User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 5

Archives

Current March 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – June 2011 July 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – June 2013 July 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2021 January 2022 –

Leonardo

Thanks! --Amandajm 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

War of the Pacific and Tacna Region

User:Bdean1963 has refused to answer any call to discuss the dispute in the "Talk Page" in both articles. What should I do? I believe that after exposing my case and not hearing anything from the other party involved, I have already done more than enough to solve this dispute.

Still, another user is asking for a ban against my person, motivated by personal and ideological differences, clearly supporting User:Bdean1963 position in this dispute. Once the protection is lifted, I believe I have the right to revert it to its original estate.

Since you are the person that Protected the article after I request it, I would appreciate any sort of advice from your part, and if I'm doing the right thing. Messhermit 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why I blank the Slow Down Baby page...

None of the information is true. The news about it and the cover are fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Los besos (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The article will (most likely) be deleted fairly soon, as its AfD is running along just fine. There's no need to blank the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, I appreciate you for giving your thoughts on my RfA. Even though I wasn't going to, is there a way you can cancel your RfA, or should I just let it time out? --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Many thanks for your help, even though I might not do it at this point. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film)

Fixed both points you mentioned on the article's talk page. Anything else to be fixed? Theirishpianist 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Thank you for semi-protecting Harry Potter; life should be a bit easier now :-) Skittle 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you set the protection to expire in a few days? I think the Request for Protection was a bit hasty in the first place. The slight increase in vandalism should decrease within the next few days, once everyone learns of the release date for the seventh book. John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ddstretch

Many thanks for semi-protecting my user page. I hope it will deter somewhat the increasing incidents of vandalism in, I suspect, retaliation for me reverting vandalism and playting a part in reporting the vandals.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Stomakhin article

It is extremly unfair. You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys deleted and reverted all texts done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it is just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version. Vlad fedorov 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Extrude Hone Corporation

Hello, Cbrown. I created this page Here a few days ago. Someone has recommended it to be wikified. You seem like a well-established user, so any ideas on how it could be improved would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. JFBurton 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bascially, as you have alread done, you use wik-formatting and add links to other pages. I have done some more of this and added some more cleanup tags to help show you what more to do in this edit. Cbrown1023 talk 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, so its pretty much done then. Thanks for that. JFBurton 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing Afds

Oh, ok thank you. I wasn't aware of that.--Jersey Devil 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed your decision

FYI, I've endorsed your denial of unblock on the 124 anon. Given the legal threat, even a frivolous one, I didn't want one or two people to take all the heat. P.S.: You get an A in constitutional law. :) Newyorkbrad 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:) Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility

How much vandal activity is required before semi-protection can be granted? Moksha88 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the vandalism, the nature of the other edits, the amount of other edits, the time span... More information can be found at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Cbrown1023 talk 15:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied there with "No stance". Cbrown1023 talk 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for protection status of Winston Churchill. It took less than 5 minutes for a reply, you certainly are quick! LordHarris 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A problematic film article

Hi Cbrown, there is a problem with Out & About with Brewer & Berg, which I tagged as copyvio, as this was the most obvious up-top problem, but apparently the film-maker is there and he may provide copyright permission. However the article doesn't follow policies and guidelines and I don't wish to give the person (who doesn't seem to have any experience with Wikipedia) a bad time with incomplete statements. Please take a look. Hoverfish Talk 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seems someone messed up the Film template. Hoverfish Talk 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page [1]. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film) re-assessment

Do you think that you can reassess the Dreamgirls (film) article? I am kind of being biased, but I noticed that the difference between the B and the A rating is that the B rating has unsourced information, but the A rating has sourced information. The FA rating has gone far out and beyond the wikistandards, right? Or, do you think it would be more proper to have someone else reassess the article? Real96 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You could try nominating it for WP:GA at the good article candidates page. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Alright maybe we can talk this out. See I believe that the article was unfairly deleted/protected I mean sure it didn't technically have that many third party sources but for all the controversy it caused on Youtube and many site raids in general I believe it is a noteworthy article seeing as how Uncyclopedia didn't technically have any third party sources and is basically the same thing.

--CartoonDiablo 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's completely different actually... just saying. Why are you so desperate for it to have an article anyway? --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I told him on his talk page to take it to deletion review. Cbrown1023 talk 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Decline of semi-protection on Burger King article

Just noticed that a request for semi-protection on this article was knocked back by yourself. For my future reference, what would constitute enough recent activity to justify the protection? Thanks. thewinchester 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed and semi-protected. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship

Thanks for adding the semi-protection, however we had semi-protection and once it came off the unregisted users went edit crazy. When the current protection expires can we see what the activity is like and if there are still a crazy amount of edits then can a full-protection be added? Cheers. Darrenhusted 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What would benefit from a full protection? Cbrown1023 talk 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WIthout getting in to the ins and outs of the situation there is no new information to add to this page, there is a dispute about one piece of information, and this is the source of most of the edits, even when semi-protected. There are about four Wikipedians (including myself) who are watching the page but at least once a day we have to revert edits, and there are three archives of discussion where the one edit issue has been agreed upon but a few users insist on editing the page and it is becoming a hassle to keep the page in order. A full protect would send a message that the page does not need editing further for the moment, and in fact there is little which could happen in the near future which would alter this page. In essense what I am asking is that the page be full protected for a trial period, if real life event require changes to be made then the small group of Wikipedians who currently monitor it will simply ask to edit it. I hope that a full protection will put an end to the last few weeks of editing which do nothing more than try to introduce original research in to this article. Thank you for your time Cbrown1023. Darrenhusted 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but long-term full-protetion is not allowed currently for existing articles. :( Cbrown1023 talk 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(in addition to the above) As an illustration there have been 250 edits to the page since the beginning of the year.

Darrenhusted 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, can't do any harm to ask. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Darrenhusted 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinetoscope and spam blacklist

Hi Chris, I was wondering if you might be able to help me in this odd situation. There's been some major blatant vandalism on Kinetoscope, a featured article, where an anon IP deleted an entire section of the text. Unfortunately, I can't revert it because one of the citations is now setting off the spam blacklist, even though the link itself is legit. Is there anything you might be able to do as an admin to rectify this as speedily as possible? (I was hoping to get this article on the front page sometime soon.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 11:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It semems to have been fixed already, another admin reverted it... Cbrown1023 talk 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL Chris... --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your support (and recommendation on my talk page) re my unsuccessful RfA. Drmaik 11:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

confusion of requesting for page protection

I'm for not properly requesting unprotection, however it did it wrong. I tried to follow the instructions, which were very confusing.(And, I was guided there as well for a place to formally request for page protection(in this case, semi-protection to Bill Gates.) I've been recently watching the article for unconstuctive changes, and then I thought had a leginamate reason to do make the request, because I encounterd a pattern of vandalism to Bill Gates continue, which all started after being un-protected. I won't try to make the request again, but I only did it because the article was under repeated vandalism.--Wikipedier 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Cbrown1023 talk 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete previous version of file

Can you please delete the initial version of the image Image:Mcveighmugshot.jpg, I forgot to crop it the first time. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Winston Churchill:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 08:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reprotected with a summary (I normally do, but jut not now). Cbrown1023 talk 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bible

Hello, I am one of several responsible anon editors at Bible that can no longer edit. How long till you remove the ban? Thanks. --68.22.19.194 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how long until the protection will expire, you can bypass it by getting a free acount and using it for a few days (then you should be able to edit the article). Cbrown1023 talk 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I noticed your recent oppose said that my answers were poor. Do you mind elaborating? Somitho 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you weren't very descriptive in 1 & 2 and didn't not give rationales for 4 & 5 (they were also quite short). Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Bridge jesus.GIF

You seem to be a reasonable guy. Would you look at Image:Bridge jesus.GIF and tell me if I'm not getting it, or the other guy ain't? Thanks. You can leave a note there or on my talk page, if you wish to reply. — Kghusker 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely isn't a PD, but it may be Fair use. So currently, you are wrong. Cbrown1023 talk 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

You seem to be a reasonable guy (part 2). Would you look at my my talk page, and tell me if I can not manage it myself? Sixtrojans seems to think one can not delete or summarize activities on one's own user page. Thanks again. — Kghusker 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a reasonable guy (part 3). I have been working on The_Four_Spiritual_Laws, where I found the delightful Sixtrojans. He/she seems to think good faith attempts to improve the article are undesirable. Would you take a look and suggest the next step? Thanks 3d time. — Kghusker 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Please disregard. I don't have any problem with deleting this, but since it's a matter of controversy at present, please manage your own talk page as you see fit. ;-) — Kghusker 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Not clear why you removed that notice. I added it and the text is mine, so it was my comment if you will. Please clarify. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Notices do not count as comments. :) Futhermore, that notification is only used in long-term semi-protections. It is pointless to add in an edit war, because there shouldn't be any edits. Cbrown1023 talk 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you make sense to me. Sidenote: This WP:BLP thing seems to be rearing its head in a good deal of articles. I'm a little confused as to how it is enforced, I mean, the admin has removed the date per BLP, but what is to keep it from being re-added once the protection ends? And at this point, when the admin changed the version, is it a content dispute anymore? Any thoughts? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but you reported to the BLP noticeboard, so they should be able to handle it. It seems like the real problem is Tommypowell... That is the reason why I did not unprotect the page when you posted a request. Cbrown1023 talk 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your concern with the dobs in edit summaries. Do we need to request over sighting those summaries? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions, so, no oversighting is not needed. Cbrown1023 talk 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Meta

OK, sir. Thanks for the Meta link. Muchas gracias. Randroide 12:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Es no possible para usted bloqueades para WP:E o "off-wiki" actiones

Could you please write that in english, Cbrown1023?. That line in (broken) Spanish is open to different interpretations. Thank you. Randroide 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

It's not possible to block some for etiquette or off-wiki actions. Cbrown1023 talk 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Fine.

Could you please write that line in english in my userpage in es:Wikipedia (just below your last line in Spanish)?.

If you can, that will be a small ray of light in the darkness of the Spanish Wikipedia. My page is monitored by friends and enemies adversaries alike.

Your line in Spanish would be as follows:

No es posible para usted bloquear a alguien por WP:E o por acciones "off-wiki"

Thank you very much, Cbrown1023. If you need anything from an Spanish speaker, please drop me a line. Randroide 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you very much for your second line at my es:Wiki Talk Page. It is a very powerful morale booster.

• As Ayn Rand stated in the HUAC hearings, a free man can not understand life in the Soviet Union, and he´s very lucky to be unable to understand that horror.
• Similarly, you can not understand what´s the meaning of those two lines for the average User at es:Wikipedia. I will give you a one word brief of that meaning: Hope.

If that line of yours would finish as the only reward for all the work I did and I will do trying to uncover what´s going on in the Spanish Wikipedia, is enough reward.

Muchísimas gracias. Randroide 14:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin Semi-Protection War of Superbowl XLI

Since I asked for semi-protection of the article, an admin recently took off semi-protection because the article was on the main page. Should the admins take a vote in order to semi-protect the page on the discussion page or at WP:AI? Real96 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not needed, it only happened once. Administrators do not wheel war over things normally. Cbrown1023 talk 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Lost (TV series)

Considering no one's made any additional comments on the Talk page regarding inclusion of international broadcasters, I'd suggest that 3 weeks on full protect is probably long enough :). --Leflyman^Talk 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, in the future, you can just request unprotection, the same admin doesn't have to remove it. Cbrown1023 talk 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI ... Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik ^(talk) 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Would you take a moment to critique me at editor review, its in my sig. Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed. Cbrown1023 talk 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Mays Article Deletion Review

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've submitted the Billy Mays page for deletion review, because I think that he's a notable figure and I easily found a few articles from newspaper websites to help establish notability. Here's the official message: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Billy Mays. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davemcarlson 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another admin has boldly restored. If you object, please let us know at deletion review. Otherwise, we'll close out the deletion review at some point in the next 24 hours. GRBerry 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Not bumped into you, so I suppose I should introduce myself: hey :) if you ever need anything, or have any advice for me, please do let me know on my talk page - don't hesitate for a second.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey. :) I've seen you all over as well, just never talked to you before. Cbrown1023 talk 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi.

Hello. :) ~ Arjun 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I never liked the fist header at the very top... Cbrown1023 talk 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mactabbed

Hello Cbrown, saw you tangling with Mactabbed latest IP sock. Please note that 71.114.48.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is another IP that's been used by this individual. I would recommend another 24-48 hour block (obviously I'd recommend longer but not on an IP address). Please don't hesitate to remove my message here if you'd rather not be bothered with this any further. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 71.114.62.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is actually who I was referring to (in terms of current usage). (→Netscott) 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see... your continued assistance is appreciated. See you around. (→Netscott) 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining, but...

You seem to have supported my RfA twice (here and here). Personally, I think my brilliance justifies this, but I bet some won't agree. ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, thanks for telling me. I've had people accidentally support me twice before and I know how it feels good. :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank You, Cbrown1023/Archive 5 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, I love that pic.Cbrown1023 talk 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks glad you do, you recently broke my streak over at the WP:RFPP I was going on 8 or 9 in a row! Cheers! ~ Arjun 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:"Obvious" vandalism

Good idea. I've changed it. Thanks for your help! Heimstern Läufer 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Word of thanks for Cbrown1023 Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards. If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia! Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C]

Behavioural Aims: User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural Participation Aims: User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

Reconsider sprotect?

Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Large amounts of EDU IP vandalism, from its students. Mdwyer 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been five reverts of 16 edits in the last week alone. Would you reconsider? At least for a day or two? Mdwyer 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't because it is spread out so long. But, in the case that it is causing a large disruption, I concede. Semi-protected. Cbrown1023 talk 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben Thompson

Thank you for you message on my talk page. However, if you look you will notice that I rewrote the section in an effort to reach a consensus. User:TheEditor20 reverted this back to his unreliable, POV edit. I have reported this as 3RR. Furthermore if you look through the history of him, his previous username User:Edgovan20 and the various IPs he has used you will see that he is a habitual vandal. However I do acknowledge that perhaps my reversions were excessive. --BMT 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not sided with either user, you both violated WP:3RR and were both warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention, however I'd like to ask a favour, I made an [3] which I think is a much fairer representation of the truth and an encyclopaedia, bearing this in mind, where should the article be left? --BMT 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, yours has POV as well and does not appear to have reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you deem both edits to have POV, what would you suggest would be the next step? I tried moving the section to the talk page but the other user kept on reverting. You've said that neither are suitable so is it a section to be deleted? Where does this leave the article? --BMT 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that BMT's sources do not carry the same validity as those I have provided for the section. The section has merit in explaining to the reader why the character Ben Thompson is not so well known in modern times, and I think just because one user disputes it does not warrant it's removal. I appreciate that everything should be looked at from a neutral POV, and if BMT can find a reliable source for the information he provided then by all means he can add it. However, this does not mean he can remove another, arguably more prominent POV. By reliable and valid souces I mean major stories in credible published newspapers, which would not have a bias for wanting to make him appear famous (such as a website devoted to selling Ben Thompson era mechandise).--TheEditor20 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page to get more of the authors involved in the discussion. Cbrown1023 talk 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film)

Can this article have a GA nom and a FA nom at the same time? Thanks. Real96 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is possible. But I would discourage it. Anyway, FA is higher than GA and gives you more stuff to work-on if it doesn't pass. Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Article On Armenian Genocide

Hi Cbrown,

I agree with u about that possible vandalism should be hindered. However, this article is completely different from that of Turkish version. It means that this issue can be understood different ways because of languages, and English is much more broader than Turkish. This is unfair. Because I want to remove conflict between both articles, and so that Turkish thesis can be given objectively, I demand unprotection on "The Armenian Genocide" article. On the other hand, one of the administrator, Arjun01, blocked my IP as marked vandalism. In my sentences, there is no vandalism considering wikipedia policy. Therefore,I think turkish and english version of the wikipedia explanation about this issue should be the same.

Than u!

Dakini1978 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)dakini1978

The artice is only protected from new and unregistered users because of the controversity of the topic and the likely hood of a future edit war. If you would like to edit it, then keep your account for a while. But please note that if you edit war and break WP:3RR, you will be blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema assessment

Hi, I saw you gave start to a Tollywood film (Simhadri) that misses some of the sections we require for start. Minutes before I gave class stub to Okkadu, which has more sections. Just to be consistent with you, should we use other standards for assessing Indian cinema? - Actually I just saw that Supernumerary gave stub to Tagore (film), so I will pull Simhadri down to stub, until we are sure what is right to do. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Cbrown1023 talk 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning to user:Folken de Fanel

Thank you to be so insistent in writing this warning on my talk page. However I don't want it as I concider it totally undue.

First, it was the result of the personal vandetta of another contributor against me, as he reported the edit war way after everything was ended.

Second, the contributor that reported me has not been warned in any kind, while he was the one who started an edit war, as I've explained in the 3RR notice board: he had reverted me 3 times without any attempt at justifying his edits, without even reading my contributions to the talk page of the article.

Third, you say that "Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. " That's funny because that's exactly what I did.
Before editing anything in the article, I explained in a very detailed way what I thought of the edits needed in the talk page. I quoted various lines from various official Wikipedia policies to back up my claims. However my edits were blindly reverted, and the 2 contributors who did it didn't even bother to read my explanations in the talk page and to answer them. And I'm the one warned, and they get nothing ?

No, no, no, I'm not going to accept to be treated like this, I have been notified, it will show in the history of my personal talk page, however as I personally concider this warning totally undue, and since no one even bothered to take into account my explanations on the 3RR notice board, I will not display it. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I block you? No. I just gave you a warning because you were one of two editors engaging in edit warring. Which is in most cases totally unacceptable. Futhermore, I also gave the other user a warning as well. I'm not going to accept being treated like this either (well, acutally I am... I don't mind you asking me about this), I could have blocked you for 3RR, but didn't, I only gave you a warning. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to close AfD "David Horowitz Freedom Center"

You closed the "Discover the Networks" AfD [4] in a manner that I've criticized (in passing, not at length and usually only by implication, and without naming you, but still...) as a "drive-by delete". In the interest of AGF I'd like to invite you to close the "David Horowitz Freedom Center" AfD [5]. Been thinking about it for a bit, and the gesture has been somewhat devalued by the fact it's turned into such a rout, but I'd still like to make it. Andyvphil 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. However, teh article still has one more day before I can close the nomination. Well, technically, I can close it at any time, but I'd rather not close it until more than 5 days. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi!

I have seen you peer reviewed some film related pages. It would be very kind of you if you could also review Abbas Kiarostami when you have time. I've just sent a request for review. Thanks a lot in advance.Sangak 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Info needed

Hi, if you're still online, please let me know. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am now, do you still need something? Cbrown1023 talk 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Massively Online Gamer

Can you head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massively_Online_Gamer. It was flagged for deletion 1 hour after it was created (but not flagged inuse). Can you help? I have stated in the talk page why it is a valid page yet, i'm unable to get in and complete the page or flag it as inuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auberne (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

G1, A7, G8. Cbrown1023 talk 14:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Development

Could you clarify reasons for the 'keep' decision, it still looks like unverifiable original research which mis-cites its sources to me! Thanks. --Davémon 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I acted based on the discussion. More people wanted a keep and they had quite good arguments, you were the only one who opposed and yours was a little shaky. Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit my grounds are shakey - after all it's impossible to prove a negative (i.e I can't prove that there are no secondary sources for the so-called-phrase) - however no evidence emerged to forward the positive case that these sources do exist. None of the keep arguments actually addressed the issues of WP:OR, WP:V or WP:NPOV. As for the 'Keeps' themselves, 1 was made before I'd fully written out the reason (my mistake!) - so is only responding to dicdef. 1 was the original author. 1 was a claim about 'importance' (which contravenesWP:N?). Also, I don't want to finger point, but the final one of the Keeps was an anonymous users first edit - possibly a sock-puppet? So I'm not sure a consensus was actually reached as such. --Davémon 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, renominate it for a better decision. Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Would you advise that over a WP:Deletion_review? --Davémon 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, because this isn't really a Deletion... Cbrown1023 talk 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheGoodSonDVDCover.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, and I added a fair use rationale to the replacement. Cbrown1023 talk 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailed closing

"Weak keep on the verge of no consensus"? Wow, we're getting detailed over at AfD now.

I suppose it's more honest, but I miss the good old days of just keep, delete, speedy delete and no consensus (Has there been a "weak delete on the verge of no consensus" yet?).

Anyway, as the article creator, thanks for recognizing at least mildly that it was at least somewhat a bogus nom. Daniel Case 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a reallly close no consensus, but was still a keep... and I didn't want someone to say, "you call this keep?". :) Cbrown1023 talk 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Daniel Case 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Cbrown1023/Archive 5

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Kiarostami

Hi, hope you had a nice wiki break! The early life section of Abbas Kiarostami has just been revised. What do you think now? Thanks. Sangak 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the Peer review page. :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your new comment, my suggestion for the title was "Early life and personal biography". When I consulted with User:Francis Tyres, he suggested "Biography" or "Life". "Early life and personal biography" may be a bit too long. Other options could be "Personal life" or "Personal life and education". Do you have any suggestion in this regard? Thanks again. Sangak 10:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Personal life and education". Does it seem ok? or maybe "Life and education" is better? Take care. Sangak 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are being misrepresented

I thought you might like to know that your position is being misrepresented on this talk page. Oicumayberight 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. However, it appears that you have corrected the matter for me. Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film-editor-stub category

User:Luigi Bob has recently been creating articles on some notable film editors and has brought it to my attention that a stub category doesn't exist for film editors. As film editors are a part of film and help to rid of red links in films please lend your support or opposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. There are hundreds not stub categoirzed as editors and there are many many missing from wikipedia and I beleive they are an important part of the film making process. Thanks (I have also been helping on Kiarostami with Sangak) Cheers!Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for brining this to my attention. Howeve, I have no stance on this matter. Cbrown1023 talk 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film re-protect

Hey Cbrown, I wanted to ask if it would be possible to re-initiate the permanent semi-protect against vandals for the film article, now that it's been more than a month since the CotW. Most of the recent edits are only vandalism and rvv again. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Cbrown1023 talk 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Cbrown1023, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm glad you thought I was a great user, and I also appreciate your advice on how to word my answer to one of the questions better. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films participants

Hey, how's it going? I haven't crossed paths with you in a while. I am currently updating the new participants for the month for the newsletter and one of the users (Roger the red) has been blocked from editing. Should we just delete him from the participants list or let his name stay there? --Nehrams2020 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Place him inside an editor's message <!-- --> or just remove him from the list... It's funny, I was thinking about the newsletter last night with an "Oh man... we have to do that?"  :-P Cbrown1023 talk 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for semiprotecting the New York article. Hopefully, time can now be spent on improving the actual page instead of just scanning for vandalism. Thanks again! Irish♣Pearl 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on vandal

I just came across some vandalism of IP 66.99.28.35: [6]. He seems to be a regular with several blocks. Hoverfish Talk 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Green Hornet

Thank you for Semi-Protecting this article. -- Davidkevin 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mustard Man

I've just restored this. Merging and then deleting is illegal under the GFDL. If you've done this before please undelete the articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, I had done that before I was really aware of that. :( In the future, if you come across something like this, you do not have to tell me. Cbrown1023 talk 14:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack Off Jill

I have attempted to discuss this on the Talk page, warned the user of the three revert rule, suggested taking it to the Talk page in the edit summaries, and have been rebuffed. I've also sought a third-party opinion, and am waiting on adjudication for that. In the meantime, thank you for protecting the article, and I appreciate the warning. Snuppy 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

I have requested semi-protection for this page, but my request was unanswered and I cannot find it on the page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I relisted and hope you will grant semi-protection.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami

Hi Cbrown1023

Hope you are fine. Abbas Kiarostami passed GA assessment. I also made some more copyedits afterwards. For reducing the size of the article I splitted the article into two articles. The whole "cinematic style" section and "micro-digital cinema" was moved into Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami. The latter article is the result of copy pasting with no other changes (except for adding some more citations). Therefore I trimmed the cinematic style section in Abbas Kiarostami and I reduced the size of the article from 74 to 54 kb. I've just checked the FA assessment page and I saw an article with 64 kb size was going through with no major objection.

In summary I think the article is pretty much ready for FA candidacy. However I would like to ask you to take a look at it, particularly the citematic style section. I want to be sure that the section is still understandable and informative after the trimming process. The rest of the article has not change since the peer review (except for what GA reviewer suggested: WP:MoS etc). Thanks and have a nice weekend.Sangak 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My idea is to make a joint FA nomination for Abbas Kiarostami and Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami. Sangak 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm not sure they would be very happy about having to review two different articles. :-P Cbrown1023 talk 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean it is better to nominate them separately? In this case I will first nominate Abbas Kiarostami. I have another question. The cinematic style part is a copy/paste of the original article which was promoted to GA. Can I label this new article as GA accordingly? There were no change besides adding one or two more citations. Thanks. Sangak 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that would be okay. Cbrown1023 talk 16:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dposse

Hi, I'm one of the people whose edits have been reverted by Dposse. You recently locked an article on his request in order to stop a "reversion war." I'd like to point out that it's Dposse that hasn't been ascribing to the rules listed in the Help:Reverting#When to revert document. He's been talked to about this by User:Madchester on his talk page. I'd also like to point you at ongoing discussion about this issue on my own talk page, his talk page and on the Peter Petrelli talk page. Since you're currently locking the document and enforcing his "revert first, then ask questions" policy, I'd like you to be involved in the conversation until it's resolved. Thank you, Twinotter 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you guys were reverting, so I just protected the version that I saw first (m:The wrong version). I don't care what you guys decide, I just don't want you guys reverting like crazy. Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on RfA.

Thanks for reminding me about the formal acceptance, though I do feel a slight urge to tweak the templates used so that line is either left off, or has text simply saying "(Self-nomination)" put under it if you use the "Nominate yourself" option. Some people are very silly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment in RfA of Adam Cuerden

In User:Adam Cuerden's RfA you put a note below a comment I made that I should not bite the one good oppose. I am just noting that you made the same exact comment at the same exact time in the commenting on the previous oppose vote. It appeared nonsequitur so I deleted it. If I made a mistake, you may return it. Just figured I should tell you about this. Captain panda In vino veritas 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, really I don't. But please note my "we". It is really upsetting when users bite the opposers, especially if they have rational reasons to oppose. I didn't see you guys talk to the ones who were opposing solely on the nomination itself. I also do not seem to understand your use of non sequitur in this incident. Cbrown1023 talk 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that I did not see how the statement fit. I mainly based this off that it was made at the same time as the other one. I just thought it was added by mistake. And as for the opposers opposing because of the nomination, I agree with them on a bad nomination. I just don't give it grounds to oppose. The use of non sequitur refered to the comment not quite fitting. Just explaining all of that. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami: FAC

Hi

I would like to invite all those who reviewed "Abbas Kiarostami" during last two months to comment on the article at this "final" stage. The article is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Thanks.Sangak 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you were watching Kiarostami's progress or not. Any comment? Do you see any thing I can fix? Thanks. Sangak 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noted my strong support on the FAC page. Good job! Cbrown1023 talk 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the articles. --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Films Award text

Can you please check in Wikipedia:WikiProject awards/WikiProject and see if I wrote the text/credits correctly? Also I don't know why it displays red within the subst template. The page name is right. Maybe we need tech-wiz help to make it like the others. Hoverfish Talk 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the template that had a problem, {{tlsp}} is for templates in the template namespace. I fixed it. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One more glitch? Although High Heels got the Film Award, category (Wikipedians awarded the Film Barnstar) wasn't transcluded, so I added the cat in his Userpage manually. Thanks for the newsletter. Hoverfish Talk 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "pretty barnstar" :-) wasn't subsituted, making the category not appear. Cbrown1023 talk 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to put this here?

Hi there, I saw you placed a delete-nomination tag on Talk:List of number-one hits (United States), but the link in the tag actually points to the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000. Should that tag really be there, or did you add it because List of number-one hits (United States) was mentioned within the discussion? I didn't want to revert anything without asking you first. - eo 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You were right, the tag was added accidentally, I just closed a huge nomination (there were about 50!) and was using AWB to add the oldafd-tag and and remove the AfD notice. Thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Miss Venezuela 2001

I asked for a deletion review of Miss Venezuela 2001. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RebSkii 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang)

Thanks for semiprotecting it. How long will the protection last? Respond here or on my talk page, either works. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently, it is set to indef, but it will eventually be removed by another admin. Cbrown1023 talk 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!

... for the semi on my user page. Hopefully that'll keep the vandals at bay :) Thanks! - Alison^✍ 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thank you

Thank you for the award. It is greatly appreciated.--PhantomS 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonney Eberndu

Why did you close this AfD with a result of Delete? 5 Delete votes to 3 Keep votes isn't enough to show evidence of consensus; it may be a majority, but "counting heads" is not the accepted or correct method to close AfDs. I am prepared to take this to WP:DRV if necessary. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in, but this close was entirely appropriate because we don't simply count votes. His crimes got mentioned in media, yes, as do minor crimes in every town. There's no way to have a biography on this guy with those sources. Friday (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the sources were in the national UK media - The Times, The Guardian, the BBC. This was a high-profile case that, in a UK context, is notable. Eberndu meets the letter of WP:BIO - multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources independent of the subject themselves - as four separate articles, in mainstream media, were written purely about him. I appreciate that from a US or overseas perspective it may seem like a fairly minor event, but Wikipedia needs to avoid national bias. (Note: I have copied this to Friday's talk page.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no national bias in the result, I for one receive news from all three of those daily. I was just basing it on the discussion, I find that the article looks really nice and is well sourced (after your expansion), but I was acting on the decision of the community. If you take it to deletion review, I will ask for it to be restored. Cbrown1023 talk 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the close. We do not cover every person charged with a misdemeanor offense, despite local coverage at the time. This seems like a straightforward application of our guidelines to me. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

You can distribute it if you want, I just wanted to do it last month to see how it's done. It's good to see that the newsletter was cleaned up these last few days. We currently have a few more FA/GAs still in the nomination phase that may pass, but if worse comes to worse, they'd just go to next month's. I won't be able to edit until about 7:00p.m. my time, so if you think it's good, go ahead and distribute. If you can, update the infobox message, as the requests have now blossomed. By the way, once I finish this Oklahoma City bombing GA, I'll work on finishing the Gladiator (2000 film) to nominate for GA. --Nehrams2020 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad you support Abbas Kiarostami -we have put in a lot of work on it!! Thankyou for taking the time to review and help out. Can I just ask you - how do you personalize your signature on wikipedia. Yours is green. How do you edit it ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, the fourth one down (Signature). Cbrown1023 talk 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Sorensen

article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walt_Sorensen&diff=prev&oldid=111522419

Below is a statement I find very offensive and its downright gross potty humor in my opinion. Why is this supposed administrator remarking to articles like this. I have asked in that past that he nuance his statements and you may look this up if you want direct statements. It almost makes me want to Keep this particular article just because Hoary cannot nuance and puts down the Catholic church and lets face it this is just plain discusting the way he welds his hand on WP. I cannot believe his audicity in some of his latest remarks on Ebonics and such. This needs to be taken seriously. I know he has run away many good people with great information. I cannot for the life of me understand how he can say the things he does with no oversight. This is the reason I bring this to your attention. Is there any way this can be dealt with accordingly? I wish something could be done. He is beginning personal attacks against some editors again. Artsojourner 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

R U Joe King, Mr Eye? Or, as an answer to your question, hmm, what's the negative equivalent of "Does a pope shit in the woods?" I get the strong impression that being listed by the "Cambridge Who's Who" depends less on the kind of merit that gets you listed by a "Who's Who" of one of the varieties that libraries bother with, and a lot more on your willingness to donate a couple of sawbucks or whatever is the going rate. -- Hoary 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

(view/edit this template)