User talk:Sbowers3/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Sbowers3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --BigDT 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and those page links. I've been to some of them and repeatedly to some of them. Each time I had to search around a bit before I found the place I was looking for. It will be helpful to have the links together in a handy place. Sbowers3 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

Hi. I notice that most of your edits have been to Fred Thompson. Do you work for him or his campaign? If so, would you have the ability to get a larger version of his official Senate photo than the one currently in the article? I spent some time looking through web.archive.org and couldn't find find one. It would be nice to have something larger and more cleaned up for the article. --BigDT 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't work for him - not yet. I became interested in him a couple of months ago and probably will work for him. I know someone who is semi-officially linked to the campaign and will ask him for an image.

Since discovering Wikipedia a few months ago I've found many other topics that interest me. When I have more time later in the year, I'll probably contribute to other articles. Sbowers3 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... FYI, under Wikipedia's image use policy, we either need the image to be public domain (all works of the federal government are public domain, so his official senate photo is great) or released under a GFDL-compatible license. If they don't have a high quality US government photo they can give us, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for a sample letter of requst and more than you ever wanted to know about image licensing. Thanks. --BigDT 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain ...

Copied here from User:Sbowers3:

Could you please explain when you wrote "I don't work for him - not yet". --Plantocal

It's on User_talk:Sbowers3 in response to a question.

Please don't take this as a criticism, but I think the "proper" place to pose a question of a user is on his talk page, not to create a page for the user. I'm still a relatively new user (about eight weeks) so I might be wrong, but I make this as a helpful comment in case you want to talk with another user.

And while we're here, I'll elaborate. I became interested in Fred Thompson as a result of reading about him. I didn't come to Wikipedia with the intent of promoting his candidacy. I try hard to write with a NPOV - even if an editor is non-neutral, the words should be neutral. The Thompson article - any article, especially a BLP - should be factual and try to provide a balanced picture of the whole person. When boiling down 60 years of a person's life into 60 paragraphs we have to pick and choose which facts are notable. Some of those may be positive and some may be negative. We should try not to emphasize either the positive or the negative, but should try to present a picture which is a fair representation of that person.Sbowers3 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Add that material back

WP:NPOV says "policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly." And it says "we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."

Where does it say wikipedia does not include opinions/analysis? Came you imagine writing an article about evolution without citing opinions of scientists? Plantocal 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:63.162.143.21

Hi. Yes, I warned the user for the vandalism (actually uw-error) and also for editing User:Dragon2eden. It's possible that this is actually the same person as Dragon2eden, based on the contents of the page (says he works at the DHS) ... richi 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I didn't watch Britney on the music awards or whatever. Too busy fussing here at Wikipedia.  :)Ferrylodge 03:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell vandalism

Thanks for the "heads-up" as the vandalism is slowing a major rewrite. I've asked an admin to protect the page for two weeks so I can at least finish the edit. FWIW Bzuk 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Your EAR

Hello,

You recently submitted a request for assistance regarding a set of video game articles. I responded to your request, and this message is an effort at following-up to determine if you found the response helpful.

Feel free to reply at my talk page; better yet update the request. Cheers, --Aarktica 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon the mix-up; I meant to ask you about the Tollywood request. It was directly above the request I confused with yours. --Aarktica 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case, I would suggest you simply tag it as mentioned in my reply to your request. Also consider applying the {{merge}} tag to both articles. --Aarktica 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thoughts? Also, if you could provide a status update to the EAR page, that would be appreciated. --Aarktica 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The tag, as applied to both articles, should be sufficient. It might help to watch those pages, should anyone chime in on the proposed merge. --Aarktica 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

footnotes?

i cant do these freakin footnotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangmas214 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

newyork brad's talk

Keep in mind that some people, like me, prefer to outdent for visibility, and clarity on the page. Also keep in mind that changing the indentation level may have the appearance of changing who the comment was directed at. For instance:

Hi, my name is Dan and I don't like Chocolate. User:Swatjester

Chocolate is for losers, and if Bob likes chocolate he is a loser. User:SierraSix

I don't like chocolate either. User:Chocolatehater

Please don't make personal attacks against other people. User:SbowersThree

Lets keep this on topic. User:SDAFASFD

That is a correctly structured exchange, though improperly indented. However, if adjusted it potentially becomes the following:

Hi, my name is Dan and I don't like Chocolate. User:Swatjester

Chocolate is for losers, and if Bob likes chocolate he is a loser. User:SierraSix

I don't like chocolate either. User:Chocolatehater

Please don't make personal attacks against other people. User:SbowersThree

What? I didn't make a personal attack. User:Chocolatehater.

Lets keep this on topic. User:SDASFD

In the first instance, the warning is directed against SierraSix. In the second, it is directed against Chocolate hater. Also, in the first, the outdent is directed at everyone. In the second, it's now targeted at Chocolatehater.

Just keep in mind that changing indentation levels should really probably only be done if it won't affect the message or the ordering, but it will keep the same meaning. Also note, that outdents keep maximum readability on a page, and prevent text from being compressed into tiny paragraphs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

I forgot what I wrote on the Ann Coulter talk page, but since it was on the TALK page, I'm not gonna sweat it. I hope you will go through the rest of her TALK page and delete the manifold hateful, vicious and poisonous comments directed at her. It's only right.

As for my edits being reverted. I can assure you that in each case, my edit was the correct one, and the editor reverting was in the wrong. If you don't believe me, just ask them.

On second thought. Never mind... 71.238.68.127 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits- Part II

You wrote: "I actually agree with you that her talk page has a lot of other hateful and vicious comments."

The fact that you agree is besides the point. The fact that you SINGLED me out while not deleting theirs is what has caused you to lose credibility.

Not irrevocably, but it certainly should give someone pause.

Why have you reacted so knee-jerk wrt to my comments which are relatively tame compared to what's on Coulter's talk page?

And, more to the point, why haven't you deleted others?

And, if your answer is 'you don't have time to go around deleting all the offensive comments', then that PROVES my point that you UNFAIRLY targeted me. You certainly found the time to go after my edits. And to draw a rather unfair generalization about my overall contributions to boot! 71.238.68.127 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people fight vandalism in their spare time, if that's what you mean by "found the time". FYI, we look in Recent changes, not scanning every single page. --wj32 ^t/c 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You were caught singling out a small incidence of littering in an area where mega-polluters are free to roam the earth. The whole civility argument is used to game the system. People take cheap shots, shoot poisoned arrows, and spew passive-agressive hatred all day long under the cloak and cover of 'civility.' It's as if Wikipedia rewards cattiness. My sin is being a straight shooter. Go figure. Anyway, this place is FILLED with folks who just HAVE to have the last word.

Guess I'm no different....71.238.68.127 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lord of Mann

I respect your opinion and ask for further information on the follwing. Regarding your decision to delete the entry of Mr. Howe's claim on the Lord of Mann page, would you not consider Mr. Howe's own website for verifiability? It is obvioiusly biased, but then so to are some news articles. There is a London Gazette Notice regarding Mr. Howe's claim. There are at least two news articles from the Isle of Man Today newspapers written about Mr. Howe's claim. The articles have statements that aren't true, such as there not being evidence to Mr. Howe's lineage and relation to the HM Queen Elizabeth II on his website. When, in fact, both of these things are present on his website. But, nonetheless, he seems notable enough to perhaps even have his own page. Your thoughts please.--Theisles 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and sorry about leaving the message on the wrong page.--Theisles 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dermacia Inc

Thanks for the message. I did flag it initially - I do a fair bit of new page patrolling, and usually when you flag one like that you never hear from the creating editor again. In this instance, however, the editor did put the hangon tag, and leave the relevant message, so I assumed good faith, removed the csd tag and placed the under construction tag. I see that the editor has made some changes since then, but I agree that it's a long way short of an article. I don't think it necessarily constitutes spam, though, as I don't think it's blatant advertising, so replacing the db-spam tag might fail. Maybe replace db-bio on the grounds that the article is about a company but doesn't claim notability? I'd be sure to leave a courtesy message on the user's usertalk page, but they don't appear to have worked on the article for three days (last changes were minor link creating ones) and they haven't worked on any other article whilst on here. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Soloway

No problem! I did feel a bit bad about putting the place of death in "early life," but I couldn't find a better placed to preserve the information and, per WP:DATE, places of birth and death do not belong in the lifespan. It was very nice to see a solid Start article made for the figure, and I do wish I could have thought of a better way to incorporate that into the article, rather than mucking it up. Cheers, CP 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning

One more comment like this one and I'll personally bring you before the community for incivility and encouraging disruption/incitement. There's enough disruption around Ferrylodge without you adding to it. You will not find much sympathy in the community for anyone thinks inflaming that situation is a Good Thing. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your warning. Concidentally, minutes earlier I had posted notes at WP:Civil talk and at Jimbo's talk page saying that I was disappointed by the amount of incivility and asking what I could do about it. I take civility seriously and I wish that more people did.

I take exception to your characterization of my comment to Ferrylodge. Certainly I was not being uncivil toward him. Nor was I encouraging him to be uncivil. The phrase I used was a metaphor to encourage him not to give his critics the satisfaction of seeing him leave. Perhaps "thumb your nose" might have been a softer choice of words.

Did you see the remark that another user left earlier?[1] He jumped on Ferrylodge's statement that he would be leaving by asking "When? We can celebrate your departure in an appropriate manner." Now I think that was very uncivil. And that statement is what prompted my statement.

I was NOT encouraging disruption; I was encouraging a very productive editor to stay and be a constructive member of the community. Sbowers3 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The comment struck me as clearly incivil and it seemed that you were trolling. Whether or not you were readers of your comment will judge for themselves. Regardless, there are ways to offer support without saying "I hope you'll stay around if only to give the finger to users like the one you recently deleted here." I hope my warning was indeed misplaced, in which case you have my apology. If on the other hand you're simply dodging responsibility for your action, responsible readers will know the difference. FeloniousMonk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I perhaps naively thought that the only reader of my comment would be Ferrylodge. After the previous uncivil comment I though he needed a little extra encouragement and used stronger language than I usually use. At the time I was searching for the phrase "thumb your nose" but couldn't come up with it right away. I hope that over time I will earn your forgiveness. Sbowers3 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with FM above) I'll agree that your comment was not uncivil to Ferrylodge, but it was most certainly uncivil toward OrangeMarlin, who, from my reading of the post, you were essentially telling to "eff off" (or telling Ferrylodge that he should tell OrangeMarlin to do as much). If one user makes an uncivil remark, it is not the best response to make an uncivil remark to them in kind, as this can only serve to pour gasoline on the fire. -Severa (!!!) 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided mentioning OrangeMarlin's name because I think that might have been a little uncivil to him. I used the phrase "users like the one you recently deleted here" to mean people (plural) who were uncivil toward Ferrylodge. And let me emphasize that I did not intend or expect Ferrylodge to tell other users to "eff off" (and even that phrase is stronger than I use myself). I meant it as a metaphor. But if he took it literally, then he would be raising his finger in his own home, not where anyone could see it.

Severa, I'm glad that you also think that OM's remark was uncivil. By my standards it was uncivil but I was unsure of community standards so I asked a question at WP:Civil talk - as a hypothetical without mentioning either party's name. Sbowers3 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I firmly believe that people can (and should) be civil even if they disagree. Furthermore, it is more effective to remain civil when the other party is being uncivil. I also believe that the enemy of my friend is NOT my enemy. It may be too strong to suggest that you two are enemies of FL and it is too strong to say that I am a friend of FL. We have a passing acquaintance and I think he does not deserve a ban, but that does not mean that I will be unfriendly toward his critics. I honestly can't think of anyone inside Wikipedia or in real life, toward whom I am unfriendly or uncivil.

You may find interesting an essay that I started long ago and someday may finish. Sbowers3 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility re Ferrylodge

(I've refactored because I think we're opening a slightly different but related discussion.) Sbowers3 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to comment that I agree your remarks were not exactly helpful. I'm writing you now because I believe your sentiment was misguided. You could have said "I hope you stick around to prove your critics wrong" or something along those lines. Your words basically say "FL, you have a pattern of disruptive editing that upsets a lot of users. If you stick around and continue being disruptive, you will only upset them more, which is somehow a good thing." Your words not only belittle, but write off the valid criticisms of the critics, while encouraging no change on FL's part. If FL is to ever become a good standing, full time productive editor, there needs to be a change on FL's part, and the disruptive pattern or editing and manner in which he interacts with those with whom he disagrees cannot be repeated. We should be encouraging positive change for FL, not encouraging the same old stuff with the expressed intention of upsetting other editors (giving them the finger). Perhaps I am over analyzing your brief personal message to another editor, but I believe you, being someone with no bad blood with FL, are in a good position to encourage positive change, where I feel my words would be lost on him. Thanks for listening.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we spend a nanosecond trying to get FL to be a better person? I don't get it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew c, for what I think are intended to be constructive comments. OrangeMarlin, I'll assume that your question is not rhetorical, that you really want a constructive answer and I hope that you are open-minded enough to listen to my reasons.

First, my guess is that the two of you have seen Ferrylodge at places that brought out the worst in him and have not seen his good side. I've seen him at articles where he was the de facto lead editor. He continually improved the articles and interacted well with other editors. So having seen a very good editor with very few problems, I was very surprised to learn about the trouble he had gotten into. So I looked into his record and found a very productive editor. He has made almost 6000 mainspace edits. He has edited more than 100 articles (by my memory - I don't have the number handy). Virtually all of his edits were positive and not contentious. True, there were contentious edits in Abortion and Stillbirth but even there the majority of his edits were accepted and are still in the articles today.

Is it good for Wikipedia to lose the services of an editor who has made more than 5000 constructive edits? I don't think so. If he stays will he be disruptive? I don't think so. Do you really think he would risk going through this same mess again? The past months have hardly been pleasant for FL. If he stays, he's going to want to avoid unpleasant areas. He'll likely stay away from the most contentious articles and away from editors who have been his critics. He will not be filing any complaints at AN/I or RFC because he knows that would only hurt himself. He'll be very careful not to exceed 1RR not to mention 3RR.

If I am wrong, if FL is disruptive, then he will face charges and have very little defense. If I am right, Wikipedia will enjoy the services of a very productive editor. Isn't that a very low risk to take for high rewards? Sbowers3 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your theory is that it is so difficult to go through these processes. If he violates his "probation" (I don't know what term to use, but it works for me), then we kick him out? FL "works" the system in such a manner, that even if he commits a felony, it will take months to remove him from Wikipedia. And more than that, he has shown little contrition in the past. His despicable RfC against Bishonen is cause enough for his permanent exile from the project; his attitude after being voted down 50-2 (give or take 10 votes) was just not acceptable. BTW, depending on your POV, and I know your POV is not mine on almost any subject, I would contend that FL's 5000 edits are not all that constructive and are, in fact, harmful to the project. So it goes back to my point--why do we not spend this time encourage useful editors on the project. Why spend the bandwidth helping him? And yes, my question was not rhetorical, and I respect and appreciate your answer--I do disagree however. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For now let's just agree to disagree about the first part of you comment. I have some thoughts that might become helpful but right now they are a bit jumbled.

About POV - I don't know your POV and mine may not be what you think it is. In the past few months I've created two articles, and worked on scores of others (beyond fighting vandalism). I don't think you can see any kind of pattern in the kinds of articles I've edited. Even though we all have a POV, we should try to write with a NPOV. I know there have been several instances where I deleted another editor's POV statement even though I agreed with the POV. If it's POV or unsourced it has to go whether I like it or not.

My evaluation of FL's edits is not based on whether I think they were good or bad but on whether the community accepted them. Almost all of his edits are still in the encyclopedia today. In other words, the community thought that his edits were constructive - otherwise, those edits would have been deleted long before now. Most of his edits were copyedits that improved the wording, grammar, or punctuation with no impact on POV. And if you looked at the wide variety of articles he edited you would see that the subject material didn't have much opportunity for POV to be a factor.

I spend a whole lot of time reverting disruptive edits of vandals. Why should we spend the bandwidth fighting vandals when we could reduce vandalism by prohibiting anonymous editing? Then I could spend my time creating or improving articles. The community has decided that the occasional constructive edits of anonymous editors outweigh the many disruptive edits. By the same token, FL's many, many constructive edits should outweigh his few disruptive edits. It's worth the bandwidth in both cases.

I probably have not persuaded you but that's my reasoning. Sbowers3 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Eeek, sorry

Arrgh, sorry I didn't look at the dates, and I think I copy and pasted the wrong one anyway. I removed it from their page. I will make sure I look at the dates next time.

Cheers Matt T2 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cumberland

Well the Cumberland municipal ward is almost the same as the former Cumberland city (or actual Cumberland sector if some still uses Cumberland despite the amalgamation of Ottawa in 2001- although the densely populated section is now mostly called Orleans). Likely due to ward re-organization, the ward [2] includes now portions of rural southeast Gloucester however I do not know the exact limits of the ward before the current ones. Some portions of Cumberland are included in Orleans Ward (portions of the communities of Fallingbrook, Queenswood Heights and the small area (Bilberry Creek?) near the Ottawa River). The modifications were made likely in consideration of the fast population growth in that area which is why Cumberland Ward doesn't include all of Cumberland but does include portions of the former city of Gloucester. Orleans, Innes now do covers parts of the complete Orleans area. I think today, the population of the former Cumberland sector is something like 60 000 to 65 000 (Orleans in total about 100 000 to 110 000) and of course, the city is trying to divide their wards so that the population of each of them are as equal as possible (although it is still well unbalanced in some cases)

On the map, the limits of the former cities of Gloucester and Cumberland (formerly Cumberland Township) was along Mer Bleue Road (just continue a straight line until the Ottawa River for the northern portion of the map and doing the same thing on the southern portion of it until its southern boundary)

Now for the Cumberland community, I am probably not sure, but there was any area called Cumberland Village (within the limits of Cumberland) - I think this is what the article is referring and that section would be on the northeast part of the map/ward where you can see Old Montreal and Wilhaven Roads. JForget 18:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

'cause I intend to use it in my own user welcome. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(me: referring to YFA)

VP: Newbie article creation

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation and Wikipedia:Article wizard? Your idea is a good one, but I think it should refer to the wizard, rather than YFA. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the general user is usually crap at reading directions. They'll just refuse to do it. So even though most veteran Wikipedians would like newbies to read policies and guidelines very few will actually follow our wishes and do it. I'm thinking about renaming it and simplifying the idea in general, but my own Article Creation Bootcamp might help too. Give people the help as they need it, so they don't have to drudge through pages and pages of instructions they won't be using. It might even be worth turning into a contest. Contest help give people the incentive to do their best and, as a result, follow the rules that are set. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

I agree that Ferrylodge was summarily treated on CSN - and in fact said so at the time. And I'm still quite impressed by the dedication you showed in collating evidence in his defence. However, since I discovered you are both Fred Thompson supporters, I realized that my presumption of disinterest on your part was wrong, and that therefore my congratulations on that basis were at best premature. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bertazzoni-Italia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bertazzoni-Italia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertazzoni-Italia. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfection Vacuum Cleaner

I'm not trying to advertise at Wikipedia. I'm trying to create a good article. Please don't delete it. Please give me some time. (I love entei (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

I do not know what else to add to make it notable. It looks okay..right now... (I love entei (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

I tried to edit it right. Could you please help me? (I love entei (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

speedy

agree with me or disagree, you may not replace a speedy tag once it has been removed by anyone other than the editor. Any editor, not just an admin. Once it has been removed, the only way is to ttke it to afd, or use PROD. They very likely are not notable, so i';d suggest PROD . DGG (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Good Dick

I've removed the Notability tag from the article Good Dick. With justification provided on the article's talk page. In case you are not familiar with the Sundance Film Festival, other films in the same category/competition as this film in past years have included: Hustle and Flow, Maria Full of Grace, Napoleon Dynamite, Clerks, and sex, lies and videotape. As I say on the talk page, give it until February and if you are still not convinced of the notability please add back in the tag. —A 08:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your contribution to Stephen E. Schwartz. RonCram (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hublot and speedy deletion

Speedy deletion, especially A7 speedy deletion, is for articles where there is literally no claim that the subject is important in any way. "Bob Jones is a student at such and such a high school and likes to play Madden Football in his spare time" is A7 deletable. "Megadynacorp is a company that makes widgets" is A7 deletable. This article makes many claims that it is an important industry leader in the field of watchmaking, for example, providing large sales figures and being the first to introduce novel products to the market. Whether such claims amount to being notable is up for debate, which is why WP:AFD exists, to have that debate. Speedy deletion is really about cleaning up pointless trash articles, where no reasonable person would look at the article and think it was a valid encyclopedia article. This article clearly does not qualify as that. Now, just because I denied the speedy deletion request does NOT mean I endorse the article in any way. It is frankly a mess, rather non-neutral in its use of peacock terms, and is unreferenced to any third party sources. However, none of these is in the speedy deletion criteria. The article may turn out to still be deletable, but it should be a matter for community discussion. Thus, if you want, start an AFD discussion. However, do a quick google search first. You may find that despite the sorry state of this article, clean-up may be a better path than deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your tip on the old link on my user page.

I also appreciate the input at the RFC "Whig 3".

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Speed Nom

I definitely wouldn't call nominating Nondance Records for an CSD#A7 a mistake. I only declined it, because it asserts some notability by having at least one recording artist/band signed that apparently is notable enough for it's own page. Another admin may have deleted it, but I'd rather error on the side of caution. However, I'm fairly certain (unless the article improves drastically), that it would be deleted if you submitted it to WP:AFD, which I may even do if you don't. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Franklin222 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Tenebrae (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to thank you for your advice. Also, I realized the mistake I made with the Tick page. Instead, I created a disambiguation page for Deer tick. Still trying to learn all the Wikipedia policies. Antics05 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New Forms of Notoriety?

I'm interested in your opinion on this: User_talk:Operknockity#New_Forms_of_Notoriety?

Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)