User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Burned out

Yeah, I need a break from this place for a bit. Been making mistakes, especially in CSD tagging. Apologies to those who have had to do extra work from my mistakes. I'll be around, I'm sure, but maybe not in the same capacity that I was. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I take it I was the straw that broke the camel's back there. Try just doing some article writing- it's less intense than new page patrol, and, in some ways, more rewarding. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's been more of a buildup of the past week or so. Been dealing with a lot of things around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Military sexual trauma

I stubbed the article and removed your prod tag--just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

references

Hi,Sorry. I just did a copy and paste, wasn't looking. I do need t lern better ref citing. Please be patient with me.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ping regarding Michele Renouf

In case you hadn't noticed, I've made edits to the Michele Renouf page, including some changes to de-POV the page and reverts of (yet more) POV edits by Byafet. I've also commented on the talk page. Robert Ham (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By any chance...

Is your name Stuart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boristhespider66 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

...Uh, no. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenny Thomas

Your message: Hey. I saw you tagged this article for AfD, but you did not create the AfD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Thomas. Can you please remove what is there and finish the AfD process listed at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion and give an explanation why the page should be deleted? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, i planned to , but was actually working on several edits at the same time (a stupid thing to do!) , so i forgot.I explained myself and why i did so on the project's page. Thanks again, i will be copying this into your userpage.Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for walking me through this, this is the first article ever that i nominate to be deleted. glad uoi agree with me.Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Farnham Beer Exhibition

Hi, I'm new to this gig of trying to put some of the (in my opinion) more important pieces of local history on record for researchers and others. It's not encouraging, though, to have a new page tagged with all manner of stuff saying it's writted as an advert, lacking references, etc, WITHIN SECONDS of posting it. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I understood that Wikipedia was about getting the information out there then refining it, not getting threats of deletion, etc, before anyone has the chance to read it! The article in question may - in your opinion - be written like an advert, but everyone has their own style, we can't all "wikify" on demand! If the subject matter has been read, then you will see that this is not about a commercial venture but a community activity of significant interest sociologically which has been around for over 31 years and has influenced commercial and charitable organisations in much of the UK. PLEASE - give us a break! - Weydonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weydonian (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's how things are done. There are plenty of articles that are tagged and almost immediately deleted. On the bright side, you now have objectives to fulfill on that page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

I think you should also revert the article to its last version before the dispute arose, that is to before User:Pinaster's first edit. Good day. FilipeS (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If I have some time later, I'll give a 3O. Until then, I'm not going to take sides. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

About tempura, sorry, but dead links? spam? what are you talking about? You asked for sources and I gave you 10. Why did you revert so? User:Pinaster —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Two separate issues here. Read the talk page for the information about your sources. As for the spam links: five of them were to pictures of tempura, and two were to pages that don't exist. Read WP:EL for information on external links. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I´ve cheked the links carefully, all working, and with the cuoted information in my contribution (please, check it again). Is not Enciclopaedia britannicaa valid source? if you don´t suscribe or have it, you can´t check it, but thats no my fault, pal. And Monumenta Nipponica? I assume your triying to do your best, but, please, could you take a good look at my contribution. Are any of those sources worse than a link to a sauce maker (kikoman). Where is my contribution so? Does "tempura" article have an owner? Thanks a lot, I will appreciate your help. --Pinaster (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the comments on the talk page. Just because an article says that the word "tempura" was brought by missionaries does not mean that it was done so because of Lent. For example, castella was brought to the Japanese by the Portuguese, but if I were to say that it was done so because of Lent, I'd be wrong. Unless the page specifically says that the word is derived from Tempora, it cannot be used. It's called original research, and it's not allowed around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry again, but this is very frustrating. Yes indeed, the sources that I cuoted say both; tempura comes from tempora: "the Japanese word tempura comes from the Latin word tempora" and "it was introduced by Spanish missionaires" please, check again. I never said that tempura was introduced by spanishh missionaires because of Lent. Could you read again and tell me where is that said? I just said that during Lent, Tempura is a good dish, since -as everybody knows- it has no meet. I don´t know why you say the links are not working, but they are working and saying exactly what I cuoted and you removed (still dont know why). Please, I repeat,"could you take a good look at my contribution"? regards.--Pinaster (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with discussing it here. If you want to talk about it, post your comments on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You were right, Ididn´t see the new item in the talk page. Excuse me, I´ll continue there.--Pinaster (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Paisan30

I've seen your name on a couple of political pages, and just wanted to say that it is my favorite username yet on Wikipedia.

That is all. Paisan30 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Annyong. You're welcome. I also went nuts on my userboxes today, in honor of you. ;) Paisan30 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, you did. *eyes explode* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, there are so many people out there that have far, far more than you. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I had zero before today. Never even thought about it. I bet you feel like you have a pretty deep understanding of me after studying them, though. You know you studied them. Paisan30 (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

*stops getting a tattoo of all of them* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't let me stop you. I'd especially like to see how and where you fit the eight different "fan-3" symbols. Paisan30 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Folk Guy's Always with You

Hi. I've declined the speedy deletion of Folk Guy's Always with You, which you tagged, because there are no criteria that permit the speedy deletion of claimed-"non-notable" songs. To further pursue the deletion of the article, you can PROD it or list it at Articles for deletion. I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion again to avoid these sorts of mistakes. Thanks, Spebi 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I put it up for AfD. Sorry for the mistake. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of "Dennis Gelbaum"

I've declined this speedy deletion as a G12. The hyperlink you put it was self referencing. If you can confirm an external site has this material I'll be pleased to delete it for you. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Someone else just deleted under G11. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi HelloAnnyong, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thanks so much! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

redirect

thanks - very quick! Jameswilson (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding private highways

Hi. The comment that you are withdrawing the nomination, doesn't technically withdraw the nom. Would you like to Speedy Keep it?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough to say that I'm withdrawing? That seems counter-intuitive to what I've seen on other AfDs... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Darwin and Cat Radio Show

Good morning-

We'll clean up the article today that you flagged for deletion.

At this time we can't add info on the national TV show that the morning show is about to be featured on nor the pending syndication announcement.

I have no direct connection with the show, however they are a considerably large show here in Albany NY and doing a lot of noteable things.

Also - The Free Beer and Hotwings page has been deleted in the past but has resurfaced, as has KJACK. Two examples of deleted articles that were considered to not be notable (but are) and have been restored.

Today a section of sources cited will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanyradiofan (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnes Boffey

Thanks for alerting me to this, and for your trouble in listing it for AfD; both are appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion.

Thanks for taking the time to help with a third opinion on WAAS. BTW, fun name; how often do you get pinged by other arrested fans? - Davandron | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help on that page. Once in awhile, people will message me and be like "awesome name!" — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixing refs...

Hey there! You keep modifying <ref> tags with a {{cite...}} tag. Could you explain to me why doing so is beneficial and perhaps show me how it's done, so I can do some, too? —X S G 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll respond on your page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Larrakia Development Corporation A7

HelloAnnyong, the page I made for Larrakia Development Corporation was done in haste and under pressure. It did not follow the guidelines and for that I apologise. I warned the company that it would probably be deleted and thank you for giving my opinion more credibility.

Now to the task of forming a page that won't be deleted. What, in many minds, separates this company from others is the fact that it is an Indigenous company brokering deals with the Northern Territory Government of Australia in regards to Native Title claims on behalf of the Larrakia. Certain Native Title claims of some areas of Larrakia land have been waived so the NT Government can develop these areas. In exchange parcels of land have been given back to the Larrakia people with the view to develop them through the Larrakia Development Corporation for the Larrakia. This business model is unique and has been successful for the Larrakia. Many of the other Indigenous groups of Australia are very interested in the work Larrakia Development Corporation are doing as is the Federal Government of Australia. I can cite a number of Australian Government documents , News articles and educational institutions to support the facts.

How should I proceed? Should I submit the page for approval and if so who should I direct to it? How can I store it so the community can make a decision on it? I don't want to make another mistake and be one more step closer to being blocked.

Thank you for your time and any help!

Gurambai —Preceding unsigned comment added by (Gurambai) 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I have answered most of my own dumb questions by RTFM. Forgive my stupid showing.

I have edited out my IP for security.

Gurambai (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested

I am requesting your opinion on Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh). There is an anonymous user from Ireland who claims that the article lack notability and has proposed deletion on this article three times in the past 30 hours. I have removed the propsed deletion because she competed in the highest level of competition in bobsleigh outside of the Winter Olympics per WP:BIO on this, but they are still not convinced. If you check at the history of the article, the user has two different IP addresses. Please advise. Chris (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this. The article is now up for deletion. Chris (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not responding; I haven't been doing much significant editing as of late. The AfD looks like it'll end in the page existing, so it should be fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Volodymyr Semynozhenko

Hello, you PRODed an article similar to the above name. You get a lot more Google hits with this name and I am assuming it's the same person! Yes there are problems with the sources and it's definitely not NPOV at the moment, but if he's the deputy prime minister of Ukraine I think we could give people a chance to clean it up before deleting. So I have removed your notice from this article. Hope that's okay. MSGJ (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. That's fine; the page just needs a great deal of help. I've tagged the page with COI, as the original article was edited by him. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox in Socks

Thanks for your reply to my request for a "third opinion". However, I'm still confused, as you appear to have added a level 3 warning to the anonymous user for their vandalism (i.e. you thought it wasn't a content dispute), but you then promptly removed the warning. I've responded on Talk:Fox in Socks asking whether you do actually think their contributions are vandalism (if so, we can take steps to stop it), or whether it is a content dispute (in which case I'd still like a third opinion). Cheers. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. ~~Next time, check the page history before you go pointing fingers.~~ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. Here [1], at 16:36 on 3 Feb., you added the warning. Here [2], however, at 16:37 on 3 Feb., you reverted to the page as it existed before the warning. It is true that the user subsequently blanked the page, so maybe s/he would never have noticed the warning, anyway. GreenGourd (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't even notice that. I didn't do that on purpose. I have a feeling I clicked revert twice on the user's edit, and something got screwed up. I've gone ahead and re-reverted my mistakes. Apologies to all! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Verification and Original Research Claims

As I can see, you believe that the articles that I write possess original research or additional unnoted information that is in need of verification. Based upon evidence, you solely justify these means by the length of the articles that I write and unconditionally conclude that as I used only a single reference, and the information that I have distributed is larger in proportion to such a reference, I must be creating unnecessary extentions to the information that is elaborated -- which is of course not the case at hand. If you would take the time to read the respective articles that I write, it will be evident that I simply expand upon the sophistication of the wording and dissuade its original generalized state, generally without any additional claims that would result in non-verifiable controversy; at most, conjectures are stated, which of course add to the quality of my articles. Now, as we can see that no Wikipedian can justifiably ammend the information in my articles and actually result in a more desirable presentation, the tags that you consistently place are nothing less than a waste of time, let alone an annoyance to me -- considering you can't provide complete evidence that my articles possess information that is unverified or nothing more than general controversy. I advise that you analyze my articles and see that the circumstances that you are attempting to create do not assist anything, and at most will decrease the quality of my articles, ultimately acting against Wikipedia's standards and gaining my disfavor. For this reason, these tags shall be removed, considering that nothing good will result of them and you are additionally unable to justify their claims. User:Exiled Ambition February 4 2008 (EST)

Alright then, let's take a look at one of the articles I've tagged - Shimazu Toshihisa. You embellished the article to read "he was relatively obligated to support his father in military service at a young age", yet I don't see that written anywhere on the Samurai archives page. You also wrote "as he has been falsely proclaimed as harboring hurt to Hideyoshi, his own life shall be taken in an ultimate prospect that the Shimazu house will be free from any form of suspicion and blame," yet that's not on the page either. "As this excusal provided to Hideyoshi that Toshihisa was indeed a man that was more than likely honest in intention, the former's heir and retainers were likewise allowed to continue in their mutual service beneath the Toyotomi flag" is also there, yet that's not in the article.

The point here is that you cannot embellish or expand these articles. You weren't there, and you can't speak to these people's mindsets or intentions unless they are specifically stated in the reference. Read WP:OR - it says that OR includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas." If you want, we can start working our way up the dispute resolution process to get a bit more consensus on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that with this evidence, your argument is now well-justified. However, as with the first claim that you have shown, it cannot be ultimately verified that even though Toshihisa was obligated to support his father in military service at a relatively young age, it is still highly denoted and nothing less than expected that he indeed did support his father at an age regarded as relatively young. As this claim is thus relative and valuable to the article's presentation but still defies verification, I should have added a word such as 'surmisabely' or 'more than likely' in order to show to the respective reader that the statement is not absolute, therefore making it appropriate since the information contributes to the article and is thus proven as being nothing more than a conjecture. With your final statement, the case to is reciprocated, for all that needs to be added is a word or two that verifies the possibility that Toshihisa's retainers were allowed to continue their mutual service by means of the evidence that Toshihisa was not plotting harm to the Toyotomi, but at the same time additionally verified as not being the absolute resolution to such circumstances. This is ultimately all that I need to show for the articles that I have contributed; and as it is highly probable that no one will regardlessly edit such articles and actually achieve any favorable outcome to the information that I have distributed, the best option would be for the tags to be removed, at which I will then verify that any such information that is not directly stated from my respective references, but is still highly denoted, shall be verified as being conjecture, so that any user who reads these articles will know what is evidence, and what is a contributing possibility to that evidence. User:Exiled Ambition 4 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This issue isn't solved with adding in words that change the assertion. The fact is that the statement, whether or not it contains a hint of doubt, is still unreferenced and unverifiable. If there's no sourcing, then the statement is your own interpretation, and that's OR. Until there's proper sourcing, the tags stay where they are. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if that is justifiably the case, you must take into consideration the circumstances that I am present within when making each article: Samurai Archives is relatively the only source that can be found on the internet for the vast majority of these historical figures, and at very selective times I might be able to reinforce such a reference with GoogleBook, but the probability of being able to is always seemingly slim. Naturally, as you continue in your attempts to dissuade me from adding "peacock" terminology, it would be relatively impossible not to embellish the information by some means when faced with a single source, considering that if I did not expand the article with additional words of justification, I would be convicted of plagiarism, and that would obviously not be a desirable resolution in any situation. This the rational reasoning behind why these tags should be removed, for even if any other user attempted to ammend the information that I distribute and remove additional terminology that would not be ultimately needed, they will additionally possess the inability to expand it with a secondary source, and therefore adding the tag altogether will be a worthless course of action for everyone. According to these circumstances, I advise that each article that I create can only be tagged upon the condition that an additional reference justifiably exists and can reinforce the existing information in order to negate any additional terminology that is rendered as unneeded, otherwise according to your standards, it would be impossible to create articles, and ultimately I will receive all the blame when I simply acted upon the regulations set forth by Wikipedia. User:Exiled Ambition 5 February 2008 (EST)

Look, it's simple. You're writing biographical articles, so they need to adhere to the notability criteria for people. It says there that people are notable "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You've got one source listed, but that's insufficient. According to the same criteria, if an article does not have sufficient sources, it should be tagged as not meeting the standard criteria.

In other words, if a person is notable, there should be more than one source out there for him. If you can't find a second source for them, then they shouldn't have an article. You can't have an article with one source and say, "Oh, I can't find a second source, so... I should be exempt from the criteria." Stop making yourself out to be a martyr. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Review closure

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Review closure: bare minimum. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Though a counting of votes is not required. I think it is reasonable to expect someone who closes a review to be able to justify ruling against the number of votes if questioned. Is this unreasonable? Hyacinth (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Colgate Univ talk page

Please see the talk page - I found how the A&M article deals with "transportation" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you look at this template

Would you look at this template: Template:2008 Republican presidential candidates. Anonymous editors keep deleting Alan Keyes. I don't think he has a chance, but he IS a candidate. He filed with the FEC, is on the ballot in 20 states and is campaigning. I attempted to discuss it on the talk page and got no cooperation. Can we semi-protect it? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tao of the traveller.

Hi there. Regarding the above.I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, and hoping/ attempting to get the hang of things. I had noticed films being 'advertised' on Wikipedia...the Australian Indie 'Black Water' for one, and read an article saying how this was a savvy and OK thing to do, and should be followed by Indie film makers. I am not sure of the diffeence between the 'Black Water ' approach and my approach, though mine was more wordy, and did not yet include a visual.

Any guidance on the matter will be much appreciated . Thanks in advance. Bettine James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettine james (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me to the Wiki article on the Black Water film? I can't find it anywhere. In regards to your question, the article needs to be written to Wikipedia standards: with a neutral tone, an encyclopedic style, and with verifiable sources. Read WP:V and WP:RS for more information on the last point. I'd urge you to take a look at similar movie articles to get an idea of what the article should sound like.

One more issue to take stock of is that of conflict of interest - WP:COI. I don't know your involvement in the production of the film, but if you're at all involved with the film in any regard, you may be counted as a COI. Basically this means that you wouldn't really be able to provide a neutral, non-point of view look at the topic. It also means that, if "Tao of the traveller" is really that notable on its own, other secondary sources will report on the movie, so you wouldn't have to create your own article. Here's another example of COI: I would be COI if I created an article about myself. The question then becomes whether or not I'm notable enough for an article on me to exist - the resolution of which would be "Well, you're notable if someone else (newspaper, magazine, notable website, etc) has reported on you."

The more important issue here is that the article passes the notability requirements for movies, listed at WP:MOVIE. Your article needs to assert - and prove - that the movie is notable and should be listed. The linked page above mentions that movies are notable if they've been "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," or if they've "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking," or a few other criteria.

Since "Tao" is not out yet, it's also subject to the criteria of future films, listed at WP:NFF. More specifically, it states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." So if your movie isn't yet released in theaters, it shouldn't be listed.

This is a lot to process, so let me know if there's anything else I can clarify. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong. Thanks a lot for your very good and clear guidance. Yes, a lot to learn there, and goodness elsewhere, for the uninitiated. The film I referred to can be found by typing in ...Black Water (2007 film).... However, it appears to fulfil the requirements of Wikipedia, which TOTT did not. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manesar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Thats another thing to learn...hit the edit button: don't start a new thread. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manesar (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You mean Black Water (2007 film), right? One of the key differences is that this movie has already been released. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well almost, certainly up coming distribution...but got plenty of press and was definitely 'out there'. Thanks for your advice to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettine james (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Daours & Bussy-les-Daours

...are two separate villages, half a mile apart, with two separate maries, Mayors and populations ! Look closely: M le maire at Daours is Gérard Holleville and the village is on the D1 M le Maire at Bussy-lès-Daours is J F Devaux and the village is on the D1a ! Village names often take this form. In my area, there's Hesdin and Campagnes-les-Hesdin
Dickie (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot had marked them as copies of each other, so I acted accordingly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by

At Insight magazine. I may need assistance and I'm pretty new...any advice on the situation?

WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If other issues come up that aren't settled by talking to the other editors, let me know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

wtf

what is the reason for the deletion of my article about taylor cribbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeblind666 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, which says that the person was not notable. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

he is a musicsion, is that notable enough. he is from victoria australia. this is an out rage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeblind666 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Root Cellar

Hi. I split the plot into paragraphs. Is this better? I guess nobody can read my unbroken text. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Certis CISCO

Hi, thanks for providing a 3rd opinion at Certis CISCO. This is my first time using 3rd Opinion, so I had a few questions regarding process, which I hope you will be able to answer. I noticed that after providing the 3rd opinion, you removed the listing from WP:Third Opinion. I guess this means no one else will be providing a 3rd opinion? If so, and since it seems you agree with me that the disputed section is undue weight , and not in line with other similar articles, what would be the next step forward? I don;t think the other editor agrees with you or me on this, so would it be ok to edit the section over his objections? if not, what is the next step? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Right; a third opinion is just meant to break the back and forth debate between two editors. The other editor is being stubborn and will probably seek an RfC. In the meantime, I'd say go ahead and make the edits based on the consensus. If the user doesn't like it, we'll seek other means. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and did this. Please keep an eye on the article. Also, feel free to amend my edits if you think I've trimmed it down too far - I was trying to make it consistent with the LAPD article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrying Cost

Your bot added tags for WP:OR and orphan to my new page. The orphaned nature of the page results from the fact that it had been created 15 minutes before. The OR claim is invalid-- however you rightly point out that sources were not included yet. I'll have peer-reviewed sources within a few days, but please reference the talk page where I already outlined the things to be added. Carrying cost is a very well recognized concept in business and none of the concepts I used in the article were unusual, novel or controversial. They're all right out of what a typical undergraduate business student will pick up in a distribution management class.

Wellspring (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um.. I don't run a bot. It's just me over here. I marked it with OR because, unless there's references, it can be seen as original research. I also tagged it with the orphan tag because no pages link to it - see this page if you don't believe me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-read your notes-- I thought Friendly was a tagbot. My point re: orphan is that the article was 15 minutes old, of course it didn't have any links into it yet. Regarding the citation, the right thing to do is to mark it (as you did) with the requirement that it cite its sources and the appropriate tag. Unless you have a specific point you consider to be OR, it is not appropriate to tag it that way. The cite tag is sufficient to raise the issue and trigger action. If some time passes during which the references can either be added or the unsourced text removed and the facts aren't touched, then simply remove or comment out the text and note why on the talk page.

Look I appreciate that you're patrolling for unsourced statements and articles, but if you'd like to contribute to the page, please use the talk page.

Wellspring (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Article Watch

You need to add a sentence or so at the article watch page explaining the problem, and alter the project tag on the article's talk page as instructed on the article watch page (I'm sure you have already done both) it isn't necessary to add something to the project talk page, though you can if you want, one of the senior members (me probably) will overlook the article, watch for vandalism and deal with any occurrences. SGGH ^speak! 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a suggestion at the talk page of Certis CISCO, it's probably not a new one but it is how I feel the article should read. SGGH ^speak! 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a decision made there, let me know if there are any problems. If it quietens down to your satisfaction you can take off the article watch, but if you want us to keep checking just leave it on :) SGGH ^speak! 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal Attacks from User:Cebactokpatop

I've moved the request for comment concerning Cebactokpatop's edits onto the Wikiquette alerts page. But as with the last time I posted something on there, I am getting no feedback. I wonder if you could have a look at the User_talk:Cebactokpatop page and give some comment?

Seminarist (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Be patient, and give them some time. You can't always expect an immediate answer. If nothing happens in a day or so, we'll explore other avenues. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

K.K. Singh

Sorry, I got distracted, I'll finish the article at a later date. Singh is a decorated Indian Army general.

Cheers 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion/University of Mysore

RE: Talk:Google Book Search#University of Mysore + your 3rd opinion The verified citations, while seemingly persuasive for you, remain inadequate for the editor whose position was earlier informed by an out-of-date Google page ... and now this view has been apparently reinforced by a carelessly unresponsive e-mail from someone at Google. It would be helpful if you would re-visit this dispute with a construction suggestion about how to resolve an apparent impasse.

Despite the Google imprimatur, the current inaccuracies in this specific web page are relevant -- see [3]. Despite the 2008 dating at the bottom of the page, it is demonstrable that the site has not been maintained nor updated since the Google Books Library Project was first announced. In this context, it matters that Sidney Verba, the head of Harvard University's library has resigned since this page was created. Verba was the point-man at Harvard in the negotiations which led to the Harvard-Google partnership; and his words are prominently featured on this out-of-date page. In addition, Ronald Milne, the former head of Oxford University's library, has since left Oxford for a position at the British Library. Milne's words are also featured. In addition, as noted above, some of the links no longer connect with relevant press release text at the partner institutions.

Perhaps a tentative step forward could involve modifying the article text to focus only on the original partner institutions -- the ones mentioned on the questioned Google page. A further sub-separate section could be developed for institutions like the University of Mysore which joined the partnership after the initial phase of development? --Tenmei (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Subbanna Ekkunndi

I urge you to read what I wrote in the discussion section of Ekkundi. You did not write the reasons why he is not notable.

He is a notable for 1. He got the best teacher award from the Government and 2. He is a great Kannada poet who earned Academy award for his poems. How many in India get the best teacher award (AND) also at the same time the best poet Academy Award from Government? Give me your statistics. I would say he is one among 100,000

In India these are considered as one of respectable awards. You need to check this with someone from India (especially from Karnataka state) before you decide to delete. I'm trying to get the list of books (poem collections)of Ekkundi. He may not be world famous, but definitely he is famous in Karnataka. I'm trying add his name on wikipedia to the list of people popular in Dharwar district or in Karnataka. Hold-on until then or delete if you are not convinced. It is your call.

Tangi-tamma (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Groove Street Gang Varkala

Anybody, except for the article's creator, can remove a csd tag for any reason, or no reason at all. If you think Groove Street Gang Varkala should be deleted, you'll probably need to take it to WP:AFD. Corvus cornix_talk 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Fariñas

HelloAnnyong,i only try to agree a new name to the cuban composer's list.I don't Know what happend.Please Can you help me? Vicond (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I marked the page for deletion because there's nothing on it; the only text on the page is his name. You should add more to the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes ok.But I can see others articles in wiki without information,only with the name.no? Vicond (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

About Haluha :)

..HelloAnnyong

I see you have tagged "my talk page" for speedy deletion, Im sory my fault - I thought the 'my talk page' was something similar to a profilepage where you can add some info about your self.. at that time I didnt knew what to write so I added something simple.. but I see now (by your explanation) that it doesnt fit very well :(

I also see you have removed my defination of the word Haluha, but I didnt get a reason for that (if you have one I would like to read that too).

If possible I wanted this to be added to Wikipedia:

Haluha = Hi, Howdy, Hello, Hola, Ola, Aloha, Geia, Ciao, Oiê

The word is often used as a greeting or as a happy expression.. ex. Haluha World :)

..if its not possible then please let me know.

Thanks

--Haluha (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

..when can I exspect an answer? you dont seem to have a vallid email, or you have choosen not to recieve mails.. :(

Sorry. If you want that added to an actual Wikipedia article, you're not going to get it. There's nothing encyclopedic about that. Add it to your user page if you want. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand that - thanks for the reply :) --Haluha (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Helping with the backlog

Thanks for wanting to help out! You can pick any item in WP:BL and go to work, or if you want to work on the most backlogged areas, there's pages needing cleanup, articles lacking sources, and articles with unsourced statements. If you're like me and image backlogs are more your style, there's images which should be ing PNG and images that should be in SVG. Good luck! east.718 at 20:29, February 24, 2008

Hmm, articles with unsourced statements is a pretty easy one to do. Just pick one, find all the "citation needed" tags, and delete anything that should be sourced. east.718 at 20:07, February 25, 2008

Sorry,Carlos Fariñas again

Please, you can help me asking if I can put only the name of this famous composer on the cuban composers's list or not? This is a very important name to the cuban music. I can work more on this article in the future but now I think that is a good idea, put this name on the list for the moment like a general information.Thank you. Vicond (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this list of Cuban composers? I can't find it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK.this is the category Category:cuban composers

So,this composer have the same relevance of Leo Brouwer. Vicond (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but those are actual articles. You need to create the article first, and then mark it with a category. Your article was originally deleted because it had no text in it. Put some text in the article, and then you can add it to the category. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Allright.Thank you. Vicond (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"A pox on both your houses"

Do you know this phrase from Shakespeare? In the play "Romeo and Juliet," one of the characters is fed up with the fued between the Capulets and Montagues. He curses both clans for their fueding which profits no one. Your unwelcome comments at Talk:Japanese era name#Disputed citation struck me as a kind of variation on that sort of common-sense logic.

However, it is entirely off-base; and I will seek no more third opinions from well-meaning third parties if it means that I am simply to be soiled because of anything to do with User:Bueller 007. The edits of this specific editor are consistently offensive across a range of subjects and articles; and if my efforts to disperse the problem somehow makes more problems for me. Thanks, but no thanks.

Who's kidding who?

As far as I can tell, User:Bueller 007 logs on to Wikipedia in order to release some kind of youthful angst or frustration, but I'm unwilling to tolerate peronsla abuse. Sometimes I begin to get the idea that there's a peculiar kind of stalking at play -- and I'm a too easy prey. Why should I log on to Wikipedia for such unwelcome experiences. No -- that disincentive is not something I need or want.

Let's review: (1) He made a critical edit -- fine. (2) I provided a verified source -- fine. (30 No -- that's not good enough?

If he has a problem with the source, he should take it up with Harold Bolitho at Harvard or with the Columbia University Press -- NOT me. In my view, until User:Bueller 007 finds another verified source to supplant or contradict mine, this "dispute" is nothing but a bizarre exhibit of pique. No.

I sought a third opinion as a way to deal with an intrusive annoyance. I wanted to diffuse an obnoxious pest ... or perhaps, at best, to figure out a way to re-focus the exchange so that it will be less odious, less pernicious in this or any other setting. Instead, you tell ME to cool off.

The rationale is compelling from your point of view; but it misses the point. Or, alternately, I'm the one who has missed the point.

The hortatory admonition to try to ignore offensive edits is not helpful. In fact, it's a source of renewed frustration and confusion.

User:Bueller 007 ≠ Good Faith -- so what now? What if this were true -- just suppose.

Do you even begin to understand or appreciate my concerns? Or does this venue make it impossible to express informed, justified indignation and battle fatigue? --Tenmei (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Uh.. chill out. I understand you're aggravated (and are visibly angry), but what in my third opinion was that offensive? You didn't even ask for the 3O, 24.199.75.152 did. Unless that's you, in which case I didn't know; I can't magically associate anon IPs with users. So maybe I didn't comment on the Tenpyo-shoho thing, but I think my opinion on the matter solves the problem. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I still had this talk page on my watchlist (don't remember why)... entertaining reading. I have neither the time nor the inclination to understand the subject matter you guys are arguing about, but I have seen Annyong's name on MANY pages and have never seen him/her give anything but civil, well-mannered input on a variety of subjects. 'Certainly nothing in Annyong's posts on the talk page in question should have been construed as an insult, nor did it warrant this manifesto. That's all for my unwelcome comments. Paisan30 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Paisan, thank you for your warm comments. They're much appreciated. Oh, and I'm male. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Say whaaat?

Clearly, my prose caused your specially chosen User talk:HelloAnnyong-link to have specially applicable relevance here. Your unique, open-handed, generous "say whaaat?" becomes a question I do want to answer.

I wholeheartedly agree with the emphasized sentence in User:Paisan30's comment above (which I have emphasized with green). Specifically, nothing you wrote could have been construed as an insult -- nor was anything misunderstood by me to have been an insult. NO -- absolutely nothing. In fact, the way in which you parsed issues in Japanese era name#Disputed citation demonstrated a salutory, recognizeable, "correct" dispute-settlement strategy. Your input worked very well in a process of improving the article in question at Google Book Search#University of Mysore and your input helped improve the corollary Google Books Library Project. I have no reservation about apologizing for giving any impression that I felt insulted by you.

It will take a few minutes for me to construct a response which demonstrates conclusively that my apology is genuine, unfeigned, sincere. In no sense did I intend to give offense, and I'm truly sorry that my words were so misunderstood. I'm posting this so that my expression of regret can be available for you to read without delay.

There is one small problem remaining -- I'm not contrite. You construed my words as an offensive screed. I regret you misconstrued my words, and I regret more that I wrote so poorly that my words could be misconstrued. I should have tried to do better. As I understand it now, your response and that of User:Paisan30 means that you both understood all my questions as merely rhetorical. What I was writing from beginning to end was well and truly a reaching-out, angry, desperate, backed-into-a-corner plea for help. Each question was genuine, honest, true. I was asking real question with real consequences, but it did me no good at all to appear like a rabid dog, lathered at the mouth and barking meaninglessly.

My mild-toned defense, such as it is, begins with a modest request that you re-consider just a few of the words I wrote:

" ... you tell ME to cool off. The rationale is compelling from your point of view; but it misses the point. Or, alternately, I'm the one who has missed the point."

I regret that my words were construed as a diatribe aimed at you; but if I had re-ordered my prose so that this were to have been the topic sentence, would it have made a difference?

You may simply wish for me to go away. Enough already. If so, fine. Alternately, you may be willing to try to assist me in developing a better strategy for dealing with a vexing dilemma which has been five months in the making. --Tenmei (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's alright. I'm just not sure what your whole diatribe was about. So here, let's start over. You tell me what was wrong about the opinion I gave, and perhaps we can come to a more amicable solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked for the 3rd opinion, and this must have seemed like poor thanks indeed. As I construed it, your presentation was "correct", unimpeachable, modest, reasonable. You selected elements of what you saw in both sides of a dispute and proposed a solution which stretches out beyond the confines of the murky present towards a less-muddied future. The analysis was based on the facts at hand. In no sense did you do anything "wrong."

But whatever is going on with User:Bueller 007 stretches back to early August. At best, his style can be characterized as abrasive, abrupt, insensitive. My reserves of resilience, patience, and tolerance have been over-stretched; and those to whom I might have hoped to turn for advice, counsel, assistance, suggestions have not been forthcoming. The 3rd opinion process offerd a possibility which had not worked in the past, but I reasoned that the failure could have been mine -- a mistake in not pressing further for help in formulating a better strategy for dealing with User:Bueller 007 ....

So first: (1) Do you understand that I recognize your strategy. (2) Do you understand that I don't, in principle, disagree with the reasonableness of that strategy, nor do I doubt that it turns out, more often than not, to be entirely efficacious? (3) Do you understand that my apology is sincere for having caused you to feel attacked?

If so, I am relieved.--Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The apology above is consistent with what I've said about User:HelloAnnyong at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Disputed citation. I hope you will construe my remarks there as supporting the assertion that I do want to discover constructive strategies to deal with a pernicious problem I can't seem to resolve by myself. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept your apology. I think there's two issues at hand here: the first referring to the content on Japanese era name, and the second is your issues with Bueller. 3O is generally reserved for content disputes; WP:WQA is better suited for issues with users. However you deal with that issue is not my concern; I'll leave you to deal with that as you see fit. I would however remind you that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution between users, both users come under scrutiny.

My concern right now is dealing with the issues at Japanese era name. Leaving aside your issues with Bueller, let's focus solely on the content and deal with the issues at hand. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironstone Vineyards article

Hi,

Thanks for the help on the Ironstone Vineyards page.

For the ranking in the US, we have the reference for the 2004 rankings that put Ironstone at #17 in the US. We know that two of the bigger wineries have been acquired by even bigger wineries. So, what's the best way to show the new ranking (#15) and reference the two later consolidations?

Also, can the lead notes on "advertisement" and "verification" be removed?

Thanks!

MikeVdP (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think drawing that conclusion from the sources counts as WP:SYN, which is not allowed. I'm not positive on that, but I think we should err on the side of caution. Until new sources come out, I'm not sure we should add it. I removed the advertisement tag, but we can't remove the verification tag until we have citations for everything. See where it says [citation needed] after several sentences? We need sourcing for that. Once we have that, then we can remove the tag. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

HelloAnnyong, I am working on creating a page for GreenLight Collectibles and I saw that you thought the page was an advertisement, you were worried about the notability and the lack of references. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to keep this page around just like various other die-cast toy companies. What do I have to do so that it is not incorrect? I have changed the references to what I think is correct and I have also tried to make the wording as informative as possible. Any direction would be great! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecast-Greenlight (talk • contribs) 15:46, February 27, 2008

First, you're a conflict of interest. By working for the company, you run the risk of being inherently biased towards them, so you need to tread very lightly on what you edit with regards to the topic. First and foremost, you need to prove why the company is notable. Read WP:COMPANY for more on this, but according to Wiki policy, a company is notable if "if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources."

This brings me to the next point: all of the references you list are invalid. This is because they're all links back to the Greenlight site, which is a primary source. You need to find reliable secondary sources to back up what's on the site. This can be anything from magazine articles about the company to news articles - blogs and such are not allowed for this. Again, look at WP:COMPANY for what sources are acceptable and which are not.

Finally, it reads like an advertisement, in part, due to the Product lines section. All of those extra links after each line have to go. This should be a pretty good start for you. I know it can be daunting at first, but there is the potential to succeed here, I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I am going through and making the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecast-Greenlight (talk • contribs) 20:59, March 3, 2008

Eastern Synod

Hi HelloAnnyong, the page which was just created falls under the lutherism project of wiki. It should be noted that the info in question is not copyright material and is in the public domain. (As it is a policy statement for the entire synod) - I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Annyong!

OMG I love it!!! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

We both got the Segma article. Yours and mine. I didn't notice your PROD tag. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoosh! And then it was gone.

Hello and Anyong to you, too. Thank you! Article was Speedy'd before I could {{hangon}}. I didn't intend it to be blatant advertising, but if that's how it read, then so be it. Were it me, I would have tagged {{db-pompous self-importance}}, {{db-pale version of original}}, {{db-groundless arrogance}}. Oops, I'm editorialising on the subject of the deleted article rather than commenting on the deleted article itself. Mmm. I guess it was wrong for me to start an article just so its subject could be relentlessly pilloried. :-) Thanks again.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hershel Schachter

Can you help me get this page semi protected? I am sorry I am so bad at these wikipedia processes but this is the first time I asked for third opinion or protection. Thanks so much for weighing in on the talk page as well. --Chakira (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You got it almost right; you just needed to add "la" in the header - {{la|Hershel Schachter}}. I went ahead and fixed it. Best of luck! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Long Island secession

In the list of New York State proposals you forgot to mention the Independent Long Island project. It has received formal media attention through articles in the Long Island Business News blog and The New York Times, and is quite active and interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.14.35 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Given that you have an embarassingly paltry 2000 or so mainspace edits to Wikipedia in over 2 years, why do you not actually try to contribute something positive to Wikipedia instead of getting on board the deletionist bandwagon? You might actually find you learn something. Or else....we can have it out. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, man. I'm just trying to come to a decent solution here... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that marking something for a speedy 4 minutes after it is up without checking on it at all is plenty unWP:CIVIL and in our current climate, might be grounds for sanctioning. So what do you say? --Filll (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you threatening me, but I'm not particularly in the mood to turn this into something. Let's just wait for someone else to settle the CSD, and then we can go our own separate ways. Would that be alright? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

San Antonio Spurs

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Thanks for your help with the Spurs site. I haven't noticed anyone in the past month on there registering any other opinions on keeping the "Reputation" sectoin, which as you said, needs work. The last person said he or she was fine with deleting the section or only putting one or two sentences in another section. I'm fine with that, too. Jacksonthor (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legislative

Hey thanks for your message. It does look as though AfD would be the best approach. My only problem is I don't have the time right now to do it! Thanks, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)