User talk:Allstarecho/Archive 10

Contributions by Month User/Talk User Boxes Launch Pad Contact Contribs Subpages Awards Image Favs Statistics Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 14 Final version As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Where have they sued? I'm not saying it isn't a trademark, but if it was used in order to indicate endorsement of something without their consent or to make a profit (i.e. being used on hats, shirts, etc. for sale), then they'd certainly have a case. There are plenty of images that are trademarked, but not copyrighted. — BQZip01 — talk 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists Please discuss your changes at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I have, before you left this message. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Talking about the injustice on Ben's page does no good Talking about the injustice on Ben's page does no good, mention your comments here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Benjiboi_reported_by_User:THF_.28Result:_24h.29 Ikip (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC) WikiThanks thank you for posting on Edit_warring. :) Ikip (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) BTW, you user page is the most difficult user page I have ever used. Ikip (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Notability of Eric Clark Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eric Clark, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eric Clark seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eric Clark, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) hellur Just stoppin by to say hey girl hey. APK How you durrin? 09:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Neutrality on your deletion reason for "American College of Pediatricians" Your neutrality on reason for deletion of that article is disputed by me. It seems as, since you disagreed with the particular political beliefs associated with the group, you just said it should be deleted because you disagree, without quoting any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You cannot dictate what others do because of the possibility that you might be offended. The group is notable, and that page should have been kept. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for stopping by. Firstly, I'm not the one that deleted the article nor was I the one that decided it be deleted. That would be User:I'm Spartacus! so you should take up your agenda with him. I simply cast my own opinion of why it should be deleted.. which is what you should do instead of harassing me over mine. And yes, I did quote guidelines.. I specifically said it was non-notable. But I guess you need directions down that road so see WP:NN. Have a nice day. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 2009 Vanderbilt Commodores football team This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 2009 Vanderbilt Commodores football team, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 2008 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Answered your qestion Hello, I am writing you today to let you know that i have answered your question on Wikipedia:Editor_review/Staffwaterboy,Please Feel free to ask any question that you may have,I am glad i am getting feedback from other user such as yourself. . Take Care, Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) hey cowpoke! You did see this I hope ... bring a towel! -- Banjeboi 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Ya'll need Jesus...or Robert Tilton. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) LOL! I didn't see that one because SOMEONE didn't put it in the Commons gay category! But I'll do that as soon as I'm done here. Toby Keith would be so proud, an so would Heath Ledger! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Although, I prefer these 2 over the cowpokes: yum and yummy. I imagine these 2 images won't last long on Commons as I hardly doubt the uploader actually took these. I've seen these on the 'net before. Can we say copyvios? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC) OMG! Farting preacher! Genius! -- Banjeboi 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Yeehaw! I must admit that I don't run into many cowboys in DC, although I've seen plenty of rope in various Dupont condominiums. Side note: I just realized MAL doesn't have an article. That's a pretty huge event in DC. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC) The whole leather scene is pretty sparse. Most all the major events, titleholders etc etc are absent. The best way to get them revved up is to make one article really good so all the others get jealous! -- Banjeboi 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC) American Family Association Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Please respond on the AFA's talkpage. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Homosexuality Hey, can you check out: User_talk:Moni3#Homosexuality ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Promiscuity We should jointly decide whether or not MSM statistics belong in the promiscuity article. If you prefer they not be there, I can see how their inclusion isn't needed and can be construed as POV. However, I believe that either all of the original, well-sourced, current statistics should remain or all statistics about MSM should be deleted. Thoughts?  EJNOGARB  16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Stats dealing directly with promiscuity certainly do belong. The additional cruft, such as adding the continuance of the blood donor ban for gay people, doesn't. That was purely POV and pointy. I'd also challenge anyone to use modern studies from notable sources, if studies must be used at all. Not studies from the 1970s that are most certainly irrelevant to today's society, gay or straight. I'm one of the first to take the bad with the bad, and the good with the good. Hence why I didn't revert this edit of yours. But obviously I don't agree with whitewashing content to balance an article or a section of an article to one side of the conservative or liberal agenda. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) That really sucks ... Sorry about the blockage, hopefully more fiber in the diet will help. If you need anything poked or prodded I'll be happy to check it out and I look forward to your impending return! -- Banjeboi 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Welcome to ARS! Hi, Allstarecho, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! Here to help articles tagged for rescue! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 08:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Layout I like the rainbow of colored boxes. The page is clear and easy to read. The only thing is that (at least on the display I'm looking at here), the main text boxes don't begin until below your sidebar. That looks a little weird, but is a minor point. I think it's much easier to read your page with this layout than the one you had before. LadyofShalott Weave 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) That's what I was trying to avoid, the issue with the text boxes beginning after the sidebar. On My display, it doesn't do that. They show up evenly on the page, side by side. Uhg. Thanks for the input. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) What size monitor are you using and what is the resolution set at? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I'll have to check later on when I'm back at home. For now, I'm looking at it on a different machine, and the sidebar just overlaps a little with the other boxes. LadyofShalott Weave 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) New layout p.s. I love that it doesn't go waaaay off to the side anymore. -- Banjeboi 08:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) But are you having the same issues with it as LadyofShalott - where the different color boxes don't start until the bottom of the right-hand side infobox? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 08:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Not that I can see, it looks fine. -- Banjeboi 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Looks perfectly fine to me. Browsers = Safari, Camino, Firefox, iCab; system = Mac OS X 10.4.11 and 10.3.9; hardware = iMac G5 and iMac G3. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks. It's probably got something to do with monitor size and resolution setting. I use a widescreen monitor set at 1680 x 1050 resolution. Smaller resolutions, such as 1024 x 768 may have an issue with the layout. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hate crime Perhaps I'm just slow, but I do not see how a list of executions supports the statement "...it is well known throughout the international community that Iran has and continues to have state-sponsored torture and executions of homosexuals...". Kevin (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Look at the bottom of the list. You can choose to sort the results by "crime" including "Homosexual act" and "Homosexual rape". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 08:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes I see that. And "well known in the international community" is not remotely supported is it? Your other 2 refs seem equally problematic, one is Wikinews, not a reliable source, and the other is a blog. Kevin (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) WikiNews is a reliable source. And the "blog" is a Sky News reporter, not some kid in the middle of a cornfield blogging about baseball cards. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Not one of those sources supports "well known in the international community". The section reads like a synthesis of the source material that draws it's own conclusions, rather than reporting those of others. The whole section describes what I would call human rights abuses that should be detailed at Human rights in Iran. It is tangential to the Hate crime article at best. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Huh? Please explain your warning. I just added a photo that was discussed on the talk page. All of my edits have been consistent with policy and I haven't engaged in 3RR or edit warring and have discussed the reasons for my appropriate edits on the talk page. Given the personal attacks, talk page violations, and aggresive behavior I am facing your warning is very inappropriate. I hope you will correct yourself. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that your talk page is in numerous categories of gay Wikipedians. Notation that he is a prominent advocate and legislator for gay rights has been one of the edits that is being reverted and censored from the Barney Frank article. I don't want you to be accused of COI, but clearly this censorship whatever the motivation is inappropriate and disturbing on various levels. I would welcome your assistance in supervising that article and making sure that guidelines and policies are followed. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) The merits, or lack of them, regarding the content itself isn't of any concern. That should be dealt with via the article's talk page and consensus. The warning, however, was for edit warring, which you are clearly engaged in on that article. I'm not even going to waste my time linking the diffs of your reversions. You're one more reversion away from WP:3RR and WP:AN3 is where I will focus my diff linking efforts if you continue. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I am concerned with the content of articles. I think it should conform to consensus guidelines. I'm also concerned with bogus warnings. Your warning suggests I have been edit warring, and it's wrong. Please don't put false statements on my talk page. Anyone who adds something and reverts it once is one edit away from 3RR. It's troubling that you've engaged in a dispute in this way. I hope you'll consider your actions more carefully in the future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Let me put this another way.. I didn't warn you about the content you are removing and the content you are inserting. I warned you for edit warring. The content itself and whether or not the content itself is acceptable, has nothing to do with the warning for edit warring. And yet again, in another way, I have no opinion on the content itself - just an opinion that your multiple reversions and tendentious editing are nearing breach of WP:3RR. Understand now? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Joke? For your amusement! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC) haha We've been discussing it already at several places. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfA? and User_talk:ScienceApologist#RfA? not to mention the dozens of usertalk pages he's been discussing it himself. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Easter ovum APK bought you some Easter eggs, but he had some mayonnaise that was about to go bad. He decided to make some deviled eggs instead. APK is really sorry about eating your Easter present, but promises to make it up to you on Cinco de Mayo. (although he's likely to drink your present) Happy Easter. Thank you! I love mayonnaise! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Only warning. In case you don't see it on ScienceApologist's page: Allstarecho, consider this a final warning to leave Childofmidnight alone. I will seek admin intervention if I see you continuing to have a go at him. I trust that is crystal clear. //roux   03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC) So you're saying I can't reply to his comments to me? Ridiculous! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) You started the interaction at SA's page, not him. //roux   03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Nothing wrong with pointing out the lies fiction within his comments. He chose to reply to me doing so, in which turn it would be rude to ignore his comments and not reply to them. I guess you'll have to get admin intervention because I certainly won't bite my tongue on the thread at ANI regarding ChildofMidnight and anywhere else he chooses to distort the truth regarding his actions on Wikipedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) FWIW, CoM edited away my comments critical of their behaviours to present them having ... the last word. Don't take their revisionism too personally. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC) AN, userboxes, and images You might find this discussion worth skimming. Toward the end I contrasted a featured picture candidate against a completely gratuitous userbox (mocked up solely as counterexample for the discussion). The image from that gratuitous box actually was taken at a San Francisco gay pride parade, and would serve an appropriate purpose at a gay pride userbox. If someone happened to use it for that purpose, and the box ever got MFD'd, I'd be glad to defend it. Regards, DurovaCharge! 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) As a gay man, I'd oppose the use of a gay pride userbox with that particular "walking penis" photo. It's offensive to many gay people that we're equated with huge, walking dicks, whether they be of the genitalia kind or the Wikipedia user kind. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I wasn't aware of your masturbation userbox issue before yesterday. And frankly, if that fellow who the 'breast appreciation' userbox had been improving the biographies of large breasted models then he could have raised a serious argument for keeping it. My intention with the sample userbox was to demonstrate objectification for the mostly male heterosexual editors who were participating at that discussion, and the vast majority of phallic photographs are use-protected to prevent vandalism. No pejorative was intended regarding your orientation, either there or here. And if you've been working on encyclopedic content improvements related to masturbation, please let me know and I'll nominate that userbox for another DRV. Regards, DurovaCharge! 16:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Best talk page This is the cleverest talk page I have seen on WP. Bravo! You have to tell me (in email perhaps) how you do some of these tricks. Is that a Flash animation on the LHS? Fantastic. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you and I'm glad to know it's working right for someone! lol Others say it looks a mess on their computers. I believe it's all in the size of the monitor and the resolution it's set at. I looked at it yesterday on my aunt's computer while at her house. It looked horrid! And because of that, I was actually thinking about re-doing it again. You have given me second-second thought now. lol As for the animation on the LHS, I assume you're talking about the in and out image of Jimbo? It's just a template. If you want to use it, just copy and paste {{User:Allstarecho/peek}} on your own userpage. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Cool, thanks. I'm using a 17" monitor and FF, that may be why it looks good. MSIE fvcks everything up. How do you bounce people here from your user page and how do you control the stylesheet? Oh, I see you are gay. You should have a look at the Matt Drudge page -- a gay who bashes gays. ► RATEL ◄ 06:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The "bounce" is called a redirect. Just place #REDIRECT [[User talk:Ratel]] on your userpage with nothing else on it and it will automatically send anyone that goes to your userpage, to your user talk page. No stylesheet used, just general CSS markup within the actual page. To see how it's done, view User:Allstarecho/Navbar2. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ► RATEL ◄ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Good stuff, thanks. Will implement all this over the next wk or two as time allows. ► RATEL ◄ 09:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Quick followup You're welcome to delete this of course and I'm certainly not trying to pester you, but in light of your comment here I just want to point out again that I for one am very concerned by C of M's behavior. As in any ArbCom case, the committee has broad remit to deal with problematic editors. Most of the problems surrounding C of M do relate to Obama, and as such the case on Obama articles is the ideal place to address concerns you may have with that editor. As there is an ongoing ArbCom case where C of M's behavior is already being discussed, I don't think many admins will be interested in sanctioning that editor for their behavior - they'll wait to see what the committee says. I think this is just the reality of the situation. As I said I share your concerns and really think ArbCom is the place to put them forward. I started composing this before receiving your message on my talk page - I'll respond to that there in a moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) New page set-up I like it! LadyofShalott 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you! That means it works! lol I also un-redirected my userpage so it has content now as well. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I saw that (actually first). LadyofShalott 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC) BTW, that terminator picture of you is freaky! lol LadyofShalott 23:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC) It's just the machine inside me. ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Watch out Hey ASE, when you're reverting using Twinkle, make sure you know what you're changing. Your edit summary of this edit indicates you thought you were (again) removing links from years, but that wasn't the case. LadyofShalott 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I left an apology on the user's page once he pointed it out to me. I missed his second edit. If you'll notice, his first edit was a reversion of my removal of linked dates. I just missed his second edit. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 23:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, ok. I saw what happened in the article's history, but didn't go look at his page. Nevermind! LadyofShalott 23:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Wow, there's actually a specific article: Never mind (Saturday Night Live). LadyofShalott 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Treecats “ Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Treecats has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ” Did you even bother to check what you were reverting? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, a redirect of Treecats to Honorverse. My confusion indeed with a real tree cat and treecats mentioned at Honorverse. Apologies. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) So can you delete your warning message from my talk page? Thanks. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Done. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Barney Frank I got Mediation Cabal into this and they have suggested it be moved from the lede. I'll tell CoM to knock it off. See talk Soxwon (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I should point out that I moved it from the lede days ago. Not sure how it got back there. CoM's removal of the content altogether is unacceptable. He should have just moved it down. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, you say MC suggested moving it from the lede.. but according to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Barney Frank, no one has said anything. ?? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I assumed LadyofShallot was whom they sent and that's what she said on talk. Sorry about the confusion. Soxwon (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It's still showing New (Waiting for mediator), which means no mediator has been assigned. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Odd. She seems to be mediating, it's up to you if you want to leave it or not. Soxwon (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) She really hasn't stated either way but is trying to find some resolution. It's good to envision that others agree with your outcome, except when they don't or haven't yet. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) As I told Soxwon on my talk page, I am not part of the mediation cabal. I'm trying to help a bit, but it is not part of the official mediation case. Sorry to have caused confusion. LadyofShalott 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Ahh dear Lady, no confusion here from you as I know/knew you weren't part of the mediation cabal. Soxwon thought you were and it was easy to see his reason having just filed a mediation request and you, as always like the awesome worker bee you are, just happened to show up at the right time. :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Scouting WP scope See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Scope. We include any organization that uses the Scout method, in any country, boy, girl, or coed. This include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts/Guides, Camp Fire USA, Royal Rangers, other units called Rangers, Sea Scouts, Air Scouts, Explorers, Venturers, and many others. It does not include Young Pioneers, Hitler Youth, etc. In our early project talk page archives are long discussions about scope of the project and whether certain organizations did or did not qualify. The key factor is the use or non use of the Scout method. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Allstarecho. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Doc_Blanchard. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. decltype (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) MSU No, I wasn't aware that they are changing their uniforms. I'll keep an eye out and make the changes when the new uniforms are unveiled.CH52584 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) DYK for 1979 Easter flood On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1979 Easter flood, 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. Orlady (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Yay! Thank you! :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) That's a lot of mud sailor! Congrats! -- Banjeboi 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I remember the flood. I was 5 and a half years old and remember vividly Mississippi National Guard helicopters landing in an empty lot close to where I lived. It had rescued people off of rooftops. It landed, let the people off, and flew off again. Sad thing is, nothing has since been done about the levee system and flood control. Good thing I won't be around when it happens again.. I think. Hopefully. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Well the good news is that if you do last the next 470+ years you can use the mud as a facial and help cover up all those circuits. -- Banjeboi 11:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Fuck That was no spam link - please review the content carefully before removing it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) A youtube link is a spam link when used as you used it. Please review WP:EL carefully. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but the guidelines do not state what you claim, it says youtube links need to be examined carefully on a case by case basis and it explicitly states that there is no blanket ban on youtube. Also note that the youtube link contained a rather well known video directly relating to the article content (it describes history and usage of the word fuck) and it is not promoting or selling anything (i.e. no spam)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) And you really think that video is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Seriously? And additionally, the audio of that video used to be in the Fuck article. It was promptly removed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Yes it is, since the external link section is used to provide links to related material useful to the reader and that video can be considered as such. In fact you might notice, that a large part of the introduction section is almost literally quoting the video (Monthy Python text). However I was unaware of an earlier discussion regarding it (or its audio version) - could you provide a exact pointer ?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC) The playable audio file of that video was removed February 21, 2008 and has since been deleted from the File system altogether. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Ok i found the comment for the removal in the archive as an unsigned post, it states "I removed and audio file because its content did not match its caption. It is a comedy routine. Not a verifiable history of the word fuck. Furthermore it greatly encouraged the use of the word. I’m no expert but I would say that puts the speaker’s neutrality into question.". Judging from that there was no good reason for listing it under external arguments at here. The technical argument that caption doesn't match content can be fixed by adjusting the caption - no need to delete the reference for that. Also that editor seems to confuse the function of external links as related material useful to readers with references/sources. The is not meant to serve as a source for the article. And the complaints that it promototes the the use and might not be neutral (POV) seems to mix criteria for the article with criteria for external sources and is still mistaken it for a source (rather than related information) and ignoring its satirical nature.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC) The comment for the removal is moot. The file itself was deleted as a copyvio. WP:EL also says do not link to copyrighted material. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) If there was a serious copyright problem, i.e. a clear indication that the youtube upload itsself is a copyright violation (and not just the lack of a permission to store it in Common or WP under an GDFL like licence), then the removal was/is justified. However I don't see any discussion of that or a clear indication either. In any case this nothing to do with your original spam argument. To sum that up as I see it now. There is no spam issue nor was the original reasoning for removing the link correct. However removing the file in WP/Commons was most likely correct, but that is a separate issue, since for that a GDFL licence for WP was needed (and most likely not provided). That the file on youtube itsself is a copyright violation (and hence a link in WP is not appropriate) is conceivable, but i don't really see a clear indication for that. Regards --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)