User talk:Ndenison/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sorry

Sorry for the vandalism warning. I guess we hit the rollback button the same time (or better said you were faster), so that the warning landed on your talk page. Cst17 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew it was a mistake. No offense taken. Ndenison (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster

We used huggle at the same time. I reverted the vandal's edit back to your last one.

Please remove my vandalism notice.

Thanks, TheSuave (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

John II

Hi - thanks for you recent note. I don't think I was being unconstructive but was rather concerned that the previous contribution was unconstructive as it removed a large piece of text despite the fact that it was well reference and cited. The comment was along the lines of 'lol, third hand evidence doesn't prove he's gay'. I think it's good to look at whether text is appropriate or the right sources have been used but this should really be done on the discussion page for issues such as this. Does that sound sensible? Contaldo80 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just cruising through the recent changes and saw that someone had added something about someone being gay. It instantly registered as vandalism (incorrectly, I hope) in my mind and I reverted it. I went back and put your revision back as a Good Faith edit. I let you guys work it out on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ndenison ^talk 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries - you are right to be vigilant! The issue attracts passions on both sides! Contaldo80 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Four auditors external link deleted

Hey Ndenison, you recently deleted external link added by me to Big Four auditors page. Indeed, I recently added such a link and it was deleted by OhNoitsJamie. However, in course of discussion Jamie recognized that this link could be added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Thanks_for_the_notice.21 So, could you please reverse the deletion back? Thanks. BIG4PAPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.240.181 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. As a side note, since you have an account, use that to edit. I assumed that this edit was from just another ip adding spam. Also, sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildas (~~~~). Have a good day, and sorry for the inconvenience. Ndenison ^talk 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ndenison. I would also ask your advise. I strongly believe that ilovebig4.com should be also externally linked from 4 more pages - big four companies pages: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers. ilovebig4.com even as of now has dozens of news and other stuff related to each of these companies. I believe it will be useful for those people who try to find out more about these companies. So, here is the question. Do you think it will be appropriate to add such links? Thanks for the insight. BIG4PAPA.

I don't know as I am not familiar with those articles. My only advice would be to go to the talk pages of those articles and ask that question. Ndenison ^talk 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ndenison! BIG4PAPA (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop your useless edits

A list of bands doesn't need sources. --Ada Kataki (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added the four Mick Mercer books as references and they have been accepted, so the list stays.Crescentia (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DUDE101.2 is still at it

He put reference tags back up on the list of gothic rock bands even though you already resolved the issue. Please tell him to knock off the reverts. Thanks.Crescentia (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have some issues with the article, mainly that the fact that all books are by the same man, which I believe would lead to a biased article, and the fact that the references from the books are noth used to back up any of the claims in the article. If you could get back to me it wouls be helpful. Thanks in advance. Dude101.2 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding the tags. It was resolved so just stop it already. You are going to end up being suspended yet again if you don't cut it out. Just because you personally didn't like the decision doesn't mean that it wasn't resolved. The books themselves are the references. Have you even ever read them? They discuss not only the bands but the gothic rock/deathrock music scene as a whole. They are excellent books and considered very, very valid sources.Crescentia (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added two more books and some issues of a classic gothic rock/culture magazine. I have done my part and I have stuck with the decision...why don't you?Crescentia (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the references that have been added the last few days (much, much better than no references). We could do third party opinion if you'd like. I would however advise both of you to stop the edit war, you could possibly be blocked. Ndenison ^talk 02:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He was just given a 24 hour block two days ago so this is repetitive behaviour on his part.Crescentia (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but don't get yourself blocked along with him for the same thing. Ndenison ^talk 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. :-) Crescentia (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Candy Bar Productions declined speedy

not nonsense. verified content on google. cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fighting game

HI -

You tagged Fighting game for speedy deletion based on patent nonsense. It was actually just a heavily vandalized (fairly decent) article. You might want to go back and check the article history when you're tagging CSD. Thanks for the hard work! - Philippe 18:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your opinions on this topic

Hey Ndenison, I would appreciate if you would take a second to give your opinions on this topic Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Should we have a standard on linking Specific .28weekly.29 rankings.3F since you are a regular editor on the College Football Project. Thanks. Rtr10 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meadow Skipper

The horse is a sire, and has pointers to other famous horses. I cannot see why you object to this article being added. Wallie (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems and thanks. I did do the article rather hurriedly - can be cleaned up. I did put up the article, as it had links with Cardigan Bay. As the horse is the father of Albatross and grandfather to Niatross, and mentioned along with Cardigan Bay, Bret Hanover and Overtrick, that places him in "town hall company". Wallie (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on College Football logos

Hi me, Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure I know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if I could take a moment and voice my opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank me in advance and thank me for my contributions to the College Football Project. Ndenison ^talk 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to revert again, however - I would suggest that you do not revert editors who are removing material which violates Wikipedia policy from your talk page. And do not under any circumstances, then template such users with vandalism warnings. Such behaviour may result in you being blocked. Black Kite 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? You'll block me? You remove something from my talk page that I find useful, and then become offended when I call it vandalism? Maybe it's because I don't put any bold texts in my post. Whatever it is, do not remove posts from my talk page. If I didn't want them there, I would remove them. Ndenison ^talk 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Material which violates Wikipedia policy is routinely removed from talkpages, whether the user wants them there or not. The original message was in violation of WP:CANVASS and was removed correctly from your talkpage, along with all the others it was sent to. It was made clear to you why it was removed, and for you to then place a vandalism warning on the page of the editor that removed it is obviously disruptive. Black Kite 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, no longer in violation of WP:CANVAS, unless you think I can canvas myself. Ndenison ^talk 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Shnozcumber

Hi, I changed the tag to db-nocontext from db-nonsense. Hope that's ok! Liberal Classic (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article might be related to The_BFG. Liberal Classic (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe merging would be a better route? Ndenison ^talk 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much to merge. :) Liberal Classic (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess it was decided for us. Ndenison ^talk 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacey Schwimmer

- Sorry, the edit to Lacey's page wasn't vandalism. This is the link to that page http://www.realitytvscoop.com/2008/12/lacey-schwimmer-open-to-steve-o-samba/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.39.134 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE and WP:NOTABILITY before adding anything else. I reverted because your addition wasn't cited and you just prior acts of vandalism. Ndenison ^talk 17:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New years Resolution

Stop being so mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiez (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Being mean has nothing to do with it. Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COMPANY. Thanks. Ndenison ^talk 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request deletion... as I can only find it in specialist trade magazine. Probably not notable enough? Tommiez (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that notability per WP:COMPANY has been reached, then remove the {prod} template at the top of the article. If it stays there for five days, the article will be deleted. However, as three separate editors have questioned notability, the article would probably just go to AfD. You're free to do whatever you wish. Ndenison ^talk 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the sources tag as it has one now, left the deletion one so that it can be reviewed at a later date Tommiez (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you want the deletion reviewed. Ndenison ^talk 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Horus was not Born on Dec 25

My "nonconstructive vandalism" on the Horus page removes the information that he was, in some myths and on some calenders, born on December 25th and the discussion about the parallels between Jesus and Horus, because the parallels do not enjoy actual support from primary sources and are not backed up by scholarship, and because there is no citation at all for the information.

We've been discussing this ont he tlak page, and I'd be happy to allow th informaiton if it where credible, but its not.

The parrallels are not really even about Horus, and aren't from credible sources, and the Dec 25 Birthdate is placed in the main body of the text as if its uncontested fact.

The information being removed is simply removed because it is not true.

Fixed Ndenison ^talk 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)