Jump to content

User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Could you please explain?

This edit? Under the circumstances, the word "appear" would seem to be the loaded word. Most geologists of the early 19th century supported a young Earth view. However, as evidence turned against that view, even Adam Sedgwick, a well-known creationist and catastrophist, was forced to concede to the uniformitarian viewpoint. I suggest that the wording be restored to its original version. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reverse your current edit, actually; contrary to what you wrote, you didn't "improve overall wording." Specifically, "...had determined that the Earth was far older than a literal interpretations" is improper grammar and doesn't really make sense. I removed "increasingly obvious" because it's a loaded term. To whom is it increasingly obvious? The world? I'd like to see a source that says that sort of thing, actually. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed the issue you noted with my edit. (I removed the spurious s after "interpretation".) I have also done away with the "increasingly obvious" language. I think the new version may address your concerns as well as my own. Could you please have a look at it? I have posted it to Talk:Gap creationism. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Girls Next Door Book

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Next-Door-Paul-Ruditis/dp/1416592407/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225243160&sr=8-7 I put it on the page because most people don't even know it is coming out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gellarsgrudge (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Look at that. Until there's definitive proof that this is an official book that needs to be mentioned on this page, it still shouldn't be included. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Hello! I'm from Mainland China. May I venture to ask your nationality? ----自由华夏 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Um.. that's sort of a weird question. But I'm American. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition on diambiguation page

I replied to your third opinion on the Glamour (disambiguation) talk page. I'm wondering if we can include on the disambiguation page:

Glamour or Glamor may refer to:
Glamour, alluring beauty or charm (often with sex-appeal);
(Then the other uses)

This is how that page was before it was changed recently, and I think an accurate definition would be good to include if we're going to include article explanations on other uses (including an expired definition) of the term. What do you think?ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Calculated Risk

Hi HelloAnnyong, You're quick--you put up a notability tag on my page before I finished editing it. Do you think it deserves the tag when it's about a blog which was the subject of an article in the New York Times (in the references list), and which, as pointed out in the article, receives 75,000 hits a day? Thanks, Terrace4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:11, December 1, 2008.

I do. WP:WEB says that one way to establish notability is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Multiple in this case. Find another source and we're in business. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good enough now? Ranked #4 and #2 among economics blogs by traffic. Terrace4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:20, December 1, 2008.
Yeah, that's okay. I've removed the notability tag. Also, are you signing your comments with three or four tildes? I had to go and manually add the dates to your previous comments... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while, and forgot how to sign. Does the article deserve the citations tag? Everything that's stated in it was stated in either the New York Times article or one of the rankings, all of which are included in the references list. Thanks, Terrace4 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I removed the citations tag. It's better now. As the page expands, though, citations should be ever present. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, HelloAnnyong. I don't see why the citations tag was ever placed on it--everything in the original page was in the NYT article that was cited from the beginning. I must say I get the feeling you're quick to tag pages for deletion, notability, citations, etc. I used to do that, too, until someone complained that I hadn't let them finish their initial edits. I now think it's more useful, as an editor, to first check the facts of the page out before putting on the tag, and if possible just make the appropriate edits yourself (as, to be fair, you did when you added the references section to my page). That way, you don't scare off people who may be new to all this but have something to contribute. Plus, I find I can now look back at my contributions as my own, rather than just having told someone else to clean up the page. Thanks, Terrace4 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Derech Etz Chaim page

Hi do you know something about the deletion of the new page I wrote Derech Etz Chaim.

I'm new here and its true I don't know what I'm doing. It seems like you have been doing this for some time. If you could help me out on what to do next I would appreciate it.

I just started using Wikipedia Dec 1st 2008. I created a page for a yeshiva Derech Etz Chaim which got deleted. The reason given was blatant advertising. I modeled my page after similar yeshiva pages such as Aish HaTorah, Torat Shraga, Eretz HaTzvi, etc. I worked very hard on it and wrote it in good faith. I thought I was within the guidelines of wikipedia although I admit I am unfamiliar with all the bylaws. I just want the Derech Etz Chaim page properly represented in Wikipedia. I do work there so I do support it but I didn't think any information in the article was not objective. If someone would suggest to me how I should edit it or which parts appear to be advertising I would be happy to revise it.

Thank you, Betzalel Gersten BetzalelGersten (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry your page got deleted. The larger problem is that there's no specific criteria for whether or not schools should be included on Wikipedia. However, copying and pasting text from the official website - which is what it seemed you had done - is most certainly unacceptable around here. The other articles you mentioned are filled with inappropriate text; for example, a school's daily schedule should not be included. In general, you want the text of your article to be backed up by other sources. Some things can be backed up by primary sources, but in general you want secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, etc. If you want to look at other articles to compare yours to, you may want to check out the featured/good articles list at WikiProject Schools.
What you may want to do is first create your article in your own Sandbox space - at a page like User:BetzalelGersten/Derech Etz Chaim and work on the article there. Once you get something that you think is acceptable, have someone look it over. I'll take a look at it if you want. Once that's good, then we can talk about moving it to mainspace. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tjmagoo

On 4 December 2008 you posted a block warning on User talk:Tjmagoo. Despite the warning, this user has today vandalized Cyprus. FYI. --Zlerman (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed a warning on the user's page. If they do it again, report it at WP:AIV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: Someone else got to it, and that user is indef blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

interwiki for Glossary of blogging

please do not revert my modifications, the interwikis are wrong as they link to pages that only discuss the single term blogroll. interwikis should link to perfect matches of the pages' topics (see meta:Help:Interwiki linking#Interlanguage link); otherwise, why link it:Blogroll and not it:Podcasting, for example? Balabiot (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason the bots are linking blogroll to the glossary page is because "blogroll" redirects. There was an AfD decision on this. It used to go to "List of blogging terms", but that was moved to the glossary. Point is that it's not fallacious; if people on other wikis want to see the English page for blogroll, they would have to check the glossary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to the talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

I've been here several years, so regrettably you can't "welcome" me. Such boilerplate "welcomes" of established users are often construed as insulting; it's often better to actually write to the person rather than use inappropriate templates that don't really apply. Your note is particularly unhelpful, given that it's mistaken with regard to the facts, and links to a guideline that has no application to the situation at hand. But feel free to take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have half as many edits as you do, but with as many edits as you have, I'm surprised that you would edit a user's comment on a talk page. Also, that section of WP:TPG does describe what you did. It says "do not edit others' comments, including signatures", and you changed an editor's words in this edit. The warning I left was a template so perhaps it wasn't the best choice, but the message was still there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't take the time to determine the actual facts; I changed nothing in any other person's signed comments: the edit conflict resolution software simply used an old diff of that person's comments. You really ought to accurately assess a situation before intervening, and if you do choose to intervene, you need to do so less clumsily, because this kind of intervention is going to exacerbate rather than resolve difficulties. - Nunh-huh 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Fine, fine. I didn't accurately follow what was going on. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Accepted happily and thankfully. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewel State and 7 Days episode "Empty Quiver"

According to Schedules Direct, the original air date of this particular episode was Wed March 21, 2001. This means that although 7 Days aired from 1998 to 2001, Jewel appeared in only this one particular episode as the character "Molly". I'll know more of the name come Dec 23, 2008 when this episode airs again on Spike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.26.141 (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Email spam discussion is still difficult

Hi HelloAnnyong, thank you very much for giving your opinion about email spam article ☆ Nevertheless, the debate is very difficult. So I want to resign. I you want, you can see the state of the debate looking at Talk:E-mail_spam#Postage-due and also the comments in the edit history of the article itself. But I think I will no more participate, at least for a quite long time, because for example I have no idea of how a consensus would appear. But, once more, thank you very much for your help. Almeo (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be a little busy in the next day or two, but I'll try to stop by the page and give my thoughts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thanks for your efforts to help with 3Os. In future, please make sure to always take my side. Ho ho ho!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Travis Price page

thank you for your review.

the reason why there isn't discussion on the Price page is because the editor in question (Realkyhick) started making comments on my username page and I felt it best to keep the discussion where it started. I am not calling into question orangemike's credibility, but if you look at the bottom of his talk page User talk:Orangemike, you will see (Realkyhick), the editor in question, asking orange to review it.

Shortly after wards, orange deleted my 3rd party request and made an edit on the price page giving an incorrect reason for it.

This did not smell like an objective 3rd party review to me and in fact was more like "teaming up"/meatpuppetry.

I am just trying to make a decent article on a household name in architecture and noted in the creation tag less than 48 hours ago it was going to be expanded upon. I will leave the page to others to sort out now that it has come to this destructive end.

I've lost a lot of respect for this site in this process —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynewart (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had such an awkward start with editing here, but you have to understand that there are a very well-defined set of rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, and they need to be followed. As a follow-up, if Travis Price really was a household name in architecture, then there would be a lot more articles about him; a person doesn't get famous without having anything written about them. Find sources for what you wrote and you'll be good to go. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thanks for being human about it! As I mentioned, I planned to add tons of citations I had for the page. Most are in actual BOOKS, so it takes a second to compile them to meet wiki standards. It was Christmas yesterday and the page is less than 2 days old, so time has been an issue. I have spent more than double the time responding to all these issues than I did writing the initial page. Frankly, know I give up because I feel anything I do will be biased by the editors in question. They complain about something not being there, after the erroneously delete it from the page themselves. It is almost insane. If they knew the subject they would let creators get the page going before they destroy it - especially when I noted I would be adding citations- its just a holiday. And if they were a smidgen kinder like you are, this would never have happened. I have no emotional investment in the subject other than the fact I know the work and saw him lecture at harverd. there are tons of articles about him. Eventually someone will squeak a page through about him. this one is a mess now and anything I do will be deleted by Realkyhick, I can tell. I meant he went so far as to subvert my request for a review? What kind of person does that lol-- Nynewart (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, you shouldn't have created the article without making sure that the notability criteria were satisfied. I just added two sources that I found, one from the Washington Post and one from the NY Times, so I believe that notability has been met. Be careful with your additions, though - don't add anything that can't be cited, avoid any sort of editorializing, and echo exactly what is in the sources. I'm watching the page now, so I'm going to make sure that it holds up to both Wiki's and my standards. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ann; that's all I was looking for (although Nynewart thinks differently). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I put a citation back in where you asked for one. It had existed before but was deleted by Mike, I believe erroneously as he thought it was Price's site and it is not. I also mentioned in my dialogue with Realkyhick that I would be posting those sources you used along with others - in between opening kid's presents. I will actually keep to my word now and leave the page to others so the admin don't think I am trying to own it. Thanks for keeping it alive though and have a great new year! -- Nynewart (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

continuing uncivil comments by Realkyhick

Hi Ann,

I have laid this issue and page to rest, but Realkyhick continues to keep opening the wound by posting uncivil remarks on my talk page (see the history at: User talk:Nynewart). Would you please have a word with this User talk:Realkyhick? It's getting to the point of harassment. I've asked several times for him to stop and cool off, yet he keeps coming back making snide comments. I've given up on the Price page as you know and wished him well. If you aren't an admin, can you point me to one that can get him off my back? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynewart (talk • contribs) 03:47, December 27, 2008

Sorry man, but that's not my fight. You chose to open a WQA against him, so you need to accept the consequences of your actions. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

USER WASP12345

User WASP12345 is a repeat vandaliser of the MISS TOURISM WORLD entry simply becasue he / she does not like the facts, even though factual sources are provided can the page not be protected to stop this vandalism (411GURU (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Third opinion - List of tools for static code analysis

Greetings HelloAnnyong! I see you provided a third opinion on a separate but similar issue to one I'm having on Talk:List of tools for static code analysis. I was wondering if you could also take a look at the sections titled "GrammaTech" and "CP Miner", where there appear to be issues with the meaning of WP:N and what is and is not appropriate in Stand alone lists. The current discussion is regarding the appropriateness of a product called PC-Lint, but I'm more interested in the question in the generic sense. Thanks, and happy editing! -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.155.139 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I'm pretty sure that this edit is vandalism. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering 3rd opinion on No-Kill Shelter

I followed your suggestion and filed an edit warring complaint. Hopefully this editor will adjust his editing style to be friendlier and more compatible with Wiki standards. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will, after he admit to being spiteful, dense and incapable of basic reading comprehension.--Dodo bird (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page of No-kill shelter. Your comment above, however, does border on WP:NPA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Komapsamnida

Cheers for the page protection on North Korea, im glad theres others sorting these pages out and keeping a close watch.--CorrectlyContentious 08:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Qasimiya

You changed the article to a redirect. Actually there are two orders at Mohra Sharif that claim to be the current custodians of the shrine. That is why in the main page I only mentioned their names and then have created two different pages to further describe each order. Please advise if you have any thoughts/concerns about it.

خرم Khurram (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I redirected since both pages are essentially identical. The text on this edit of Qasimiya and this edit of Mohra Sharif have so much in common that they're basically the same. If you want to discuss the claims, then do it on the same page. There's no reason to have two separate pages.
By the way, while we're on the subject, your edits on both pages are entirely inappropriate. For one, you cite no sources for anything, so as far as I know, it's all original research. Second, the tone of the articles is all wrong. Phrases like "to propagate the beautiful teachings" and "as done by his forefathers" should not be used on Wiki articles. This isn't a place to venerate people you respect; this is supposed to be a neutral place where you just describe the people and what they've done. Claims like "He was loved and respected by millions across the world" need sourcing - you can't just make claims like that and expect them to stay here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry. I did not write that page. I just transferred it and made a few modifications (minor ones at that). I only cleaned up the Mohra Sharif page and reorganized it. I shall work to clean up the Qasimiya page as well and make it like Nisbat-e-Rasooli but currently just in the initial phases of this work. I completely agree with your comments regarding Qasimiya but need more time to make things up to the standards. خرم Khurram (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are now engaged :o), can you please help me cleaning up Nisbat-e-Rasooli page? The things reported are present in books written in Urdu and I am confused as to how to reference them? Also you might be a better person to judge the tone of the article since I cannot be completely neutral on the subject.

Many Thanks. خرم Khurram (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about these topics at all, but I can certainly attempt to check the pages for tone and such. As to the question of references, take a look at WP:CITE. For the reference tables themselves, take a look at WP:CITET. I can help with that as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have started cleaning up Qasimiya and it shall take some time. Please bear with me during this time :o). I shall have a look at the citation pages as well. Thanks for the reference.

خرم Khurram (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Guidance

We are trying to be good Wikipedia citizens and follow the rules, and to do so overtly as User: GrammaTech. When someone created the GrammaTech page on January 23, a customer contacted us to say "Hey, your page is tagged for possible deletion. You should probably fix it.", we felt it appropriate to step in and, with your participation, address the issues you had raised. Being rank novices at this, we greatly appreciate your advice in what we do now.

GrammaTech (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Silent Hill 5

"Crowshaw's Zero Punctuation review was generally negative, stating that while the level design, story and combat were all competent the game had little to do with what he liked about the Silent Hill series and would have been better served as a completely different franchise."

This section of the SH5 wiki page is citing a review that isn't considered professional. Zero Punctuation is not factored into scores such as metacritic or gamerankings and he is widely known to take extreme viewpoints for the purpose of humour. Including him as a citation is incredibly misleading to people who don't know that Croshaw is a comedic reviewer and hardly a professional. I hardly consider my edit to be vandalism, but rather an improvement that should be taken seriously. Again, vandalism was not my intention. If that is going to be in the article then it should at least mention that he is a comedic reviewer as I attempted to edit in originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.56.111 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell "An Hero" Henderson in Unusual Deaths

I didn't think that was vandalism. It's all over the internet. I guess the article should be restricted to unusual manners of death, rather than unusual causal factors that led to what is by all accounts a fairly pedestrian means of pwning one's self. Sorry, I won't repost then.216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Teppanyaki

Hello. I am curious as to why you removed [1] virtually all of the information that was imported into this article when Flaming onion volcano was merged into it [2], [3]. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it really just seemed like too much weight was being given to the topic. Admittedly I didn't realize that it was the result of a merge, so my apologies on that. I'll revert myself. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Sanchez

I un-PRODed because there seems to be consensus that professional athletes are notable per-se if they played even once, and in some cases even if they got paid without playing. Feel free to raise on AfD, but I am making it a stub and fixing some issues.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Slap Chop

Totally CSD'ed it. No one creates an article called "SlapShot (TM)" and then adds nothing more than a link to the website. SPAM!! :) §FreeRangeFrog 08:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I was trying to not be totally deletionist with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Phelps

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're keeping an eye on the Jimi Hendrix / Fred Phelps worshipper. What a combination, eh? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why it is too much?

The article is o.k. up to my latest addition. Even kansan bear corrected the missing information at this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&oldid=269936650 But reverted content is not only the latest but all my edits. This is not fair. --Atilim Borlu (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what he did. Yes, that revert was a bit heavy handed. Let's discuss on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Demand Media

I saw your prod on Demand Media and am aware that it has been deleted multiple times because of COI. It doesn't help that the originating author has no history and has a username that starts with "DM" All that said, I would prefer that the article not be speedily deleted again. It's on my watchlist because of a contribution I made a long time ago about it trashing the maps of Topozone (which was a wikipedia source for topo maps on articles). Yes there are excesses but they can cleaned up after the article stabilizes for a few days. The websites it owns are indeed major. I will probably put something similar on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to put the article up for CSD; all I did was tag it. Seems like you have it under control, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will probably wait a week or so to clean up the excesses. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

latest Malwarebytes revert

I reverted your last revert, I think that since MBAM is clearly defined at the beginning of the article - it is quite acceptable in following paragraphs. Since it was further down in the article however - I did also place the "Malwarebytes (MBAM)" entry as a compromise. I hope you find that acceptable. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for taking an interest in my dispute with Opinoso.

I fear he will not agree with mediation; last time someone tried, he declined.

I'm sincerely getting to the limit. If things continue like that, I'm going to do what most others Brazilian editors who crossed this guy's way did: simply quit. It's a pity, because he's making Wikipedia unreliable, but I cannot mend the world alone.

Cheers, Donadio (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my patience is exhausted. I'm going to quit. I also want to take back all my contributions. How can I do that? Donadio (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you're taking the easy way out there. But, um... I don't think you can just delete your account outright. You can mark yourself as retired. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems the Wikicracy supports Opinoso's view that I am a vandal, a liar, a bad faith poster, a manipulator of figures, possibly a racist, an ignorant person, etc. So I'm taking back my contributions: I won't work for free for people who don't give me any respect or recognition, and, on the contrary, watch me being abused by a vulgar troll without taking any action. I suppose the converse is true: that Wikipedia doesn't want contributions from lying idiots like me. So I'm erasing them. It's going to be interesting to notice whether erasing my own "vandalism" is going to be also considered vandalism on its own merits...

But really, I don't believe in the project any more. "Verifiability not truth" is seen by some as a challenge to fill this with false information and attempt to make it stay on grounds of being "verifiable" (ie, having been once written by someone). I'm out from this byzantine game; let people think Portuguese is spoken with a Spanish accent in Rio Grande do Sul, what do I have to lose with it? I just don't want anyone, in the future, to believe I have anything to do with Wikipedia and its mistakes.

Sorry for bothering you with that; I know I am somehow punishing you for being one of the few people who even tried to listen. Donadio (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent article nominated for deletion

Hey, you're the one who initially tagged the 'four letter game' article for deletion. You mind heading back on over to the page and letting me know if there's anything else I need to improve to prevent deletion? It's at nine references so far (three of which are links to flash games you can play to see an example of the game in action), and I should have another one up by the end of the day (hopefully this adresses the 'made up in one day' issue). I found eight related hits in the first four pages on a google search, so I'm not sure if that qualifies it as 'notable.'

Thanks, --SJakeK (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Flight Safety Foundation

Please refer to "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation" on WP:SPEEDY. Nominating a page immediately after creation when the page is being constructed is inapropriate. --neon white talk 19:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the article really doesn't demonstrate any notability. You created it with only one line of text and a reference to the official website. You should have marked it as under construction or something like that, or at least given enough sources to mark its notability. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Spongebob Saw

Hello, I have removed your g3 speedy on this article. It looks like a good faith edit, so it does not constitute vandalism. However, feel free to prod, or speedy it regarding another csd policy if you wish. FingersOnRoids 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw; already done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: someone got the article as WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michel Delville

With all due respect, I fail to understand why my attempt to appeal for a Third Opinion was reverted in the first place (although I must apologize for making my second attempt a failure by not resorting to the sandpage). My main question was and remains: how long can a page remain in a sate of option and hence given a bad name ("this is an autobiogaphy & this guy's only promoting his work", etc.?) after all the queries and objections of a single edtor have been addressed? Many thanks in advance for your help and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdelville (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your only edits on Wikipedia were to the 3O page, you were linking to an article that doesn't exist, and you deleted every other listing on the 3O page so only yours showed up. How can anyone expect to give an opinion like that? What article are you even talking about? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you tag my page for speedy deletion?

Are you such a snog that you can deem me insignificant with out knowing a thing about me and my history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micfri (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First, no personal attacks. Second, we have notability criteria here for people - it's called WP:BLP, and it's pretty strict. And your article didn't meet those criteria. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Malwarebytes

Hi HelloAnnyong. Hopefully I'm not quite as clueless as I was when you first met me ;). Anyway, I've added more content to the article, just letting you know so you can check or tweak the info. I know you used to work on the article, and didn't know if you still had an interest in it or not. I found some more content I hope to add over the next couple days too - so if you don't still have it on your watchlist and want to put it back on to track any changes, or tweak any content - I thought it would be nice to let you know. Hope life is treating you well, and Thanks — — Ched ~ (yes?) 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I took out a bunch of inline links that weren't really appropriate; they're covered by the references. I also removed the "this is being looked into" line since it's really awkward. And I'm not sure about that opening information; it doesn't really seem like that stuff about where the servers are located is all that important. I can't recall seeing it on other articles for similar companies... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
;) - Thanks, I mentioned the in-line links to someone a while ago, but couldn't remember where I had read it (probably WP:EL). I agree with server info - I'll clean that out next edit. On a side note, as much as my "wittle itty-bitty ego" got bruised a little in starting out - I do appreciate you abilities and knowledge of policy and guidelines. A "none of my business" curiosity thing, I saw someone refer to you as "Ann" once, didn't know if that was accurate or just something they pulled out of your sig? Also, I have a stub I started working on, may want you to take a look as I get a little further along. Anyway, appreciate your time and input - Thank You ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. That person was quite wrong; I am certainly not an Ann. (I'm male.) My username is a reference to Arrested Development. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... glad I asked instead of accepting as fact then. Heard of the show, but never saw it - (Time says top 100? Impressive!) Article says a movie is coming out though, I like Ron Howard's work - maybe I'll try to catch it. - Well, anyway - thanks for your help - appreciate it. — Ched ~ (yes?) 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dollhouse Music

Just wondering why the origin of the song sung by Rayna in "Stage Fright" isn't notable (and yet a list of songs featured in promos is)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysanthemum8908 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The song sung by her isn't notable enough to be included on the main article. For one, Kimberly Cole isn't notable enough to have her own article on Wikipedia (yet). It's also adding way too much weight to that one fact. Just like every song that has been in a Scrubs episode isn't included on its main page, so too this doesn't belong on the main Dollhouse page. Having said that, you might be able to argue that it's worthy of inclusion in the entry on List of Dollhouse episodes for that episode. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

References and Notes

I don't know if it's "becoming" the norm, or if it's always been that way and I just discovered it recently. All I know is that sometime recently, I read on places like here and here that the list of footnotes is called Notes, and the non-formatted list of sources used is called References. Up until recently, I incorrectly thought otherwise. Nightscream (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Location and square footage of Largest Sam's Club

Hello,

There is no published source cited for the existing erroneous information about the largest Sam's Club, and there is no existing published source (I looked far and wide) for the new, updated information I added. It is not "original research" but a true fact as stated by the authoritative source of Sam's Club construction information -- the corporate headquarters office.

If you feel it necessary to remove my information, then you should also remove the old erroneous information with no citation as well. Others are citing Wikipedia all over the Internet to say that the largest Sam's Club is in Utica, Michigan, when it is absolutely false.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.42.114 (talk • contribs) 16:04, March 24, 2009

I removed your edit because you wrote in the article that your source was a personal conversation with someone. We have pretty strict criteria on reliable sources. I'll leave it alone for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Grief counselling talk.

OK, I see that i was getting the articles mixed up. My comment was not deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 04:48, March 25, 2009

Twilight

I wasn't attacking anyone. I don't understand why you felt the need to remove my comment when I was suggesting that it would be nice to find a more appropriate citation. Jackal Killer (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, right. "it is true that Twilight sucks. Simply put, simply proved" isn't an attack? You could have found a better way to state what's on your mind. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I know I could have, but it's a proven fact that the Twilight series has almost no literary notability whatsoever. Am I going to spend all my time typing like this, especially when Twilight is one of the few things that actually annoys me? Most of my comment was perfectly acceptable and intellectual, while only that line was an "attack." In any case, I fail to see how I can attack a book, which is nothing more than an idea. Jackal Killer (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's nice. Yes, the books annoy me as well. (Full disclosure: never read any of them, never want to read any of them.) Having said that, we do still have Wikipedia rules, and we need to be neutral when we make edits here. However I feel about a topic is largely irrelevant when I'm editing here. As to why your comment was removed, the other big reason is WP:NOTFORUM - that is, talk pages are not meant to be used as a forum. If you want to go bash on the book or the series, take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that we edit the article itself to any particular view, it's just that on the talk pages you can't expect to remain neutral. You're there because you want to bring up something (per whatever your opinion is) and you feel it could potentially be added to the article in a neutral way.
I didn't bash on anyone, and while I did "attack" the series, I also suggested that any reliable source would be good. If anything, you could have done '[Edited by the Almighty Moderator]' or something, instead of deleting the entirety of my post. Jackal Killer (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of residential colleges

You previously commented on a dispute at List of Rice University residential colleges but the issue at the heart of that dispute appears to be more widespread. A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. Your input and feedback would be appreciated at the RFC. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dollhouse

You just removed a contribution I made to the article on this TV series. Evidently you thought it to be "original research" because I simply watch the show and you don't. I am tired of the attitude of this site and will not contribute any more. 71.34.184.29 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Les Henderson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Les Henderson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Munchkin77 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Help Please Noob

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Can you please tell me what I am doing wrong in regards to updating the griffith university website as well as adding additional links? And I apologise if I have caused an inconvenience

Thanks in Advance

Adrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianpegs (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The links you added violated WP:EL. This is not a place for you to advertise your group. Only entities that have been mentioned in secondary sources like newspapers or magazines should be mentioned in Wiki articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:3O

Thanks for the advice. I've been looking for a while to find the appropriate place to discuss these concerns. I don't imagine it comes up very often. I've been to both of those pages, and neither really fits. WP:ADMIN sort of tells me to go to dispute resolution. It says "Users may use dispute resolution to request comment on an administrator's suitability." I'm not really trying to get his sysop revoked over a single incident, but it is very concerning that, even after being warned about personal attacks, he still insists it was acceptable for him to do it, and indicates he will continue to do it in the future. If that truly is his attitude--and I hope it isn't--then I suppose he really shouldn't be a sysop. It certainly needs attention. We can't have users running around bullying people and vandalizing because they think a sysop flag means they own the place. If this were repeated, it would be cause for removal of adminship. I need someone else to weigh in on his comment on that user talk page, whether or not it is vandalism, or at least inappropriate behavior for a sysop. Hopefully, he will change his attitude and realize that profane personal attacks are not acceptable behavior for a sysop. If not, I will take it to WP:RFC, as recommended in WP:ADMIN, but I am not supposed to do that unless a third party has attempted to resolve the dispute. Thanks, and sorry for the long comment. DanielDeibler (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

Please do not add fact tags to statements you add yourself like you did with Kitchen Nightmares. This is a misuse of the tag. If you can't back a statement up with a source, do not add it. Don't add something and expect other people to do your work for you. Saying that the restaurant is "closed" and then attaching a "fact" tag to the end doesn't make it any more correct or verifiable. In fact, it appears to be a sneaky attempt to add original research, whether or not that was its intention. I hope this isn't something you do often, but please avoid doing this again. Thank you. --132 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I just found this source, which says "Also on the closure list are... The Mixing Bowl in Bellmore, New York." Any problems with that as a source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed a little blunt or harsh. Those two sections just have a tendency to be abused with hearsay and rumors all the time (usually several times every day). We're just tired of constantly having to revert additions without sources and additions with unreliable sources. To actually have an edit pop up that, not only doesn't have a source, but tells us to go and find one was just...ugh.
I don't see too much of a problem with that source. My only concern is that they don't say where they found their information and I'm also a little hesitant because they actually cite one unreliable source within the article (Eating Long Island). That makes me wonder if they just used all of those blog entries and review sites that people have attempted to use as sources in the article in the past. --132 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That's alright; I really should have thought about the edit before making it. No harm, no foul. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disney's Animal Kingdom

Hey there. I wanted to let you know that I undid your edit to the article for Disney's Animal Kingdom. Not that it was wrong or not made in good faith ... but to prevent a very nasty issue from flaring up again. The community got into a protracted edit war some months ago regarding where exactly Walt Disney World Resort is. The ultimate consensus was to leave that matter in the hands of the parent WDW article, and the reference the individual components (the theme parks, hotels, etc.) as being within Walt Disney World. So the general flow of things is that the attraction articles mention what park they are in, the park articles mention what resort they are in, and the resort articles mention what city/municipality they are in. Thus, in the case of Animal Kingdom, the article's lead statement says it is located in the Walt Disney World Resort, while the WDW article delves into whether or not the resort is within Orlando. I heartily invite you to read the talk page to find out more about what all went on and what I'm trying to prevent from occurring again. If you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. Thanks, and no hard feelings I hope. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? That sounds pretty lame to me. But whatever, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I had actually just finished reading WP:LAME when I refreshed my watchlist and saw the change. Couldn't agree more, to be honest. Wonder if I should add it to LAME and see what happens? We had sockpuppets, personal attacks, the whole nine yards. LOL --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Miho Fukuhara

Hey, thanks for helpingo ut a bit. (: If you wanna help me (i'm trying to make a very comprehensive set of wiki articles regarding j-pop singer Miho Fukuhara that would be seriously awesome! Thanks for your help so far. ;p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impracticable (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Field Emission Display resolution

Hi Hello! (Sorry, I could not resist a light-hearted greeting.) You are the second person who has deleted the request for assistance with the bulk deletion of articles and replacement with one-person's (mis)interpretation of the subjects. Would you be so kind as to tell me how reading my request and the other party's multi-level monologue suggests that the issue has been resolved?

I realize that Wikipedia is vigorous because of the admonition is to "be bold" but the other party in this disagreement is acting not as an "editor" but an author, deleting all the works of others and replacing with his own understanding of reality. Sadly, this well-intentioned and prolific contributor is generating massive amounts of errors, both subtle and outrageous to those "well versed in the art."

We are correctly admonished to not include "original research" but I find it difficult to accept copious misinterpretations of the public record by one who is operating out of his expertise. By being editors in disciplines of our expertise we can converge to an informal peer reviewed product using incremental edits.

Yes, I am frustrated and dismayed, not with you and your removal of my request for arbitration and clarification, but by a structure that seems to favor divergence from fact and disdain of the collaborative effort. I guess my skin is too thin to be a contributor to Wikipedia and I should return to the peer-reviewed journals in my field which have served my needs well for nearly forty years. Sadly, most of those tomes are not available to those who are not members of their (respective) Prestigious Societies. Wikipedia was intended to allow that information to be disseminated to all without massive membership fees.

Thanks for tolerating my rant. I'll go away now. OldZeb (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because there hasn't been any discussion on that page for two weeks, and there have been no constructive edits to the page for the same amount of time. You haven't edited the article since at least June 2008, if ever. If you haven't done anything to improve the article, why is it even listed? No one can give a 3O on a page that doesn't have a discussion on it. That's how 3O works: two people get into a disagreement about a page, and then a 3O helps to resolve that. Since there hasn't been any discussion and no edits, where's the conflict? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"You haven't edited the article since at least June 2008, if ever."
14 March 2007 actually. Many others were making reasonable and useful edits in the interim. The issue that troubled me appeared only recently.
Rather than participate in an edit war I chose to seek advice about "incremental editing versus wholesale re-writes." I asked the other party if he would consider reverting his wholesale deletion of the page and he replied: "No." I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was collaborative and not adversarial.
And BTW, all the material I had added to that page was copied intact into the latest, so it is not as if protection of my contributions is driving this -- it is my concern about the quality of the page and the lack of clarity about procedures used to contribute. OldZeb (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You could have made some edits, and even if they get reverted, then you discuss them - that's WP:BRD. The fact is that there hasn't been any heavy conversation, so there's not really much to give an opinion on. My advice would be to make a bunch of edits to the page where you demonstrably show that your edits have improved the page and leave a message on the talk page explaining your edits. If he reverts, then you discuss. And if you reach an impasse, then you leave a request on 3O. Until then, I don't really think you've demonstrated a need for a 3O. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi! I'm in need of someone who can translate this User talk:FullMetal Falcon#Pink box translation from Japanese to English. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My request pertains to DSiWare. This seems to be a bit too specific for the section, but I rather have a umbrella date for when it ends for everyone. « ₣M₣ » 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it. Does it take much time for you to do a translation? Just curious. « ₣M₣ » 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Depends on length and complexity, really. I can knock out a few sentences in a few minutes; longer articles take longer. Also I need free time, which is hard to come by these days... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

←)Well whenever you get the chance, I have something else since finding someone with that skill is not easy. There’s been a lot of misinformation going around about exactly what kind of ARM CPU(s) is in the DSi. Just for further confirmation, is there anything under the headline "ＧＢＡスロット廃止しＣＰＵをスペックアップ"[4] that the article Nintendo DSi does not already contain? « ₣M₣ » 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Will you follow procedure and discuss edits on the talk page, by answering to the controversial points in question. Will you not call valid concerns vandalism again, and will you immediately remove such notice from my talk page. That "several editors" think a commercial website is a feasible reference is not enough. Will you please read the guidelines and the discussion for the point in question. Sources have to be neutral and peer reviewed, this ref is the website of a private business. See talk page 70.137.153.83 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As you noticed the matter is already pending for dispute resolution, so what are you and puppy basket still reverting. Want to be blocked? 70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As dispute resolution has shown my concerns and edits to be valid, please remove related warnings for "page blanking" and "vandalism" from my page. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove them yourself, just like Bwilkins said on their talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

World Heritage

Sorry, I never read the History. I have seen it now. The title Jerusalem was changed to Israel, and when I saw it, I immediately recognised that Israel is not an Arab State. However looking on Asia Europe and Africa, I haven't seen Israel, so im adding one anyway. Two questions though. On this website http://whc.unesco.org/en/list, when you scroll down to Jerusalem, it is a red diamond. What does that mean? and also it says 'Site Proposed by Jordan', am I wrong in assuming that means its Tentative?

and my other question. I think I heard that a part of Jerusalem is an internationalised zone, i think the old city, or just Temple Mount. If I am correct, and then that means it neither belongs to Israel/ Palestine/ Jordan. This is not saying that the old city of Jerusalem is its own country or state, i'm just saying, it should belong in World Heritage Sites In Asia which is merely based on geographical foundations, rather than World Heritage Sites in the Arab State which is defined by the Arab league. Colt .55 (talk) 18:38 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

The key is on the bottom; a solid red diamond means it's a cultural site. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dollhouse

Hello, HelloAnnyong.

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, though I believe I have been here longer than yourself. I have no intention of adding OR to the Dollhouse page; my concern is that there is no clear dividing line between weak OR and "self-evident" facts such as are already being added to the Dollhouse pages and most other pages. Following the guidelines about citation, it would appear that "obvious" claims need to be cited when they are likely to be challenged. This leaves a gray zone around claims that are obvious to someone, and are not likely to be challenged by any couner-claims, but are not obvious to someone else. I think this is a point that we need to work on. Sorry if I'm breaking WP:POINT, but I don't really think I'm out of line vis-a-vis the rest of the article. Would love to discuss further. Cheers. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have around five days on you, and I also have twenty-three times more edits than you. Whether or not it's "obvious" to someone is irrelevant; the fact is that you're trying to draw a connection between something in the show and an actual entity, and you don't _really_ have any proof for it. It's not a point that we need to work on - it's just a violation of WP:OR. So until Whedon or someone blatantly states, "Yes, we were referencing RUR with this," you can't add it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we all have all long dicks, and I appreciate that yours is longer than mine. If I enter the term 'presumably' into Wikipedia's search engine, it returns a little over 15k hits, mostly in a format something like this: "The Mercury Montego, (presumably derived from Montego Bay, Jamaica)" with no citation. I understand that if there is actual contention over derivation (as there is for terms like "posh" or "rule of thumb," then it makes sense to require a citation, as per WP:CITE. I also understand that it would be WP:OR to imply that a particular derivation was factual. But using the modifier avoids that implication; rather, it informs the reader that a particular reference seems likely, but can't be confirmed. This is the basic logic of most literary criticism. It is, for instance, the logic behind wikipedia articles that say, e.g., "Shakespeare's Sonnet 53, presumably addressed to the same young man as the other sonnets in the first part of the sequence..." If we can't provide that information, then we need to be able to cite other sources (TvTropes? The AV club?) that are not so inhibited, but those sources are not reliable. And it seems more than a little absurd to think that we should go through fifteen thousand accurate and rather innocuous claims, and delete them all for want of a confirming statement from some author. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Laugh

I ran across your username somehow, somewhere, and it made me laugh. Cheers. — e. ripley\talk 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template at Dollhouse

Thanks - that's the one I wanted; just couldn't find it for some reason. Mark Shaw (talk) 3:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutic Hypothermia

I wrote this article. The similarities with Arctic Sun page actually come the other way around. I first wrote the page for therapeutic hypothermia and later someone copied what I had written and put it into the Arctic Sun page. I do not work for the Arctic Sun, I am just familiar with the industry (I wrote a detailed research paper on therapeutic hypothermia in Med School.) Everything I said about the Arctic Sun is true and documented. Ask any doctor it is their preferred technology and has by the largest market share without question.

Oh and if you want proof that the page was written by me first and not critical care critique, I have the article as it was originally written in a word document. They clearly copied the article I had written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.165.116 (talk • contribs) 00:05, May 7, 2009

How many times do I have to tell you, if the other three technologies are outlined on the therapeutic hypothermia page, than so should the arctic sun. I am giving you a logical reason, yet you keep just responding with the fiat: "You are wrong, stop vandalizing134.173.165.116 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)."

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Peace
For your long term contribution to WP:3O and for the skill and demeanor you demonstrate in handling difficult situations, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work! ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you are interested in the job, I'd like to nominate you for adminship. I think you're an asset to Wikipedia and would do an excellent job as an administrator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
*blush* Thanks for the barnstar! The vote of confidence is really appreciated, but I don't know about adminship. In the past I've tinkered with CSDs, and I kinda got burned on that for being a little too heavy handed, and some other stupid errors I made in the past before I really got what was going on might come back to bite me in the ass. So maybe not yet on the RfA - but thanks all the same! Keep on rockin'. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand. That's why I asked first - because obviously you know your own history better than I do.  :) Keep up the good work all the same. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sonar_(Quality_platform), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaudol (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Critical reaction section for characters

Please see Master_Chief_(Halo)#Impact_and_reception, a featured article. Beyond that, and more closely related to Scotty: James T. Kirk (and, not as developed, Spock and Leonard McCoy). The characters have been cemented enough in pop culture and the subject of sufficient third-party commentary that it's absolutely worth including. Please help the Scotty article by finding more third-party discussion of Pegg's and/or Doohan's portrayals, or other third-party commentary on the character itself. --EEMIV (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, okay, but you have "Reception and critical reaction" with one incomplete sentence underneath the header. Just seemed kinda silly to me. I just expanded it out to a full sentence, if that helps. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Josh Harris/Japanese American

I have re-posted the category 'Japanese Americans' on the Joshua Harris page. Please do not delete it again, as it may be considered vandalism. If you have a concern please feel free to address that with me. It is not Wikipedia protocol to delete information because you "see no proof of that".

Josh mentions his Japanese heritage here on his website http://www.joshharris.com/2006/11/05/


So there is your "proof of that" (24.62.100.100 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Don't threaten me with vandalism. And actually, it is Wiki policy to remove unproven things. If it's original research, then it should be removed. There is absolutely nothing on that article that shows that he's a Japanese-American. Maybe if you added a sentence saying "Harris is a Japanese-American; his mother was a second-generation Japanese" with a link to that reference, I would have known. But as it stands, there is no explanation. We don't just add categories to articles without any actual proof. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well first off, I was not "threatening" you with an accusation of vandalism. I was simply stating that some editors may interpret your action as such. I personally did not believe it was vandalism, but an admin might see it that way, fairly or unfairly.
You made a valid point about citing and verifying the information, which I should have done within the context of the article. However, usually the protocol would have been for you to contact the editor (and obviously you are not obligated to), and expressed your concern about the lack of verification, and taken it from there. You simply deleted it with the blurb "I see no proof of that".
I will however revise the article to include verification of his ancestry. Being of Asian ancestry, maybe I was being overly sensitive to your deletion, If I was I sincerely apologize, and I did not mean to be accusatory about vandalism. (24.62.100.100 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Tree Shaping 3rd opinion

Could you weigh in on the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed passage ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_shaping#Third_opinion Slowart (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologize for silence

Hi Annyong, sorry for my silence! I'll keep some time to see your objections. Greetings --A157247 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI edit

I was reverting an edit made by an IP address, and then you reverted what I was trying to revert. The IP address was the one that made the "according to Saw fan club" edit.Abby 84 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the actual edit. I didn't revert anything you did, I just reverted further back. Twinkle (the script I use) picked your username as the one to show, but I actually went further. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths page

Hello,

I recently edited the "List of unusual deaths" page by moving something that happened in the year 2000 from the 20th century to the 21st century category. You moved it back, but this is incorrect. The year 2000 is part of the 21st century. Please remedy this. Thanks!

mtk180 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtk180 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's false. Says 21st century: "It began on January 1, 2001." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear HelloAnnyong,

I see that on the 21st century page, but that is actually wrong. the year zero is not included anywhere on any of the century pages, going from the 1st century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. skips the year zero, which did indeed happen. Therefore, every one of the century pages is incorrect and you are wrong. Sorry. Mtk180 (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Then the rest of the page needs to be fixed. Either way, we follow the conventions of time here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive_4&oldid=1139063948"