User talk:SoSaysChappy/Archive2

Um, what the dillio

I am trying to post legitimate facts about a legitimate form of Genocide in an article about Death Tolls; and you are threatening to block me. ? There's no soapboxing about it. Please stop soapboxing yourself by refusing my Neutral Statistics with legitimate references. This is fair and objective information that people should be aware of in the topic of "deaths per year" or "deaths by event". There's NO (sorry for earlier egregious typo) bias about it. Wether your pro-life or pro-choice, X number of unborn children are killed each year. The AGI (an org that is part of Planned Parenthood, FYI) refers to them as "babies killed" in thier articles. So stop this nonsensical behavior please. You have no right to obstruct facts. JohnWrot! JohnWrot (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) JohnWrot (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources in these edits that verify abortion as being a "crime against humanity" or "genocide". What you were doing was blatant "soapboxing". My full response. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars and disasters by death toll

"IP address and username...".

My first post was accidentally without my username because I thought I was signed in and wasn't, my apology for that.

"First of all, none of the stats you posted were sourced. "

Not true, I put hyperlinks to my sources on each topic. I did not specifically "footnote" them, because honestly... I'm not sure how. But hyperlinks were provided.

Response I looked at both http://www.blackgenocide.org and http://www.dianedew.com/black.htm and neither one looks like a reliable source. Both sites scream religious zealotry, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. They're also both the personal webpage of one person. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondly... you're equating abortion with "Crimes against humanity". This is your personal opinion; not one person has ever been convicted of mass murder in an international court for performing abortions. "

Again, not true. There are an uncountable quantity of men and women who have Murdered a pregnant woman, and when such is done, you are, in the United States of America, tried for 2 counts of murder. Yes TWO. The mother and her unborn baby. Every time. It happens all the time. Don't believe me, do your research. (That is a challenge to your own worldview/view of American law. Do it.)
Murder of a baby in a womb with a mom is murder x2; murder of a baby leaving the mom in tact is... convenient.? There needs to be consistency, it is murder and it is recognized by the courts as such.

Response You're simply trying to start a debate here about whether or not abortion is murder. A Wikipedia article is not the forum for that, and your rebuttal does not address my statement at all. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Equating abortion with "genocide" is your personal opinion as well ...unless you can find a reliable source that states abortion is an act "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"."

Again, I take it that you didn't read my sources. www.blackgenocide.org and any research into Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood; which is the #1 provider of abortions in America) will make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the intention Planned Parenthood is to eliminate as many black people as possible? Think I'm just vomiting out pro-life nonsense? Read the website. Google: Margaret Sanger Founder I challenge you to find if I am correct or not.

Response Yes, I do. That site is hardly credible. (For the record, I am a pro-lifer myself) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Your stats on abortion are better suited (with sources, of course) for an abortion-related article, not for an article about armed conflicts and worldwide natural disasters."

The article was not merely about "armed conflicts and worldwide natural disasters". It was also about "Crimes against Humanity, and Genocide". And first and foremost: it was about "Death Tolls". My information and my sources were perfectly placed.

Response Quick correction: I didn't mean "natural disasters", I actually meant man-made (as the article's sections on famine and so forth are focused on disasters as the result of government regimes, etc.) Again, you haven't provided any reliable sources deeming abortions as a "crime against humanity" or "genocide". Your one source seems to refer to the abortion rate among blacks in today's America... are you suggesting that the majority the black women in America are being forced against their will into having abortions? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, as a supervisor, or whatever position you hold, you aught to do your research before laying out your own biases on page revisions and updates. ...Now go do it. Question it. See if I'm right. If you can prove me wrong I'll stop my postings.

Response The burden of proof (or verifiability) is not on me! You made the initial edits that differ from the consensus. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...so if you feel you're being treated unfairly in this matter, please contact an administrator"

I will if I need to, but first I'll wait till I hear back from you after you've looked into my sources.
In the meantime I'll try to figure out how to properly source them - footnote style.
Sound fair?

John Wrot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWrot (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'll bring this to the attention of established editors of the article as well as post a new section regarding this on the article's talk page (Done ... Here). In summation, I'm not objecting to the stats you're providing at all, it's the context with which you're presenting them that I feel is inappropriate for the article and in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Thank you for your concern, I totally forgot about them, I will definitely complete them within the next 2 days, Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleenmaid

You listed Kleenmaid as a candidate for speedy deletion. Research indicated this is in fact a major Australian company which has recently collapsed and so is highly noteworthy. I have rewritten the article to improve. Thank you for bringing it to my attention however.Manning (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. Just glad it was found and could be fixed so easily. I'm simply amazed this had never been written up before, I've been hearing about it on the news every day (here in Australia, anyway). Manning (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of G11?

Hello SoSaysChappy, just a quick note, I think that some of the articles about companies you have tagged as spam are not actually eligible under G11, rather, I think you should tag them as A7. Just opinion, you have no obligation to change what you are doing, but I just thought I'd point this out to you, thanks :).

Note the articles in question are Zhejiang teda valve co.,ltd and PostMe, I've changed the tag on Zhejiang teda valve co.,ltd already, I hope you don't mind me not checking with you first, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, and thanks anyway, for your work in the new pages, greatly appreciated, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo Spitfire, you've done very good work tagging a lot of pages. Much appreciated. Manning (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SoSaysChappy. You have new messages at ChristofferMunck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

With regards to your message on PostMe subject: I will correct it, please give me 2 hours to correct it. I do believe that the company's history have general interest [there is a history of being the youngest entreprenours in Denmark.]. Please review in 2 hours thanks.

Redirect

You recently redirected the Blochkera page to Malout. The Blochkera page was, admittedly, a messy stub at best, but when performing such a redirect, it would be appropriate to include as much information from the stub as possible to the target article. As it stands now, there is no indication of WHY Blochkera would redirect to Malout (as the target article does not even mention the village name). Just a thought. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hmm. Well, an internet search on Blochkera (and Balochkera), nothing turned up. I didn't want to include any info about a (presumably) tiny village with virtually no notability in the Malout article, but wanted to redirect any users to the closest-related article should they search for it on Wikipedia. Should it have been tagged for deletion instead? Usually I keep an eye on filter edits on Huggle, and just recently delved into new pages. Pointers por favor! Thanks for dropping the line. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G1

Please try to find a better criterion in future. Contract J.A.C.K was a foreign language piece, which are explicitly excluded from G1. A quick google translate gave the better reason of G3: obvious vandalism, under which I have deleted it. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dog Called Ego

Just a friendly note on A Dog Called Ego. I declined your speedy deletion request because press coverage is a good faith claim of importance (and a claim of notability, too.) If you think the band isn't notable, AfD would be the way to go. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Hi there, You removed something I added to the 'Independence Day' article.. why is IMDB not a suitable source? Thx.. Chris Dvmedis (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Sorry I was gone so long, Sure I'll put in some details ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roflet

Hi, I wouldn't worry about it - let an admin sort it out. I (and I suspect many others) find it very frustrating that this whole neologism/oneday/hoax issue is not made clear as grounds for speedy deletion. One thing is certain, that page has got to go! I would be inclined to leave the AfD in case the speedy is declined. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justice! [1] WWGB (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing review

Please weigh in about the Daily Mirror review at Talk:Knowing (film)#Dave Edwards at the Daily Mirror. Additionally, I advise not removing the review again at this point. The editor's editing history shows a tendency to prefer his revision during editing disputes, starting off unnecessary edit warring (well, all edit warring is unnecessary), so let's avoid that here. If necessary, we can ask at WT:FILM for other editors to chime in their opinions about the review from the tabloid. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry. This website confuses me. I am trying to block out students from editing our school's wikipeda page. Do you know how to do it? I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmccann (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. My name is Margate. Mr McCann's personal assistant. We received a report from Mr Wooly (Our IT Expert) explaining that vandalism is occurring on the website. The vandalism is damaging for the school. I have submitted a "request for protection" application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmccann (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAs

Hi, SoSaysChappy. Re the non-responsive reviewer, I've placed all the noms back in the queue so any user can review them from scratch. Just to let you know: I tagged the Stan Marsh one for deletion as that had no substantive content, and starting over will be less confusing for a potential reviewer. It may be worth asking the user (Flash) who gave the feedback on the Kyle Broflovski one if they'd like to take over the review. The noms are both still near the top so hopefully'll be picked up real soon. Thanks, Whitehorse1 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

I'm working on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe for the Season 1 featured topic drive and I noticed that you have access to to both South Park and Philosophy books (which I don't). Would you mind seeing what, if any, information is available on the first episode? If you could scan the relevant pages and email them to me, I would really appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Frith

Thanks. Usually I don't think of something funny to say until long after a situation comes up, but it sometimes happens. People react differently. I was at a restaurant once and the waitress came over and said, "My name is Destiny and I'll be your server tonight", and I said, "It guess it was just meant to be!" and she got p.o.'d. It happens. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stan Marsh/GA1

I've started the review. I'll wait for a response before continuing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing revision

Some IP just added information, I'm not sure it's true, as I have a gut feeling it is just vandalism (^[2]). ceranthor 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The article South Park, which you nominated at GAN is currently under review at Talk:South Park/GA2. Stay tuned for comments regarding the article.--WillC 08:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back from you regarding the review so I've been waiting to begin, in case you were wondering. I wanted to find out how active you were first. So could you tell me if you are sticking around to handle the problems that may come up?--WillC 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll begin tomorrow. I should have mentioned that, so my bad. I guess I was expecting a reply or an edit to the subpage. Well that is in the pasted, lets look to the future.--WillC 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page :) Little Mountain 5 22:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGCSM

Just for your information, I have posted a prod at RGCSM. You have previously nominated Rgcsm for a speedy deletion. Thank you for your kind attention. Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kyle Broflovski GAR

Ah, I noticed all that, that's, like, eight different users coming in to review it when the original reviewer asked for just a second review, lol. ;) Anyways, I think I already gave my final say, but I'm perfectly fine with it as of now. I just have an issue with the small paragraphs scattered through the creation/design. I'm fine, other than that, so I think Scarce should have the final say. The Flash ^{talk} 04:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, fix that one issue and I'll pass it. The Flash ^{talk} 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll go through the process in a couple of hours. The Flash ^{talk} 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]