Jump to content

User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Hello?

I tried to delete the page, but it doesn't look like I can. I have never used this website before, so I really don't know what I'm doing, and the instructions are quite long. Sorry if I have upset you.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanderweele (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came off that way. You didn't upset me, and I don't want you to feel isolated or anything. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think this topic is a little premature. Once the term 'grassnews' gets a bit more coverage in secondary sources - that is, ones you haven't written - then you can readd the page. Right now you're going around blanking pages, which isn't the right thing to do. I'll mark the page for deletion.
If you need help with Wiki editing, please feel free to contact me at any time. Just post here and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to get the hang of this, it took me about 2 minutes just now to figure out how to reply to your message! I'm glad you can fix my posting for me. This is totally different than any site I've ever seen, but its really cool! Thanks again for your help, I think I'm starting to pick up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanderweele (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, glad you enjoy it. One final thing: when you post on a talk page somewhere, be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - after your comments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalom Neuman, FusionArts Museum

I removed your redirect here because all it did was create a re-direct to a re-direct. The bot mis-tagged it as a copy (advised the bot's human here because I created the museum article from a merge of the founder's article, which I noted in the initial edit summary. It's more notable than he is. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries, have a good night. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tagging of Biographicon

Yo, would you care to explain your tagging of the article Biographicon on the talkpage? Suggestions as to which specific sections of the article need writing would be particularly appreciative. Although I am guilty of it myself, drive-by tagging without explanation is unhelpful. Regards,Skomorokh 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter

Thank you for your pointer regarding the need for a third opinion. I am sorry for the confusion. can you look again at the discussion page on Rutter and tell me whether this is acceptable?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The request for a 3PO on interpretation of a source was made by me in relation to a dispute about the source on the John Bowlby page. The disputed passage was also put in at least two other articles, including Michael Rutter. Kingsley first changed my request for a 3PO which has been changed back and then entered another 3PO on the identical point, which has been removed, and has now simply copied a chunk, but not all, of the discussion on the source to the Michael Rutter page, whilst saying he will not take part in the identical dispute in relation to it on John Bowlby but only in relation to Michael Rutter! All this games playing is causing alot of clutter and confusion and is simply a huge waste of time. I am endeavouring to keep the matter simple and easy to follow for the poor person who picks up the 3PO - unless they all run screaming! Fainites barley 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have seen my note regarding your third opinion. I am sorry you thought I put words into your mouth and I have copied the note you made below in reply and onto my TALK page.
HERE IS THE NOTE COPIED FROM THE MICHAEL RUTTER PAGE

Third opinion note

Hey. There was a third opinion put out for this page. I've removed the request since there's no actual discussion going on about the topic at hand. If you have a problem with something on the page, please discuss it here first. If no consensus has been reached, then you can seek a third opinion. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I think you are both wrong the suggestion is that the discussion should take place on the relevant page and that is all that I did. I even copied what I had done to — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) to check that what I had done was correct. I do not think it is fair to say that I 'played games' or 'put words into mouths'.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS I am sorry to say that however good your third opinion maybe it did not deal with the substantive issue which was contents of the list rather than the style. Nevertheless I take my hat off to you for negotiating a very tricky subject.
Wikipedia needs more people like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 19:58, April 5, 2008
Thank you; your comments are much appreciated. And if you think this was a tricky subject, then you haven't been on Wikipedia enough. There have been some pretty ridiculous edit wars around here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
GIVE ME A CHANCE TO FINISH EDITING PLEASE!!!!!!
I TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID BEFOREKingsleyMiller (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Between the edits on that page and the Bowlby page, you should know about adding in original research. Adding fact tags is no reason to get all bent out of shape... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were bored and going to bed?

We agreed that the article did not sound encyclopedic. It sounds fine to me now.

There is nothing in this article which is either 'tendentious' or for that matter 'contentious'.

I feel Fainites has pulled the 'wool over your eyes' and that in order to decide whether the piece is OR or not you really need sight of the copy of the Rutter article Fainites has. Without it you really are editing 'blind' so to speak.

The point about Rutter's work is that he helped children by identifying the ways in which the theory of 'maternal deprivation' harmed children. This is how he made his reputation. Now you are suggesting they should be left out!

Rutter is a child psychiatrist. 'Attachment' is his middle name. He has identified the ways in which Bowlby was wrong. These should not be left out because they form the essence of his work in helping the lives of children.

I cannot believe Fainites has written above that the biography should include, "Then some stuff about Rutters work on the nature/nurture - genes/environment stuff".

If 'attachment' is not biological where does Fainites think it comes from?

It is people like Fainites that make me feel like crying.

What is the point of an encyclopedia?

Sorry if this does not make sense. I really will go to bed now.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley please make an effort to try and stop copy/pasting bits of other editors posts from other talkpages out of context all over the place. It just makes the conversations very difficult to follow and doesn't help anyone. Fainites barley 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3PO

I put another response on John Bowlby if you had a mo. Or half a mo come to that. Fainites barley 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Fainites barley 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Cardiff as a primate city

Hello,

you recently gave a third opinion saying that Cardiff should not be on the list of Primate cities until a source is found. The thing is, there are no given sources for the hundreds of other cities on that page, so I feel the removal of Cardiff is giving undue weight, especially when it fufills the criteria to be a primate city Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there hasn't been any controversy over that. All I was saying is that, in the case of a disagreement such as this, the problem can be solved with sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

hello i am owner of "ranad" article.

i want do my article for my best but i don't know how to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzzzz (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I should probrably note that after you write an article you will lose all "ownership" to it and it will be freely available. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Child Psychology

Please could you leave my request for a THIRD PARTY opinion alone. You persist in saying that the references are original research when they are not. Why did you not look at the article before making your decision instead of continuing to repeat this assertion?

A major problem with your intervention is that you have preconceived ideas about Child Psychology and this has hampered your judgment. For example there is absolutely no doubt 'monotropy' is an aspect of 'maternal deprivation'. There is absolutely no doubt that this theory is itself 'discredited'. (In the same way for example Robert Mugabe is 'discredited'). This is not a matter of opinion. This was one of the major achievements of Michael Rutter. Some would say it is down to Rutter we now talk in terms of primary carers instead of mother or father.

Because you are not aware of this does not make the fact tendentious or controversial. My fear is that if I ask for help I will get somebody like yourself who does not really understand these issues and therefore make the same mistakes as you have done and the request would be pointless.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I have no preconceived ideas about child psychology. I'm allowed to have opinions, and I'm more than allowed to leave my opinions on an article. You don't WP:OWN the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep stating the piece is original research when if you looked at the article you would see it is not?

Not even the other side disputes this!

Surely you should have looked at the article before making the statement.

The statement is wrong. So why keep repeating it?

This is not about 'owning' the article or having an opinion it is simply a matter of checking.

Why have you not checked?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I may have misunderstood. Are you now saying my argument is with you not Fainities?

Fainities has offered to e-mail the article. If you are setting up a new dispute that is fair enough. (But Fianities does not believe the work is OR because he or she has a copy) If you are not sure consult Fainties and get a copy otherwise please return the dispute as originally set out.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN YOU CLARIFY THISISSUE?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

October Sky ....

Hi my name is Yanik from the band October Sky. I've notice that you were trying to help me at the same time as I was trying to understand Wikipedia. I wanted to move the : October_Sky_(band) page to October_sky_band since it was more official.

I didn't want to make it harder for you guys but I didn't realize you were working on the page at the same time as me. I thought my internet was freezing and not SAVING the page. So that's when I saw (MOVE) fonction and tried to move it that way.

I hope this will not cause any damaged to wikipedia or the band page. Please understand that we are trying our best as an unsigned band. Thank you very much and feel free to contact me as soon as you can.

Have a good day Yanik - October Sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octobersky (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Michael Rutter

I'm awfully sorry, you've caught me at a very bad time, so I won't be able to offer assistance on this. Have you posted a request on the WikiProject talk page? Hopefully one of the other members will be able to help out. Cgingold (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's okay. Yeah, there's actually two requests on that page for help. Thanks anyway. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Shmarya rosenberg

Th4e article should not be deleted. It is entirely neutral, and contains appropriate sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsdjfhkjsb (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, annoying

Sometimes I see your user name on my watchlist and, until today, I always thought it was "Hello annoying" which struck me as one of the stranger names I've encountered. Has anyone else misconstrued your signature? I think I must have poor reading skills.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. If they have misconstrued it, they haven't said anything. My username is actually a reference to Arrested Development (TV series). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please help me?

HelloAnnyong: could you please help me? I am new to Wikipedia and every time I try to write this article it is put up as a candidate for deletion. I also had to get a new account because my last user name was blocked. I read more carefully through the user name requirements and saw what was wrong with it. The article Recycle Your Homework is about recycleyourhomework.com, a new web site that takes a new approach to homework help for high school students. By the way I love your user name!

Thanks, Awryh (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. To be honest, I don't think you're going to get that article through. Basically, we have criteria for what make articles notable. For websites, the criteria is at WP:WEB. Basically, Recycle Your Homework would have to be covered by at least two secondary, neutral sources. I remember marking that page for deletion because it basically read like an advertisement, which is against Wikipedia policy - see WP:ADVERT. You've got your work cut out for you on this one, I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DUDE!

DUDE! Why did you delete my file? I'm just sharing my cities culture with the rest of the world! Please take it back! I beg of you!!!!!!! :,( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconshake (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Third opinion on Gumstix

Thank you for your participation on the gumstix article as third opinion, your input is very apreciated. Actually User:Oskay is acting as a neutral party too, and discussion is ongoing to see how information could be rewritten in a neutral way, so you can participate further in the discussion if you wish to have another opinion on the improvement of the article, or abstain, as help already arrived :) Thank you again for your interest in mediating and improving Wikipedia Iunaw (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for the time you took at North Korea to help, tell me if you need a 3rd opinion any time, I'll be there. Mthibault (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the John McWethy help

Just wanted to say thank you for the third opinion on the John McWethy page. I was pretty sure that conspiracy theory addition didn't belong, but having someone look at what was going on was very useful. In the same vein, thanks for helping maintain that page as it seems the other person has now moved on to trying to blank the talk page! Hopefully things will settle down there soon and we won't have to fuss with the page again. Mantisia (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter

Just to let you know - I removed the OR and replaced it with a section from a book by Holmes about Rutters contribution on the subject of MD. Fainites barley 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Your 3PO didn't work. neither did Vassyanas. Neither did the view of a Psychology PhD who looked at the Rutter paper for us. The trouble is - Kingsley just assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is part of a cabal or feminist conspiracy or acting in bad faith or something so its difficult to see how mediation would work. At least he's not quite so personally abusive as he used to be though. I might try a request for formal mediation though. Fainites barley 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion

thanks! NJGW (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction & Notability

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Harappa.com

Hi,

I disagree with your attempt to remove the Harappa.com citation as a non-notable website. The site has been around for 13 years, publishes most of the major scholars on the ancient Indus Valley civilization, and indeed is the major site for learning about the culture, used by scholars and students all over the world. It has won numerous awards. It is linked to from many educational websites, has been featured in the press and so on. While many site on the subject promote one ideology or another, it has remained very scientific and publishes the research or scholars at Haravard, the University of Wisconsin, The Tata Institute in Mumbai, the University of Helsinki and so on. Harappa2 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the page up for deletion because it doesn't satisfy WP:WEB, Wikipedia's criteria for websites. Add some sources showing that the site has won numerous notable/well-known awards and/or has been featured as the subject of two or more secondary works, and then we can talk. Read WP:WEB for the criteria that need to be fulfilled. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter

Actually there's two - one on Rutter and one on Attachment theory. Ho hum. Fainites barley 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added you to the discussion also at;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Michael_Rutter
Given the above comments I hope you don't mind.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually do mind, but I gave a statement anyway. Please don't keep hammering with me requests; I really can't keep up with your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism & Colin

I made a complaint here [1]. Some of it involves stuff from before your involvement, but if you want to share any impressions, please feel free. Thanks for your efforts. Life.temp (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User/Admin Marskell & Anti-Americanism

Hi... I've "chimed in" at the Talk page of the Anti-Americanism article, like you asked me to. And I have made it quite clear that I will be making no further contributions. User Marskell removed most of my edits, clearly in a tendentious manner. And with an uncivil comment. I made my edits in good faith. The way I see it, expanding the part about "Definitions and usage", the background and history of the word, might have been one way of providing the article with a more neutral ground. Trying to bridge a gap between Life.temp's and Colin4C's approach. The tendentious edit by user Marskell, and the fact that he is an administrator, have however made me think that I would be wasting my time by even trying to make any further contributions. I have stated my opinion about Marskell's bullying on the Talk page of that article. If there was some meaningful way I could report it I surely would. But it seems, from the procedures, that I would have to engage in a mock "dialogue" with a bully, a scoundrel provided with administrative powers. That is of course meaningless. ΑΩ (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that one particular part of user Marskell's edit represents a very clear instance of highly biased censorship. The article is about Anti-Americanism, and the larger part of the text that has been removed concerned the very origin of the idea. I made a reference to this website: Encyclopedia of the American Foreign Relations. There is an article there - Political Parties (early 19th century) - clearly stating that the Federalist Party was "framed as the Anti-American party" by the Republican (i.e. Democratic-Republican Party) press, after the Battle of New Orleans. A well referenced article, and I'll say that website seems to be a highly reliable source. But like I've said, the individual in question seems to be a long-time editor of that article and an admin. So the way I see it, I'll simply have to assume that his "soviet censorship" somehow conforms to the spirit of this place. Sorry about that. ΑΩ (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of the article. Haven't been called a scoundrel in a while! Marskell (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh... not too sure I wanna get involved in this.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And isn't everybody forgetting that it is me who is the bad guy? [Statement made for purposes of irony - not to be use in evidence against me at the High Court of the Mandarins or any other place of jurisdiction] ;-) Colin4C (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello HelloAnnyong. Have you withdrawn from the anti-Americanism Third Opinion process? Should I repost it? Life.temp (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I still read the posts once in awhile, but it's just too much back and forth. Technically 3O doesn't apply since there's three editors involved; at this point, I'd say WP:RFC, or just wait for the Medcab to start. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

trademarks

"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)"

This sentence is poorly written, and thus up for interpretation. It would be wonderful if you could simply provide one real world example of when these symbols could be used. --Chunk Champion (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sort of a hard one. I can't remember ever seeing any TM or Rs in any articles on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Claritin contains none, even though Claritin is a registered trademark. Also see Johnson & Johnson#Johnson & Johnson Consumer Brands - no symbols there. Also none on Listerine, Mylanta#Drug names, Nicoderm, Visine, and so on. I also think that the section at the beginning - the one about how the symbols may add undue attention - can apply here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The exception applies to words that have been genericized. A classic example is the word kleenex which has come to be used to refer to any facial tissue but can also refer specifically to Kleenex™ brand tissues. In my not so humble opinion, there probably aren't very many situations where an article can't be written so as to avoid situations where the ™ and ® symbols are "unavoidably necessary for context." Mmyotis ^^o^^ 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the first sentence. The second one is like a triple negative so I'm confused...but thats fine with me. I'll just assume trademarks can never be used unless we are talking about Kleenex™ and Xerox™. --Chunk Champion (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi there; I notice that in a comment to user talk:Neon white you suggest that he signs posts to WP:3O with five tildes, to preserve anonymity. This is not the guidance on the actual WP:3O page. Would you be good enough to clarify for me where your guidance is derived from? Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Under "How to list a dispute," it says: "Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality." On my comment, though, I wrote "neutrality" not "anonymity." Did I mess up somewhere? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it's my mistake. Certainly I substituted the word anonymity for neutrality, though I think the meaning in the context would be the same. But I was looking at the instructions for giving a third opinion, while you were talking about the instructions for asking for one. My confusion, I think, and please accept my apologies. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, man; just glad to get everything worked out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California -- spam?

Hello, I'm back after a long hiatus. I just wanted to let you know (as someone who's been a good steward of the Renaissance fair page) that I've nominated the Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California page for speedy deletion as spam. I've been looking over the individual fair pages, and while most of them are pretty thin, this one is outright ... well, I don't know quite what to say. Every one of its footnotes (88 of them!) is a link, and every one I've followed leads to a commercial advertising site. It hasn't got much content, either, mostly just list after list of acts and merchants.

I hope I'm not being harsh, but ... geez. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I think that since the faire is so notable (it's one of the originals, I believe) the article should stay. To that end, I've removed both the CSD and all those links. I'm gonna try to work on the page first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a more humane approach. Good luck. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion archival policy?

Hi there,

I'm not sure I agree the edit wasn't constructive. If you examine those pages and pages of arguing, you will notice that the current top-level organisers of that website have taken turns to come in and spam their website on the page, and engage in circular arguments defending various acts such as: putting their website URL #1 in the list of external sites; creating a new external links category of "other" to advertise their website; editing the history section to advertise their website at the top of the page. What has frustrated me and others on that page is not just their blinkered sense of being the best, but that they rotate their core organisers to give the appearance of consensus in the discussion page. I have noticed other discussion pages in wikipedia eventually get archived. And frankly I think that they have figured since they cant get a wikipedia page setup ( it was deleted ), they can't advertise their link on the page, they will just dominate any other discussion with pages and pages of the same thing over and over. Addressing that imbalance was the goal of this edit. They've yet again left, no doubt to return with the same rotating furor, and we are left with a discussion page that appears to have nothing but unbalanced representation of a single website.

So what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between outright deletion and archiving. I've gone ahead and properly archived all the stuff there, as you can see. Generally archiving is only done when a page gets overly long, but I guess it's okay to do here. If they want to snipe at each other, that's fine; it's still sort of on topic, so they can mention it there as much as they want. Once their links make it to the main page, it's a different story. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, now you have archived all the discussion on that page that wasn't specifically related to their website, since they came in and created a new topic every time they replied or sent a new person in. And it starts half-way through. It may be "sort of on topic" but nothing else can get discussed there now because they have spammed it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3O / ZCBI

Thanks for stepping up. I was unwilling to enter into an edit war for fear of 3RR, and my original massive culling was to stop myself AFDing the darned thing as an advert. I don't think Saurabhmadan gets it, and it wouldn't surprise me it Userlinks:Arindammandal1 turns out to be a sock puppet account. Oh well! --Blowdart | talk 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought the same thing. We'll see if it becomes a problem. If we're in agreement on the AfD thing, then maybe we should nominate it.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Given he also created redirects for On year mba, and One year pgp course (is a PGP course an MBA? I don't know, but I find the idea of a single year MBA very suspect with regards to legitimacy) it does smack more and more of something rather fake here. --Blowdart | talk 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems_with_the Van_Resistance

Dear User:HelloAnnyong There is something wrong in the whole process. It is "supposedly" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. The current version of the article is owned by couple of Authors that WP:OWN the article and do not let any editor involved with it. There is a current exchange between another Administrator which involved with the issue, please look at these exchanges. User_talk:Khoikhoi#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and User_talk:Seemsclose#Re:_Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance. It has been told to me to negotiate with people. If you read the responses, my edits, without any credible source provided forward, are rejected by MEOW. I'm questioning the validity of whole process and integrity of the people involved to this process. ALL MY editions, which provide full citations, and use WP:style guide to help other editors reach the sources I use, is being favored over a person who keeps the article as it is. My improvements can be reached at this page User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎. I'm in a position to think, If one editor rejects, and in the position of responsibility (Admins, third opinions) do not take responsibility, an article can be kept forever in poor condition (poor= no Verifiability) at the Wikipedia. I'm personally asking to you, which version, (the [version] or my version) is your personal choice. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How is your research going? It has been 10 days. --Seemsclose (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I summarized the issue at [2]. Thank you for your involvement. --Seemsclose (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. No good deed goes unpunished. This showed up at WP:EAR and I took a short look; it seemed like it might be a case of one man's separatist uprising being another man's independence revolution; but all the main participants seem rather embedded in their positions. I've asked the relevant WikiProjects to try to help. Thanks for your efforts. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

Disheartening isn't it? There was a point when it actually looked as if mediation might get going - with sources and two completely neutral mediators. But no...... There is an enduring problem with Wikipedias inability to recognise that in some circumstances, forms of dispute resolution that rely on assumptions of good faith and willingness to put your cards on the table cannot work and something else is required. In the more popular subjects its not such a problem as there will usually be a preponderance of sensible editors. (Mind you, that didn't work with attachment pages last year when the whole lot were run by one attachment therapist with 6 sockpuppets for over a year). It requires an unnatural degree of perseveration to keep going. At least the Attachment theory page is looking alot better now. Thanks for all your efforts anyway. I hope you will still be around to help. Do you feel up to tackling Michael Rutter again? Fainites barley 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey! [3] Tough stuff. It is a shame it had to end like this - but people did try - including you and a variety of admins and mediators. Fainites barley 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, man, I feel really bad about how it turned out, but.. I suppose there was no other way. Anyway... back to work, I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! We're volunteers remember! Fainites barley 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"don't use brs"

Why not? Those pharagraphs are a little short and it's a bit ugly for them to stand alone, but also some of them are related to each other. For example the 1st two in the "real" section talk about some important details about some of the stories. diego_pmc (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Forcing line breaks with HTML tends to break articles. If you want to put a break there, just hit enter twice. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is I don't. What do you mean by "break articles"?diego_pmc (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
But you are. Those <br> tags you add are line breaks. Wiki has a built-in formatting style, and using those tags breaks it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Breaks what/how?! If you look at the text you'll see that I also placed "normal" breaks (without <br>) - the reason I'm using br in some cases is that it arranges the text better. The places where I've placed brs is where there are two paragraphs which present information related to the same "category". And also for aesthetic reasons: those paragraphs are too short to stand alone in the section, so I grouped them (where it fitted), while also separating them enough to indicate they don't talk about the same idea. diego_pmc (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks sloppy that way. Either put the text on the end of the paragraph or start a new paragraph entirely. Look at every other article on this project and see how their paragraphs are broken up. They don't use the br tags, they use full line breaks. Wikipedia:Don't use line breaks is part of the Wiki manual of style. Read the article. It says that in general, manual line breaks - that is, <br/> - are generally reserved for items in a list, or in an infobox. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you a bot?

This isn't a joke! You seem to be lightning fast, and it's doesn't seem possible for a human to work this quickly in Wikipedia. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha. No, I'm not a bot. Using the right Wiki plugins, you can move pretty quickly. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in speed. I wrote WP:OTS, and I'm very interested in the plug-ins you are referring to. I'm drooling. Please tell me. I'm dying to learn about them. The Transhumanist 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh... kay. I was just using Twinkle and Friendly. Nothing out of the blue there. I was just kinda fast with loading up Firefox tabs and doing actions one after another in there. Inetpup was sort of blowing this out of proportion, imo... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Greens

Dear friend,

This is with respect to a new article I created on Happy Greens, an organization formed few months back (even its website is under construction; but the organization is already active in Sri Lanka)... You had tagged it as {{notability|Organizations|date=July 2008}} {{unreferenced|date=July 2008}}. I understand what you've done is correct. Please allow few months for the article to expand...

Thanks! Kalyanamithra (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:papercutz article

Hi HelloAnnyong :) Could you explain why you requested a speedy deletion to :papercutz article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercutz

Thanks, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike trust (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page

The Transhumanist 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And again. The Transhumanist 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

aye, working on a response. one sec. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of dash is in this title: Cuba–United States relations. There are a lot of them like that. The Transhumanist 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the HTML, I'd say it's an EN dash. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another reply for you on my talk page. The Transhumanist 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenated page moves

Hi... please see WP:DASH, particularly the following: "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span." Those pages you moved should not have been moved per that policy. Can you please revert?—Chowbok ☠ 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm glad I only moved a few!  :) The Transhumanist 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 Done The Transhumanist 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've posted a question for you in the R U a Bot? thread above, in case you missed it.  :) The Transhumanist 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for intervening. I am sorry if I caused confusion by removing my 3O request: I just thought that reducing the disagreement to, as it seemed to me, the use of the single word "murky" was a travesty of the reality. I was, and really still am, unfamiliar with 3O and RfC procedures. I apologize for my ignorance and appreciate your patience. Lima (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman Day

I was just wondering why you deleted the Batman Day article. I also want to know if there is anything I can do to make it so that it doesn't get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbocha01 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete, I just marked it for deletion. Second, you may want to write th article to use secondary sources to prove that it actually exists. Wiki rules state that Wiki is not for things made up one day, and that's what your article seemed like. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay...fair enough. Secondary sources? hahaha that could be a tough one. Believe it or not its been happening for 6 straight years, but I guess that's not enough.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbocha01 (talk • contribs) 02:48, July 8, 2008

don't delete!

Please don't delete my article Krćevac I am working on it right now. It will be quite informative. Just give me a bit more time. In 60 minutes it will be superb. And I do have sources for my data. Thank you. XJeanLuc (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've removed the CSD tag. I didn't realize the page was still under active construction; most articles add the references in with the text, not before. Still, I'll keep an eye on the page to see how it develops. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Eucharist

You asked me not to stop editing this article. I had better explain that I was away on a journey for over a week. That was the period I referred to when saying it was best that I keep off it for some time. I'm glad I did. Thanks for your work on the article. Since several others are now taking the heat, I have no desire to reenter it. Lima (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, heh. No worries. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I should have explained, and I apologize for perhaps giving the impression that I was merely reluctant to face the heat of discussion on this article (yes, I am reluctant to do so unless it proves necessary): Eschoir seems to consider me his personal adversary - and Leadwind, whom Eschoir has called in, has prepared an RfC against me - and so I think the discussion has a better chance of progressing without me. Lima (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. That RfC hasn't been touched in quite some time, and I think that given the issues on the page and the way the editors have been behaving, it wouldn't go anywhere. But you're right, the page is a mess, and as a result of the edit warring, it's been fully protected. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Article on GetBack Media, Inc.

HAHAHA!

"How much clearer can I be when I say... there's ALWAYS money in the BANANA STAAAAAND!!!!"

Okay, moving on. You tagged my article GetBack Media, Inc. with seeming like an ad in one part (which part?) and with needing more sources. Please explain this to me because I don't understand. I've gotten the advertisement accusation before (funny cause I'd have to be advertising all over the place) and I'm don't know what it is. My tone somehow must come across that way. Which part seems "advertisey-ish"? (I know it's not a word!) And what about the sources? How can I have better sources than BusinessWeek, Variety, MSNBC, etc. Okay, don't say the New York Times..or Harpers!  :)

GabeCorbin (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole article just seems like one grand advertisement to me. Media & Original Content doesn't need to list all of those different medias; similarly, the other sections don't need long lists of things separated by commas. It just seems to read, "Hey, look at all this great stuff we've got, come try us out." I can try a rewrite on the page if you want, but I wanted to give you a chance to edit it first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I'm just trying to be thorough cause I feel that establishes credibility. So the lists come across as advertisey-ish.  ::Noted! What about the sources though?
And thanks for your help man!
GabeCorbin (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Michael: "What did we always say was the most important thing?"
George Michael: "Breakfast?!"
Michael: "Uh no, it's family."
George Michael: "Oh. That's what I would've said next."
Okay so is it now? GetBack Media, Inc.
GabeCorbin (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It still has those lists. I don't really have much time now, but I'll work on it when I get a minute. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it! I don't know what else to change and I'm afraid it'll get deleted after I spent sooooo much time trying to make it perfect. I'll have to try making articles without trying too hard and see if they're better! GabeCorbin (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)



Buster with hook-hand: "I can't help it mother. I'm half-machine!!!" You know they're making a movie version, right? That could possibly bring the show back.

Article: I cut down the "lists" to no more than 3 . You were right, looking at the original a list of 7-9 things didn't look normal. It was also hard on the eyes and boring to read. Is there anything else I'm missing about making a great article that doesn't seem spammy or advertisement-like? (I have OCD with emphasis on the O). Wanna be my Wikipedia trainer til I learn all of the ins and outs? They should have that as an optional feature for people who want to train and for people who want someone to learn from. Is there a virtual suggestion box? 69.86.191.190 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Above is from GabeCorbin. (Got logged out somewhere along the line) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.191.190 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Welcome to Wikipedia. I will concede that the WBC considers themselves to be a church. However, I have partially reverted your latest edit to include (once again) a well-sourced bit of information. You seem pretty headstrong about the choice of wording between "church" and "group" or "organization", and I'm fairly confident that any rational person will understand the nature of the organization by the text of the article itself...so I will not change the wording back. You can have your church. The reference I've put back in should most certainly stay, though. It is well-sourced and encyclopedic. Swamilive (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced or not, I still think it's adding a lot of undue weight to such an event. Additionally, there's a lot of original research in there. Example: "The picket resistance on the part of Stout students was organized through the online social networking site Facebook within only hours of the picket taking place." There's nothing in this article that mentions Facebook, so it's clearly original research. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the article that says: "Within 9 hours of the event, video footage and professional quality photos had already scaled their way across the net in 42 states and 9 countries with many of the videos reaching over 40,000 hits in 24 hours." Unless you can source everything there, it's going to be removed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. Swamilive (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just attempted a rewrite on that section. It says everything that the article does without going overboard. If you want to add to it, be sure your sources are reliable. Remember that per WP:SPS, blogs and personal websites are not acceptable sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have fun dealing with the "reformed" vandal, who has trouble both with reading source material and understanding NPOV. Your message was unnecessary, by the way. dfg (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A serious question...

Can I ask you a serious question? For a moment (I'm only asking a moment), separate yourself from the rules of Wikipedia and truthfully respond to this. Do you support the Westboro Baptist Church and their message? Answer on my Talk Page if you don't want your answer known to the public. But, seriously...I've seen you revert a number of edits to both the WBC and the Fred Phelps pages, and they all seem to cancel out information that goes against their beliefs. I begin to suspect that you have a bias, coupled with a degree of history on Wikipedia, which can sadly nullify your own views against those of the general public. Please understand, I'm not talking about maintaining NPOV. I'm simply addressing already neutral edits. I've had this discussion before with other editors, and the issue seems to be in the interpretation of "neutral". I don't mean to confuse "neutral" with "majority", but damn.....again, step out of the guidelines of what Wikipedia considers neutral for one moment and you'll more than likely find that the viewpoints you seem to defend are indeed the minorities. The "neutral" view of this group happens, by definition, to work against their cause. Please, understand that I want Wikipedia to flourish as an encyclopedia. But, to outright DENY majority consensus on an issue is NOT encyclopedic. The FACT is that this group is primarily viewed as a hate group, or a media-specific agenda-based group, and I feel (I'm sure, along with many others) that portraying them as 50/50 with the viewpoints of the public is both misleading and counterproductive to society itself. Again, please don't see this as an anti-WBC comment. Personally, I hate this group, but the point I'm presenting is that the neutral viewpoint of this group is in fact a spiteful one. I ask you to distinguish between "neutral" and "majority" in this case, in order to understand my point. Swamilive (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See, that's the problem. When you're editing Wikipedia, you can't separate yourself from the rules. We have policies here that supercede everything else. I'm not defending their positions in the least, and I never would defend them. But that doesn't change the fact that rules like undue weight, reliable sourcing, and verifiability still must be upheld. And you can ask any administrator and get the same answer. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hospitality Service talk page

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHospitality_service&diff=214494273&oldid=214483230.

I don't know why you removed all the interesting stuff, and only left the painful discussion of bewelcome deserving to be in the article or not. I get headaches reading the arguments from both sides.

Please compare the archive page with the page itself: imo, the archive is a lot more interesting. Especially, the member count table (that would need an update from time to time).

About bewelcome or not: For the sake of information I would not mind to have it in the list, no matter if it has or deserves its own article. At the time the discussion was started, it was maybe justified to remove it. Right now it has 4000+ members - I don't know if there is any magic number it has to cross. In any case, I would prefer if any wiki material about this network would be written from a "neutral" point of view - so, better not myself.

Thanks anyway for the heavy work you appear to be doing on wp.

-- lemon.head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.42.38 (talk • contribs) 14:43, July 24, 2008

Um, well... there are archiving policies in place here, and that page was getting too long. Interesting or not, we should be keeping page sizes down. Neutrality is irrelevant when it comes to archiving. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind archiving, though I don't know the exact rules. What I noticed was that the interesting stuff was archived, while the boring and redundant arguments remained. Is there any archiving rule that tells which parts of the discussion should be moved to archive? Always the older content? In this case, I could add 10.000 times 'eeeee' to a page, and all older valuable content would have to go to the archive (sorry for the exaggeration).
One solution I could imagine would be to move the "which other networks should be shown" into a subpage ":talk/archive/other_networks". But, I'm not the expert with WP policies, otherwise I would have done it myself. Just a note: Rules can be helpful in case of conflict, but common sense is often a better choice (not saying you lack that). -- lemon.head 88.76.42.38 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for providing a third opinion on Gerry Studds. The "Third Opinion" template is still on the article's page. The third opinion page itself says you're supposed to remove it. I'd do it myself, but the instruction is pretty specific that you're supposed to do it. No good deed goes unpunished. Sorry to be picking nits. Thanks again. Best, David in DC (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. Fixed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Hi. In answer to the question you asked on my talk page, the "Tags" section is a convenient place to put any clean-up tags without disfiguring the article and making it less attractive for readers by putting them at the top of the article. In this way, other editors still get the necessary information from the tag, but readers and users of the encyclopedia aren't inconvenienced. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar time

This little juggler is in recognition of your longtime support of the WP:3O project.

Feel free to replace it with the barnstar of your choice if you prefer! — Athaenara ✉ 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, aw. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Emily Carlson/ Kent Ninomiya

Hello, I recently used your "third opinion" services in the Emily Carlson edit war. I was wondering if you may be of assistance again with the Kent Ninomiya page. There is currently a question of whether he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and whether the information about the same DUI case Emily Carlson was involved in should be included.--Videojournalist (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no question of whether or not he's notable enough. That discussion is from February; his article passed AfD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Humor

Thank you for enlightening me in Wiki rules and traditions. I will pay more attention to what is acceptable now. 

Lota-reya.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lota-reya (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

[4]

Any advice on what to do when one walks into a "cold war" - eg where at least one editor refuses to comment meaningfully but reverts immediately? Should one report back to the 3O page, should one place warnings, should one resign, seeing one is "taking sides" or may be accused of it? Example Somali people. Redheylin (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, that's a hard one. First, if he's just reverting over and over, then you should keep an eye out on WP:3RR. Beyond that, it's hard to say. I'm hoping that the AN/I pans out, but that request is really hard to follow. It's not surprising that no admin has picked it up yet. Jim's reverts like this one are hard to make a call on; the inserted text really does seem to be uncited text, and probably POV. He's heavy-handed with his reverts, to be sure, but I'm not sure what he's doing is entirely wrong.
As to what you should do, don't report back to the 3O page; you can place warnings if you'd like, and you can just walk away from it if you want. I like to see my issues to the end, so I'd stick with it until it got really ridiculous. Sorry this didn't help... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry this didn't help. A laugh always helps. What would help more is a way to call an admin to intervene on a page watch until issues of single-issue editing, ownership and disruption can be determined. Otherwise, good faith editors can lose a lot of time, articles can be left in an incoherent state - it's not good. But your advice was welcome, thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. To be perfectly clear, I am the one who asked for the 30, as editor User:Flyingtiger is continually reverting the article to include the conspiracy theory, and removing disputed and fact tags. See [here,] [here,] [and here]. Please to note also that User:Flyingtiger will not allow other editors to make any changes in the article. For example, see [here] [and here]. It should be obvious that I am not the only contributing editor that suggests the conspiracy theory should be toned down in this biography, such as this editors notation:

  • "It is strange that you should say this, when the original reviewer from BBC stated "I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors". And the BBC is media company, not a university, Asian Studies institute or recognized academic authority. But we are being draw off course. Debate on the amount of "historical accuracy" in the Seagraves book is more properly a matter of discussion for an article on the book itself. This is a biography of Prince Chichibu. I have not opposed mention of the reference to the book in the article, as the controversy it generates can be considered relevant. My one and only point is that a work of pseudohistory should clearly be labelled as such to avoid implication that it is on par with peer-reviewed academic history.--MChew (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks, Jim (talk)

Opinion please

I'd like your input on the discussion taking place at Let_Freedom_Ring:_Winning_the_War_of_Liberty_over_Liberalism. I believe there is a wp:undue issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the text removed in this edit, right? It shouldn't be in the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

attack

That was not an attack. I should attack him, since he regularly provokes me. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image The Island of Dr. Brain Coverart.png

No nothing like that. Its just that if i have a higher quality image say from a scan i usually add it to imageshack so there is a backup available due to the reason that i dont save the images i upload on my hardrive. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PA Renaissance Faire

Hey there, Sorry about all the links; I'm new at this and should have read through all the guidelines before editing. (One of my flaws: act first, think later.) I know I'm a conflict of interest, but the page is very bare. I was thinking of adding a section with the history of the Faire (not promoting, but how it got started, major changes along the way, etc.) just because it's something people may be interested in. What do you think? PARenFaire (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey. You could add it, but it would be entirely unsourced. Wiki articles need to use verifiable reliable sources to back up their claims. In this case it might be okay to use primary sources, but only if the article doesn't make outlandish or controversial claims. I'd say go ahead, be bold and write your history section. I'll take a look at it and I'll let you know my thoughts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Harsh Rewrite

Why be so uptight about Wikipedia regulations? My article on David Arkenstone was full bodied and flowed and had much more information than you skimmed it down to. Okay, add references in, but don't hack it to pieces like some crazed wiki-correct lunatic.

PaulJackson12 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We have very strict guidelines about biographies; WP:BLP is one of the harshest sets of rules here. Quotes: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"; "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." That needs to be followed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal Planet

They weren't "unconstructive". Everything I posted is true. I dare you to find another show on Animal Planet that has cats and NOT dogs on it. and i dont mean tigers and lions and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcat4680 (talk • contribs) 17:14, August 19, 2008

How were they "pushing point of view" with "original research"? look at the list of programs and you'll clearly see there's 10 shows about dogs and only 1 show about cats list of programs broadcasted by Animal Planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcat4680 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from being inappropriate for inclusion here, it's still your own research. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
how is it inappropriate? you can't hide from the truth. everything i said was a fact. its not my own research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcat4680 (talk • contribs) 17:41, August 19, 2008

Spaghetti Cat

I only meant for it as a redirect to the Mike & Juliet article, nothing more, so I have replaced it as a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I PROD'd it because of all the text that was added. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

North Korea

I was discussing the standard of living among the North Korean poor -- this was relevant to the discussion about the article itself. Iamtiredofliberals (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Julie Arkenstone

Yes, if you look at credits and 'thank you's' in David's first albums, he thanks his wife Julie and their 3 boys.


My thanks to you for making sure info is accurate.

Showzzz (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So.. Julie was his first wife, and Diane is his second? Is that right? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete harappa.com

Why don't you go ahead and delete the entry on my website Harappa.com which you recently edited and have tried to flag from the beginning? I have made no secret with my username (Harappa2) of editing the original article when it was posted to make it conform to Wikipedia policies. In my opinion the site is fully worthy of being included as various external sources have testified, but it is no fun to have this citation that there is a conflict of interest on top of the entry. It is amazing to me that the site cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia although so many people have stolen images from my site and posted them on Wikipedia falsely claiming that they are in the public domain. But so be it. Our purpose is education. Thank-you. Harappa2 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Madden Curse

Hi, could you give us your opinion on this issue. It really effects an issue on Madden NFL#Madden Curse, which we previously discussed.[5] Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Democracy in NK

Hi HelloAnnyong. Firstly please don't take my actions wrongly - I am by no means trying to tip the article towards the DPRK viewpoint I just thought that along with "single party state" we should mention their showcase democracy. I actually added the phrase "single party state" because the previous phrase "some describe NK as stalinist" was rather weak but I am now thinking that I should balance it up by adding at least something about Democratic process. Do you know anything about Democracy in the country? AreaControl (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As best as I know, they have elections each year, but there's only one person to vote for. Or something like that. I don't have a source for that, though. I'd be careful about POV there, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin Weinek and Kaspar Capparoni translation?

Good evening to you and Greetings from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding these two articles of a note television series: Inspector Rex. Now thanks to Rai International it is also disembarked in Japan, and Weinek (pronounced Vaynek) is the veteran of the Austrian original series, now the new member of the Italian series. He is also an excellent wine-grower and agricultural entrepreneur. Kaspar Capparoni is the new entry of the series, but he has already worked and works in other famous productions and with directors imporanti among which Dario Argento. Naturlamente if you will help me in this, I will reciprocate the favor that you will do me translating a biography or a geography in Sicilian, French and Italian: In how much on the aforesaid editions they are for biographer and geographer to be precise. In attends him of one certain answer of yours I send you the regards from Campora San Giovanni, my village native and the anticipated thanks. Thanks still!--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

De facto

I gave a reply on "de facto dictatorship". I'm not trying to get at you, HelloAnnyong I just have the opinion that defining government as "de facto" is not encyclopaedic. I constantly remove things I know to be true because they look unprofessional and this is one of them. Anyway see my comment AreaControl (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On the "de facto dictatorship" again. Don't you think that "single party state" means dictatorship? I really hate to keep talking about this but I really don't like the de facto being in the infobox. It's discussed in the article and I think it looks too informal. AreaControl (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No; if "single party state" and "dictatorship" meant the same thing, then we'd have one article to describe both. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
They are interlinked. Clearly you don't care about how stupid we must look. "De facto dictatorship" is so informal like I said we look like a newspaper column here. AreaControl (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Guess what, I am Korean! (I can tell by your username that you might be one, too) NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I'm not Korean, actually; my username is actually a reference to a character on "Arrested Development". Sorry - but thanks for the smile! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The character you are talking about, does have something Korean involved indeed, plus, Annyong is a Korean word for Hello. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bihaku

Thank you so much, that's great! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Sorry that took so long. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I happened to see 日本穣's talk page. How about this? ...a lot of forum members thought his posts mentioning about sex were inappropriate on the single men's boards and made criticizing comments. Oda Mari (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah... yeah, I guess that's better. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive_3&oldid=1140445303"