User talk:Pwnage8/Archive 1

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


Judith Marie Garrison

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Judith Marie Garrison. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Resurgent insurgent 16:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


They're also not Emo. Inhumer 02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To be an Emo band, you have to be Hardcore Punk, which they aren't. I realize you think Emo is whatever MTV tells you it is, but it isn't.Inhumer 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not Hardcore Punk. I suggest you read up on the genre and listen to some actual Hardcore punk band, and not the band MuchMusic and Revolver say are Hardcore. All the bands in the so-called "Third wave of Emo" are plain ol' rock and pop punk bands and have absolutely nothing to do with the first two "waves". Lyrics don't make a genre, music does. Inhumer 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Used still have nothing to do with Hardcore Punk. Inhumer (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Its been pretty much with people similar to you. Inhumer (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

People who know everything they know and believe everything they hear or read in or on tv, radio and magazines and not from actual research. Inhumer (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)]

The reason that is because you think they are Hardcore Punk, when they are nothing of the sort.Inhumer (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to realize that the "Third wave of Emo" which they belong to has nothing to do with Hardcore Punk or even the first two waves. Inhumer (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I give up trying to explain this. Inhumer (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I give up.Inhumer (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually , its not that I give up, I just don't care anymore. Inhumer (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


He did the same thing to an article I just started! Fremte (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry I jumped on you, use WP:NPW to do Wikipedia:New pages patrol. In any case, I was going off an older version of the article than what is current, so I've removed the tagging. Also, if you ever are starting an article that you think might be swooped down upon, these tags Category:Under-construction_templates tend to scare off rampaging deletionists like myself :). MBisanz talk 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, your right, I've seen far worse article about roads that run outside people's houses, quite frankly if I had noticed the nav-box on the bottom, I'd probably have tapped patrolled and moved on, my bad on that. MBisanz talk 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Landing Mall

I think you closed the deletion discussion prematurely, as there were only three votes, and there was no consensus. I made a valid point on why it should've been kept, yet only two delete votes with little explanation superseded me :S --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for contacting me about the closing of the article deletion debate for The Landing Mall. I appreciate your concerns and good faith attempt to amicably discuss the situation.
I hear what you are saying, but I do disagree with your reasoning and your estimation of the rough concensus. You apparently discounted the !vote of the nominator; which makes 3, not 2 editors who recommended deletion. Their cited rationale was consistent with policy/ guideline/ precedent. Your sole keep !vote had the rationale "regional shopping centres are generally notable", which is not per any policy nor guideline I am aware of, and certainly not precedent, based on the numerous almost unanimous recent deletion debates for other articles about regional shopping centres. As for premature, the debate was closed nearly nine days after it was started, where the policy states the length should usually be 5 days.
I was confident that no matter how long the debate continued, the outcome would not have changed, so I chose not to relist it, and closed it according to the rough concensus that I determined existed. If you still disagree, you may choose to open a review request at WP:DELREV.
Thank-you, JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates: US versus European

You've recently made changes to Oskar Schindler and Itzhak Stern moving dates from a "dd month" format to "month dd" format. The first style is (European) International and the second more American. These articles are about European subjects and thus, their dates remain should remain in International format per WP:DATES--WPaulB (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protest the Hero on Dostoevsky article

A lot of bands, movies, novels, articles, albums, lives have been influenced by Dostoevsky. The article you source simply says the band is "into" Dostoevsky (well one technically is into him, the others "guess" they are into him). A lot of bands, writers, etc, etc are "into" or interested in Dostoevsky, to list every single one would be ridiculous. Your revision has been reverted. --TM 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not edit war. You have reinserted disputed content into an article twice, without once making a case for your position on the talk page. We work as a community here on wikipedia. In order to get controversial content into an article, you need to convince others on the talk page and raise a consensus for the changes. You simply cannot force your way through edit warring. Oftentimes a compromise can be struck that satisfies both parties' concerns. So I ask you to not re-add disputed content, but instead, go to the talk page and discuss these changes. Thanks. (You may also want to read WP:BRD). -Andrew c [talk] 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


they have nothing to do with the used, it dnt matter if dean drummed for lies, and rancid is nothing either, branden left the band which means he no longer has nething to do with the used so it dont matter he joined ranice, u think u own this used page but u dont so stop making it the way u want, my home pc account has banned for life so i can edit as much as i want but u better stop changing everything how u like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i think im here to stay
im the biggest used fan ever and i own the page and run it until u got me banned for life so now that i can edit i will again, just stay off the page and ill take care of it
shallow believer is only a digital ep u didnt have that written in the description which u shud of —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

my way or my way, my firend is a wiki mod and i jsut called them and he said ur getting banned  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booowooo (talkcontribs) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


if u want me to agree with u, incorporate the 2 nonimations into the bio, it looks ricdolous to have 2 nonimations they lost under its own topic, understand that gc, rancid, etc arent associated cause one member temporayly drumming for a band means nothings, and paralyzxed isnt a single Booowooo (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

w/e its still looks like crap
also stop cahnging the dicovery, its good the way i made it and organized, it doesnt have to be broke down any more into sections, thats wut i made the notes for —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booowooo (talkcontribs) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I didn't mean that Steven Page wasn't notable (that's the problem with short edit summary comments). Given the creation of a new section, my question was how is notability to be determined? If a person has a Wikipedia article, they presumably meet WP:BIO and are notable. But in the similar case of the Beaches article, a number of people without Wikipedia articles were routinely added to the list. Thus, my question. My personal preference would be to add an inline invisible note (with talk page follow-up) advising editors that the list is limited to persons that are subject to Wikipedia articles, and thus likely meet WP:BIO. It's an objective manner to ensure and assess notability.

The other part of my edit summary, which you did not comment on, is that this kind of section needs to be sourced. Above and beyond the need to comply with WP:V, there is the practical reason -- I don't know why, but this type of list attracts all sort of nonsense (e.g. Howie Mandel lives on Carlaw) and it will quickly degenerate into unreliable listcruft. The comparable list in the Beaches article is now fully sourced, and it was necessary because the section was previously full of unverifiable and doubtful crap. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have the luxury of getting sources "if available" -- WP:V requires sources (most of the article needs some attention in that regard, but one thing at a time). I have started looking -- if the articles on each person contain a source - that's great, we'll use it here too. If the articles simply contain the bald assertion that the subject lives in Riverdale, then we're no further ahead, and still need a source. I found all the sources for the the Beaches article, and it isn't as hard as it would seem. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


u got my banned my reporting my accoutns as sock puppets, but im fine with the page now so i guess we are cool Booowooo (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


its not diff, im the one who bought up that it was different on message boards, however it was just sounded diff at one part in the end because the volume of the song on their myspace was lower then the volume of the song on the cd but it wasn't any different and i realized i was mistaken so i changed it, its the same song, its just the quality of the myspace version isnt as good as the cd so it sounds different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>oh really? i didnt notice that, i just thought the end part was different when he sang with some lady but then i realized it iwas just the audio that dmadde it rsound that way, i didnt notice there was a scream

shallow believer

some1 keeps putting that dan recording on this album when he didnt, and i can only edit from a certain pc that i dont have lots of access to, so please keep an eye on the page the prevent the false info from keep getting posted, thanks. Booowooo (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


after listen to the shallow beleiver ep, i realzied into my web is from in love anda death recording sessions so i changed the bsides on the lies for liars page and in love and death page, since ull prob ask how i no this, during the recording session for ILAD the used released abou 80 1 min video of them recording, hanging out, etc, and i hear a 30 sec clip of bert recording that song, so i have made it the proper way, please dont change it back since i think u might if u didnt no that info, thanks Booowooo (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

one more thing to look out 4

some1 keeps making it say branden left the band, but he clearly stated he was kicked out (this is under the former members topic) Booowooo (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Islington Avenue

As you have commented, in Template:Streets in Toronto, some concession roads are 2km (200 chains) apart, but that is in the Township of York. Islington was originally laid out as a road between concessions in Etobicoke, with a different grid system. This can be seen most clearly in the northerly section of the map of the Township of Etobicoke, where the 'Concesions Fronting the River Humber' are C, B, A, I, II, III. The north-south concession roads in this area are now known as:

  • Royal York Road
  • Islington Avenue
  • Kipling Avenue
  • Martin Grove Road
  • Highway 27/Browns Line
  • Carlingview Drive/Renforth Drive

Since you are interested in maps, check out the Canadian County Atlas from McGill University. Hope I have helped. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of 5th and columbia

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 5th and columbia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 5th and columbia is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 5th and columbia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1979 Mississauga train derailment

Thanks for all of your contributions to the 1979 Mississauga train derailment article. Keep up the good work. Flibirigit (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Privacy violations on Wikipedia

Please do not publish private details on Wikipedia, as you did in an edit (now deleted and oversighted) to Aqsa Parvez. Doing so could lead you to be blocked without further warning. Andjam (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


o ok cool, i just liked the formation cause it sounded better but ok it works i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Large image in Kakabeka Falls article

Wikipedia recently altered a parameter that affects all infobox fields that format image sizes. As a result, if an image size in an infobox is entered as "150px", it will display full size. To fix this, you have to remove the px after the image size.

I don't know why they did this but that's what happened and how to fix it. There was an announcement earlier but it was only up for a few minutes then disappeared. Thanks for letting me know. :) vıdıoman 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


lol thank you, the singles looked to blah, so thats what i came up with b4, i agree it looks good, now only if ud agree that the some of the associated acts are to minor to need to be listed, they are mentioned u the bio but are barely associtaed, in ur case u prob want us to put up the cobra band bert played in and all other bands that they played in that we dont no the names up, strange itch and dumb luck are all that needed to be posted, used is the used, the is a minor insignificant word so that dont need to be there and the other 2 are just bands branden went to and deans band, dean is a pro drummer so shud we put all the other bands he drummed in up there too? hopefully that clears up why they shudnt be lsited, thanx USEDfan (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the used are listed are other bands pages cause ppl were dumb enough to put them up there, dan played in like 3 other bands, while the used recorded their album the new transit direction was not together, they had already broken up so ur way we shud have those 3 bands up there, mcr shudnt be there either, they suck and were just a band they toured with a covered a song with, bert played in the cobra band so u do want that to be added, ur not making sense, dan was in 3 bands so u want them all to be listed then u say u dont...also in ur case joel pack shud be up there sinc ehe made a solo album and he was in strange itch and strange itch is listed so then he shud be to and now since joel pack went to the band broke city i guess u want them listed too since u put up rancid which was the band branden went to. USEDfan (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kipling Collegiate Institute

To the best of my knowledge, Scarlett Heights is a semester school (

along with Silverthorn, Thistletown and North Albion. Weston is not really in the region. The article implies that students from as far as Rexdale come to Kipling because of its semestered nature. However, such students would have several closer alternatives. Something else must be attracting such students.

The daily announcements used to be presented on Switch-On on a daily basis. Currently Switch-On is produced only on Thursdays. The rest of the week, the daily announcements are read by a student over the P.A. system. The Switch-On program may return to a daily production next year.

Varsity Outdoor cricket is the only official TDSB version of the sport. Indoor cricket is unique to the schools of the former boards of Etobicoke and York. Since it is not played in all districts, it is not officially sanctioned by the board. However, you are correct that the local indoor league is divided into JR and SR divisions.

I see no problem in stating that a significant number of the school’s students are of Somalian Origin, and that the school has made strong effort to work with and connect with the Somalian community. However, the demographic of schools like Kipling quickly changes, therefore it is difficult to keep specific statements like “200 Somalian refugees” current. Why not leave the article more general to better reflect the mosaic of cultures represented within the school.

The YOUCAN program is not an in-house program. It is run by a private, paid organization. Originally the program was delivered to small groups of students who showed interest and leadership potential. Roger Dale introduced the program first to small groups, then to all grades nines, then eventually participation became mandatory for all registered students. Kipling was the first school to require full participation within this program. With the apparent, impending requirement for all schools to offer “Character Education” YOUCAN may be positioning itself to become a provider for other TDSB schools. Perhaps this is why a link was suggested between the introduction of YOUCAN and the drop in the Kipling suspension rate. However, the prime reason for the drop in suspension rate is that Roger Dale does not believe in the value of suspensions and is a proponent of Progressive Discipline and Restorative Justice as alternatives and prerequisites to suspension. The suspension rate for Kipling and its neighbouring academic schools for 2006-2007: Kipling 2.2 % Martingrove 2.5% Richview 2.8% Scarlett Heights 9.7%. Kiphist (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Switch-on traditionally has been produced by a media/tech course. However, lower student interest permitted the offering of this course in semester 1 only. As a result, the program is being produced by an extracurricular switch-on "club" for semester 2. I believe that the school will force two sections for next year to keep switch-on alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiphist (talkcontribs) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Used

I agree, I did suspect they were sockpuppets. I am waiting to see which one pops up next and how they react. I have set up a new section on Talk:The_Used#Dispute_resolution, hoping that maybe one of the personalities will discuss, but if they persist disrupting things I would suggest reporting the sockpuppets and vandalism. Personally I feel a ban with no second chance (ie, indef block if they continue after the ban) is the only way to go! Nouse4aname (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually got a ban (now lifted) for trying to revert these users (my own fault, I admit). Could you possibly do the sockpuppet report for these users? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I took some time off from editing after getting a bit carried away yesterday. I have now filed the report here, though it isn't brilliant, so feel free to add any further info you feel would help. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. No problems, I just asked you as I thought you may be able to post it before me. It looks like the sockpuppetry has stopped, although User:USEDfan is still disurpting things at both The Used and The Used discography. We'll see how this works out! Nouse4aname (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
USEDFan is STILL continuing to disrupt The Used page. --SilverOrion (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball diamonds

I didn't appreciate the distinction, so thanks for pointing it out. You'll need to source the claim, though, and you should replace "downtown" and "downtown core" with something else, because it's debatable whether Christie Pits (or Trinity Bellwoods for that matter) is downtown (it doesn't meet the decription here), and it certainly isn't in the downtown core. Not sure why you reverted the punctuation fix. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to consider adding "(as opposed to softball)" or something to that effect, because I am pretty sure that I am among many clueless readers who don't know the difference between a baseball diamond and a softball diamond, and the sentence thus gives the impression the downtown parks lack amenities. I'm not fussed by it, though, so it's up to you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


that was some nice littl einfo about thenew album huh, (in the jeph interview), it really seems liek we will see a new album this year which is awesome, makes u excited eh? USEDfan (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah we have enough info to start the page now, i think so at least, i like how the used change their sound album to album, otherwise it would be boring and get played out if every album sounded like the first, each time an album comes out it becomes mt favorite becuase its new and fresh sounding thne after a few months im able to place it better on how much i like it, but for me there really isnt anything i dont like by the used, anything they do i think ill always love but yeah....lets get the page started one of these days. USEDfan (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
lies for the liars was just produced too much, im a very obsessed fan, too obssesd to say anything bad so in my mind everything they do is unique and stands out from todays bands, i agree almost every band these days sound the same which is why the used are the only band i buy cds of, it seems to me the used are the only band making good music these days, alot a bands i use to like put out new cds that suck and sound just like eveyrthing else i already heard, even if their style of music is similar to other bands, i think musically and lyrically they are still unique, i dont know, i really jsut stand say anything bad btu yeah we'll just have to wait and see what this new album brings us, theres no much suspense since everyhting is happening so fast, b4 we no it, it will prob be on shelves :] USEDfan (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

used genre

i made a section on the used page for genre to clear up confussion and edit warring on the main table, its looking pretty good, what u think of it? USEDfan (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

what type of photos, just pictures of the band, if thats the case theres tons on google. USEDfan (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
also did u see the new info i added about the 4th album, a bunch of info is different since they changed their plans a little bit. USEDfan (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
when i rewrote it to add in the new info that quinn gave us i lost the link, but either way, quinn had a mor erecent update of what they are doing and i think it covers anything jeph siad and replaces some of it with more recent and probaly more correct info. USEDfan (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
i added a citation, and just for the future anything i put on the page is something i read in an interview or was told about by band members, i never put flase info on the page, only what the used have said themselves or what i read in reviews/previews and interviews so when i edit the page aviod putting the citiation need thingy cause its always gona be true, thanks. and the paragrah needs a closing sentence. USEDfan (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
the used page is getting better and better, its really became a great page now, i think it is only up from here :]. USEDfan (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
be on the look out for SilverOrion who keeps removing half of the genre dispute paragraph, if u and fatalerror agree with the way i made it, then its obviosly better our way but they keep removing that the band is consider screamo and they make it say bert stated they arent scremo when all he siad was that they dont want to be scremo. USEDfan (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

the used page got locked

user:silverorion kept removing half of the genre paragraph we worked on, so i go tinto a little eit war, then decided i didnt want to get banned so i reported it and the page got locked how they had it, so half the paragraph is missing and it says bert stated the used arnt scremo when all he said was they dont want to be scremo, so right now im pissed cause half of the work i did was gone, if u could go to page and tell them that u agree with the way we made it hopefully that will be helpful and show the silverorion deleting half a page is vandalism. USEDfan (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

im so mad at them, they got the page locked are they verison, i mean me u and fatalerror all made edits to it and it was great then this orion comes along and jsut starts deleting everything, it is rediclous/.USEDfan (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
maybe u can talk to ur friend i was gona talk to him orgianlly but htne i needed to do something faster so i ofund some1 else. maybe he can help us. USEDfan (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

go to this i think nouse4aname is the settlement,, check it out and leave a comennt so we can get the page unlocked. USEDfan (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


this isnt a shitty mcr page, the point of the genre disbute section is to show the genre is disbuted, if we no what gerne they are then it isnt realli a disbute now, is it? that is why its disbuted, we dont no what they are so everything redirects to the disbute paragraph, its pointless to have if we no their genre, then we should of just kept a list of it. USEDfan (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

we have no need for the genre paragaraph, if we could define what each album is, then we jsut have to list all those genres and that is all the genres the used classify as, u seem to be getting back ur annoying habit of customizing things to ur way, sound changes form album to album so each genre could be listed and we didnt even need the genre dispute paragraph, but then if we remove ti and list the agenres, silver orion is gona keep removing scremo and the whole war is gona start again, i dont understand how u cant see if its a disbute we dont no the genre, and if we no each album genre, then we no all of their genres and could list them instead. USEDfan (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
silverorion is my problem, if they cant keep scremo listed the war will never end, i dont have a problem with ne1 else anymore and we all made up fo rthe past and everyhting was fine til silverorion came over onto the used page, and since my history got off to a rough start no mods take me too seriously so theres not much i could do, but screamo should be listed. i never had sock puppets btw.. and i really try to not care about a stupid website but gosh do people get me pissed off sometimes. do what u want just dont mess up the page. USEDfan (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
idk what to do for the main article, silverorion is gona give a hard time to us for any change since they agreed to the current table and they said they are gona watch it to make sure it isnt changed, as of now i have no idea but dont care too much, as long as it doesnt say bert stated the band isnt scremo, nouse4aname doesnt like the current setup so idk what to say, its gona be a run on dispute. USEDfan (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
can u just make sure u tell silverorion about the changes u made caus ethey are gona think that it was me and try to explain to them why its like this now cause this is ho wi wanted it but thy couldnt understand why screamo should be there so it help me if u coul dexplain a bit to them, thanks. USEDfan (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hi

Hmm, interesting thing to keep in mind. You don't have to worry about me feeling guilty about editing wikipedia though, its a learning experience if nothing else and I welcome it. Well thanks for dropping by (although I wonder how you came across my page in the first place) and saying hello. By the way, nice collection of userboxs.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the clinic thing...*laughs*. I joined that almost 1/2 a year ago, its a really old comment. I don't think it applies to me anymore.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually started editing because a long time ago, a 2 good faith edits of mine (on different pages) were reverted so I decided to create an account. Since then, a {{subst:Welcome}} from a now-retired user named Trampton and several {{subst:Smile}} have made me become a holic. Anyway, enough about "The memiors of Sunny910910", I think I have seen someone maybe 1 year younger than me but I don't remember who he was. Well, it was nice talking to you too.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

I have made the change. Maple Leaf (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8/Evolution of Music Management

As you requested on AFD, I have userfied the page to User:Pwnage8/Evolution of Music Management. - Philippe 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of subcultures

At this AFD you called for a "speedy keep", but this AFD does not appear to meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Please consider returning and amending your "vote" to show which of the criteria this meets, or change it to "keep" or "strong keep" instead. Please also remember to be civil. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sex Drugs and Music

While it sounds like such an exciting thing to create a discussion about, this note is to tell you simply that it's now userfied to User:Pwnage8/Sex, Drugs and Music in the1960s. Best wishes, - Philippe 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I can create you a signature if you would like. Chubbennaitor 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name of Toronto

Hi: I noticed you undid the small revision I made to the pronunciation. However, it was correct, since most people in the city do not pronounce the name as stated. The differences are very well explained in the expanded article "Name of Toronto" ( We should add the more common pronunciation, or at least establish a link to this article. Otherwise, I think we should remove totally the statement on how "pronounce" Toronto from the beginning of this article, and simply put a link to the fuller article. Please advise.Nordisk varg (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Response II: Hi, thanks for the constructive comment. I must say I'm not new to Wikipedia, just my "Nordisk Varg" avatar is. I also lived in Toronto and I have a good experience with IPA-phonetics. I think the problem may lie in how you and I read these symbols. In my experience, the Name_of_Toronto article is excellent and represents the real local pronunciations. The main article gives first something closer to /toe-RON-toe/ or /tuh-RON-toe/ which actually no local use! These are just give-away for coming from elsewhere. The most common pronunciations are well represented as TRON-oe, TRON-toe, TRON-uh, with no schwa between the T and the R and where the stressed /tr/ sounds /chr/. None of these, represented by the correct IPA-symbols, will ever sound as the capital of Albania (which has a clear /Ti:/ at the beginning, and open /a/ sounds). I suggest replacing the "colloquial" expression listed in the main article by any of the more realistic "TRON-" types of pronunciations (with the proper symbols). My motivation is simple: I have foreign friends who are not English speaking, and have asked me many times how to represent really the pronunciation of the city by locals. If one dominant local pronunciation must be chosen, in my opinion is of the type /'CHRON-oe/ (with correct IPA symbols), and it should appear in the main article. Let me know what you think before revising.Nordisk varg (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestion. I just did that; let's see what the other editors think. By the way, regarding your comment of using the material from the Spanish Wikipedia on Toronto, you'll see that actually they recommend a pronunciation of the name which is exactly the point I'm making here.Nordisk varg (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


the links are to songs, any song of any band could be foud on youtube and u dont see every album page have links to give the bands music away for free...if some1 wants it they will search hard enough and pay a few hurend for it like i did, the used music isnt somehting that is free and even tho it is on youtube as fans we will not let ppl no where they can get it for free. tahnks. USEDfan (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

good news

according to their myspace, the used are already in the studio! :] USEDfan (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

indeed and if they stick to their goal of a month or less they may be finished before the 1 week tour at the end of june, which makes the spet/oct release seem very probale. its so exciting. USEDfan (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

other news

so its too bad that they arent sticking ot the 1 month plan and are gona record til september, hopefully it will still be released this year like in nov/dec. USEDfan (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Videos

I have posted a query regarding the video links on Demos from the Basement here. Can we agree not to add/remove until we get a response please? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm not. I realized that its just one little word in one little infobox in one little article on big ole wikipedia. As long as they don't do it to the genres article, I'm fine. 07:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Used

Dude, why are you changing the genres again? The dispute paragraph isnt there because its still being discussed. --SilverOrion (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the dispute paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Not only does it leave the article open for another round of edit wars, but it just erases all the debating we went through just to get to this point. Once USEDFan's ban expires theres going to be some issues...--SilverOrion (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and changing the genres prior to a formal consensus is also going to lead to edit wars. By leaving it as "Rock", it remains neutral. --SilverOrion (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is the way it was before the dispute paragraph, and it was generally stable. I don't quite get how "Rock" is more neutral than having multiple genres listed. To me, it's more neutral if more views are represented.

Except the problem is that those "views" are subject to debate. Whereas "rock" is a generally accepted genre.(continue this on the The Used talk page) --SilverOrion (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re.: NWO

Really, there IS a UN observation team IN the US, and I've heard about the other matters there on various news outfits, incl. Fox News and The Communist/Clinton News Network, WikiNews, Alex Jones's radio show,, I have a newsloop I get, and it is full of World Net Daily news, Coast To Coast AM, local news, other news outfits, incl. religious news, such as TBN. (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Racist I'm NOT

I'm no racist, but I DO live in a racist area of the US. Tell these people that Obama will win the Presidency and you'll end up shot. I had found a KKK ad on a gas pump and destroyed it. MY first indication I'm living in a racist area of the US. (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you call me a racist ? (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :(


Don't worry about it man, we all make mistakes. Where I live at, you even say the wrong thing (I'm in the Southern US, in the Bible Belt), you'll end up shot. You ought to hear these people. (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Coast To Coast AM

I also listen to it as well. Tonight its "Open Lines", and George used to play "UFO Phil", which is about some guy in bed watching aliens, Bigfoot and the like. I was also directly involved in a UFO matter when a HUGE UFO flew over me. The people claimed it was Satan, the govt. said that I was full of shit and a damn idiot. One UFO was the size of a small city. (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that no one will accept the fact that people will shoot at UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, that sort of thing ? See the Kelly-Hopkinsville UFO Incident. This has been asked on the UFO article and flat out ignored. Also read matter about people rebelling in reaction to alien contact on the talk page, some for religious reasons, some for being made out to be a jackass for reporting a UFO.
Why would The Antichrist use holograms ? Since this is a demonic creature, why would he not use real demons AS aliens ? I have seen a Star Trek: TNG episode in which a con woman used her ship to simulate a planet's prophecies to take that planet. She used holographic tech, and suitably placed tractor beam strikes on the siesmic areas to do what she did. She claimed that she was that planet's Devil, comming to take the planet, enslave the people. I've been studying matters such as this matter, since I have had some really bizarre, even scary alien encounters. (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not call George Noory tonight and state that on the show tonight about NASA using holographic technologies. You'll have to dial the indicated phone numbers early on, tell the screener what you told me about what you said about NASA, and hopefully George will put you on tonight. Only requirement is that you can't use bad language on the air. One guy, a alleged alien abductee said that aliens had anal probed him, and he used a lot of profanity, and got tossed. What do you think of "Chemtrails" ? (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you work the night shift, as a security guard, that sort of thing? (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How can a hologram destroy things ? I've seen the UFO invasion movies such as V (TV series) and movies, Independence Day as well. The UFOs and the aliens have to be shown blowing things up, just like in the movies, video games. *A Flying saucer flies over a Royal Canadian AFB, shoots a laser-like beam at the place, disintergrates everything on the base, a fireball/mushroom cloud rises from the resultant crater. You say "Holy S*T!" then make a run for it, as the alien saucer flies over your head, towards one of Canada's population centers. You go to the crater, and find it bigger than the one located near Winslow, Arizona* (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm NOT trying to put you down, insult you, etc., at all. If and when you do report that, say on Coast To Coast AM, you will have people that will try to punch holes into what you're saying, like CSICOP or even the US government, your own government, and that can get really nasty. Example: You call the show about what you told me, then someone else calls in, to ridicule you, another calls in, to support you, another will ask for proof.
Do you have proof ? Websites, etc. ? (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Coast To Coast AM is on the air right now. In 13 min. should be the usual "Open Lines" show, unless George changed the format. Seen that happen once before. Unless that happened, keep a ear out for the phone No.#s, incl. a "special Topic" line. One was for alien abductions, another was for ghosts, one was for "Area 51 Ex-employees", etc. Got a guy on now talking about some really weird things, incl the show Dark Shadows and Time Travel, parallel realities (in one, we could be Bigfoots). (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The show was on, as of the timestamp indicated here at end of sig. (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Seen what you have found. That is damn good work. Be really careful in the future, since "the powers that be" do NOT want that kind of shit to be public knowledge, and will do anything to prevent that from happening. "Our(Earth)" tech may not survive the Van Allen belt, BUT someone that is hyperadvanced - far more advanced than Earth may have some really advanced technologies, like the shit seen on Star Trek, like a transporter beam tech (teleporting), directed energy weapons (lightning, fire), shields, even cloaking tech. (guy disappearing into a tree, into "thin air", etc.). There are rumors of Atlantean tech, aliens that originated on Earth, blasted off the planet while humanity was non-existant, other really weird things that has nothing to do with aliens as in people from another planet. There are inexplicable ruins, artifacts all over the place, such as a model of a JET plane found in a ancient tomb in South America. (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Suppose that you found a abandoned, yet fully functioning UFO, and the UFO is armed with really fantastic weapons and other equally fantastic technologies. Would you use it ? (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


You'll need this:

[citation needed]

which is "Template:", with "fact" inside, then two more "" on the other side. See "Edit this page" to see the template itself. This goes on all matter you want cites for. Hope this helps. (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Already placed. Hope this was helpful. (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is placed at the end of any statement that need a citation. (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Broadview Avenue (Toronto) incomplete

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Broadview Avenue (Toronto) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


stop chanign the used page, ILAD is not a proper reissue to call it that, under pressure was released as a single by itself and then 2 or 3 months later made its way onto newer pressings of in love and death, im making it more encylopedi alike, the single didnt come from ILAD, it came from itself and was just added on USEDfan (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

i am the one who wrote 90% of this page, little things have since been added and wording tweaked, however im changing the info i added cause i made a mistake, a reissue isnt one song, sometimes that happens to albums when it isnt reissued but contians an extra song for example simple plans first album, orginally had 12 and now as an extra song grow up but tis not considered a reiisue...u are so frustrating, from late 2006 to late 2007 i was the only one who ever edited the used page and now like since november liek 5 ppl including u come on it on a regular basis and usually mess things up and inproperly word things, i no everything about the used and they are my fav badn and u guys have the nerve to tell me to put a source, i am a source and could confirm everyhting, i am also the first one to add updates to the page, i was banned for a week for no reasona and no1 added the info about them play a show in korea, and playing in a country like that is pretty big news. jus tgoes to show how great i am with the page and no what is best. USEDfan (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

what are u doing

did u not read wut i wrote, ILAD isnt a proper reissue, it cannot be called that, added 1 song isnt a reissue, its been done in the past and just listed as a later pressing of the album, kinda like how some bands may have a extra song on the first 100,000 pressings but no on any after that (example breaking benjamin), ur saying that it was a single released form ILAD when it was a single added to ILAD with out the used permission anyway, please stop it, im explaining it to u so good and u still dont listen. USEDfan (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

i do a great job of it, ppl have destoryed it for almost a half year now, u may have broke it into sections but i added almost all the info and made every so correct and add much more and it was my idea for the fromat lay out like the way it says the year:what they did.....i dont have sock puppet accounts so idk what ur talking about or what any1 has been talking about when they say that, but the point here is any time i update somehting u or sum1 else removes it, i do everything for the best, if they arent ur fav band, then hwy do u spend so much time with it? i barely touch the apges that dont mean anything to me.

p.s. since im a sweetheart, ill let u no that dan told me they are gona record 18 songs for the new album. so that prob means a chunck of bsides again :] USEDfan (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about USEDfan, if he makes one more revert I'll report him. But I should warn you that you're about to break the 3RR. — FatalError 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

lol ur taking credit for my edits w.e, and i dont have sockpuppets...what acocunt is a scokpuppet of mine? the 72.144.827.9 or w/e..thats called an ip adress, if wiki logs me out then that is wut shows up when i edit. USEDfan (talk)
ok i logged out, so w.e ip adress comes up in the sig is mine but reply to my used fan page cause im gona log righ tback in. (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
however i do use aol so i think its a shared ip adress. USEDfan (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
oh USEDfan not with any numbers, is that why u have been so confused lately bout me? USEDfan (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
not trying to fool any1, from what i see u , fatalerror, and nouseforaname are sock puppets. USEDfan (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
i did file a report but since ur friends with the admins, nothing happened. USEDfan (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Used. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I have started a thread here if you would like to add anything to what I've posted so far. Landon1980 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

John Street (Toronto)

You recently claim to have cleaned up this article - but you failed to notice that the content is rubbish. Revert back to one of my versions for the 'real' history. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will revert this, but within a short time the anon editor will have the john's back on the street. This is not my subject and I fell into it by accident, expecting maintenance to be carried out by 'Toronto Roads' group, or whatever. Thanks. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
OK It's all yours. Thanks again. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: bypass redirect

I don't see what you mean. I changed the link for Baskin Robbins to Baskin-Robbins. Notice the hyphen. The link with the hyphen is the correct one. Dismas|(talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it's not a diff on the Baskin-Robbins page. It's a diff on the Church and Wellesley article in which I corrected the link to Baskin-Robbins. So, I still don't understand why you think that I changed the link to a redirect instead of from a redirect. Dismas|(talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Happens to everyone. Dismas|(talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No idea as to a WikiProject. I don't join WikiProjects because my editing fluctuates a bit. One day I'll see some redirect has a lot of incoming links and I'll go bypass them all. The next day it could be going through articles removing links to lone months/years per MOS:SYL. I have a fair bit of down time at work, so when I get bored, I sometimes take on these tedious little tasks. That's why I consider myself a WikiGnome. Dismas|(talk) 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

I saw your comment at Talk:Criticism of Christianity and wanted to tell you that the first half of your comment was entirely inappropriate. You failed to be civil and bite a newcomer. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You don't even have to have an account to edit, anons are equally welcome to edit. So when I saw your comment discouraging a new user from editing, I really felt compelled to tell you that sort of attitude isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. -Andrew c [talk] 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: 3RR

We've never communicated before, so please forgive me if you're already familiar with Wikipedia's three-revert rule. I need to bring it to your attention as you're coming very close to surpassing it. Rather than reverting articles for the third time in a day, it's recommended that you take it to the article's talk page.  X  S  G  03:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


You're welcome AHRtbA== Talk 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

userbox relocation

Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Girlicious and The Much Music Video Awards..

The Original air date of the Much Music Video Awards was Sunday, June 15, Please stop changing it, because it's wrong.
Thank you!


Thanks for the heads up. I had noticed this one too, and was a little suspicious of the contributions being the only two topics USEDfan edited. Lets hope he can be a little more mature this time... any problems and a simple check user will prove they are one and the same... Nouse4aname (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out Mission Mountain School

I think that you should use a minute on the article on Mission Mountain School, which were quiet debatted in relationship with the GAO hearings about institutional child abuse.

A user has reverted it into an ad for the "school".

Covergaard (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

After months of work user Wildrock aka the manager is about the vandalising the article again Covergaard (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Sure, it's plausible. Naming conventions aren't generally well known, an editor might plausible guess Corktown; Corktown, Toronto; Corktown, Ontario; Corktown, Canada; Corktown (Toronto); Corktown (neighbourhood); or any other assortment of things. We're not supposed to make editors lives more difficult for no gain, we should make articles easier to find, not harder. It any event, it's simply not crazy to think someone might guess Corktown (Toronto); I'll say I might guess the naming convention goes that way (why not?). If you're really unhappy try RfD, but it doesn't meet the CFD. WilyD 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, in general, are a good thing. They make searching easier, editing easier and prevent creation of duplicate articles. Most articles should have a good quantity of redirects pointing at them, yes, and when you create a new article, you should probably create 2-20 redirects to it, I'd guess. WilyD 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you make an interesting point about the search bar, but the naming convetion is for article names, not redirects. It's completely unrealistic to expect all editors (including those as young as 4 days and 10 edits) to be intimately familiar with the MOS's naming conventions. While I'd need to reflect on whether a smaller number of redirects might be better with respect to the search bar, it still means that we'd be creating more red links that should be blue in the future, and it certainly doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion. WilyD 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it'd encourage articles named in that convention; it seems to me like it'd discourage them, since someone going to write them will be redirected to the article, rather than finding it a red link in need of filling. Implausible redirects is a speedy deletion criterion because such deletions are uncontraversial; if That guy what was the last guy to win a batting tripel crown redirects to Carl Yastrzemski, nobody's ever going to use it. That can be deleted without discussion. WilyD 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bank Street

I'm not sure where you're located, but you Google "Bank Street" and tell me what you see. People looking in Wikipedia for the Bank Street College of Education will type in "Bank Street", because that's what everybody calls the school. Given the relative popularity of the two terms, I could and should propose that Bank Street redirect to the school, with a pointer back to the disambig page. So we disagree, and therefore I ask that you bring the discussion to the Talk page per standard Wikipedia policy before making any more moves. Simon12 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Shake 3000

Hey Pwnage. I see you've undone some edits by the above user, on articles relating to The Used. Well, he keeps undoing my edits and moving/removing information, in which on some you yourself have undone. One of these examples is on Shallow Believer. I added the information that the b-sides appear on Shallow Believer and he undid the edit saying that they don't, when they actually do. Plus, he's just undoing some edits. I know why, though. He's probably mad at me or something. Check out his talk page and you'll see why. What should we do? (Well, he changed it. Go here.) Fantasy Dragon (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is definitely back. I shared my thoughts on the RFCU. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Hopefully we can get this settled. I would also like to point out that this user keeps editing Ratchet & Clank related pages, as well, which is what USEDfan did also. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is very frustrating, we all need to be careful not to violate 3RR ourselves. You know he would love to see one of us blocked. On the RFCU the clerk is calling it a fishing expedition. I don't know about you guys, but I'd bet my life on the fact it is USEDfan's sock puppet. I may be a little bias here, but it is blatantly obvious to me. In my opinion even if he isn't blocked for sockpupetry he will be blocked for behaving just like always. Landon1980 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We could always report him for violating 3RR, which he has done on several articles. I may in a minute if I have time, or you can it doesn't matter. Landon1980 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it now, actually. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you not be invloved in the same thing?, acting like a hypocrate are we? That is a shame, and why is there users talking about me on this page?, this is getting very confusing, especially with the above discussion making no sense to me. -Shake 3000 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was involved in that as well, but then I realized how many times I was reverting, so I stopped. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually USEDfan, I have not violated 3RR you have done so on multiple articles. What is a "hypocrate" anyways? Landon1980 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We were reported by USEDfan for violating 3RR here. Landon1980 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that USEDfan's latest sock has been blocked indefinitely. So you don't have to look out for User:Jackk of trades any more. I'm sure he'll make another one in the near future, but we don't have to worry about this one. Seicer also protected the pages his latest sock was editing. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Used template

First of all, I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk at all. I don't mean to. But, I was just saying that they are RELATED ARTICLES, which COULD have links on the template. I mean, if you go to the System of a Down template, there are links to the members' other bands and solo albums. Just a thought. FallenWings47 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're comming from. FallenWings47 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally just thought of something! If you go to the System of a Down article, the first section is about the members band BEFORE System! And there's similar circumstanes on The Used page. And since what they're talking about (Strange Itch and The Naked Truth EP) actually have pages, should they MAYBE be incorporated into the template? FallenWings47 9:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't see that quote. It's been a while since I've read the main article. And sorry about the track listings. I thought the end result looked better than how it did previously. I guess you think otherwise. XP FallenWings47 9:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah! I see what you're saying!! Well, what has that used been doing? FallenWings47 10:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops! I went to say what is THAT USER been doing? My bad. FallenWings47 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, well let's hope he doesn't come back. FallenWings47 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit...

USEDfan just keeps coming and coming doesn't he? — FatalError 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this. Landon1980 (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary


This is just a friendly reminder that you shouldn't refer to other editors in this manner.

Peace! SWik78 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Towers in New York

You reverted changes made to NYC bridge articles, removing the category "Towers in New York" using popups. Suspension bridges have towers, so I think your changes were made in error. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Bridges are not towers. The use of the category for bridges obscures those genuine towers meant to be included in the category. If there were articles for the bridge towers themselves, I would agree that they belong in a tower category. Alansohn (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WQA on you

To notify you that it's here - you're encouraged to respond to the concerns there. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Delgado

I'm not going to keep reverting, note that this format is being used by WP:PUR in most biographies, including some GAs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican" has been a nationality for over a century, it was downplayed by the American one when the US invaded the archipelago but it was never revoked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No, nationality and ethnicity are two different things. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting take on things, however this is a biography, we are covering people here, thus we link the relevant article. When we discuss a company or a newspaper we use the piping to the location, otherwise we use the "people's" link. This is used commonly and its the first time someone has complained for a technical point, I stick to the project's format. Then again if you want to overlink "Puero Rico" it can always be linked in a second location of the lead, even though that seems redundant with a link in the infobox. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That is because Canadian people is a redirect to a article with an entirely different format than the one used for Puerto Rican people. Anyway, I am too busy to keep discussing such a minor point, a rewrite should do the trick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A comma

Hi, today is July 30, 2008, and it is hot outside. You made this change, which is not correct. Please see this discussion, any grammar source on dates, or the page the article was linking to. Please revert your changes, or I'll update the page. Before you revert changes, please take a second to discuss. Cheers! —Slipgrid (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa roads move request

Sometimes even I'm surprised at what's considered controversial. Still, taking it to WP:RM is best. I've posted it there and made a discussion area at Talk:Bronson Avenue (Ottawa). — AjaxSmack 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo English edit warring

While they haven't taken place over 24 hours, the revert warring you and Thegryseone have been doing over this article and this particular source is getting close to actionable (I have had the article watchlisted for a long time). If the two of you continue, I will just protect the page for some length of time. Either work it out or leave it alone. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that doesn't mean you do it one more time. on the anticipation the page will be protected and that way your version will be the one that stays. Now I will be protecting the page, and I may just block you too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I protected it because the two of you were edit-warring over it. It's that simple. No, I know you didn't want it protected. You didn't ask. Protection does not have to be requested. An admin can protect a page as an alternative to blocking both parties involved in the edit war, and I felt that was the better solution here before it got out of hand. You are supposed to talk to the other editor on the talk page, not with your edit summaries. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point about blocking. It wouldn't have accomplished anything. I don't need to throw my weight around that much. But we cannot allow people to edit war. If you have seen worse in the past, and I know where you're coming from, it's because it was allowed to get out of hand that far, not because it was acceptable.

And I wasn't expecting to protect the page right away, but when you responded to my warning by reverting to the version you preferred and then linking to where I warned him in the edit summary, it looked like you were going "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah", trying to game the system, thinking that a revert from him would probably get him blocked. It was just so in-your-face. The right thing to do would have been for both of you to back away. Your atittude, as expressed by that and your "it's only for three days" comment, is not making a favorable impression on me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When you are warned about edit warring, you stop doing it. Period. Telling the other editor, after you both receive such a warning, that you're going to do it one more time and let him decide what to do next basically boils down to "I dare you to knock this off. I just dare you".

The length of an article has no bearing on its quality. He, and any other user, are within their power and their rights to whittle an article back down to stub status if nothing in it is up to policy. It's a little drastic, it really should be discussed on the talk page (as he did), but it's something I've done at times too.

As for your attitude, having a username like that doesn't help, either (I have hardblocked people indefinitely before they've even edited for variations of "pwn3d"). True, no one's formally complained about it in all the time you've been editing, but I do see here that you've rubbed some other people the wrong way. Maybe you should consider changing your username so people are less likely to make assumptions about you and judge your editing that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IU where it talks about names that imply an intent to edit disruptively. We've had more than a few aspiring vandals use that string or some variation thereof. As I implied, your username is mitigated by the fact that you're not a vandal. But, as you told Thegryseone, what you do about it is up to you. I wasn't implying anything. Failure to assume good faith applies to you too.

Deletionism isn't a blockable offense, it's simply an editing philosophy. I've seen articles greatly improved by being torn down and rebuilt. Right now, that article's been stripped of a fair amount of OR and trivia as well as some material citing unreliable sources. That material may well be restored with proper sources. Best thing you could do is find those sources and cite them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bert going to Timpanogos High School

I haven't figured out how to source this, but Bert said in a recent airing of the radio show Loveline that he and Quinn didn't actually attend high school together and that he only went to Timpanogos for about a week or a month. I've heard they attended choir class together, but personally I doubt this because it seems that they first met at the beginning of 2001. Do they confirm the choir class in any interview? (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shadow ArbCom

Just an update on the SAC. I set up a page for all news and updates at User:Mr. IP/Shadow ArbCom. We'll soon be taking on the stalled C68-FM-SV case soon (at the proposed decision talkpage for the case itself), as the real ArbCom seems unwilling to deal w/ it :D Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New userbox

Hey I just wanted to say, you seemed to like my userboxes, so here is a new one.

Electronic calculator.jpg Put the number 25 in a calculator. Multiply by 800. Multiply by 266. Subtract 1,992. Then look at the calculator upside-down...
This user loves tricks like this.

Whatever. Thanks for dropping by. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Personal attacks, such as this, are not conducive to consensus building. Please remove it. Thanks, Tomertalk 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's a conflict of interest on anyone's part, clearly you do not understand what Conflict of interest means, nor how it applies to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, your personal attack against another editor remains. Please review the blocking policy and see how it relates to your behavior. Regards, Tomertalk 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ex Cathedra and hostility

Please, when stating your opinion, take responsibility for it "...will be considered vandalism..." is not that same as "I will consider it vandalism...", and you are by no means an expert (nor am I). If you are citing a rule, please do. That is less combative, more effective, and increases knowledge rather than simply increasing conflict. I have asked for the assistance of a more knowledgeable person, and will be guided by that opinion, rather than your hostile one.

I wonder, is your name appropriate on Wiki? It seems combative. sinneed (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective it certainly is. "further edit warring"... If you were edit warring, you should certainly have stopped, instead of proceeding. But you know that, as you are (looking at your edit record) heavily involved in edit warring. That is, in continuing it, rather than ending it. I have repeatedly proposed and made changes to attempt to arrive at consensus. You, however, revert and threaten. You might consider the difference between the two. What consensus-reaching effort have you made? What compromising edit have you made? Have you, as Erik did, cited a reliable source on Wiki behaviour to back up your arguments? You have not done these things. Instead, you have reverted and threatened that if I don't agree with you "it will be considered vandalism". I find your behaviour amusing, but sad. I do wish you well, and will, after review and consultation, either make further edits or not, as I choose, and they will not be vandalism. Good Day.sinneed (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"in the wrong" - again, the point is moot, those items do not belong in Wiki, in either form. We were both wrong. Thanks for editing, and hopefully you can find a way to separate "disagreement" from "vandalism" and "disruption" in your mind. You also seem to suffer from the same problem I do, of forgetting to sign posts with the 4 tildes from time to time, as you did at my talk page. I bid you a pleasant Good Day. sinneed (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Negreanu

Hi Pwnage8. I'm slightly confused by your edit summary comment, "whether the refs are sufficient enough or not is not for you to decide". The cleanup of excessive links was per WP:EL, which is a guideline that attempts to ensure that, among other things, external links are both relevant to the topic, and that sections containing external links are not excessively long. I'm not sure how much experience you have concerning external links, but I can assure you that my edits were entirely within Wikipedia guidelines and common practice. If you contend that the remaining links after my cleanup were not suffiencient for readers to find more information about Daniel Negreanu, I suggest you read the guideline more thoroughly. You should also be aware of the policy WP:NOT which says, quite simply, that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. If you have evidence that any of the removed links constitute an "encyclopedic resource", as stipulated in WP:EL, I would be interested to see it. If you were simply restoring the links because you don't understand why they were removed, please stop to consider the guidelines and policies involved. Thanks, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Deiz talk 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Oh, it was always like that, plus all the other Mississauga communities still had ___,Ontario afterwards, so I moved it for consistency.

My bad.

You probably had a better reason to move it to Mississauga, the only thing I ask is you do the same with other community pages (EG Port Credit, Dixie, Streetsville...

Sorry about that.

Clarkson, again

Yeah, I'm in agreement. :)

As I said, my bad. I don't go in wikipedia very often, but I live in Clarkson and a few of us consider ourselves pretty distinct from other parts of Mississauga. But I'll leave the bureaucratics of Wikipedia behind me and let you have it like that, it's probably right anyways.

Canada K-121 Widowmaker (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty.Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay village

The gay village most certainly does extend past Wood Street. ACT, The Barn, Hair of the Dog, the Bijou, the Maple Leaf health clinic, Zipperz, DKS, the Bulldog and the Hassle-Free Clinic are all south of Wood, and they're certainly within any remotely normal or reasonable definition of the neighbourhood. The BIA defines the boundaries of the commercial strip, certainly, but not the boundaries of the entire neighbourhood. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not all on Carlton. Maple Leaf, Zipperz and ACT are at the corner of Church and Carlton, while everything else I listed is further south along Church. And any confusion about that is precisely why I added the clause about the core commercial strip being the bit of Church between Alexander and Wellesley in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've lived within walking distance of the village for almost a decade, and I've never heard anybody refer to anything in the area as "Charles East", not even once. Okay, maybe the street itself. But not a neighbourhood. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my guestbook

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for signing my guestbook. LAAFan as a RS

Could you point me to where it says wikipedia considers the review of Evans Blue a reliable source? Not a criticism, just a genuine query, as I'm not aware of it. Prophaniti (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like it meets the editorial staff criteria, certainly. But one quick question: how is different from, say, metal-archives, which also has it's own volunteer staff, and yet is known for not being an accepted source? Prophaniti (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
But, as far as genres go, it's not open. While bands are submitted by anyone, all must go through administrator (i.e. staff) approval first. Thus, all band genres are controlled by the staff of the site, something that cannot be achieved through their points system. As such, how is it different to Again, I'm not outright trying to argue, just inquire as to why. Prophaniti (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well I shall investigate further. Thanks for the clarification anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering why you reverted the tracklist tables, I thought this would be a nice improvement. Less than you (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have no source that says it is self titled, any album that has no name (usually a band's first album) is self titled. You learn something new everyday, huh? Less than you (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I always looked at it as being self titled, if there isn't a titled, you refer to it as the band's name, you never say 'untitled'. Also, why did you change the tracklist tables, I thought it was a nice improvement to the page, it looked really swell on my chem's page. The tracklist tables are pre-set by wikipedia and it is a much easier way to read them. One more thing, I organized some pages to try to match each other with an information section and the non-topic section just saying the name, release, and certification, I thought it be more informally organized like that. Why was that also changed? Less than you (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Saying untitled would be your opinion as well.
Korn's is listed as untitled becuase they already have a self titled album. When the Used appeared on much music usa in 2003, Steven ask "why did you decide to leave the album untitled?" and Bert said that it speaks for itself and doesn't need a title. That means both ways is an opinion.
There may be no standard, but it is an easier to read format when laid out in a table format. It makes it more informative and cleaner.
Hmm? What does that mean, I'm a fan of many, many bands.
It seems like whatever you say is my opinion is an opinion to you as well, you condradict yourself. The person we both talked to is very helpful and knows very much about wikipedia so I ask him to give his opinion and advise to help determine what a better format and tracklist tables would be, lets wait for them. Less than you (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Used

Sorry for all the confusion between us on the Used page, I see you been on wiki for a long time so I will let you go ahead and have your way the layout and format. You could change it back to the way you prefer since you obviously know more about wiki then I do. Hopefully I will be able to turn to you for any help that I need in the future. Sorry and thanks. Less than you (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


You are probably more familiar with with him than I am, so will you help me gather some evidence to request a checkuser? I want to make sure it is accepted. Siecer doesn't seem to want to deal with it for whatever reason. Landon1980 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its becuase i did nothing wrong this time, i decided my block was over so im back, :) Less than you (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You do not decide when your block is over, USEDfan. More proof of that you still do not understand Wikipedia and never will. You are a fanboy of the Used, nothing more, you have never made a constructive edit to Wikipedia (at least not that I'm aware of). Your sole purpose is to cause disruption, nothing more nothing less. Landon1980 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread at ANI, he is now indefinitely blocked once again for block evasion. However, you and I both know he will be back. It isn't a matter of if, but when he creates another sock. I don't know why he doesn't just make his own page about the band. That way he could say whatever he wants whenever he wants, without interference from us vandals :). Are any of his latest edits constructive in your opinion? If not I guess we could reinstate the version before his arrival. He sourced most of his edits with that dvd of his. I don't know about you but I don't believe a word he says. Landon1980 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I also managed to get account creation blocked on his IP for a duration of 3 months. I doubt it will stop him, but it may slow him down. We both know how determined he is to own that article. Landon1980 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I nearly fell out of my chair when he admitted to being to being USEDfan. I knew 100% certain it was him but still. There was more than enough evidence for a checkuser, so he just saved us from requesting one. Landon1980 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Stem cell controversy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Parker2334 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I have no problem with re-creating the article. Right now I'm focusing on improving the Kardinal Offishall page, so I'll save that for next week. Blackjays1 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WP Newsletter

Featured List contest

Hey Pwnage8, this is IMatthew (talk · contribs), co-coordinator of the WikiCup; just informing you of the Featured List contest, starting this coming Friday. You may want to check it out; it will keep you busy for the time being before the WikiCup starts around January. Thanks for listening! iMatthew (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Article

Before you call me a "pro-abortion POV pusher" as you did in your edit summary, I removed the see also you added because purely by the intro of the Infanticide article, Abortion is not infantacide. If you like it back in there, please take it to the talk page of the abortion article first. Also, that edit summary is not AGF, nor civil. Keep it clean, even with the gloves off :) Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Go Senators, unless they're playing the Sabres, then I gotta go Sabres :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than go all out, fists flying for your edit, consider discussing on the talk page first. This article was unprotected for 2 weeks, and this pops up again. I care not about that article one way or the other, as long as it maintains NPOV. I've requested full protection on it until the dispute is worked out. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign

Hey Pwnage8, I've updated my Main Page Redesign proposal substantially, and you had some really great points last time you commented - hopefully you'll see the effects of your suggestions. It would be great if you could comment on the new proposal, I'm really proud of how it's shaping up. Many thanks -- PretzelsTalk! 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Stop hand nuvola.svg Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to 1979 Mississauga train derailment. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I had to revert all of your additions after a speedy deletion notice brought it to my attention that the material added by you, such as here was copy-pasted from Please note that any further copyright violations on your part may result in a block without further notice.  Sandstein  20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page, changing some words does not make what you did less of a copyright violation. The warning was obviously required in view of your comment, which raises additional concerns. I'll have a look at your other contributions.  Sandstein  20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
All content on the web is copyrighted by default unless it is released under a free licence. That's why you should never copy and paste text from the web to Wikipedia. If the article was previously a copyright violation (from where?), you should have submitted it for deletion, not added more material in violation of copyright.  Sandstein  21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith; I'm just assuming a very regrettable ignorance of our copyright rules. You may not restore the content that you added in violation of copyright. Even if you reference it properly the text will still violate the copyright of whoever wrote it. Citations are a matter of WP:V, but they do not resolve WP:COPYVIO issues. You should instead rewrite the article in your own words and provide the required inline citations as well.  Sandstein  21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert your re-addition of the copyrighted work. As I noted above, adding citations does not make it less of a copyright violation. Copyright covers the composition and wording of the work you have copied. You need to re-write the entire article in your own words to avoid violating copyright. Per WP:COPYVIO:

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."

Please note that this is your final warning; any subsequent introduction of copyrighted material to Wikipedia may lead to a block without further warning.  Sandstein  06:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Rock music Newsletter for October 2008

Mono live 20050502.jpg
The Rock music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 9 - October 2008
"As long as my face is on page one, I don't care what they say about me on page seventeen."- Mick Jagger
Project news
  • The project has a total of 106 GAs and 91 Featured Articles and Lists put together.
  • We collaborated on Soul Bomb.
  • Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20.
  • The genres in infobox fields have been removed cause of the discussion found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. You can provide any opinions you may have about this.
  • This month's "Recommended Rock Album" is Soundgarden - Superunknown (1994).



User:Be Black Hole Sun

Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)


Ah okay woops didn't notice. Jakisbak (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I think the first thing would be to find a *lot* more sources, starting with the ones in the AFD, and then start building an article in userspace. The deleted version is currently at User:Black Kite/Scene, as a starting point. Clearly there needs to be a lot more to the new article than that version, though! Black Kite 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My genre removing rampage

Did you actually go through my contributions to undo all of em? Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8, you are getting pretty close to violating the 3RR on Linkin Park. Please stop reverting and discuss with the other users who keep removing the non-functional genre field. Parsecboy (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Saosin - Collaspe

Their was no need for the ""Collapse" was included in the soundtrack for Burnout Paradise." It was already established in the Saosin section first of all and why is it the only one you put on their since thiers all these other tracks as well..

  1. ATV Offroad Fury Pro (2007) - "Sleepers"
  2. Burnout Dominator (2007) - "Collapse"
  3. Saw IV: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (2007) – "Collapse"
  4. Reef: Bobby Martinez Mixed Tape (2007) – "It's Far Better To Learn"
  5. Burnout Paradise (2008) - "Collapse"

it makes no sense at all that you put that information and not the rest above. Might as well take the information that you added off.

Circaxmk (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


My edits are perfectly objective and well referenced - There is absolutely no bias! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8, are you sure the anon's edits are vanalism? You may be in violation of WP:3RR. Accurizer (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting disruptive edits. The anon is inserting POV material against consensus, refuses to discuss his changes, and is constantly edit warring, which puts me in an awkward position because I'm the only one keeping an eye on the page right now. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the anon's edits are not in good faith. I see one bizarre sentence but s/he offers references for most everything else. Given that, I don't think you should refer to the edits as vandalism in your edit summaries. Accurizer (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The editor has been repeatedly warned not to insert disputed content and undo my reversions, and to discuss changes on the talk page. What do you call it after they've defiantly reverted several times? --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize it can be frustrating, but take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Don't let another editor's actions drag you down or bait you into doing something wrong. I hope this helps. Accurizer (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Pwnage8, sorry it took time to get back to you. I've been away a few days. In response to the vandalism matter, it's more important for us to be precise rather than fast. As you know, any mistakes you make are permanently recorded in the page histories. It's possible that mistakes made due to moving too fast may not reflect well upon you in the minds of some editors if and when you seek consensus for greater privileges. If you take time to get things right, it will reflect better on you. This leads to your question about the rollback function. You need to be especially thoughtful and careful when using it. You may qualify now but, if you want it to be a sure thing, I recommend waiting a month or so and in the mean time try to work on your approach. If you receive it before working on this, you could make mistakes and it would be taken away from you, which I'm sure you would find very disheartening. I think you have great potential but should try to moderate your approach somewhat. I hope this advice is well received. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Saosin addition

so i added the information. hopfully this will make things better for the page.

Circaxmk (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Independent Order of Odd Fellows

I don't really understand why Independent Order of Odd Fellows would be an "article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto on Wikipedia". Can you enlighten me please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarkson Secondary Alumni Shaun Majumder

I repsectfully submit that your edit in the Alumni section of Clarkson Secondary School is incorrect. Your comment: "can you show me a reliable source that says shaun majumder went to the school? i think he'd have trouble getting there all the way from newfoundland!" Here is your source( and the quote comes from the seventh paragraph; "The truth is, there have been many more successes lately for Shaun than there have been failures. He stuck with drama through high school in Burlington, Newfoundland and later at Clarksdale Secondary in Mississauga, where he went to live with his father when he was 14." While they refer to the school as "Clarksdale" We all know there is no Clarksdale. Just a Clarkson Public and a Clarkson Secondary.

Further, I have known Shaun for 4 years and was surprised when he told me he was from my old high school.

While it does not seem important to have other external references required for any of the other notables: Brad Boyes, Martin Frey, Sean Jones, Don Kerr, Greg Spottiswood, Debbie Van Kiekebelt, I have added one external source for Shaun. By the way of the seven Alumni Notables, I went to school with three of them and personally know an aditional two. And I've added Barabra Turnbull, whom I also went to school with and have the most respect for all she has, and will continue to, accomplish.

One final comment, and this comes from looking at the rest of the comments posted here, it appears that you think you know a lot. This may not be the case. But I submit that you believe you are correct.

JJ (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Contest Invitation

Hello there!

You have been invited to enter C4v3m4n's Contest!.

The contest is designed to provide users with a challenge while still having fun! This month's contest is focused on Movember, a month designed to to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand.

Follow the link given above to find out more information. Hope to see you there!

04:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wrong Template

Thank you for telling me of my mistake. leujohn (talk, contribs) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Genre.

Where was it reinstated? And of course it shows up, it's been showing up for a while, but I was informed they removed it as it became too broad. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Re your edits to Circumcision a few days ago: the purpose of this message is not to criticize you, but to give you some suggestions you might want to consider if you're in a similar situation in future. In this particular situation, you could have just left the article as it was; if the additions were very inappropriate, probably somebody else would have reverted them after not very long (e.g. a few hours); I think probably several people have Circumcision on their watchlist and some probably check it several times a day. You could have posted a message to the talk page explaining why you disagreed with the edit; that might have had a better chance of getting the other party to post to the talk page than just telling them in edit summaries to do so. I think with new users it also helps to give a link to the talk page in the edit summary, rather than just saying "see talk": they may not know where to find it, and they may be hesitant about whether to start a new thread or how to do so, but more willing to reply if you post to the talk page. Rather than reverting repeatedly yourself, you could have sought other users to provide additional opinions. There are ways to do this without violating WP:CANVASS. In this particular case, the most appropriate may have been WP:3O. Posting to the talk pages of articles with related topics, or to a related Wikiproject, is another option. In other situations, if it's vandalism you can post to WP:AIV; if it's a BLP violation you can post to WP:BLPN, and there are a number of other noticeboards that may be useful under various circumstances. I notice that in one of your edit summaries you wrote "rvv". I suggest making a clear decision one way or another: do you think it's something that would be obviously vandalism to an objective observer? If so, report it at WP:AIV. If not, treat the other person with respect by not calling their edit "vandalism" or "rvv". (In my opinion, in this case it wasn't vandalism, although I didn't consider it an improvement to the article.) See also Dispute resolution. I hope you find these suggestions helpful. My own actions in this situation, which were not well thought through, were not intended to cause any inconvenience to you. Coppertwig (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your message (which might be later archived here or here) You're welcome! Thanks for calling my message "insightful". By the way, sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but alternatively the noticeboards WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN or WP:RSN might have been useful and appropriate in this situation.
I think it's important to understand how the situation looks from the other person's point of view. The other editor believed that the article was severely biassed, showing essentially only one POV, and that the editor was correcting that by adding material showing the other POV. The editor therefore considered your reverts to be destructive. In such a situation, explaining things to the editor might help; very short messages such as edit summaries or standard messages such as templates may not help much; and it's possible that anything you say would be discounted as an attempt to maintain your POV in the article. I think bringing in at least one other editor is most helpful in that type of situation. When someone sees that a different person also agrees with you, they're more likely to consider that just possibly they might be wrong. Coppertwig (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry – I didn't mean to sound critical. I appreciate your help with the article. Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey there! Thank you for your approach to editing New World Order (conspiracy theory). I thought that it was good to take those out of the article too. I just made a few edits there myself and didn't want to overpower the changes to the article. It seems that the article was fairly unreferenced and that a group came in there this month (see notes and talk page) and put a bunch of notes to try to sway the article some other way, then came those few odd edits. I have been trying to get those references and bring the article more toward neutrality, while keeping with the subject. There is material out there, it just takes some digging. It seems that we think alike! Thanks too for consolidating the references awhile back, that is not my niche. You may want to take a look at the "New Age" article as well, there are similar new edits that you may be able to help with...

Take care and good editing!!! All Is One (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alt. metal artists

Well, all I'm trying to do is keep the list up to date. If there's a problem with the genres on the band page, that's what needs changing. I've no problem with reverts of my removals from the list so long as they're in keeping with the band pages, which is also where any debates over genre need to be done. Prophaniti (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

High schools in Peel Region

Done. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Untitled image

That image is a violation of WP:NFCC, #8, significance. Read it, how would that image significantly increase the reader's understand of the topic? It is substantially the same as the standard cover, anyways, only black and white. There wasn't even a critical analysis of the image in the article (it would need much more than that, though). The image really has no significance in this article. --The Guy complain edits 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Mudface page again

Someone redirected it again. This time i added Reliable sources so it cant happen a third time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apawk (talkcontribs) 17:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Hi. I noticed you adding links to Myspace in violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Please don't repeat this or you may be blocked. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Official MySpace links are not prohibited on band pages. I've had a lengthy discussion with piano non troppo about this, and have asked him not to remove them, but he refuses to listen. Meanwhile, he's on his little rampage, causing disruption to many articles. Accusing me of violating a guideline and threatening to block without even looking into the dispute, or the guideline, strikes me as irresponsible and an abuse of admin powers. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Can you point to a consensus to support your statement that "[o]fficial MySpace links are not prohibited on band pages"? It might be worthwhile discussing this at WT:EL. Two users cannot decide this between themselves. My feeling is that Myspace links are unlikely ever to add anything to an article in an online encyclopedia, but it may be that the community consensus disagrees with me. I would now need to see evidence of this, which I have not yet seen. In any case, pending a clear consensus, please refrain from adding these links. Thanks, --John (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not adding them, I'm restoring them because somebody removed them. I did not put them there originally. The consensus right now is that band MySpaces are allowed, and the burden of proof is on PNT for justifying their removal. He hasn't been able to, and he's the only one that's been removing them. This is ultimately something that needs to be discussed with the community, since he has not stopped. I'm not sure why I'm being asked to stop, because I haven't done anything. I'm just trying to keep things the way they are so that the changes could be discussed. According to WP:Bold, revert, discuss, it should be reverted to the way it was before (i.e. the version I'm reverting to) so that it can be discussed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Restoring them is in effect adding them (or re-adding them if you like). According to WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the person adding or restoring the material to demonstrate its suitability. You have stated twice now that "band MySpaces are allowed" but you have not pointed me to a consensus for that. Can you do so? If not I suggest raising it at WT:EL, as I said. --John (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN deals with quotes, disputed claims, and BLP stuff. Not relevant for disputes over external links. The consensus has been that MySpaces are allowed, since editors have added these links into articles, to the point where they became standard over time, much like date links. There has been absolutely no discussion over whether they should be removed, unlike the situation with date links. What we have here is a user acting on his own, removing links based on his interpretation of policy, with no consensus behind these changes. This is why WP:Bold, revert, discuss applies here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Repeatedly claiming there is a consensus carries zero weight with me or on this project in general. Pointing to where this supposed consensus was reached, as I have asked you to do twice already, would be more useful. --John (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I missed this last message because I was wrapped up in something else. From WP:Consensus: "Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus has formed that official band MySpaces are allowed. This has been the case for a very long time now, since before I started editing. Can you point out to me where the community has decided official band MySpaces are not allowed? --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A Different Breed of Killer

Hi there, you removed a PROD notice from the article for A Different Breed of Killer, on the basis that they have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources for their touring. That's totally fair enough; could you now provide those sources and integrate them into the article? Otherwise, removing the PROD becomes a little bit pointless... if there's anything I can do to help, let me know and I'll go and have another look myself! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found some sources of varying degrees of reliability and stuck them on the talk page. Some print sources would be ideal really, rather than websites not distributed by an independent source. (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ice hockey player pages

I find nothing on the wp:hockey player profile pages, that resembles what you suggest is a convention. Seems purely anecdotal to me - or can you provide a link? And, by the way: it would be nice, if you didn't revert all changes straight off, but instead posted a polite message on people's talk pages. Unless, of course, you deliberately want to piss people off.

Cheers. LarRan (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reported your style of communicating with other wikipedians on Wikiquette alerts. LarRan (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Veracity of bukkake legends

Please see Talk:Bukkake#History section before reverting again. Jpatokal (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Life Square

Hi. Thanks for trying to find sources for that problem section, but we need more. This section has been a problem for months, violating [[WP:V], WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:ANC. First, Wikipedia is not a directory of random shopping centre tenants - typically, tenants are only mentioned if they are anchors or there is something noteworthy about them in the context of that centre. In this particular case, we need a source that shows that these tenants are anchors -- it is a violation of WP:OR for editors to deem that these tenants fulfill an anchor role. If we can't find a source that identifies them as anchors, then we could probably find something that identifies them as noteworthy -- the AMC comes to mind, given the unusual deal with Ryerson to use the theatres as lecture halls during the day. It may be harder to come up with stuff for some of the others. Some of the other stuff in the para. is problematic -- a "one of a kind patio" (source req'd), a "unique" food court (source req'd). But thanks for trying to help. I will look around and see if I can find anything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not look for sources nor check the source. I just saw a ref and removed the tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not remove the tag. It is the same insufficient source. Most of the section remains unsourced. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Pwnage8. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
again StarM 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over dates

Hey there. I noticed your post on NYScholar's talk page [1] about date formats and was a bit concerned. First, in the post you said "read: we're not Europe so you damn well better use the normal MM/DD format" - I'm not sure whether this was meant to be a comment on the guideline itself or directed at a specific editor, but it could easily be mistaken for you insisting other editors use the "normal" format in a rather rude fashion.

The other thing that concerns me is that you seem to be edit warring on the article you mentioned. Since you're aware of the guideline, hopefully you realize that going around changing date formats is really frowned on and edit warring is right out. If you're concerned about the way you see dates on articles, there's a setting in your preferences on the Date and time tab that allows you to specify how you want dates to look. This setting works for any wiki-linked dates you might run across. Hope that helps. Shell babelfish 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I interpret the guideline that way. I always use MM/DD since that's the normal format, and I will never use anything else. If you read my post carefully, you'd understand that I made the post to request his permission to change the date format in the article since he is the first contributor. I did this the day after I edited that article. I made the post specifically to not edit war. The reverting editor, DI2000, was in the wrong for calling my edit vandalism, when this is a content dispute. But I don't see you posting on his page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "normal"; since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, "normal" may be vastly different depending on who wrote the article or even who's reading it. As for the permission, no editor on Wikipedia owns an article, so there is no need to ask for permission, nor could another editor give it to you - things like article content and style are determined by a general consensus of the community. Since you read the appropriate guideline, your might have seen the part which explains that editors are expected to retain the existing date format except in special circumstances. Since Canadian related articles can easily use either format (which is also mentioned in the guideline), there is no compelling reason for the change. Shell babelfish 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you care to get involved in this. This is between NYScholar and me. By the way, I fixed your spelling error in the title of this section, even though you've been shown to be wrong about my supposed "edit warring". Anybody who posts on someone's talk page to resolve a dispute is edit warring? That couldn't be more backwards. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


You might find this discussion interesting: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. There's a discussion going on here about a substantial proposed edit. I would like to know whether you support it, or whether you believe more work is needed. Please "vote" on the Talk page linked. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Richard (film)

Thank you for your heads up on my talk page; I moved it and my reply to the talk page of this article, where discussion of the formatting of the dates is pertinent. I changed items in "References" list to citation templates with the date format for them, explaining that w/ links to WP:MOS#Dates, fyi and for the information of others editing the article. If the format for the dates is consistent (which it is), there is no reason to change them, as the order is proper according to Wikipedia's own editing style guidelines (linked there). There is no reason to get into an editing war over date formatting. See discussion of editing principles in sections re: varieties of English as well. Your statement about dates suggesting that they must follow American date formatting is not correct, especially pertaining to an article whose subject has strong "ties" to Quebec (French-speaking Canada), where the film was made (See the header for the article for that identification). Thanks again, nevertheless, for the comment. (For why I moved it to the talk page, please consult the section "N.B." on my own talk page.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


I thought I was reverting vandalism? Or was there a vandal diff before it? Sorry if I did that. Winstontalk 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And archive your talk page. Winstontalk 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. I was removing an infobox that was on the page 500 freaking times. Sorry if I took one too many. I don't like to defend myself with policies, but assume good faith. I'm new. Stop giving me crap about how I'm a vandal bent on f**king up the wiki. You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me. I didn't do crap wrong besides trying to get rid of vandalism on a page. And my comment on your guestbook was an attempt to get you to notice I was trying to contact you to work this out. You don't seem to understand me, so I will use special bold test here: The infobox was duplicated many, many times. You can't call my removal of them all "obvious vandalism". If you keep harassing me and Green caterpillar, something needs to be done. Just accept that I was trying to remove vandalism and get on with your life. Winstontalk 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you are already on Wikiquette alerts, so I have just added my two cents to it. Winstontalk 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please assume good faith and please do not make personal attacks, as you did here, here, and here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At least some of what you considered "vandalism" are contributions of editors at least trying to act in good faith, and I strongly encourage you to think before you press the "save changes" button. TheWinstonator was acting in good faith by trying to make sure that there was only one infobox after an IP had copied many of them, and I was astonished by how TheWinstonator told me you behaved. I am not in the business of wiki-cred; instead, I am working toward creating an encyclopedia, likely as well as the editors whose edits you reverted. Your behavior is unacceptable, and it needs to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not justify the red link, and I did not say their contributions were necessarily helpful; I said that those users were probably acting in good faith. What I thought was inappropriate was when you said, "thank you for that red link, you vandal". That user was most likely trying to help and may not have been familiar with how Wikipedia works, and if you call someone a vandal who's trying to act in good faith, it discourages him/her from editing, because, according to WP:BITE, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". So please, before making hostile edit summaries, please think first, and see how the other user would feel. Green caterpillar (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kenny V Spenny

I did not intend to revert your edits, I must have clicked edit before you made your changes (yours sent 2 minutes before mine). I did not intend to revert anything you did. One of my own reversions to previous edits was the same "Bobby" edit as yours, in fact. I'm not sure why wikipedia didn't inform me of the intermediate edit. Thanks for bringing this up. I have redone your date deletes (though I have added "TBA" instead of just a blank. I don't follow airdates (mainly because I don't have time to go researching and updating airdates). Sorry about the accidental revert. Keep up the good edits. TheHYPO (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Demos from the Basement

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Demos from the Basement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demos from the Basement. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Reserves are not "First Nations Reserves"

The legal term, the official term, the most common usage, is Indian Reserve. There is NO SUCH THING as a "First Nations Reserve", and your correction, and that usage, are POV in nature because they supplant a politically-derived term on top of the most common usage as well as the official usage. Wikipedia is not a forum for correcting the world's linguistic evils, and to try and foist such terms is not only POV they constitute neologisms and therefore are also outside the Wikipedia rulebook. And if you look at Native American name controversy and its talkpage (where such issues have been debated) you'll see that there's Americans that would like to call all FNs "Native Americans". A "First Nations reserve" can be spoken of in general terms, but even then it's neologism as the most common usage REMAINS "Indian Reserve" (including in documents used by First Nations governments themselves). It's not for you to make that very POV call and "correct" what you think is s mistake. Your edit was POV, pure and simple, and preachy attitude that "they're not Indians" is not only sophomoric it's also paternalistic, even though - rather especially because - it's swathed in p.c. rightouesness. Anything politically correct is inherently POV By definition..Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were a little more widely read, you'd be aware of bands that use "Indian Band" rather than "First Nation" in their council-name, and there's the Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, a tribal council, and lots of other bodies including the Native Indian Brotherhood. Which no doubt you would "correct" to "Native First Nations Brotherhood", and the "American Indian Movement" (cnd chapter( no doubt you would tell them they have to be the "American First Nation Movement". Canadians have a bad habit of self-consciously correcting things that don't need correcting, or which isnt' their business to correct, or that "they know better" when they really don't. Which results in all kinds of weird constructs and awkward usages - when does "Fist Nations" mean peoples, when does it mean government, when does it mean a person ("First Nations person" vis Indian" is a waste of keyspace and also of smugness), when is it an adejctive? I've even seen it used as an adverb. Supplanting words on a knee-jerk basis resluts in awkward constructs like "First Nations Reserve". The reality is in places like Alkali Lake there's a community of Alkali Lake, the Alkali Lake Indian Reserve whose inhanbitants are part of that community, and the Alkali Lake First Nation which is the government of that people, who call themeslves Esketemc (people of Esket). The Indian Reserve refers to the land allotment and community-site, the First Nation is (variously) the government and/or the people. When an entry on the Community page says "Village" it means capital-V legal Village; when it says Indian Reserve it's because the Indian Reserve is an important component of the legal landscape in the same way the Village is not a small-l village but a capital-V one. The land allotment is not called "the Alkali Lake First Nations Reserve", except in politically-correctified (i.e. POV) documentation.Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Then there's the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Which I suppose you would "correct" that to "Union of British Columbia First Nations political leaders" ("Chiefs" is ethnographically incorrect, or didn't you know that?). Once again, Wikipedia is not a forum to correct the world's linguistic evils, or to abolish usages that some feel shoudl be done away with; wikipedia is meant to be a reflection of reality, not a device for its perfection....or its pretension, either....Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Guestbook barnstar.png - Jameson L. Tai's Guestbook Barnstar
For signing my guestbook - I, - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs, hereby present Pwnage8 with this award. Cheers! -- - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks :D! I knew watching your userpage would come in handy :p. I don't see any reason why we can't put that stuff behind us and be friends. Winstontalk 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Green Caterpillar

I know it happened a month ago, but Green Caterpillar did the same thing to me that he did to you. He attacked me on my talk page inappropriately (I thought it was an accident) and when I deleted it he filed a Wikiquette Alert against me. He made no efforts to find out what I was doing or why, he just made bad assumptions and decided to attack me. I think you're right that he tries to increase his WP "cred" with warning that may or may not be appropriate. However, what it really does is inflame tensions rather than settle them.

Anyway, I just thought I'd tell you that you're not his only victim.LedRush (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup notice

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew and Garden. 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Howdy! In this edit, you characterized the text you removed as spam. I'm not certain it was actually WP:SPAM, but in either case I'd urge you to assume good faith. Additionally, the next time you find something like that that you believe actually is spam or a mistake, take the opportunity to leave a message for the user who inserted it to help them better understand why you made the change. The user who inserted that link doesn't have anything on their talk page, so they may be a new user who didn't know better. You were a new user once too, and I'm sure you benefited from assistance from other folks, right? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)