bulgarian.

Here are some examples:, Here's the official schedule on the town's site Here are some pictures from the festival:

If this festival was not notable, it wouldn't be published or written about by the Ministry of Culture either:

Finally, I intend to translate this article into Bulgarian and Spanish as well.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoOrpheus (talkcontribs) 07:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh.. I didn't place the CSD tag on the page; I put it up for AfD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


This article was not nonsense- a nonsense article is one that makes no sense, whatsoever. Please re-aquaint yourself with the speedy deletion criteria. Tagging that as nonsense was a very poor show of judgement. Two minutes work, and the article is now fine. In future, rather than tagging, why not fix? J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2