16 May 2024
News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Blaxthos, political articles de facto belong to those with the greatest axe to grind and/or the greatest time on their hands. Weasel words and bad (or no) citations are like chisel and mallet in the hands of these artists as they carve their POV into an article. I respect your boldness in tagging the obvious, but know this: your "bogus" instigation has just placed you toe to toe with a veritable Wiki-Bernini. Tread carefully.

Sorry for being cryptic. It was a warning (kindly meant). That, despite the fact that you are dead right, you must beware of the time and frustration commitment required to keep political philosophy articles scholarly and to a Wiki standard. You must contend with the closet bloggers - who will simply dismiss as "bogus" any notion that the POV in their artcle is disputable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs) .

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just joking with the jealousy remark. No problem.

I am only tangentially participating in the RfC. I figured if people were to come to the article, there should be some showing that this is pure sour grapes by one holdout and that editors have reached a consensus. I was going to add my opinion to the RfC list page, but I think that would be against Wiki policy. That's why it's the first comment. Ramsquire 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And thanks for preserving my last comments after you did your archiving, as my work there was/is on-going.

Also, i like you reference to forms of communism which ignore practical reality, I seem unable to view the video linked there-to. Is there any more simple ascii/text or html kinds of explanations of your point?

Thanks again, Charles ...

I'm well aware of that fact and did, in fact, read the material. But yet the argument was going on and on and degenerating into mere personal attacks at the other person, and showed no sign of stopping. So I thought a definitive vote (which given your consensus you should easily win) would help finish the discussion rather than prolong it. And, to be fair to Cbuhl79, the original RfC concerned a different issue. You may think consensus had been reached over the whole wording; he (rightly or wrongly) disagrees. How do you foresee this argument ending if all he does is repeat his argument, and all you do is say you've already reached consensus. And your edit summary was far from assuming good faith, I might add. Trebor 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps we have to agree to disagree over this. I think cbuhl is still acting in good faith (based on the tone of his postings) and doesn't think the issue is as cut and dried as you do. The vote I proposed hadn't already occurred - the current intro came after discussion (not a vote) at the end of the last RfC which had began on a different topic. So I don't see how I'm calling for "another" one. You say you'd planned to stop responding, but it had been going on for 5 days already with little progress. If you thought it was 'sour grapes' and not worth replying to, why did you bother responding for that time? And in any case, how was I to know you weren't going to continue ad infinitum - you showed no sign of personally stopping (well, you said "I think at this point further conversation is moot" but then replied twice more). I said earlier that I've thought about the issue and am largely indifferent as to which intro goes in - I'm not going to 'jump' in on a particular side. I'd been following the discussion for several days without commenting and thought it was getting nowhere, so suggested a poll, with agreement in advance to adhere to the result, might break the deadlock. But then you jump on me as if I've done something wrong. You shouldn't be afraid to defend your position, and if you think there was already a vote (an actual poll) on the issue in question can you point me to it because I can't find it.Trebor 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he's trying arbitration now (although I suspect it won't be accepted as a case) and I don't want any further part in this. My actions were made in good faith (and in assuming good faith) and I hope you see that, but I won't comment further on the issue.Trebor 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, apology accepted. :-) Trebor 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[1]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by cbuhl79 (talk • contribs) .

Blaxthos, I don't think I've had sufficient involvement in this matter to judge whether there should be an arbitration or not. I'll keep my eye on the proceedings though. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Stephen Colbert -- I'm not in a rush about GA status, and I really do appreciate the feedback. I've asked a friend to help me copyedit for grammatical errors in particular, and fixed any obvious flaws I could find on that front, including your examples.

With regards to POV and OR, I'd really appreciate examples of any sections or passages that seem problematic to you besides the White House dinner section, which I will work on. OR in particular -- You mentioned that certain thorns stick out, but I think I'm having trouble seeing them because I've been looking at the article for too long. I had intended to work on this a fair amount this week, both cleaning up and expanding a few things (the "early career" section in particular). I'm also interested to know which specific areas you felt needed greater depth of coverage.

Thanks again for your help, -- Bailey^(talk) 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One more quick note -- I just saw your comment about this not being a former GA. I didn't realize I was supposed to leave both templates while renominating, but the article was listed as a GA for 3+ months. It was only delisted three days ago, and I only renom'ed it because the delisting editor indicated her objections were now fixed. Diffs here and here if you're curious. Sorry about the confusion. -- Bailey^(talk) 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate any and all notes I can get. :-) No rush, though. -- Bailey^(talk) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were to make a statement, that is the general idea it would have; that I believe the entire situation is overblown and unworthy of ArbCom's attention. Now more importantly, yes I am an Auburn student. I've been down here a few years now and can't image going anywhere else. Well, until I graduate; no desire to make this home. Love the town, the people, the campus, pretty much everything, but it's just too small-town-Alabama. Although if you haven't been down here in a while, it has definitly grown. ^{War Eagle!} AuburnPilot^Talk 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And since I writing the above, I've left a message stating my opinion on the ArbCom situation. AuburnPilot^Talk 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a request to Cbuhl to remove his RfArb because of WP:SNOW, I hope he accepts and stops wasting everyone's time. Ramsquire 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cbuhl79 17:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice - This template was applied in bad faith out of spite. ArbCom was notified. /Blaxthos

Blaxthos, I'll surely take a look at the request, read it thoroughly, and make my statement known. I am however on my way out of town at the moment. I'm standing at the Auburn airport about to climb into a plane and fly myself down to the beach for a much needed 2 day (1 night) vacation. When I get back into the office, so to speak, I'll take a look. AuburnPilot^Talk 21:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely go make a statement; I'm actually in mid statement right now, pausing to reply here. After getting in late last night, and having to be back at the airport this morning, I was unable to coherently write much of anything at that point. I would hope this request is taken seriously, and not simply brushed off. AuburnPilot^talk 18:06, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

I was starting to wonder if the ArbCom was on vacation, but it seems another member has finally issued an opinion; 1 Accept, 1 Reject...hopefully it will keep going in the positive direction. Interestingly enough, Chubl hasn't made any edits in 3-4 days; not since he wrote his statement on the ArbCom. -- AuburnPilot^talk 05:26, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

Definitely a good sign. I was curious to see if the other members were active so I looked into their contribs and it seems they are all actively participating in ArbCom proceedings. Since we'll need all other members to vote accept, this could be tricky. Needs to be 5/1/0 I believe. And the side note; AU has 11 Cessna 172s and a couple Beechcraft Duchess's so I use them whenever I need a plane; being a student gives me priority over everyone else so there's always one available. This is one of the AU 172s. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:14, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

You did an excellent job in the workspace in showing that there may be some sockpuppetry involved in this. I really think if the Arb gets accepted, we should look into the edits of Cbuhl, Trebor, and Kevin Bass, and make sure there are in fact three users, and not sockpuppets of each other. Ramsquire 18:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a comment to the ArbCom request, noting how disappointed I am in the way it's being operated. With a 4-2 vote, it's likely to be delisted. On a similar topic, I believe we're now dealing with another Cbuhl suckpuppet on the FNC talk page. They amazingly stop/start editing at the exact same time. You can see what I mean in the message I left on Gamaliel's talk page. [2] -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...we comment, they remove the case. I guess that's it. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've placed another comment on the talk page here. Let's see if there is any response from the ArbCom. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You and me both. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to push their POV regardless of previous discussion. One of the things I do most is reverting vandalism, but I never expected to spend so much time arguing one point on one article. As far as sockpuppets, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it's just a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. If anything, I'd agree that Cbuhl would be the sockpuppet of Mrmisc rather than the sockmaster. The arbcom was a definite disappointment. With 4 members willing to hear the case, 1 voting before any involved members made a statement, and several "active" members not even voting, it was not handled well. I'm not going anywhere either, so I guess we'll both be on the task force for a while to come. ;-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did find this edit interesting. Maybe it's finally over after all. -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, after reading your request and studied a bit I think I can help you with this (though my "speciality" are direct personal attacks rather than excessive wiki-lawyering). As you said, what you like is an advisor rather than a "real" advocate, if you need something, please feel free to send me a message to my talk page or an e-mail.

Now, about the case itself, what I see is that Cbuhl79 is violating any consensus policy there is in WP and that's the main point of everything he does. But, I would really need that you send me more details (some diffs) to fully understand what's happening. Meanwhile, I'll be looking the evidence in your userspace.

I'll stay in contact! --Neigel von Teighen 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You stumbled onto one of the many pages on my watchlist and I couldn't help but respond. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:45, 31 October 2006 _(UTC)

The article Ted_Kennedy you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Ted_Kennedy for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. USER:Kghusker 09:38, 31 October 2006

I apologize for not responding to your messages earlier, but I was tied up in real life and didn't have enough Wiki time to come up with a thoughtful response. I too am troubled by the behavior Cbuhl79 has exhibited and I admire the fact that you are willing to make the effort to bring this editor to account. Too often here on Wikipedia (myself included) we are unwilling to make this effort and ignore troublesome editors in hopes that they will eventually wander off. However, what is more important than confronting a troublesome user is preserving a good user, and I hope that you don't get so frustrated with this conflict that you get burned out on Wikipedia entirely. With that said, if Arbcom is unwilling to deal with the situation or feels that it is not significant enough for their attention (they are quite busy) there is no reason that Cbuhl79 cannot be observed by concerned individual administrators who can intervene if necessary if he decides to continue this sort of thing on other articles. Gamaliel 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Much for the same reason that these articles exist:

• List of XM Satellite Radio channels
• List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations
• List of CW affiliates
• List of MyNetworkTV affiliates
• List of Dish Network channels
• List of CBS affiliates
• List of NBC affiliates
• List of ABC affiliates
• List of Fox affiliates

I'm going to remove the deletion request. Instead of threatening to remove the article within 5 days, how about a little discussion first . . . an AfD request perhaps? --myselfalso 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now come on, and for cryin' out loud, Blaxthos! Does this mean that each and every listing on WP is going to be placed up on AfD? Given that each listing grew out of their associated parents, what would you suggest -- that each list be reabsorbed into their parent articles? A lot of people put a lot of work (myself included) -- in good faith that they were doing things the right way. Are you saying that all of this was for naught? How about a better explanation of the rationale here! --Mhking 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Using such a narrow interpretation would eliminate the vast majority of all similar lists on WP. It would certainly open up a can of worms, and defy the intent of WP:NOT if not the spirit (imo). While I understand the necessity of a restriction, when the lists in question are tied to an appropriately noted article, I would dare say they become encyclopaedic and outside the realm of WP:NOT by default. Otherwise, do we eliminate lists of state congressional representatives? Lists of newspapers owned by The New York Times? Historic lists of teams who have been in the National Football League? A reasonable line has to be drawn somewhere. --Mhking 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was my intention. If you're saying that WP:NOT is being violated, then there are many articles that are also in violation, and need to be taken care of. --myselfalso 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just voted delete. But it appears that these articles have a group of editors who are so numerous that a successful AfD is impossible. I would seek administrator help or clarification on this one. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Using that line, none of these lists are promoting their business and are all give information.TravKoolBreeze 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that the same is done at these (and many other) pages. If you're going to AfD this List of DirecTV channels, then you need to do the same for all those other pages, which you did. I am trying to be fair, just like you said. That's not a rationale, that the other pages do it, but for the same reasons those pages do are in existance. --myselfalso 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across a message about that AfD before it was too late. I would have voted to delete those lists, as well. Sorry people seem to have taken this personally and totally missed the point. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What gave you the impression I was refering to you ;-)? MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Emot - It was a direct quote from WP:WWIS.2 Template:Emot MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's over; there will be no arbitration for us. My question is if you're willing to continue working with me (I must know if I have to close the case or not in the AMA cases list) and if you do, what have you in mind to stop Cbuhl's behaivor. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take your own advice, biographies are supposed to be presented in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, as with anything else on Wikipedia. Your opinion does not override what the individual has presented to you as fact. The evidence is COURT DOCUMENTS, they are the FACTS of record. Look at page 26 of the proceeding document from the official FBI investigation. http://foia.fbi.gov/chappaquiddick/chappaquiddick_pt01.pdf Vinnievesh 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CNS stands for Cybercast News Service. It formerly stood for Conservative News Service but they changed the name a few years back. There is no doubt they have a conservative bias, just as there is no doubt the NY Times has a liberal bias. Having a bias does not preclude a source from inclusion in an encyclopedia. If it did, no publication could be cited. The fact is that CNS News is a well-respected news outlet that has broken several important stories, including stories about the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. While liberals may not like to read the stories CNS News chooses to cover, no one doubts the accuracy of the reporting. That is what matters to an encyclopedia. RonCram 12:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supporting my advocacy on the Followup survey! --Neigel von Teighen 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please stop your massive unredlinking. Wikipedia bases on redlinks. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

As explanation, reasons to remove redlinks are, if there is no chance that someone will create an article about someday, if the links are broken or if they are multiple avaiable. (see also Wikipedia:Red link) Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Night? Funny, here it is morning. :-) Wikipedia and its articles will never be complete, but will stay instead a expanding process. What today it's not notable, will be notable perhaps tomorrow. By the way the British peers are notable by Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) and there is also a project to write articles to them all. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

You're right, an article full of redlinks doesn't look good, however better than one without any links. Also it is hard work, after having created an article, to search where you can add appropriate wikilinks, which guide to the new article - preexisting redlinks can make this work a little bit easier.

The reason for the piping is simple. Peers or baronets have sometimes various Christian names and titles, but normally we use only one as articlename: in example the article of Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby is located on Gilbert Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 3rd Earl of Ancaster, but he is also Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 27th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. Therefore we pipe the redlinks to avoid double creations with different names or titles. ~~ Phoe _talk 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

PS. I forgot: piping is also useful for disambiguation, if we have in example Jim Smith, 1st Baron Whatever, who had lived from 1648 until 1700, and have also another Jim Smith, 1st Baron Whatever (of another creation of the title), who had lived twohundred years later. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 14:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Blaxthos, civil libel actions are more common than criminal libel, but libel is a crime and can be prosecuted by the state. Check out this article on "Libel and the Law." [3] I complained about your attack against me because any reader of your statement would believe I was the source of an accusation against Senator Kennedy. You wrote "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is not my accusation. I only seek to have the published and verified reporting on the issue included in this article on Kennedy. It is against wikipedia policy to prevent the inclusion of information on POV grounds. Read carefully this excerpt from the guidelines for biographies of living persons.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

I want to make certain you read my response on the Kennedy Talk page, so here it is again.

No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [4] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [5] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. RonCram 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Blaxthos, I'm new to this and have noticed you appear to be a moderator or something. I just wanted to ask you about wikipedia and its uses. Can anyone post on any page? Also do you always have to state facts with a source. (I've noticed that some do not contain links or at least the links are dead) If the links are dead should I delete it? Also how do you create a red link page? Some of the things I've looked for are red linked (I think it means nothing is there?) Thanks for your help, Alantio 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos,

I believe you have the wrong impression of what constitutes vandalism. I urge you to review the Wiki standards page on vandalism. My contribution of personal opinion to a discussion page is, according to Wikipedia standards, merely that. "Unconstructive text" is not mentioned anywhere as vandalism, and furthermore, I'd consider your mischaracterization of me to be vandalism, as you have stated misinformation on my user page since you did not phrase it as a personal opinion of me.

As for my comments on Kennedy, I recently discovered the most likely scenario was that Kennedy simply fled from the scene to escape a DUI, which is the opinion of the investigating officer, so I no longer stand by the notion that he strangled her himself, although that is still a possibility, in my mind, as there was no autopsy. I would also urge you to try to be less "authoritarian" when you deal with opinions that conflict with your own.

Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.228.149.10 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few tips and references for you:

• Please sign your posts. You may use four tildes (~~~~).
• Your opinion regarding historical facts have no place on wikipedia. This constitutes original research.
• Any information contained on Wikipedia must be verifiable and cited from reliable sources.
• There is a extraordinary burden of proof that must be met when adding negative information to biographies of living persons. Adding "he strangled her" would subject you to libel lawsuits, in addition to violating at least five wikipedia policies (which exist to protect Wikipedia, its editors, and the subjects of the articles).
• I am very comfortable interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy, which may contribute what you percieve to be authoritarian.

Your contributions are welcome, but please make sure you review the project policies and community norms before jumping in - it will save misunderstandings like this! Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, not vandalism, and my opinion, as well as the opinion of others, belongs in the discussion page, where I left it. Your threatening comments were unprovoked. Did you not realize it was a discussion page? You are completely wrong, and you obviously have a problem admitting when you're wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.228.149.10 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again!

1. Please sign your work when you post on discussion pages. This is not optional. Please see WP:SIGN.
2. Discussion pages exist to discuss improvements to the articles found on wikipedia -- not to discuss your personal opinions or thought the subject of the articles. I direct your attention to the talk header at the top of the talk page, which clearly states such.
3. The threatening comments to which you refer are actually from the Wikipedia template regarding vandalism, which I simply applied because I felt it was appropriate. If it was not intended to be vandalism (and simply uninformed espousal of an opinion) I apologize. Please see the point number 2 on this list. Unsigned work is often the work of vandals, and in conjunction with the wild speculation with no sources (that, as mentioned earlier, violates at least five Wikipedia policies) appeared to be simple vandalism.
4. Please do not assume that I am attacking you, or I threatened you. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Your claim that I "obviously have a problem with being wrong" -- that is in complete violation of the assume good faith policy. Please read it.
5. You claim I am "completely wrong". Where, exactly, do you get justifcation for that statement? I've now quoted several policies on Wikipedia that directly contradict what you're saying.

Again, before jumping in feet first please take time to read appropriate policies before jumping in and claiming wrongdoing -- especially since you have almost zero edits to your credit. I am going to continue to assume good faith that you simply do not understand the way Wikipedia works -- please make the effort to do some reading of the policies. If you need further clarification on this or any issue, post to my talk page and I'll help if I can. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed a piece of history about an alternative (and the genuine) reason for the Warp product name. I cited the actual Court in which a SEVEN YEAR battle took place to establish the fact that IBM were approached by APT to market their software and they instead took the name. The Court records are public domain if you care to go to Paris to check them out! I also have original copies of letters from IBM regarding our offer to them regarding our product WARP.If you want an image of the letter I will show it with the article. Theft is not trivial and it is certainly relevant to the origin of the name. IBM reputedly spent $300,000,000 marketing a product using our trademarked name.ken 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• here it is !!ken 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are some information that are not in the relevant portions and some office listings that are either irrelevant, or not in complete sequential order! Dhwani1989 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibm_pc_xt.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

You seem to know something about the game industry. Would you mind weighing in on this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanlys212 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

In an attempt to follow my own talk page guidelines, I responded where the conversation started; on my talk page. Just wanted to make sure you would see it. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I see it does say that in the guidance at WP:AIV, I only skimmed it though as I was in a rush to report the IP given they showed no sign of stopping. My bad. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos. I've added citations to the Enterprise 128 article. Most of the interesting stuff about this fascinating computer is contained in a Your Computer article which was written at the time. You can find it if you go down to the very bottom of this page and click on the links Your Computer article on the history of Enterprise, page 1, 2, 3 and 4. Richard W.M. Jones 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow is right. That is absolutely astounding. My favorite part: "...and statutory obedience-commands of "The Queens English". You complain about the splinters in the eyes of others, but you ignore the rafter in your own; and all for no greater reason than that your rafter has the blessing of the queen of england and the pope of rome. You strain-out the gnat, but ignore the camel; for these same reasons...". Well, that and "the exclusive aristocratic franchise of the babylonian-whore capitalist/money-changer supported educational jurisdiction."'. I guess that means I too have been supporting the "babylonian-whore capitalist" ;-). That is the most impressive rambling I've seen. The length alone...wow. Thanks for the good laugh; a true gem. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! --AuburnPilot^talk 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jpso harrylee2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, maybe you are the one to ask. There is an article published that refers to only the positive roles a certain group has had on a community, however, takes no mention of listing any negative roles. How can a wikipedia 'article' be an article if facts aren't listed, just the positive twist on things?

For instance, if I was to write an article on Saddam, would it truly be an article if I wrote only the positive attributes he had on his country (no matter how short it may be?), and none of the negative roles he played in terrorism?

There are articles published, however, because of the nature, only in community published college level. However, citation can be made.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

LetTruthBeKnown2006 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just reverted it again, not realizing it was only early this morning (late last night) that I reverted it twice. I'm done reverting, but Blaxthos's opinion is definitely welcome. AuburnPilot^talk 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User Talk:LetTruthBeKnown2006 /Blaxthos 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Balxthos, I left a message on AuburnPilot's discussion board dealing with this matter. Could you possibly take a look at it and comment? D-Hell-pers 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor who started the E (PC-DOS) article. It's kind of a downer to have someone suggest deleting one's first real article. But it led me to add an infobox, expand the info slightly, and provide a couple of footnoted references. For reasons given in the article's talk page, I hope you don't feel the need to reflag it. – 2*6 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to the Wiki community, but I believe the edit you were referring to was posted by DNeronov. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

After reading the quote on your main page, I believe we share the same concerns. I joined Wikipedia after becoming frustrated with a popular trend amongst many editors. Many editor's who claim to be concerned with having NPOV's are amongst the worst abusers. I call their tactic 'psychologically suggestive writing'. They site neutral facts, and then present it in an ideological manner. The average person will not notice these things. For example: If I read an article to learn about one political candidate, I will then read about their opponent. Proper judgements cannot be made until one has all of the facts. Citeing sources, and giving true information is useless if they are presented in an ideological manner. If you share these concerns I would like to work with you on fixing these discrepencies. If not, thank you for your time.(OfForByThePeople 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

You were right about one thing: Skypad was a sockpuppet. He/she has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MagicKirin. You had the right feeling, just the wrong puppeteer. I think that means the intro discussion is dead for another few days at least. AuburnPilot^talk 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed FNC from my watchlist. I cannot continue to take part in a discussion that after three months of work is disregarded as "silly" and "laughable". There are other articles where edits actually have a purpose, so that's where I'll be. I know if I continue to edit that article, Wikipedia will simply be ruined for me. If it comes to formal mediation again, I'll be happy to leave my viewpoint, but I'm just done for now. AuburnPilot^talk 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Following 2 edit conflicts, I took the liberty, as the blocking admin, to leave my blocking notice. just wanting to let you know.Circeus 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in many cases (I am a quick-trigger on vandalism-only accounts and IPs), I do not even bother to leave a reasoning on the talk page. I decided to do so because of my comment at WP:AN, and the fact the user was active in a somewhat meaningful way.Circeus 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion.

— RiseRobotRise

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read the original research policy? Do you understand it is one of only three content policies on Wikipedia? If you can't properly understand or comply with Wiki policy then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. /Blaxthos 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the refresher course in the WP:NOR policy. From what I understand, the original research policy explains that original research doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, which I agree with. If the content is unverifiable, then it doesn’t belong on this encyclopedia. However, the content in the AFD discussion which you refer to is verifiable, can be easily sourced, and has more than enough information on the web to back it up (on many Verifiable and Reliable sources which I may add) and yes, I have pointed that out in my comment. So no need for the rude remarks. While we're on topic of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I would recommend might want to take a look at WP:CIVL, No personal attacks and you might want to work on your Etiquette. Thank you - RiseRobotRise 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- if it is original research, it is not allowed. As I understand it, this is a non-negotiable policy. It is not the content I'm talking about, it is your blatant disregard of said policies that I find offensive. In no way have I issued a personal attack; I just don't let people casually disregard the rules when it suits them. I apologize if you found it offensive. /Blaxthos 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what WP:NOR is, and I'm fully aware of the policy. Please know that I have cited about five major sources in the debate. I have clearly stated in the AFD discussion, that because the content is verifiable, with a list of reliable sources, then it shouldn't be deleted, sources and references should just be added to the page. I hope you understand my reasoning for me wagering in a Keep on that page. If I weren’t for the abundance of any reliable source, I would've voted delete. RiseRobotRise 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you say "I can add reliable sources" instead of "So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion."? Ignoring entrenched policy is almost never the right answer, and requires extraordinary circumstances, which I do not believe have been met in this instance. Once again, my criticism is leveled at the comment you made in the face of one of only three content policies -- I make no debate about whether it is or is not original research, I simply challenge the statement you made. Sorry if it came across the wrong way. /Blaxthos 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum - Where are these reliable sources? How has it come close to satisfying notability requirements? As the AfD progresses, it seems the community does not agree with your position. /Blaxthos 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't trying to circumvent any rules. I wrote that statement, because I was questioning the nominator's endorsement. As I believed that he/she decided to endorse the article for deletion without doing any proper investigation to see if the article had any significance whatsoever. I know the article contains a large amount of original research or non-sourced information, but if the article was properly sourced, there wouldn't need to be any reason for deletion (as I said in the last sentence "Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. ". Please understand that the tone of your message overall sounded negative, and the last statement "then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. " can be seen by many readers as rude, and inappropriate. I understand now that the intention of your message was to make sure I was aware of certain policies. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I hope we can move past it. Please try to be more polite in the future. As for these reliable sources, if you read what I posted, you can clearly see that these links bring you to articles on Griefing found on Microsoft’s website, G4 Tech TV's website, Escapist's magazine, and many others, as for the AFD itself, it seems that the consensus on the AFD discussion is swinging on the side of keep, mostly because comments made by other users who also pointed out notable reliable sources. One editor actually changed his/her decision from delete to keep. I'll change the wording of my statement so it doesn’t sound too ignorant of the WP:NOR policy. P.S I wish no bad blood between us, I hope that in the future, we both can come together on more friendly terms, and work with each other in a constructive manner. Thank you -RiseRobotRise 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, shit online doesn't get my blood up, . I am aware that I have a rather curt attitude towards those who appear to care nothing for the policies and guidelines contained herein. I think a lot of people on wikipedia try to bend/stretch/conveniently ignore the rules when it suits them, much like most people speed when a cop isn't around. Conflict in the short term is necessary to keep wikipedia in balance; conflict in the long run hurts us all. As a general rule for me, once we've said our peace it's done.  ;-) /Blaxthos 06:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem here with me, thanks alot :) -RiseRobotRise 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current template is not ideal but the fact that ibm has dropped from number 1 to number 2 is going to generate a lot of edits over the next few days. 59.167.56.72 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(replied here due to anonymous user) It may (or may not) generate a lot of edits, however it is not due to changes with IBM. The results are in, and the {{current}} template is applicable where the subject of the article is undergoing rapid change, not where the wikipedia article is expected to undergo change. /Blaxthos 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it. It's pointless, will cause needless wiki-drama, and won't work.

Mass nominations almost never work, they encourage facile and emotive responses, and all it takes is a couple of "delete 2, 7, and 15, merge 9 and 45, redirect 11 to 15" comments and they are impossible to close.

Ok?

brenneman 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm rolling back your addition of the afd tag to most of these - it's clearly indiscriminate. Fair enough the nearly-empty ones, but you've tagged ones nominated multiple times (elf life) ones released in dead tree form (explotiation now, fans) and you're doing it alphabetically. Stop now or be blocked fro disruption. - brenneman 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I have ceased the large batch. I can't undo what is done, however I took care to remove entries that asserted notability or even appeared to have a reliable source. Are we really to overlook such blatant violations just because no one will stand up to people who hold emotion higher than law? Please reply on my talk page, as yours seems hellatiouslly busy.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we shot at the same time there. - brenneman 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pick the four or five that you think are the clearest deletes and lump them up... but I'm taking the nomination tag off of all them for the time being, it's ok to make the nomination good before putting the tag on the article. - brenneman 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A little quick to threaten the block, eh? I think you caught the list as it was in progress -- both of the ones you had mentioned I had already culled from the list before final AfD. It certainly was not indiscriminant, nor was it a bad faith nomination. Practically speaking, I understand your position and bow to your experience. However, I would expect enough WP:AGF to assert that, would I have allowed to finish, only those that merit deletion would have been included. As I was going down the list I removed those that had anything other than a self-referencing or portal-based reference. None would stand up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Again, so we're held hostage by emotional fankids? /Blaxthos 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No question of your good faith, just that experiance shows this area gets nasty quickly and I wanted to short-circuit the possible disruption. I have to sign off for an hour, work on the nomination for the five worst (but don't link it to the pages) and when I get back I'll look it over then add the tags to the articles... deal? - brenneman 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little bit to try and find the five worst. I mean no disruption, and I have no problem with an experienced admin helping me avoid the drama. I've worked very hard at maintaining a positive wiki-reputation and understanding of the rules that govern us, and I appreciate the help. /Blaxthos 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Picked five here. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for the help. /Blaxthos 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Where or how do we post support for a webcomic that was initially tagged? On the comic's article discussion page? Or on the deletion list? --Knulclunk 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the admin in question was to roll back the AfD templats on the affected articles (thereby removing them from AfD). I never linked the AfD debate page to the main AfD list, so hopefully if the changes were rolled back there will be no discussion necessary. The admin discussed picking five that truely need removal and listing them at a later time. So, I would say that you shouldn't worry about this AfD currently, as it has been (or is in the process of) being "rolled back" (see above). If for some reason the comic in question gets re-listed at a later time, a more clear direction of where to discuss will also be made available. Sorry for all the confusion! /Blaxthos 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Corret-o: As the articles tags have been removed with consent and it was never linked to the afd page there's no sweat... Urk, but for that bot that automatically completes nominations. I'm acutally going to move the afd page into Blaxthos-space to prevent that, now at User:Blaxthos/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achewood. I've also made some comments in the sandbox nomination.
brenneman 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Blaxthos, if you're going to AfD stuff like Buttercup Festival, please do at least some cursory checking that they do not meet WP:WEB (particularly "# The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."). --Gwern (contribs) 16:45 19 January 2007 (GMT)

I did not claim to know what was in anyone's heart. As you can see, "a socialist at heart" was put in quotes, meaning those were Ted Turner's words, not my "claims". --Shamir1 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zariski surface, you wrote

Delete Sorry guys, hate to be the lone dissenting voice, but this article is promoting original research. It's unforuntate that often times Wikieditors are asked to voice opinions on conceps we have little experience with, which makes it truely difficult to sift what's accepted in the applicable community from what is being promoted as a new construct or theory.

The initial author of the article, user:r.e.b. is a world-renowned professor who knows very well what's accepted in the applicable community. How did you conclude that it's original research? Your comments assert that, but you don't attempt to give any reasons for thinking so. Michael Hardy 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied at USER_TALK:Michael Hardy. /Blaxthos 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing two different people with each other.

The initial author of this article was NOT Piotr Blass.

The initial author was Richard Borcherds.

Do not accuse Richard Borcherds of offenses you should attribute to (if anyone) Piotr Blass. Michael Hardy 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, I thought I'd made this clear by naming Borcherds rather than Blass in my comments above. I can't believe how clumsy your attempted reply is. Try again. Pay attention this time. Michael Hardy 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is the erroneous belief that Piotr Blass is the initial author of this article the only point against it, or is there something else? Michael Hardy 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In sort: yes we do have to go through a festival of brand new users every time. The solution is, I think, to triage them first, so that the really trivial ones with not a sniff of a source, under a hundred unique Googles, Alexa in the quarter million range and no syndication or publication, go in one batch. Then take the others in small groups or singly. Explain patiently to our new friends what the problems are, and ask Phil Sandifer and others for advice beforehand because they know of what they speak. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is obviously a right-wing media organization and has a conservative bias. Look at the facts and come to your own conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by REscano (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your conclusion. I (and many others) have worked hard for a long time to ensure that their bias is noted and presented in a way that does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Anything added to the project needs to be WP:Verifiable by citing reliable sources within the article. At no time may editors add their own commentary or analysis to articles, as it constitutes original research and violates WP:NPOV. You and I may know that Fox News is biased, but there are others who believe they are not; our job is to ensure that all factual information is presented with a neutral point of view. /Blaxthos 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. And sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to clear my talk page.REscano 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibm 7090.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is confusing my AfD decategorising bot, Bot523 (it's reporting your user subpage as an unclosed or broken AfD). If this isn't intended to be a currently-running AfD, could you take out or comment out the category (the 'REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE... line') until it's restarted or moved back into project space? --ais523 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ais523 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what notibility has to do with [[6]] in the slightest? Preferably on the deletion page. (Justyn 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for catching that I'd deleted others posts. This screwup of mone was an accident. I don't get how I messed up like that, but I reverted myself (which did also delete your warning about my screwup). I think its correct now. If it isn't, feel free to revert me and/or repost your warning, while I retire feeling ignorant and embarassed. Edward321 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to cause any hard feelings, I do apologize, but there's no need to be so sensitive. Whatever happened to "Always assume good faith"? You were so quick to revert my change that instead of improving, you took it back two steps. I'm trying to improve -- my edit didn't lead to an error. If the Reference is showing up as an error, what good is a description?Athene cunicularia 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I totally understand your frustrations and only meant to help. I usually watch articles that I edit (for a while), so I'll try to help with vandals to FNC as well. Cheers! Athene cunicularia 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, I noticed that you archived the talk page of WP:V by moving it. For future reference, it's probably better to cut and paste, because moving splits the page history, and it's sometimes helpful to be able to scan the history as a whole, rather than having to search through different archives. I hope you don't mind that I moved it back. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When you move a page, you move the page history too. If you move one page into archive 1, and another into archive 2, and so on, you end up with multiple page histories. Therefore, anyone in future who wants to see who made a certain change must search through these multiple histories. That can be a lot more work than simply scrolling down one history. It's also easier to spot edit patterns in one history: for example when looking for sockpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited various aspects of the Fox News Channel article from a neutral standpoint. The changes I made were based on reputable sources which either I cited, or were already cited. None of the changes I made were original content.Chris 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to cite where the Blue Streak info came from. But that's not a big deal; I understand that it is less fact based than other parts. As for for the Fox News number of viewers, it was not original research. The website that the last person had cited for that entry is what I used. The website explains why Fox News has higher ratings but a lower number of daily viewers. It is a standardized equation used to determine ratings. What I had stated IS the reason the ratings were higher. You might want to check out the website if you don't believe me (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005) it is reference number 15 on the current version of the article. You also said I you removed the moveon.org part because I called it liberal. I would like to point out to you that I changed the text (which you reverted back to) from "left-wing moveone.org" to "liberal moveon.org" and I did that because the word liberal fit into moveon.org in the same way the word conservative works in the current version of the article. There were many other changes I made from grammar mistakes to word choice many of which were to adjust the language to comply with a neutral point of view. Finally, if those were the problems, why did you revert EVERYTHING I did? I really wish you would have read my changes and read what you were reverting back to. 99% of what I did matched the rest of the article in neutrality, wording, grammar, etc. I am entirely willing to leave out the changes to Blue Streak and leave out the words "liberal" and "nonpartisan" form moveon.org and Common Cause; but I disagree with your other decisions.Chris 05:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where you might feel that some of my edits were nonsense. I have OCD tendencies and poor wording in formal writing irritates me which is the reason for many of me small edits. Often it is because a style has been used on the whole article except in a few locations and I like to reword those areas so that it flows smoothly. And I don't mean to criticize other editors, but the Fox News Channel article is one of the more poorly written articles on wikipedia. I'm surprised at how great the style and grammar changes from paragraph to paragraph in the article, and I was trying to adjust that. I also was unaware that there was a special procedure for editing that article and I didn't even realize that there was an issue until long into the edit. So I probably reinserted information that you had reverted back from without even realizing it and I apologize if I did do that. At no point in time have a doubted that you or any other editor made their decisions in bad taste. On a side note, your definition of "unique" is technically correct but it doesn't mean that it's an appropriate word. Very few people interpret the word unique the way you are thinking of it when they are reading an article. It comes across as suggesting that there is something wrong or abnormal about CNN's views if you call them unique when referring to their viewers. If you could discuss with me the other problems with my edit that prompted you to revert all of the changes I would greatly appreciate it, and it would be useful when I perform future edits on articles. Thanx. Chris 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? --Fang Aili ^talk 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a "full AfD"? Just because it was AfD'd once does not mean it has to stay deleted. Also, at least one other administrator thinks this article should be here; the logs show that User:Carnildo restored it on February 6, with the summary "One of the founding Keenspot comics? Hardly "non-notable". If you want to AfD it again, go ahead. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, use the tag as instructed on the speedy template. Do not simply remove the template. /Blaxthos 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I can remove the tag if I so choose. Please read the policy pages on this. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you can then. AfD opened -- sorry for not investigating your credentials more thoroughly. A particular new account is going around re-creating AfD articles (seconds after they're speedily taken off, he re-creates again). Thanks for the note.  :) /Blaxthos 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Incorrectly placed on your userpage. auburnpilot talk 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Blaxthos, sorry about forgetting to put the four tildes, and not making clear that my comment was tongue-in-cheek (I added an explanation to that John Edwards Discussion comment to which you referred). I'm still getting the hang of things here. Thanks for the heads up. AuH2ORepublican 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We've got a live one...when you get a chance, take a look. auburnpilot talk 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry man...your going to have to deal with the fact that this is all true...its sad for FOX i suppose, yet its all to be found in major news sources, ive begun referencing, even FOX news shows they are married...they just try not to make anything of it and didnt report on it till 7 years after the marriage!...ha ha!..the truth hurts doesnt it...Benjiwolf 13:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i dont know man???...maybe it somehow works out good for everybody, this chinese stake in FOX...im not really sure how the control issues will end up, yet at least the chinese kids will always get a huge wad of cash from FOX...anyways im not taking sides one way or the other...whether the chinese kids get the 2 of 5 i think it is? controlling shares or not im not taking sides or argueing for or against...im just stating what the situation is...Benjiwolf 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, for pointing that out. I know the syntax, but the problem is in the course of typing I so very often forget to pay attention to the oddity. They could very well satandardize the syntax by using a pipe, though. :)

However, it was not the URL syntax that was problemmatic in the article. I forgot to cloase a <ref> tag. And that ate up half the page. I fixed it now. --soum^সৌমোyasch 10:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then let's take a picture of any modern console's chip. There's no reason to have that picture of the manufacturing room, because it's not essential, or even particularly important to the content on IBM. Since we are attempting to illustrate the products of IBM, a picture of the chips would be acceptable, because free triumphs fair. Scepia 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"This image was released by IBM as a promotional picture" Unfortunately, that means fair use. Regardless of your personal feelings, or IBM's feelings on use of this image, the law in place on Wikipedia stands that we need to replace "promotional" photos where possible, or where the photos don't help the article greatly. Hey, if it were my site, or your site, that would be acceptable, but we have fair use. Scepia 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright matters. I can care about whatever i want. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, not laws." Fair use is a law. You seriously need to check out the page on fair use. Fair use is not some imagined policy that Wikipedia came up with. Fair use is a valid US copyright matter. Do you honestly think i'm trying to be a snot? No, i am trying to comply with the law, which states that unless the image is essential to the article, it needs to be replaced. It is pretty easy to use... oh... . Scepia 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i do believe it is a problem. Considering we have a acceptable image (above), i don't see the reason for you to flame me about complying with copyright. Many other Wikipedia's have no fair use at all. IBM did not release the image to the public domain. That's all. Yes, i a go looking for "trouble" as i try to enforce the policy.

Tell me this, are you trying to make a point, just to prove that it "doesn't matter"? Scepia 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the situation where i created problems. All i've done is comply with policy (and law). Scepia 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"apparently inventing some when you feel the need"

Copyright is not something i made up. Scepia 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

second opinion

From a standpoint of policy, I'd have to agree with Scepia. As WP:FAIR states, a fair use image "can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content image of equal or better quality." In this case, the fair use image (Image:Ibm wii chips.jpg) may be nicer, but the free use image (Image:Broadwaycpu.JPG) is more than an acceptable illustration of the chip. It might even be a better illustration since the chip is the main focus of the free use image. In addition, the article is about IBM, not the chip, so the image basically serves as decoration. Without an adequate fair use rationale, the fair use image also doesn't clearly meet the requirements of inclusion under fair use. I'd stick with the free content; it almost always trumps fair use. If I can clarify my viewpoint on this, let me know. auburnpilot talk 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for you input on the deletion discussion of Another Anime Convention. However, you cite only WP:N with little else in your explanation. Would you mind taking a look at the article again and then telling me on my talk page what should be corrected? Thank you! Kopf1988 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, although I disagree. Remember notability is not about importance, but about its worthiness of being noted. In comparison to the other anime convention articles, several have little proof that they are worthy of being noted, except what the article says (I had listed 15 of them!). Anyways, thank you. Kopf1988 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article does satisfy WP:ATT, all the actual information in the article is verified, via reliable sources. I would also argue, more importantly, that a convention with over 500 attendees is pretty notable, and since it has already happened, doesn't violate WP:Crystal ball. Not to mention, the convention is being held again, (not violating Crystal ball because it has been held once), and it would simply go against common sense to delete a useful article that would be recreated after the second convention. The absolute most important things to remember about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, except it is an encyclopedia with no practical limit to the amount of content it can hold. Nobody will care about McDonalds in Muscatine, IA, because it's not interesting or important. There are at least 500 people (excluding Patrick) who would be interested in this article and who would consider it notable. Not to mention that anyone who likes Anime, or anyone who is curious about attending an anime convention in the NH area, would probably consider the convention notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and useless cruft should be removed, yet Another Anime Convention is very encyclopedic. More importantly, it is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. Kopf1988 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't say none if it's not none. Animecons.com and Anime-mania are both reliable for information. But ignore that discussion, how about this one: Another Anime Convention is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. Doesn't that make it notable??? Kopf1988 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Anime Convention (2nd nomination). I had presented that Another Anime Convention is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire, but before much discussion had taken place the deletion was closed. Would you like to voice your opinion, for or against, at the deletion review? The claims to notability meet the sole requirement for such claims to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. The two source I had provided show that the claim is as true as can be proven also. As I stated, if I claimed to own the only Computer Repair Company in Iowa, and I had multiple phone-books to prove it, that would be enough verifiability for Wikipedia. Also, any user can search Google for Anime Conventions in New Hampshire, and they will find no current ones (nor any larger than Another Anime Convention). I hope you consider participating in the review discussion. Kopf1988 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos,

After you contributed to the deletion discussion on the Helen Hollick article, the author herself put some references on the deletion page, and I think we now have adequate confirmation of notability from independent sources. I initially voted to delete myself, but I've been working with her to improve the page with more footnotes and more information. At this point I think the article is worthy of keeping, and I'm continuing to work on it with her. Please take another look at the page and consider whether you'd like to change your vote. Thanks! Noroton 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

please don't blank talk pages, it is considered vandalism. By the way, after looking at your recent edits, it is clear you are way out of line trying to suggest an "edited by consensus" tag on the FOX news page, one has only to look at the history to see some editors were even forced out after making factual fully referenced additions. Its a nasty page, its why I don't even head there at all, it makes more sense to just say that some wikipedia articles are blatantly flawed and highly inaccurate and poorly written, and to use other sources for such topics that are subject to fan bases and political blocks & gangs of editors. Enjoy the FOX page, its all yours! But stay out of other editors' business on more important matters and pages. Stick to the FOX news page and what your good at. CrystalizedAngels 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

indefinite???...well...in some sort of way i guess depending on the definition of indefinite (or else the the reference point & time frame of the observer)...what is indefinite to one occurence/entity may be quite brief to another occurence/entity...so you vandalize a talk page by blanking the comments of a user (a user totally uninvolved in this dispute over soemthing totally unrelated to FOX news)...then you get an admin to defend your vandalism!...well well...83.78.181.65 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. auburnpilot talk 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I left town for 48 hours and I see the arbcom has already rejected the case. I do tend to agree there is nothing they could add to the situation; we just need to get another admin involved. I must apologize again for not yet responding to your email, but I should have time to get to it today. Now that I'm back in town, I should have a bit more free time. - auburnpilot talk 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you have mail. - auburnpilot talk 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And resent. The first one was returned to me; said your box was full...never seen that before. Let me know if/when you get this one and if not, it may be something on my end. - auburnpilot talk 05:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "easy management". I've discovered the issue with the email (well I had a friend look at it and he discovered the issue). It's something to do with an old vacation notice I had while away for Spring Break. Apparently it's bouncing sent emails into who knows where. He knows things I don't so apparently it'll be fixed tonight (or so he says). - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your rationale for moving to lowercase? The title appears lowercase on the album cover, but so does "nine inch nails" and a lot of other albums like El Cielo. Any evidence to support the 'proper title' being lowercase? –Pomte 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names: "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." And unlike KoЯn the album isn't explicitly known to be lowercase. Don't mean to use a similar example, but dredg is widely known to be lowercase because they never ever spell their band name with an uppercase D. The same reason With Teeth isn't WITH_TEETH. I'll seek consensus at Talk:Nine Inch Nails. –Pomte 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[7] Unfortunately there's no PHM here, and it looks like "The" didn't fit next to "Downward Spiral". –Pomte 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I finished formatting the citations on the SBVT article. If you would like to work on verification, it's all yours. I think there were only three sources that I could not find and did not have enough clues to write a reasonable cite. The last one in the Hoffman section is particularly problematic, since it appeared to be the only reliable (primary) source in the section, and the rest of the sources are blogs, Huffington Post being the cream of that crop. - Crockspot 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're probably familiar with the debate thats going on right now in regards to the possible merge of all three content policy pages into one policy page at WP:A.

In regards to our previous conversation, I thought you might like to weigh in on the debate found here. Even if your not really sure on weather to oppose or support it, you can still add your opinion in the neutral column. ;) -- RiseRobotRise 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Squirrel Systems, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

you have been banned from editing wikipedia artles untill further notice