User talk:Swampfire

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

This is not a Sock puppet account I forgot the password to Bleu_Bayou and could get no help at getting into it, so I created this one. Any admin that reads this please close the account named Bleu_Bayou as I will not be using it anymore.Swampfire (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I confirm what this user is saying; the relevant CHU request where this has been discussed is here. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Side note[edit]

Is it alright if I redirected the Bleu_Bayou pages to these, or would you prefer I not do so? -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Thanks for all your helpSwampfire (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, and null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Susan Tedeschi[edit]

Rock and Roll has its stylistic origins in blues, but that does not neccessarily make blues into rock music. If you do not believe me, see the article for Blues. I removed Tedeschi because her article infobox describes her as a blues and soul singer, not a rock singer, and the fact that HER OWN WEBSITE describes her as a blues/soul singer. I am not trying to be difficult, I merely go by what the article about an individual says. Asarelah (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take such an angry tone with me. I am trying to be reasonable with you. You did not address the points that I made in my previous post, such as the fact that her website does not use the word "rock" to describe her music, and also the information in the article about blues. I would certainly not delete the other acts that you mentioned, as they not only performed blues, but rock and blues-rock. Please address the points that I made instead of attacking me personally and accusing me of trying to own the article, it gets us nowhere. Asarelah (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We obviously have reached an impasse here. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to list the talk page of Susan Tedeschi under "requests for comment", and thus get more editors opinions on the matter. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "The only RFC that should be placed there. . Is on the basis for including people." Do you mean that we should put the RFC on the talk page of the list itself rather than on her article talk page? Asarelah (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone[edit]

Would you please stop adding pop to Stone's genres? Her music is cleary soul and does not have a pop appeal. Radio stations and award nominations do not determine a musician's genre. Also, please do not change "English" to "British", regardless of what her website says. Thank you. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware I don't own the page, but nor do you. Stone has always been known as being prominently in the soul and R&B genres, and that's what her music is primarily about. Because soul music is not at its height nowadays (by the way, there's no Grammy category for soul) and Stone does not fit the contemporary R&B concept, she received Grammy nominations for pop and her songs are played on pop stations (as well as urban stations, naturally). Therefore the pop tag is unnecessary and does not relate significantly to Stone's overall music style. I don't think you're aware of your most recent edit. One website is more than enough in an infobox so the U.S. website is placed in the external links section, and you don't appear to have noticed this sentence: "Joss attended uffculme secondry school where her music talent was helped spotted by teacher Mr. Banins"; it's unsourced and completely unencyclopedic. As for the English/British issue, refer to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom; that's why categories like "English soul singers" were created, in addition to Stone being widely referred to as an English singer. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal opinion, it's a fact. Stone is primarily an R&B/soul musician, and there's no such thing as "soul within the pop genre". Soul and pop are distinct genres, although a few artists do blend them (such as Sarah Connor), which definitely is not Stone's case. Amy Winehouse and Macy Gray have also won Grammy Awards for pop music, and they're not pop singers either. You seem to have ignored my comment about soul music not being at its height nowadays and Stone not fitting the contemporary R&B concept. Besides, pop is an umbrella term, therefore any artist may be referred to as pop, which does not necessarily determine their music as being pop or not. Not to mention all the critics who have cited Stone's music as differing a lot from pop music, especially that made by the likes of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. Your example involving the U.S. and Florida was not good at all; we're discussing a country which is subdivided into four other countries, and you talked about a country and one of its states. Tons and tons and tons of articles about artists who were born in England refer to them as English. Apparently we're not reaching a consensus that soon. Stone's page has always had "English" in its intro, and has never had the pop tag, so why change it now? It's a pure waste of time, and it's not being helpful at all. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for letting Stone remain as English. As for Sade Adu, she was born in Nigeria, but if you read the rest of the article you'll see she moved out to England, where she also formed Sade, therefore she is considered English. Funk Junkie (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Joss Stone's stay in the U.S. wasn't as significant as Sade Adu's in England—at least not enough to get Stone being referred to as American. Stone only lived in America for a few months with her boyfriend and went there for work wheras Sade Adu not only was raised in England but also moved to there permanently. Several sources refer to her as Nigerian-English. [1][2][3] Funk Junkie (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you explain the sources then? And have you ever seen Joss being referred to as American? I don't think so. Funk Junkie (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Will also point out to you, for someone you say lives PERMANENTLY in England of Sade's 49 years on this earth, she has only spent 24 years living in England and 25 years living out of England. In fact since 1986 she has only lived in England for 1 year and thats was over 10 years ago. Here's the breakdown England 24 years, Jamaica 13 years, Spain 8 years, Nigeria 4 years. Swampfire (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you even paying attention to your own edits? If you bothered to do so, you'd see that is already there, but it's not formatted as per Template:Infobox Musical artist#URL. It's not possible to reach a consensus—which you don't appear to be willing to—when you keep reverting others' edits without even taking a good look at them. Consequently I've just been warned for edit warring, and so have you. I'll not carry the can. Funk Junkie (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't me. My "IP user" is (talk · contribs), and I haven't used it since I created this account. That wasn't a really nice accusation, I mean I'm not idiot at all. But perhaps you're right, this has gone way too far to the point of me being accused of sock puppetry. Funk Junkie (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't. Why? Are you willing to forget about it all? Funk Junkie (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Happy editing. Funk Junkie (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, what kind of idiot do you take me for? Do you really think I'd do that again knowing that you suspect me? In case you haven't checked Joss Stone's page history, besides (talk · contribs) other IP users such as (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) have also removed pop from the page. Once again, my IP user was (talk · contribs) before I created this account, and I know users who can confirm it. I've been a Wikipedian for almost two years, therefore I can handle issues without having to appeal to sockpuppetry. By the way, I've never admitted I was, you're making a misleading use of my words. Funk Junkie (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How can I even possess three accounts?? Besides making a misleading use of my words you're not taking proper notice of them. At the end of the day you'll realise the huge mistake you're making. Funk Junkie (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Please read and understand WP:BLP. By your responses to User:Tabercil, it is clear that you still do not, since you claimed he missed the point. WP:BLP (a policy, not a guideline) helps to prevent Wikipedia from being sued. WP:BLP requires that unsourced material, whether particularly controversial or not, positive or negative, be removed without discussion if it is uncited. It also requires that anyone adding or restoring such material only do so when including citations for those claims. I do not understand why you do not understand the policy, or are unwilling to read it, but you seem to have embarked on a crusade of monitoring my edits and undoing my WP:BLP reversions, which is seriously problematic to the project. I understand that WP:BLP was a relatively recent (within the last year) change to Wikipedia's basic policies, and is upsetting to most editors who aren't familiar with it, but it is essential to keeping Wikipedia safe, accurate, and unlitigated. Please consider this when undoing WP:BLP edits in the future. Thank you for listening. Xihr (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussions have already taken place.Swampfire (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The only "discussions" that have taken place have been Tabercil and I trying to explain WP:BLP to you, but you not listening. All that's required here is that when you add/restore information, that you include a citation. Citations are not the same thing as external links. I see that you're doing that now, and that's good. Please continue in this regard and cease and desist maliciously reverting my WP:BLP sanitations against clear policy, which has been quoted to you multiple times by at least two editors. See my response to your on my talk page for more. Xihr (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion was concluded here. [4]Swampfire (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dita Von Teese[edit]

Hello Swampfire, please have look at Wikipedia:Relevance of content for a guidance on details to be included in an article. You may want to have look at Wikipedia:Notability as well. Inwind (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are the one that needs to read them, because neither of them are policies. As the first says it is NOT a guideline or a policy. And the second says it is merely a guideline. Basically neither are policy. And furthermore what was included had a citied reference.Swampfire 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we keep the discussion in one place and copied your comment (see above). Please consider how important the designer of her wedding dress and the name of her dogs are to the user and have a look at WP:3RR before reverting. Inwind (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you brought it up you are the one that needs to pay attention to it. Because you have to revert 4 times in 24hrs to break it. I have only teverted twice. Also the things were there with valid citations. So the person that added them broke no policies. Just because you want to express your personal POV on the page. Is not a reason to delete. I didn't add it but remember before deleting someones comments that were done properly to read WP:NPOVSwampfire (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees[edit]

Please read WP:WAF, specifically the section on in-universe tone. You are treating the character as if he is real. He wasn't born on June 13, because he isn't real. That's merely a date associated with the character in his fictional universe. We write in an out-of-universe tone, which means we don't associate elements with characters that make it appear like they are real. In other words, just because he is fictional and has a "birthdate" does not mean you write the article as if you were writing it about a real person.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I personally wrote Friday the 13th (franchise) and Jason Voorhees and I have the two behind-the-scenes books on ALL of the films. As you can see at User:Bignole/Friday the 13th (films), I plan to rewrite all of the Friday the 13th pages. I'm merely busy and haven't had a chance to go through all of the information I have available. Since neither Paramount of New Line have been providing commentaries for their films (with exception to the later ones) there couldn't possibly be that much information on the DVDs (I know, because I have them all). Please note that I write articles based on WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILM, and whatever you add should not be original research. In other words, no assumptions, deductive logic, or jumping to conclusions. Plot sections are written based on what they display, not what a later films contradicts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't essential to understanding the character. Have you seen any other featured character article written like that? Technically, he wasn't born on June 13, 1958...he was born in 1980, when the film was released and audiences first saw him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what facts you plan to add, because if you are doing everything based on what the film says then you are only going to be writing in the Plot section of the article. That being said, we have a policy (WP:PLOT) about plot summaries, and we have a guideline (WP:MOSFILMS#Plot) that state that we should not have a blow-by-blow plot section. This is a 90 minute horror movie, and not in the least bit complicated. It does not need a huge plot section. What is currently in the article is sufficient. The other film articles could use some clean up though, but the first film page is perfectly fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I know when the film was made, and I know when it was released. My statement specifically said, "when audiences first saw him". If you have a problem with me saying it shouldn't be included, please take it up on the talk page. I guarantee you that I'm not the only one who will say the same thing. He wasn't "born", because only real people are born. Also, no film ever states the location of his birth. Please do not confuse the fact that the first film takes place in Conneticut for the location that Pamela gave "fictional" birth to Jason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, please...give me a taste of the type of information you plan to add. I don't need to have an edit war with you if it turns out that you're adding stuff that needs proper sourcing - or bloating out plot sections with extraneous details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, treating the character like he is real. You are using retconned background to fill in the gaps for the character. Regardless, he is FICTIONAL, and thus cannot have a birthdate, or place. Neither of which are important enough to be in the lead of the article. The lead summarizes the rest of the article, and the rest of the article does not talk about his birthdate or birthplace with any importance - probably because none of the filmakers felt there was ever a reason to talk about it interviews. Do yourself a favor and read over WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILMS (might want to look at WP:DISAMBIG as well).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Because policies are too strict to govern style of a page, hence why have community consensus to create guidelines (which are just as good). You still need to follow a guideline unless you have a rather good reason to ignore all rules. You haven't provided me with a real reason to ignore all rules. If you have a problem, like I said, please start a discussion on the talk pages of the respective articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, why do guidelines fall on the same page as policies on WP:POLICY? Notice how they use them together when they are describing the regulations of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In case you don't know, and I wouldn't know why you would, but I work 70+ hours a week (40 of which is at my internship). I'm home for only a couple of hours here and there. Just because you see me edit here and there doesn't mean that I'm actually online for 15 straight hours. Today is my first day off and I have much better things to do than sit on Wikipedia all day. I leave Wiki and several other webpages up 24 hours, 7 days a week. I do this so that I don't have to keep rebooting them when I want to view them. That doesn't mean I'm actually home when they're up. I spent 5 hours yesterday at my internship, and 8 hours explain how I was on Wikipedia for 18 hours? Now, given the fact that my track records shows that I have written (entirely) 4 featured articles, and gotten several more to GA status..I don't think the integrity of my word "at some point" is in question. The only thing I've seen you add to articles is trivia. Maybe if you added something encyclopedic, then I'd actually care what you had to say. Given that I have several projects on Wikipedia that I'm working on, not all of them revolving around Friday the 13th, and the fact that I have projects at my job in "real life" (that word keeps coming back to haunt you) then I'd say that the fact that I stated over a year ago that I plan to rewrite those pages is irrelevant. Especially considering what I've done to Jason Voorhees and Friday the 13th (franchise) in that same amount of time. In case you didn't know, there are 11 film pages to cover - and I don't have the time to devote to each of them on a consistent basis.
So, do what you want to do to the film pages - other than the disambig link, as that is reserved for when the title of the article is a common term that could be accidentally found in the search for something else (i.e. like Friday the 13th..someone looking for the film could just type in the title and they'd be taken to the page on the actual day, instead of the movie). When I'm ready to clean up the pages I'll do just that, and it will include removing trivia sections (also called "Notes" on the page) as there is typically nothing of use in those sections, nor are they ever reliably sourced. I've spent enough time debating this with you. Have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Stating, "This is the first film to say Jason was born ..." IS trivia. I'm not attempting to scare you away, I'm merely telling you what's what. Trust me, I will have the time to finish those pages and the "Notes" section will be removed. If there is anything that is not relevant to the article (i.e. can be moved to another section of the article) then it's going to be removed outright.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Masking a trivia section under the title of "Notes" does not change the fact that it still contains trivial information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You're taking it to an extreme to try and win the argument. Here was some examples of clear "trivia".
  1. No one in the film actually speaks the name Jason (not including the flashback scenes of Part 2).
  2. In one scene, Vera looks into Shelly's wallet and finds a photo of Shelly with his mother. The photo used for that scene is of Larry Zerner and his real life mother.
  3. Apparently, due to the outhouse, there is no running water in the house, though there is a shower.
And that's just a few random ones from Part III's page. There is also a lot of original research in that section as well. It doesn't matter anyway. I'm not going to clean out the section till I'm ready to replace the whole page anyway. Notice how Friday the 13th (1980 film) doesn't have a "Notes" OR "Trivia" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Point out what you think isn't trivial to any of the articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Without context, it's trivia. Simply stating that there was a retcon is irrelevant. I told you, what happens in another film has no bearing on any other page but the one that did the changing. Without context from the filmmakers as to why they retconned it, then it's trivial. Doing the math and saying, "well they only mentioned 8 bodies, and Paul would be 9" is considered original research. Not to mention the fact that the theoretically the news report could simply be jumping the gun. Maybe they didn't find all of the bodies yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What happens in Friday the 13th Part VI has not bearing on the article for Friday the 13th Part III - not even if Part VI contradicts something in Part III. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. You cannot say "because the film only mentions 8 bodies, that means Paul's alive" - that IS original research. Please read the policy on original research if you don't know what it means. You are the one making the assumption that Paul is alive based on the fact that they only count 8 bodies. Did they specifically say "Paul is alive"? Did you see Paul? Unless they actually say it, or you actually see him, then you cannot make assumptions. It's trivia, plain and simple. You can try and fight it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's trivia. It has no real relevance in an encyclopedic article. It's something better suited to a fan webpage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rationalize it how you please, doesn't change the fact that it's originally researched trivia. You may just inspire me to create time to finish working on those articles just so I don't have to continue this useless banter with you over what is and is not trivia. Just to let you know, here are Ron Kurz's own words from Crystal Lake Memories:

"Jason's coming through the windows was written as reality. My intent was this: Paul is, in fact, killed by Jason. Ginny survives. She asks, when found, 'Paul! Paul! Where's Paul?' Then we cut to Jason's shack, and a close-up on Mrs. Voorhees' head. It's bathed in faint light, staring at the camera. Slowly, distinctly, a diabolical smile forms at the corners of its mouth. In other words, in ansswer to Ginny's question, the smile tells us that Jason has killed Paul. That is how I wrote it and that's how Steve Miner filmed it."

Steve Miner's words:

"John [Fury] was a total professional and he did everything that was asked of him. If the ending was vague, that was the film's fault, not his."

Just throwing that out there. There really isn't much more that needs to be said of the matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just chipping in here; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Friday the 13th website. Whether such-and-such character lives or dies in a fictional universe is pretty irrelevant, the articles should focus on the devlopment and reception of the movies themselves, not be an indiscriminate collection of information. The info you're talking about is in-universe details, but Wikipedia shouldn't be written like that for a number of reasons. We're an encyclopedia, and we need sources discussing something before it's relevant for an article. Bignole has provided a source above in which the film makers discuss Paul's death, and that would be perfect for the article. But simply pointing out the ambiguity of his survival on your own wouldn't, because there isn't a source proving it's notability. Likewise, if there was a source discussing the relevance of Jason's birthday, we could use it, but simply stating "He was born July 13th Whatever..." is just meaningless trivia.  Paul  730 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
First, Part III doesn't say that Paul is alive. Just because they say 8 bodies were found doesn't mean that Paul is miraculously alive. Did they name each of the victims? How do you know which bodies they found? You don't, so stop trying to claim that it means Paul is alive. Secondly, where exactly did you read that Jason wasn't supposed to be in Jason Goes to Hell? It was never their intention to do that. That may have been a story that was proposed, but it wasn't their intention while filming JGtH for Jason to not be in the actual film. LOL, you're a strange, silly person with this twisted logic. You're like an obsessed fan that just can't come to terms with the reality of the situation that was presented in front of him. My pity goes out to you. This is me signing off. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between stating the events of the film, and stating your own interpretation of the film. Paul didn't survive; he disappeared and his body - alive or dead - was apparently never recovered, judging from the news report. What you're claiming is "FACT" is actually just your own fanwank. Stating that Paul is alive or dead would be original research. Stating that Paul went missing, and the writers intended him to die, is fact based on the source above (which is just as valid as a URL).  Paul  730 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine, then allow me to rephrase my point. Paul is missing from the end of the film. Friday the 13th Part 2 offers no evidence of whether he survived or not. Part 3 doesn't mention his survival either; they mention 8 bodies were found and that Ginny Field survived. That could mean his dead body hasn't been recovered, that he survived and the news didn't mention him, that he's lying unconscious but alive in the woods somewhere, that Jason ground him up and ate him, who gives a shit. The fact is that we as an audience do not know conclusively what happened to this character, and to bluntly state that he survived (especially when the film maker says differently) would be original research. Trish is an different situation, she's shown alive at the end of the film, which Paul isn't. You're right, I personally believe he was killed, that's my bias. But I'm not trying to state indefinitely in the article that he died because I know it's ambiguous, it's you that's trying to pass your personal opinion off as encyclopedic fact. Now, like Bignole before me, I'm tired of having this pointless debate. I came here to tell you that we do not write from an in-universe perspective, not to argue the fate of Paul from Friday the 13th Part 2.  Paul  730 02:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the one that determines when the discussion is closed. You are the one that is missing the rather large gap in your own logic, and I'm not going to waste my time with it any longer. Please do not revert my talk page again, or even respond to this message. You appear to be as thick as a brick, and I'm not a mason. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Wow, you really have a problem differeniating between fact and opinion, don't you? Yes, I offered my own opinion regarding Paul's death/survival, but I also clarified that the article itself should remain ambiguous because my own interpretation isn't fact. What facts in the movies contradict the possibility that Paul was abducted by aliens? Read this sentence: we don't know what happens to him. If you think he survived based on Part 3s body count, fine, that's a legitimate opinion. But it's still opinion, not fact. And therefore not suitable for mentioning in the Wikipedia article.  Paul  730 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not TROLL my page, or anyone else's page on Wikipedia. It is not respected, nor appreciated in any degree. If you wish to troll, please find another venue to do so in. Thank you, and have a nice evening.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bored now.  Paul  730 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologise profusely for my language when reverting your edits to User talk:Bignole. However, you need to realise that other editors have the right to remove content from their user pages. Please respect their right to ignore your existence.  Paul  730 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Consider this my last comment.  Paul  730 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You need to read things before supplying them because the page you supplied is neither a policy or guideline, in fact it even states in the opening that "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion" That was just a page created by a user on his opinion. Not a policy or even a guideline.Swampfire (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: after losing this discussion on their talk pages because neither could provide facts, only assumptions. Both ran from discussion, immediately hid it in their archives as well as admitting that PAUL just came here to argue on BIGNOLEs side and how fun it was.. I will ad links to their archives. Along with the fact that BOTH violated WP:NPA and were warned. But tried to hide their warnings as well.Swampfire (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Notable Native Americans of the United States[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated List of Notable Native Americans of the United States, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Notable Native Americans of the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? seresin ( ¡? ) 06:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that the original hoo-hah is over, how about removing "notable" from the article's name? It seems to me to have a slightly unfortunate connotation for those missing from the list... Vizjim (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Please see the sources provided for Waycross extending into Pierce County. You can also check the map on the article (it plainly extends out of Ware) and check this map, page 14. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have provided three different items of documentation. If you think that this list is definitive, overriding all other sources, you need to remove links to

that are all on the article, since they're not listed on that page. If you check the source provided for Waycross being in Pierce County, you'll see that it's only a small portion with a very few residents: this indeed entitles it to be included, but it means that a quick survey like this, which doesn't include plenty of small communities, isn't likely to include it either. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many references, both those on the article and those given by Dcmacnut, demonstrate that the municipal boundaries of the city of Waycross extend into Pierce County. Although there's definitely nothing wrong with saying that most of the city is in Ware County, the standard way for communities in multiple counties (both in Georgia and in all other states) is to list all the counties equally, and the usual way is that the counties are listed alphabetically. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded again on Nyttend's page, and posted my suggested new opener on the Talk:Waycross, Georgia.Dcmacnut (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

UFC Event articles[edit]

Could you point me at where a consensus that sporting event articles should only include results was reached. Thanks --Nate1481(t/c) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in bad faith to continue with your edits while a discussion is under way. so a am reverting the subsequent ones. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read them all in depth repeatedly, and I disagree with our interpretation of them I wnt ot get more editors involved which is why I posted it on the discussion page and didn't edit till you continued with your changes, not discussing it when some disagrees is bad faith. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP? Have you read it? it is about Biographies so event articles are not covered! Even if they were, it is Sourced information, as BLP requires and is not controversial for the most part. You are grasping at straws here.--Nate1481(t/c) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of champions[edit]

Yeah, something like that would be fine by me :). I changed it a little bit though. Does it seem OK to you? --aktsu (t / c) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it probably should. How about now? --aktsu (t / c) 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Anything is fine by me :) --aktsu (t / c) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism at MC, etc.[edit]

I followed procedure - not sure. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you totally - this sucks. But I'm not an admin and did what I could...In the meantime, I went back and reverted most of the crap that was misplaced. Literally the whole set-up of the member section was screwed, plus the infobox. Please check to make sure I got everything. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Forrest Griffin[edit]

Please do not make edits to wikipedia articles based solely on your opinion in something. The controversial note that you erased from Forrest Griffin was referenced and cited. There is even a grievance that has been filed in an attempt to reverse the decision. That would mean it is pretty controversial. In the future, please use the discussion page on the article if you believe something that is referenced and/or well known should be removed from an article. Thanks. --Xander756 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have rolled back your changes on Forrest Griffin as I noticed that you did not bother using the discussion page to attempt to reach a consensus as I recommended. The fact that you are reforming information and leaving the reference that goes along with it can be construed as vandalism. Please note that if you undo the edits again you will be in violation of three-revert rule. If you feel that this referenced material should be excluded from the article, I advise you use the discussion page to talk it over with others. Thank you. --Xander756 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a second reference as per your request. I hope this will sate your hunger. --Xander756 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sherdog is an official site for all MMA news. It is neutral and that article is written by an objective journalist. If you are calling into question the reliability of Sherdog as a source then many references across all UFC and MMA fighter articles alike will have to be removed as it has been used dozens of times. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. You cannot simply write off several cited references simply because you have a different opinion. --Xander756 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
At this point I don't think you even know what you are disputing. The fact that it is being called controversial all over Sherdog only proves that it was indeed viewed as controversial. The controversy refers to how something is understood in the broader community, not simply in the opinion of one man whether it be Dana White or yourself. By your logic, the 2000 presidential election could only be deemed controversial if George Bush or Al Gore themselves came out and made a public statement. Obviously, that's not what controversy refers to. The election was controversial because that is how it was interpreted by news outlets and people around the globe. I could give you countless other sources but I honestly don't see the point in giving you beyond four references for one piece of information. After doing a quick google search here is an article from" quoted "It was one of those fights that wowed the crowd and the decision will likely be argued to no end through cyberspace and beyond."

Here is another source quoted: "mostly everyone besides the judges felt the bout was much closer than the numbers indicated." and "In fact, according to Dave Meltzer, those in press row were split between a close Griffin win and a draw." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally conceding with your last post on my talk page. According the statistics you quoted the majority of people in the poll did not think Forrest Griffin should have won (52.5% compared to 47.5%). Therefore, this would by definition make it a controversial decision. I expect to see the information as well as my four references stay on the page and I will not discuss this further with you. --Xander756 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you need reading lessons, as that is not what it says.Swampfire (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Also warnings were given to Xander for violating WP:NPA but he has chosen to try and hide them.Swampfire (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: UFN 14/15[edit]

I agree :) I wrote a reply on WT:MMA. I'll give it a few days to see if anyone disagrees and then move them. --aktsu (t / c) 14:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule[edit]

This rule applies to reverting the same edit over 3 times. It does not apply to reverting the same article but different information. If it did, then if someone blanked the article (after I reverted your edits 3 times) it would be violating the policy for me to revert it. Obviously this is not correct. Please read the policy before giving false warnings. I have taken the warning down and may notify an administrator if you continue to give unwarranted warnings. This could be seen as harassment. --Xander756 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the exceptions to the 3-revert rule. Under it you will see the section on reverting vandalism. As my last reversion was of someone blanking the page, it would be considered vandalism. Thank you. --Xander756 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, Xander756 is correct here. He is also permitted to remove warnings from his talk page; it shows he has read them, and of course, they are still visible in the history of that page. I suggest, given the volume of your postings to his talk page, that in future you discuss articles on those talk pages rather than his. If you have an issue with 3RR, please report it to WP:AN3, but from what I've seen, you removed sourced material without consensus, let alone discussion. Not good. I'll be keeping an eye on things. --Rodhullandemu 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Griffin article[edit]

I was just now writing a new proposal for the Jackson-Griffin part of the article, and didn't see you were also working on it. I'm guessing some what you just wrote should be integrated in it as I didn't know the status of the protest while I was writing. I'm thinking it has a more neutral point of view then the current articles (which basically says "Griffin owned" and nothing about why the fight was considered close etc). What do you think?

UFC Light Heavyweight Champion[edit]

After the end of The Ultimate Fighter 7, Griffin fought Rampage On July 5 2008 at UFC 86 for the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship with Griffin viewed as an heavy underdog by oddsmakers going into the fight.[1] In the bout, Griffin pushed the pace of the fight from the opening bell, keeping his distance with long jabs and leg kicks, while Jackson continuously looked for a knockout.[2] Jackson nearly stopped Griffin in the first round after dropping him with an uppercut, but Griffin survived and went on his own offensive in the second round hurting "Rampage" with leg kicks and eventually mounting him for nearly three minutes.[2] The remaining rounds were far closer, thus not leaving a clear-cut victor at the end of the fight.[2] The official judges scored the bout 48-46, 48-46 and 49-46 for Griffin giving him an unanimous decision victory, and making him the new UFC Light Heavyweight Champion. After the fight Jackson's trainer Juanito Ibarra, unhappy with the judges scoring, expressed plans to protest the unanimous decision with the Nevada State Athletic Commission.[3] Griffin's documented pay for the fight was $250,000. $100,000 to fight and a win bonus of $150,000.

Thanks! --aktsu (t / c) 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post it here first :) I saw it btw. Basically it was never any doubt that is _was_ a fight night, but whether it was counted or not. Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 was also a fight night, but it wasn't counted. Anyway, I say we rename the articles to the offical names and thus avoid all those numbering issues. --aktsu (t / c) 08:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, too late :P No worries though, it looks good. --aktsu (t / c) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


I re-wrote your controversy section which I think will be acceptable to you. There is no need to state that the trainer was going to file a protest, reference it, then state that he did not and reference it separately. Instead, I put that he was going to file then didn't and simply referenced the fact that he did not file. No reason to go much into detail here. I think that we also don't need to reference that with two separate articles, one will do nicely. Also, the word controversial is referenced four times above and I think one reference might fit better there as well if you would like to choose which you think is the most credible. --Xander756 (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello I simply wanted to leave you a message that I have actually been editing the article on Quinton Jackson for quite some time. I thought that we had settled our differences so I see no need to try to continue them. I would like to try to work together to further improve articles, not further our feud. Please get back to me man, I think that if we worked together we could make a good team instead of enemies. --Xander756 (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a valid point and here is my response: I think that you should realize that I actually feel EXACTLY the same about you as you do me. However, I found myself looking at it through your perspective and that is why I would like to work with you instead of against you. I think that perhaps at first we may be a little wary of each other, which would be only natural after our dispute, but if we could carry on like that against each other, imagine what we can accomplish if we team up to work on the articles. I think that we should at least try it. I have removed the note on my user page as well. --Xander756 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you took the links of me off of your user page. --Xander756 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]

Delivered: 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Shirt quotes[edit]

Thanks for clearing that up. Since I'm not familiar with the subject, what I first took for vandalism then looked like a legit edit once I did a search on it. Perhaps another column in the chart is needed for "weigh-in shirt slogans"... :) Dreadstar 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Invention of Radio[edit]

Thanks for your comments in my editing. You will note that throughout my extensive editing of the above page, I attempted to discuss all the issues on the talk page, but got little response. I have no wish to engage in an edit war but would prefer to reach a consensus via talk.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As I have clearly stated on the article talk page, I have nothing against Tesla but, at present, his claims are presented in a completely different way from all the other contenders. What I am trying to do is to create a level playing field where like claims, presented in a similar strictly factual way, can be compared. I would prefer to continue talking about the subject on the talk page where the views of others can be heard.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tito trivia[edit]

First of all, i don't have a problem with how it is now, you do. It's not trivia instead of deleting it like you are doing why don't you try and put it in with the article.Your WP:TRIVIA doesn't even cover what is in the personal life section so I don't understand your argument.(MgTurtle (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Did read it.Other articles have the same sections so should we change them all?That's going to be a lot of work.I still don't agree with your argument but i'll change it for people like you.(MgTurtle (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)).

Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3[edit]

I reverted your move. I also saw that listing when searching, but it's not the actual event but probably a replay (of whatever, all the fights or something, on spike). To find the actual event page, look up a fighter fighting on the card and click on the event on their fight record. --aktsu (t / c) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jon Fitch[edit]

Jon Fitch being tied for 1st with 8 win streak is a good personal accomplishment, sorry but that was not what this list was made for. It's for people who won some kind of an award in the UFC. I have to revert that back, I have no problem with this being listed under Jon Fitch's personal accomplishment, on his page. EHDI5YS (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)--EHDI5YS (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine then uncapitalized them then, I didn't removed Ken Shamrock, I moved Shamrock out of the heavyweight and put him ounder the light heavyweight list. He is & was more active as an LH fighter. You don't see PJ Penn under ww & LW, yet he won the UFC title in both weights. EHDI5YS (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)--EHDI5YS (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jasmin St. Claire[edit]

Hi. Thanks for adding the Metal's Darkside link as a citation. However, there are two points that need to be made: First, in this edit, you removed the description of the Lost Art interview citation. Why is this? This suggest that you hit the "Undo" function without first seeing that all the edits needed to be reversed. Obviously, you should check all the edits to make sure they are thus. Second, you re-added information about her sexuality that was previously removed because it was unsourced, and you did this without providing a source. Please do not add such material to articles, as it violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I started a new discussion under the heading "Sexuality" on the Talk Page. Could you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of UFC champions[edit]

Hi, please discuss the issue about the UFC 39/41 tournament on Talk:List of UFC champions before editing it further. I have notified others involved with the issue as well, since continued edit warring can result in the full protection of the page from any editing. hateless 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]

Delivered: 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]

Delivered: 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]

Delivered: 18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]

Delivered: 20:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents[edit]

Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Swampfire! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of deaths in rock and roll[edit]

I'm trying to coordinate discussion on criteria for inclusion, on the article talk page. You may like to contribute. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Swampfire. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "No Joke. Griffin on Serious Rampage for Jackson". Sherdog. July 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ a b c
  3. ^