User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 4

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

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Re: easydb

There is a bug in easydb which causes it not to work if you enter a space in what you put in the script prompt. While this does not affect the behavior of the "db-" button, it greatly decreases the usefulness of the "db|" button. I hope to get around to fixing this bug sometime next week. Sorry about that! Where (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you are correct on both points. Somebody did add the V tag, and ill try to remove some of the linking when i get time to do that. Sorry for not taking a bigger effort to keep your contribution. --Striver 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

References tag

Should I generally be placing this tag on top? I had not seen that rule posted anywhere as of yet. Best, Kukini Flag of Hawaii.svg 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


... for your help regarding tags. That should come in handy. BarrettBrown 19:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page for speedy deletion with the reason "non-notable website, advertisement". However, "non-notable website, advertisement" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:PROD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Same for NexGenSol. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

More Emmanuel Ceriz

FYI: More Emmanuel Ceriz content has been posted, and I've put it up for speedy deletion. --mtz206 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I remember that one looked like blatant self-promotion of a non-notable person. I see that it has already been taken care of :). Thue | talk 18:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for the reminder - every once in a while I forget to do that. --mtz206 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link-spammer at

First of all, thank for keeping your eyes open. I have a lot of for-profit colleges on my watch-list (I created a large number of them, but I also fixed others that were clearly written by shills), and whenever I see an anon user I tend to run a IP WHOIS using Network Solutions. This time it came up with pretty damning evidence that I've posted at User talk: Thanks again, while this one was comparatively mild some of the other changes can be ridiculous. I've been able to "nudge" some of these anon-IPs who alter the articles to at least keep their work on adding info (like a locations section) as opposed to changing the first few paragraphs into direct uses of their own official copy (which, ironically, is probably a CP vio to begin with, LOL). -- Bobak 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry. i didnt know you had to be a editor to do that. Ill stop right away!! Joler1 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I clearly have a dispute with Zennie, both over whether his contributions are licensed under the GNU FDL and on whether Wikipedia is a link repository. In order to take the matter to RfC, I need evidence that at least one other person has tried to resolve this dispute with the editor. You have previously warned the user for spamming. Do you believe this is sufficient? If not, would you be willing to further explain external links and WP:NOT to this user? Would you be willing to certify the dispute (that is, sign on the RfC page that the dispute does exist... you don't necessarily have to agree with my point of view)? --Yamla 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless Zennie continues to post inappropriate links after your additional warnings and subsequent discussion, I would consider the matter closed. Up to you on the RfC, but it doesn't seem like a major conflict other than just dueling opinions on Talk space. If it ends up to be an edit-war, then that's a horse of another color. Nevertheless, I'll post another reminder of the policy on Zennie's talk page. (on the GU FDL issue, I have no opinion) --mtz206 17:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started an RfC about Zennie's refusal to license his contributions under the GFDL. This is one half of the conflict I have with this user. I would welcome your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zennie, regardless of whether you agree with me or with Zennie. My goal is to resolve the conflicts I have with Zennie and if this involves me being told to shut up and Zennie being allowed to contribute copyrighted material without licensing it under the GFDL, I'm quite happy to accept that. --Yamla 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't intervened regarding the GDFL issue, so there is little I can offer this RfC. --mtz206 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I meant to leave an edit summary ... --evrik 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes much more sense. Thanks. --mtz206 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the duplicate of Image:Express.jpg

Since it is the exact copy of the other image i put: {{db|duplicate of [[:Image:namehere.extension]]}} to the duplicate's page to put it to Speedy deletion. Use it Yourself when appropriate. Cheers, feydey 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


What, may I ask, is "MoS" in your edit to Tazo? Thanks. --Chris 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ND Page

Hey Mtz,

Thanks for working on the appearance of the ND page. It still has a long way to go. I was't going to touch the BVM as she is a bit of a sacred co-- well, you know what I mean. We'll see if it sticks.

Anyway, if you have some experience with these things, do you have an idea what to do with that Universities box? I tried getting a large pic of the dome in there to fill up the space to the left of it but WP seems to need to have text in there so it just pushed that box further down making it even more uuugly. Ideas? --Vaquero100 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Current Team Records

As I've stated in edit summaries, I don't think it is a good idea to include daily updated team records for sports teams: [1] & [2]. There are two key reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not a news service, and providing current standings is not what an encyclopedia is for;
  2. Your caveat of "as long as I can update it" [3] admits the inherent problem that if you happen to miss an update (which is a reasonable assumption), the information would immediately be inaccurate.

Other editors at both pages seem to agree, and also have tried to revert this addition. --mtz206 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Editors at these pages agree as well: [4], [5], [6]. WP is an encyclopedia, not a news service. --mtz206 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been done on NBA team pages and other editors had no problem. Posting a team record isn't neccessarily providing news. Mostly Rainy 01:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Its existence on other pages notwithstanding, adding content that requires daily upkeep in order to maintain its accuracy is an undue burden for an encyclopedia, which is why most of your attempts to add said content has been reverted by the editors of these pages. --mtz206 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you and other members disgree with it being on, I'll stop trying to post them. Would it be okay to post it to the teams' talk pages? Mostly Rainy 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Would it be okay to post it to the teams' talk pages?" - For what purpose? According to guidelines, we should "keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - it is an encyclopedia. --mtz206 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if it annoys you, that I am discontinuing the practice. Have a nice day. Mostly Rainy 06:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:USSCobia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USSCobia.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi - Please note that {{noncommercial}} images are not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks -SCEhardT 21:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that non-commercial CC2.0 images weren't allowed. I uploaded two today, and will remove them. --mtz206 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I realize that image licensing can be confusing. I've gone ahead and deleted the other one too. -SCEhardT 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So what kind of CC license for Flickr images are acceptable? And if I want to submit my own images, I need to select a CC license that doesn't include the "non-commercial use" condition? --mtz206 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Carnildo has answered your questions... if not, let me know and I'll be glad to help! Also, there is a full list of acceptable CC licenses at WP:ICT#Creative_Commons_Licenses -SCEhardT 22:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I didn't notice you are an admin. I hope I didn't step on your toes by going ahead and deleting that image. I thought by "remove" you meant just from the article. -SCEhardT 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an Admin (unless it happened without me knowing about it). No apologies necessary. --mtz206 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - no more editing at 2 in the morning :-) Your edit summaries like 13:22, 25 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Google (Reverted edits by to last version by Tawkerbot2) tricked me since I thought that was from the rollback function. -SCEhardT 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No prob - using the non-admin "god-mode light" script. Happy editing~ --mtz206 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Source info?

What kind of source info needs to be provided for this image? Image:USSCobia.jpg. I found it on Flickr with a CC2.0 license, and noted the URL, etc on the image page. I'm new to image uploading, so any help would be appreciated. Also, this is a photo I took and uploaded via Flickr also with a CC2.0 license. Image:BBG-Cherry-Blossom-Festival.jpg. Sorry, I'm new to image uploading. --mtz206 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Creative Commons" is actually a very broad collection of licenses, some of which are acceptable for Wikipedia, and some of which are not. The acceptable licenses are the Creative Commons Sharealike, Attribution, and Attribution-Sharealike licenses. Any Creative Commons license with a "no derivatives" or "no commercial use" clause is not acceptable; it looks like the two images in question were under a "no commercial use" Creative Commons license.
As for source information, you need to note the URL of the web page containing the image; if at all possible, you should also include the name of the creator and the date he created it. --Carnildo 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I did have the URL, creator & date in the description field, but your Bot still caught it as unsourced. Perhaps I didn't do it correctly. Thanks for the help. --mtz206 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the deleted page history, I think the bot made a mistake. -SCEhardT 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It did. I've found and fixed the bug. --Carnildo 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Showcase Showdown

No, you deleted content regarding a band that had existed in that page since July of 2005 [7]. What should be done in this case is the creation of a disambiguation page, or at least a redirect. I will make the necessary corrections, and please do not remove content from WP. --mtz206 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I create a disambig page and two separate articles for both ideas. Hope that satisfies you. Mostly Rainy 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

miller park

Sorry, I'll leave edit comments next time, but for now this should do -- Don't mention a NICKNAME used by SOME baseball fans in the entry about Miller Park! If you were the author of the blurb, which im assuming u are, you should have no problem with me making an entry regarding wriggly field with our "nickname" for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I am not the author of that particular entry, but it probably should remain in the article if it is of enough notability & importance for the Brewers & Milwaukee papers to make mention of it [8]. Also, please create an account and sign your comments --mtz206 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bucks Page

Maybe you are unaware of the changes, but the Bucks are going with a new color scheme for 2006 season and beyond, featuring red, green, and white color design.

I was not experimenting, I was updating, which I assumed was your job. Obviously, I was wrong.

There is proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanrefutation (talkcontribs)

Until any uniform change is officially announced, the article should not be modified. According to this press release, the announcement will be made on June 28. [9] --mtz206 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your edits to the Bucks article about the logo, and I have to say that I fully agree with you. These images have not been confirmed by the Bucks when asked in a Press Conference, so it is not necessary to Wikipedia. I did cite the reference about the Bucks changing their colors in general though on the Bucks page. Feel free to contact me if you have problems with users adding the wrong information. Thanks - Cheesehead Fan 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

go away

leave my brisbane music link alone. I run Raw Audio at and Im trying to organise the submission from 4000 musos into this article. I dont need my project moved or destoroyed by the goddamn wikipedia nazis. Go away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaldo (talkcontribs)

First, civlity, please. Second, please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not. WP is not meant to be a place for a bunch of bands in a city to come and post bios about themselves. If you want to create an article about the history of music in Brisbane, please do so. But based on what you describe above, it doesn't seem that's what this is intended to be. --mtz206 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfDs

I'm not understanding some of your actions related to AfDs. I've noticed that when a page is deleted, you often archive a copy of the page on the original editor's page. [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. If an article was voted for deletion, why should it exist in User space? Is there a precedent/guideline for this I'm not aware of? (Also, regarding the Rigism article, its deletion log [14] reveals that the original AfD was a year ago.) Cheers, --mtz206 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the user that creates the page might want to keep the text. What is your concern? Mostly Rainy 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now reviewed the proposed userfication guidelines which seem to support archiving of deleted pages in certain circumstances. My suggestion, however, would be to (1) first ask the editor if they want it archived; and (2) create a subpage in their user space for the article rather than adding it to the user's Talk page. Just my $0.02. --mtz206 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I usually userfy pages that get deleted since the user that posted the article might want to keep it. They're free to remove it once I put it there, thanks for the advice. Mostly Rainy 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:AIV

The matter has a substantial content matter, not just simple vandalism. , and what is more, the relevant user was never directed to WP:NPOV. I have therefore removed it from the the AIV list. JoshuaZ 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point that it wasn't merely a blatant vandalism issue, but the user was pointed to WP:NPOV on both User_talk: and in an edit summary [15]. Perhaps this is more an issue for WP:ANI? --mtz206 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And this edit [16] might be considered vandalism, since there is no supporting evidence of the claim. --mtz206 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

do not delete my list again

Do not delete my list again. The page is stupid without it. Without it, it's a list of articles.--Chuck Marean 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of web directories is, by definition, a list of articles about web directories. Wikipedia is not a list of external links. If you want some of these external sites included in the article, please integrate them in a manner fitting the rest of the article. --mtz206 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How'd you do that? It seems to me, you're trying to boss me around. Would you take kindly someone bossing you around? I do not agree with you about not listing links to those directories. However, some of them are in the articles and people might be able to find them. I think I understand your point of view; even though I think you're wrong. --Chuck Marean 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
How did I do what? I'm not trying to boss you around. Rather, I'm merely trying to ensure your edits comply with WP:RULES and WP:5P. --mtz206 (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope they're good rules. In the case of listing links to web directories, a thought I had was that if this encyclopedia had a list of web directories, maybe MSN and other search engines that don't have one would find it (and start one of their own).--Chuck Marean 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read them (the rules), along with the multitude of pages brought to your attention on your talk page and of these various articles. Take special note of what Wikipedia is not: it is not meant to be a repository of links in order to attract search engine spiders. (See also external link spamming) Any attempts to create a list of external links of web directories is frowned upon (in case you hadn't already noticed). --mtz206 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: userpage revert

anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

prod2 on Article directory

Wow, that was fast! · rodii · 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Public Transit

According to Wikipedia:The German solution, here’s a a tip for you: {{User:Olve/Userboxes/Public transport}} (in lieu of the blanked template:User Public Transit). -- Olve 22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

my Archive

I'm going to clean my talk page now. If an edit of mine isn't good, another editor would read it and notice, and do an edit. Reverting a page back, doing away with all edits doesn't seem good for the goal of the encyclopedia. When someone is published, they are paid. And if a page doesn't need editing, it won't be. Well, I'll clean my talk page now.--Chuck Marean 00:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate here. "When someone is published, they are paid"?? No one owns or gets paid for Wikipedia contributions. Can you help clarify your thoughts. --mtz206 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

censor this

Mate, what are you going to do about this list?

Its full of band bios. You should definitely censor it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaldo (talkcontribs)

You are not understanding the basis of concern with the Brisbane's music history page you created. Please review the comments made here: Talk:Brisbane's music history. As you can see, I suggested that your new article was redundant given the existence of Popular entertainment in Brisbane. I have no desire to censor that or any page. If you want to create an article for other Brisbane bands, feel free to do so and add them to the list on that page. But please keep in mind the guidelines for notability, and please don't treat Wikipedia as a forum, as you suggested here [17]. Happy editing. --mtz206 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


How come everything in blue is now underlined?--MP123 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. Try asking at the village pump. --mtz206 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My Own Opinion

Look whoever you are, just cause' I have my own opinion doesn't mean that you can say I commit vandelism, oh yeah I know you didn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issabella16101610 (talkcontribs)

I am thrilled that you have such a strong, positive opinion about your home town. Its just that Wikipedia is not the place for expressing those opinions. This is an encyclopedia which requires, among other things, neutral point of views. Please try to understand. --mtz206 (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Hyman


I noticed someone had placed me in the directory of Jewish Canadian directors, so I figured I should put a page connected to my link. But every time I try to save it, you remove it from the site, saying it's not in the proper place. I'm new to all this, please advise.

Sharon Hyman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonhyman (talkcontribs)

Hi. I tagged Sharon Hyman for speedy deletion (the first time, someone else did after that, I think) because it failed to explain the notability of the subject (you, I guess). Please refer to the WP:BIO guidelines regarding who should have an encyclopedia article about them here. Also, you should look at WP:AUTO because it is generally frowned upon to write an article about yourself. --mtz206 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the subject of me was not notable, why then was I entered (by others) in the category of notable Jewish Canadian filmmakers? The blurb that I wrote was no different than those of others in the same category (probably written by themselves too), so I don't understand why mine was deleted and not theirs.

I can't say if your inclusion on that list was appropriate or not. Perhaps you could ask the editor that placed your name on that list to create an article about you, claiming your notworthiness, thereby avoiding the problems inherent in creating articles about yourself. --mtz206 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Riverside, Erie County, New York

Your recent edit to Riverside, Erie County, New York was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed a large portion due to possible copyright violation. I will contact you to confirm. --mtz206 (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the bot has the odd problem with copyvio's that are not big enough to tag w/ the copyvio tag, its a bit of an annoying problem :o -- Tawker 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violations newer than 48 hours can be speedy deleted as per WP:CSD#A8. Use {{db-copyvio}} instead of {{copyvio}}. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:30] <freak|talk>

Got it. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo, NY

I didn't blank content, I merely linked a few words to articles..I'm not sure where you saw that. But i just checked what i revised, and I didn't erase anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lc 04 (talkcontribs)

Look here [18]. Everything below "Teams" was deleted from the article. --mtz206 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I figured out what the problem was. It was actually something in my browser that was cutting off text in the preview box.--Lc 04 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Happy editing! --mtz206 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I deleted that when I posted the new photo. What all do I need to do to my article to satisify the wikification status? Lol... Sorry I am new and the reading list is making me go blind. Robert Luther 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to refer to WP:MOS and WP:GTL, paying particular attention to formatting the references, external links, and creating helpful wikilinks. You can look at other articles, like Computer printer, for ideas, too. --mtz206 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Fallacy Neologisms

Please, Please accept my wholehearted apologies and Eradicate everything off the face of the earth; seriously. Somehow or other someone in the Penn State Univ [possibly through a lecture gave while director of education in Erie] managed to get hold of one of my fallacy lists [Invented using those prevailing well known fallacies with additions for anything I could think of which didn't have a name - it was for informal pedagogic use , not for anything else] used in classes I gave in logic between '89 and '91[Uk and Ireland] with a few follow ups in '94[uk] and 2003 [US]] and while doing some homework wished to find the source material for these... She contacted me via a student's mother, I replied that they were mere inventions on my part and must be stated as such, but she then asked "Well what is the real name for the fallacy?" I replied that for most of them there wasn't a real name, that they hadn't been classified , but I had submitted a few suggestions to Gary on about a year ago. Her angry response was well why isn't momentum in causation fallacy anywhere ? or fallacies due to false simplicity/complexity ? My response was that I didn't know why; and despite intensive reading and study over the years had never seen them given suggested names...or even deemed worth considering.Her suggestion was to post them here...

Reluctantly I agreed to post them [with one minor correction suggested by gary of ] [ I must admit I had never heard of Wikipedia before [to my embarassment]] for a peaceful life,hoping that they would be deleted with some feedback [however positive or negative] but believe me i wish I hadn't - I was quite ignorant as to the purpose/nature of Wikipedia and presumed it was a self-correcting organism that would delete everything not conforming. I had absolutely no idea that is was considered as an authoritative source.

A stupid thing, learnt the hard way. My classes were Smullyanesque in flavour - the academic side being the simple stuff - square of opposition/aristotelian syllogisms and rules/Lucasiewicsz/Logic gates etc - Nothing technical or radical - the fallacy stuff was mere fun.I am not an expert in any way.Philosophy was my major, followed by a second and third majors in theology and ethics - Confront me with Godel and fuzzy logic and I'm lost.

Her subsequent suggestion that I place these as suggested names for fallacies elsewhere was given a polite retort that she go and do something that would take a good surgeon a few hours to extract...this was not self-aggrandisement in any way; merely trying to help someone without realising the repercussions, you could say I was hoodwinked...

You most definitely will not be hearing from me experience is more than enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthesideoftheangels (talkcontribs)

Um, ok. I just questioned the copyright of the source. It seems that other editors left messages on your talk page about them being neologisms and proposing their deletion. You should reply on your talk page, or contact them directly. Also, please don't add comments directly to an article - that's what the talk pages are for. For more general help with using & understanding Wikipedia, start here: WP:HELP --mtz206 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

re: catholicism and the death penalty

Sorry, was in the middle of an argument in a catholic yahoogroup and was then informed that Wikipedia stated Capital punishment, rather than a "Death penalty" was being referred to...we'd brought up wikipedia after my fallacy faux-pas extraordinaire.

I really have no idea how to use Wikipedia, but thought a tiny correction might be deemed appropriate [especially considering the attempts by US catholic forces to equivocate Church teaching on a "Defence of self/community/state Death penalty" with "Capital Punishment". [Cardinal Avery-Dulles after Bernardin] ] I apologise if this isn't the correct procedure of going about things.

I thought also that the original writer might appreciate any defence against the allegations of many right-wing "catholic" websites that the present and recent popes were being heterodox in their condemnation of capital punishment; but already realize it was an inappropriate place to do so. Thankyou for being so courteous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthesideoftheangels (talkcontribs)

No problem. Also, please don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. And again, if you want help using Wikipedia, a good place to start is WP:HELP or WP:TUTORIAL. --mtz206 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Appreciate the O'Reilly/Letterman change...someone wanted to erase it completly.--Bairdso66 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, although I'm not fully convinced its vital to the article.... --mtz206 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I've blocked him/her.. hopefully he will not return. --Fang Aili talk 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that. Thanks. Whew. --mtz206 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Good job posting notices and tagging all the copyvios. :) --Fang Aili talk 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I would like to apologize for the nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnoctwo (talkcontribs)

Feel free to make constructive contributions - perhaps this is a good starting point for you: WP:COMM. --mtz206 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I am not pjbuchholz and don't know him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

ok, just a coincidence, then. happy editing. --mtz206 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible deletion of multiple items

I believe the following pages do meet the criteria under WP:CORP and WP:WEB:

Plymouth Pharmaceuticals: "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies." Hoover's(a dun & bradstreet company) recognizes the company. ( Another company recognizes Plymouth Pharmaceuticals. ( Another company recognizes Plymouth Pharmaceuticals. ( Another company recognizes Plymouth Pharmaceuticals.(

Loma Lux:"The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies." Hoover's(a dun & bradstreet company) recognizes the company. ( Another company recognizes Loma Lux. (

I appreciate you help in resolving this matter; please let me know if there is anything else from me that you need. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milescarolyn (talkcontribs)

I will copy your comments to the appropriate AfD pages and reply there. --mtz206 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The website links and claims have been removed from Acunol, Eczemol, & Psorizide Forte. Nicomide, a competitor product, has a similar listing. Will you remove the spam header on each page? Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milescarolyn (talkcontribs)

I have cleaned them up and added stubs. --mtz206 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello. You meet WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for - can I nominate you for admin? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
OK then. I've created your RfA. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Right - you're on WP:RfA. Good luck! I'm off to bed now - I'll see how it's going in a few hours. In the meantime, you could change {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} to {{User wikipedia/Administrator Nominee}} on your userpage. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. --mtz206 (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Chuck Marean

Talk pages are restored per your request. Let me know if I can help you with anything further. --Fang Aili talk 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's allowed as long as there are no ongoing discussions or vandalism warnings. --Fang Aili talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roast Hippo Poo (talkcontribs)


Check it.--MONGO 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

search engine optimization edit


You deleted my edit as "inaccurate and unnecessary".

No information on this site is "necessary".

If you believe my assertion that displayed toolbar pagerank is different from actual google pagerank to be "inaccurate", you are sorely mistaken and know nothing about the topic. This assertion is completely accurate and every professional SEO (of which I am one) knows this to be true.

The post added value and clarity to an issue which the vast majority of laypeople are confused. I know this as I work with such people every day, and the confusion surrounding displayed toolbar pagerank is ubiquitous.

Please consider revising your edit and reinserting the modification, and refrain from editing posts as "inaccurate" on topics of which you are not a qualified expert. I'm not trying to be offensive, however your assertion of the post as "inaccurate" is demonstrative of the fact that you are not qualified to edit the post, as you are basing your edit on information that is false.

Thank you.

ArteWorks Business Class 18:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Matt Foster (aka arteworks), Senior Project Manager, SEO, ArteWorks Business Class,, June 20, 2006 1:03 PM CDT (GMT -5)

Your edit [19] was unnecessary because there is no mention of the Google Toolbar in this section, therefore this caveat isn't needed or contextually appropriate. It was inaccurate because it presumes that PageRank is the only determining factor for the ranking of a site on Google's SERP. That is not the case. Site A could have a PR of 8, yet be listed behind site B with a PR of 7 because of a multitude of other factors. If the PR in the Toolbar is different than the "official" PR, your reasoning is not a sufficient explanation. --mtz206 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Your response above is indicative of the need for the inclusion of the suggested edit. There are two different pagerank algorithms which are utilized by Google. Mentioning the term "pagerank" necessarily begs the question of an explanation between the two. Your response demonstrates the confusion in this area. Google utilizes two "pagerank" algorithms. One is the displayed toolbar pagerank which is a rough measure of the "importance" of the page and primarily reflects two factors, 1) quantity of links; and 2) quality of links. The second factor of quality is primarily ascertained via analysis of a) anchor text, if any, of incoming links; b) "authority" of site linking to page; c) whether or not the link is purchased, reciprocated, or one-way; d) topical content of the external (third party) linking page.
This is why, as you stated above, the displayed toolbar pagerank does not indicate the order of the search results.
However, the actual Google pagerank mentioned in the article is hidden and known only to Google. Actual pagerank takes into account at least 200 known factors, and search results *are* ordered according to actual pagerank.
Thus, a discussion of these two pagerank algorithms is obligatory so as to prevent the mass confusion which is already occuring on the part of web site owners. If you suggest a more complete discussion that the two sentences I included, please advise. The overall topic of the article in my opinion did not warrant extended discussion of pagerank algorithms and as such a brief mention of the differences between the two was sufficient mention. I get calls every single day from web site owners complaining that they have a higher "page rank" than their competition, whose site is in the #1 position, when their site is not in the top 1000 listings. I have to go to great lengths to explain the difference between actual page rank and displayed toolbar page rank.
Again, I respectfully request reconsideration of your edit, so that I may re-include it without generating a three-revert flag. If I am allowed to post a link, advise, and I will provide a link to an article which I authored recently called "Google PageRank Explained" which has been extensively republished online. You may also find this article by visiting my company home page followed by the string "/blogger.htm" (without the quotes).
Thank you.
Feel free to include a better phrased explanation of what you are trying to contribute, along with a citation. I can't speak for other editors actions. Perhaps this should be discussed on the article's talk page for the benefit of all, rather than here. --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation into English

I have translated a page (Rosalía León Oviedo) you requested into English. The article was written in Spanish, and was quite crufty and poorly written, but I have translated it the best I could. Happy to be of help, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Please do not delete my page. I have extended it and I will update it even more. {{hangon}} Thank you for listening to me and I hope you take this into consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitman1029 (talkcontribs)

Its not for me to decide, and it appears it was already deleted. --mtz206 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Claude A. R. Kagan

I dont know how I got here. I am new to this. I found in my log the mtz206 rubrick and clicked on it and found an interminable discussi9on about fallacies etc. I am afflicted with ARMD and typing blind and the micoscopic type in theis box is hardly conducive to on line real time correction. I listened tto most of your talk page to see what hapened on Jun3e 24 to now to cause you to appear in my talk logs. as I approached the critical date 8t suddentoy weht boo99ey anhd hyere I aml 'Claude a. r. kagan is my user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude A. R. Kagan (talkcontribs)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think I was in your talk page history logs, but I have now placed a welcome message there for you. Let me know if I can be of any help. --mtz206 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Congrats on your successful RFA! I'm sure you will make a fine admin. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Λυδαcιτγ 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both! --mtz206 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian {T C @} 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you have not done so already, now is the time to read the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or to post at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats man.--Jersey Devil 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

band deletion

Hello, it appears as though you are the administrator who deleted the article for the Japanese band Fuck on the Beach. I'm new to (contributing to) Wikipedia and I do not have everything figured out yet. However, I can write an article for this band that meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. They've been around about a decade and are prominent in the Japanese punk/hardcore scene. They've had at least two full length albums, as well as a number of 7" releases. I know they've been on national tours in Japan. They're on the most well-known record label for their particular subgenre of hardcore. I could easily write a new article and cite reputible sources. I think the page is protected though. User:PondScumEsq

I did not delete the page, but I did submit it for speedy deletion. It appears that User:InShaneee was the admin who protected the page, so perhaps you should contact him/her as well. Since this article has been frequently resubmitted without fulfilling the requirements outlined in WP:BAND, my advice is to work on the article in your sandbox to show notability, and then perhaps InShaneee or myself would unprotect the page after seeing your proposed new article. Here is a link to where you could experiment on such an article: User:PondScumEsq/Sandbox/Fuck on the Beach. --mtz206 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin? Holy out trolls!

Trolls start bugging you, let me know and I can always loan you my dated but effective Patton tank. Congrats!--MONGO 04:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations! Anonymous__Anonymous 10:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All the best.—Perceval 12:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice tank. Stop pointing it at me :( (p.s. congrats!) --james // bornhj (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I get your admin powers taken away??

Im sure you're suppose to have some sort of.. integrity.

Yet I see none.

Be rest assured Favre apologist, I shall continue to edit your Lies about Favre until it is accepted that all of his failures are put forth in the spotlight, instead of hidden under the carpet.

His failures are 100% factual, yet they are omitted??

Please explain why.

Thanks, your Pal from ESPN. :D

Nice little coverup of the TRUTH on Otto Graham as well..

I guess the tricky part is.. which one are you.. on ESPN.. :) I'll figure it out though.. make no mistake, I would assume its GBFan, since hes the one who wishes to follow wikipedia like crazy.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moesogoth (talkcontribs)

Regarding your edits to Brett Favre [20], [21], please note that this is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox for you to display your opinions. Please review the NPOV policy, and refrain from such edits. Also, posting threats on other online forums is not a good idea either: [22]. --mtz206 (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, who's the one that posted my IP and all the little "online threats" there?? Wasn't I, although it was the one who put up the.. "New Messages" from Wikipedia there.. ha, weird how that works. Hey, if this isn't a soapbox.. why is that whole OPINION about 2005 there?? That whole section is nothing but excuses
Sounds like somebody is being a little bit of a contradictory liar.. doesn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moesogoth (talkcontribs)
I'm not really sure what you are talking about regarding posting of your IP, but if you feel that there is POV regarding 2005 in the article, feel free to make edits to try to provide neutrality. However, based on your edit history [23], I'm not sure you have a proper understanding of the NPOV guidelines. --mtz206 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.