Open main menu

User talk:Someguy1221/Archive 2

Active discussions

(Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)


Roller Skating

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure if you are even the right person to contact about this, but I got some random "vandalism" notification for fixing an out of place subject under Roller Skating. I'm not trying to vandalize your website by any means, I'm trying to help and was planning on creating a new page to correctly explain the content I removed from the original subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I appologize then. If you wish to do as you described, it would be best to create the new page first before removing it from Roller Skating. And after you do, you should not completely cut the info from that page, but reduce it to a brief summary with a link to the new page. Otherwise, the problem is that we can't distinguish your actions from those of someone who's just out to delete random sections of random article, especially so long as you omit your edit summaries. In fact, just including a brief explanation of your actions in the edit summary will alay most fears that you may be a vandal. This response has been duplicated on your talk page Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And just a note, if you wish to create a new article, you'll have to first create an account. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812

I will be happy to water down any wording that cannot be substantiate and/or which you consider to be POV. Let me know what works and I will work with you to improve. I may have been a bit excessive in my initial wording but see no reason why the intent of this copy should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talkcontribs) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on your talk page, since this started there. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I made my point. I won't revert again. Cheers. Digiterata (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


For the revert, appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for blocking that vandal ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I get it. I'll edit it soon. Wow. That was a quick response though. lol. (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Tabby


Someone deleted a portiion I had entered earlier on the subject of Casper. I had stated that "Jasper" was NOT a variant of Casper...which it is not. I even entered a reference on on the origin of "Jasper" which was some unkonwn person.

Jasper is derived from the German word of the same spelling. In German it is pronounced "Yahsper" that is because it is derived from a Greek word pronounced "Yahspes". Both of these words refer to the "gemstone" we call "Jasper".

Certainly there are people named "Jasper" just as there people with other gemstone names, e.g. "Pearl", "Ruby" "Diamond" etc.

But the fact is that neither "Jasper" nor its Greek counterpart are etymologically related to "Caspar" "Kaspar" or "Gaspar"..and should therefore NOT being in this Wikipedia section. Shadrack-dva (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Help on Dispersion staining images

I thank you for your assistance. Us novices need all the help we can get. Thanks again, IEQParticles (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing

the late night vandal watch with me. Keep up the good work playing whack-a-vandal. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To help keep you alert and active! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so you don't erroneously re-update the tally. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RADWIN and Multiple Point to Point


I've added these pages and keep getting a message that it is blatant advertising. Please help! I will readily delete any content deemed as advertising but I really do not know what this is in reference to. Can you please edit these pages or help me out.


Tammy Levy

Since Athaenara (talk · contribs) is the one who deleted the pages, she would be the one to talk to about that. Now that the pages are deleted, I can't review the pages again. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)duplicated on your talk page


For reverting my talk page. :) Caiaffa (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


sorry i didnt know that i was vandilizing that page i will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Someguy, I got approved for and then installed AWB. I have read the documentation but still can't work out how to do what you said it could do, i.e.

  • List all pages with a certain prefix;
  • List pages without a category;
  • The intersection of the two above.

If you could tell me how to do this I would be grateful! MSGJ (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not actually looking for that intersection directly; the way to do this is look for the difference between a list of articles with that prefix, and a list of articles in the proper categories. But trying this now I realize it's not as simple as it should be. AWB seems unable to pull the links from Special:PrefixIndex even though it should (I suppose that's a bug or software limitation, although I am running an old version). Literally, I suspect it's unable to actually read Special:PrefixIndex. The way I've found to do this is:
A) Go to Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for creation
B) Right click the page in a blank space, select "view source" and save to a text file
C) Use MS Word's find and replace to convert the list of HTML links to wikilinks, return to the text file and save.
D) After opening AWB, go to Tools>List comparer
E) List 1: Make from: Text file: Select your text file; List 2: Make from whatever AFC category is being used to tag
F) The results section will list the differences between the lists, and allows you to save these lists
Since you're able to save lists, you can perform this operation multiple times, sequentially filtering out different categories. And since it's AWB, you can then run the add category task to the list and you're done. I also see I didn't remember it perfectly; AWB only does boolean intersections and differences, but doing anything else would be easy enough with the saved lists. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the late response - I've been away. I followed your instructions and I was able to do it (just!). My thoughts on this: it's a complicated process. You can do it, and I can probably manage it, but I'm not sure we should implement a new AfC process which relies on editors doing this, or relies on specific editors to do a task. (We will be away at times, and everyone has wikibreaks at times or spends their time in other ways ...) Do you still think a bot could do this task? MSGJ (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
A bot writer presumably would have an easier time working around our own limitations, and of course could have it run automatically. But as you suggested earlier, it seems reasonable to have us attempt the process manually and tweak as needed before asking for a bot. As for the broader issue, it's inevitable that a system that relies on the management of dozens of subpages a day rather than one is going to be more complicated. And a system that requires the proper and changing categorization of those dozens of pages a day will inevitably leave some requests in an uncategorized black hole. We know that a lot of newbies get the existing process wrong; how many got the new one wrong? I didn't observe the test run. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well if it makes the process more complicated then we probably shouldn't even be considering implementing it. We have a perfectly good system currently and should only change it if there are clear advantages. I think there were about 1 or 2 submitters who somehow managed to delete the category in the 24 hour trial; as it was on such a small scale I was able to catch these. I am not so worried about a few slipping through the net from authors who can't follow the instructions. However we need to make sure that if the request is submitted again (by the same of different author), that the category is added. Preloading a template does not work if the article already exists - we can get around this by adding a new section (like what happens currently with the single submission page). Any thoughts?
If we can sort out this problem then I might suggest we trial it out for a full week and then decide if it's worth it. MSGJ (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Resubmissions does seem a likely problem. We all know how often an anon attempts to resubmit by altering the original submission, even many months after the fact. Since those anons necessarily failed to notice the note telling them to resubmit on today's page, presumably the same number would fail to notice something telling them to change the category of the submission. Added to that is the difficulty of anyone finding the submissions in the first place (maybe such anons will not be able to resubmit improperly, then...) but if they did, it would be a lot more pages to watchlist should we decide to give a damn. A bot could handle either (by detecting edits to archived submissions, and also by transcluding submissions to a daily page for easy finding) but a completely bot-dependent system could be prone to, well, anything that might happen when the whole project depends on one guy running his bot on time...Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have found the best solution to this problem. Following a link such as this one brings you to a preloaded template on a new section of a page, with the section already filled in. In this way, each new submission with the same title will go in a new section (they will all be called New Submission but that's okay) and the template will be added again each time. What could go wrong? MSGJ (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NOR question

Someguy, I noticed that you frequently comment on questions in WP:NOR/N. Would you kindly take a look at the thread Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, & offer your opinion? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the comments are already in and consensus appears to have formed, so my particpation in the discussion would probably not help much. But to place my opinion in case you still want it, the offending section violated OR because it contains an analysis that was not present in any of the cited sources. This is prohibited, in fact, by the nutshell itself: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And if you want another opinion, I can say that it is very obvious OR, unless you can cite reliable sources that actually carry out the same analysis, in which case the issue might involve WP:UNDUE instead. --Philosophus T 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not your opinion would be of use, Causteau thinks that both of your statements are, & repeated them at the Noticeboard. I hope that his act was not improper. -- llywrch (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting that. It seems the browser on my Blackberry can't handle the large size of the GWB article. - auburnpilot talk 05:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mouse scroller

Hey, I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Userlinks are running away from me about your mouse scroller not working right in Firefox. That is truly unfortunate. Have you tried the Opera web browser? It's very small (8.5 MB), works quite well and quite fast, and is certainly better than IE6. Hopefully your mouse scroller will work with it - at the very least it's worth a shot. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never...again...Believe me, I've tried most things. But a friend of mine did today give me another work-around, and that was to fix the computer I used to use, so I'm all good now. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, nice! So, does Firefox work for you now? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it will when he fixes it again...Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TV Links

You can see on their forums, All of them are the original tv-links staff. I have also spoken to one of the admins and he has said he recently agreed is in touch with the admin over talks with the domain. Trust me this is not another clone or mirror. This is run by the original staff. You can signup on the forums yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvloriginal (talkcontribs) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AFC proposal

  WikiProject Articles for Creation needs your input!
I have made a detailed proposal for a new entry process for WP:AFC. As you were involved in the discussion after the last trial, I particularly invite your comments at the page WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Proposed new entry process#Modifications and proposal for new trial.

Thanks! MSGJ 09:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

COI Response


I don't see the issue with putting the article's author's name on it and confirming the date upon which the article was last edited. I am an employee of the station and I know for a fact who wrote the article, who put it on wikipedia, and that the information is correct. There is no conflict of interest because the person who runs the station and wrote the article gave the go ahead to make this page. Furthermore, I believe the person who wrote it deserves credit. If you could reply to me, here, with some accurate justification, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, of WSTB/88.9 FM Radio

17:01, 1 September 2008

Reply on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AFC submission

Well done with the new template. I found a small problem with the cv version. For example

{{AFC submission|D|cv}} should produce the general message, but instead it produces {{AFC submission|D|cv}}. {{AFC submission|D|cv|}} did not produce the expected result. It also produced {{AFC submission|D|cv|}}.

Cheers, MSGJ 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; fixed. This problem was also actually with mergeto and exist...Someguy1221 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say that it is still not working perfectly. If you look on my sandbox you will see what I mean. MSGJ 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The template is reading the equals sign as a parameter definition. I unfortunately don't know how to make it not. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I doubt that will happen often. MSGJ 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The user-side fix for that is to explicitly state the paramenter name; i.e., use the template as {{AFC submission|D|cv|3=}}. It may be a limited enough case that users of the template won't need to be worried about it, though. —C.Fred (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check my work on the {{AFC completed}} template please? I don't think I've broken anything. I was wondering about combining all these templates into the {{AFC submission}} template, to tidy things up - any other advantages/disadvantages to that? MSGJ 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It has the problem I figured earlier was causing cv-n and cv to break; the templates above attempt to feed the website parameter even if none is provided. This was why the ifeq statements has the peculiar form you might have noticed in my version of the template. I'll try to fix this now. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
OK; a couple pipes and it works fine. I suppose that what I should have done in the first place...As for compiling all the templates? If you want to attempt a nested switch, be my guest ;-) I personally thought having seperate templates (and moving the reasons out furthered this goal) makes the code easier to understand. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I might try to do this because there are common elements between all these tags. It is only the colour and some of the wording which changes. The reason I separated the reasons was to make it simpler to add new ones. But at the moment it's in a subpage of a template which is not even called from, if you know what I mean ... Anyway I'll ask you to check everything before I make the change. MSGJ 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As you probably realised, I gave up trying to combine them all. The code was getting too complex. So I hope that putting them in subpages is the best solution. MSGJ 10:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability RfC

I've made a list of points needing to be addressed for B.6, because the approach may be viable (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I am trying to address the caveats and opposition raised while maintaining coherency and sticking to the approach of the proposal. All the points raised seem like they can be addressed without contradiction. Your comments on the sandbox talk page would be appreciated, to make sure I'm staying on track. Vassyana (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your help in the Wikipedia:Help desk.

(I have a few follow-ups though.)

Yartett (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Linda Greenhouse

If there was something inaccurate or misleading in the quotes and statements I added why don't you correct them. I don't think it's appropriate that you simply removed addition. Since she was rebuked by her own editor, and as the quotes show other leading writers, and the story was widely reported, I don't know how you can argue that she wasn't widely criticized. But if you have better wording, go for it. I'm putting the information back in the article.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

AFC status

Hi template-expert ;)

I was wondering if {{AFC status}} could be automated using the number of pages in Category:Pending Afc requests (which is 0).

MSGJ 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take some time to play with this later today. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I got an automatic version working. Seems to be working right now, anyway. Let me know if it keeps working as the backlog changes size. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be good! MSGJ 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I hope we never see 7000 pending submissions!! By the way, you'll never see your level 0 because currently the redirect submission page is permanently in that category. MSGJ 08:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh shucks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There; I made it more accurate ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this for the most unusual place to put a submission? :) MSGJ 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this and this are pretty crazy as well. Don't know how they even found that page! MSGJ 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was certainly worth a laugh. And I didn't even know those pages existed! Although including even before this AFC system existed, I have occasionally seen people post articles to the most random pages - WP:HD, WP:EAR, WT:AN, so on and so forth...but those pages beat them all, I think. I really wonder what goes through some people's minds. I was going to suggest a feature be placed in {{AFC submission}} that it would include a category:request in wrong namespace if that's the case, but then, I'm sure anyone who manages to post his submission in the IT namespace is the same kind of person who would delete that template...Someguy1221 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Would be a nice feature, but yes you're probably right. After all, none of these had the template on. MSGJ 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, did you find these through any means other than simply watchlisting all the AFC related pages? I wonder how many other submissions are out there in even more obscure locations...Someguy1221 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just seen this. I happened to notice it by looking at the related changes to a category that those pages were in. MSGJ 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


>a search engine result is not a source, please cite an actual review. That said, amazon does contain reviews that could be considered RS

Fair point. How best to handle this? Would links to the reviews pages suffice? Thanks.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Amazon hosts external reviews as well as producing its own. Its own reviews and customer reviews aren't reliable sources, but most every other review it includes is. You can use a link to the reviews page, but the title of the cite should include the publisher that actually produced the review you're citing, along with a note, "hosted on" Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

John Carney

hey i have a question.. this is kicken4life..... im related to john carney and we are having problems with a certain person. they keep changing information in his personal section and i would like to know if there is a way to prevent it. It is causing unnecessary grief on my family, and is a form of harrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicken4life (talkcontribs) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

hey i dont understand you said i have threatened somebody..... i have not done that because i have no means to. anything that i have said is truthful, im a 17 year old girl, soooooo add that to your box of cherries

cheerrs bro

k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicken4life (talkcontribs) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ajay data page

I am a press reporter works with media and tried to published one article on Ajay Data , which you rejected. I think he deserves to be put on wiki and would like to know how i can help to make the article more meaningful and make it available... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaydata (talkcontribs) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quicken Loans

Last year you got a message from Glenn from Quicken Loans about updating the Quicken Loans Wikipedia page. Glen left the company and I've taken his place. I have a editing request and I'd like to run it by you to avoid any conflict of interest. I want to update the Quicken Loans profile to reflect our new reverse mortgage company, One Reverse Mortgage. I'm requesting the first sentence change from:

Quicken Loans Corporation is a retail home mortgage lending firm in the U.S. Quicken Loans Inc. is comprised of the Quicken Loans, Rock Financial, and Title Source, a settlement service provider.


Quicken Loans Inc. consists of the online lending site, the Rock Financial brand in southeast Michigan, One Reverse Mortgage, based in San Diego, California, and Title Source, a mortgage settlement service provider.

Thanks, Mike MDetroitKid (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as this is documented somewhere, such as an official website or in a news report. If so, best practice is to include a citation, at the end of the sentence, to the website or report (see Help:Footnotes and Help:Link#External links). Official websites are OK for uncontroversial facts such as these. When you want to make uncontroversial changes to the article, feel free to edit the article directly (I review all contributions to the article, so I will see your edits with certainty), but please cite sources as best you are able. As an employee of the company, adding or removing anything controversial (infromation relating praise, criticism, lawsuits or firings) should still be suggested in advance. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: AFC submissions

Thank you for letting me know. I've been away for a while, and, the new system is very unfamiliar to me. --EoL talk 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm looking for a compromise. I really think that a lack of basic knowledge is an important part of this discussion. The movie is so flawed in terms of the economic concepts that no credible economist will bother making any commentary in writing; it is almost like I have to prove that 2+2=4. I have real experience in this field as I work and teach in the securities industry so I thought I could lend a helping hand on this subject. What info or reference would make you happy? Seriously? Too sleeply, forgot the signature. Sorry. Friedonc (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the lines you reverted were more informative about the subjects of the documentary. Conspiracy theories are not even a subject, only an allusion within the John Perkin's interview; and what he said is "This isn't a conspiracy theory type of thing". I had removed those lines because, I think, those details should be in a more descriptive section than the introduction. Chab (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFansign review 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikicookies are my favorite kind. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


When adding content to an article, please take care not to create false references. Unless the citation you are placing actually refers to the topic of the article or section you are editing, it is probably a false reference. That is, if you are writing about what John said about Bob, then Bob's writings can't be used as a reference. You have to use something John said as a reference. But if Bob is actually being discussed, then his works may still be useful as a link - either internal links directly in the text, or in an external links section. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Could you please help me out here? 4v4l0n42 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AfC wizard

Hi, I have another query for you. I have been tidying up the AFC wizard by putting a lot of the code into templates, e.g. {{AFC wizard}}. There is something not working quite right though. The spacehas been reduced between the buttons, e.g. compare this version with this one. I can't work out why because the template contains the same code that was there ... Any ideas would be appreciated, thanks. MSGJ 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is bizarre. I can't see what the heck could be causing the difference...Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah! The new version leaves margin-top:4px; out of the div boxes. This is what was seperating them. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's it. Not sure how it happened, but thanks for spotting it. MSGJ 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know why the pipe stops the link on this page from wikilinking? (It was due to this edit.) Assuming this is not possible is there a way to extract the subpage name from the parameter or would I need to add that as another parameter? Cheers, MSGJ 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The auto-conversion of "right-empty" piped links doesn't work if the template is not substituted (I just figured that out :-) ), presumably because there is nothing for MediaWiki to convert. Also, I don't know of a way (and can't find one) to have the template auto-extract the subpagename. But I don't think the pipe-link conversion would be a good idea in any event; certain funkiness in the submission title could causet that to fail. I would suggest writing it to take the subpagename as the only additional parameter, and have the template tag on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submissions/ automatically ({{#ifeq: {{{2|}}}|||[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submissions/{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}} Someguy1221 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try it, but I'm not convinced it will link that either, for the same reason ... will try later. MSGJ 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It's working! MSGJ 11:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. (Sorry for getting the namespace wrong - oops) Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Got another puzzle for you. By using 3 tildes, the wizard is passing the author's signature to the template. I was wondering if there was any way to extract the username from this so that we can provide a link to preload the {{Afc talk}} template onto the author's talk page. MSGJ 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm stumped; I don't see a way to extract the author's username with a magic-word or use parser functions to extract a username from a sig :-( Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Someguy is stumped ;) Well if you think of something let me know. In any case this new parameter will allow us to categorise submissions by date, for example we could have a category for all pending submissions older than a week if we liked. MSGJ 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Addendum: Alex Jones

I changed the text to match his exact words. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallo libel deleted

Hey I deleted libellous remarks about Gallo by IP at Robert Gallo and AIDS denialism, sorry I took the whole section out but i thought I had to. RetroS1mone talk 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


I don't get it. You take out my edits, claiming that they are not authoritative, even though they point to web-based external references reflecting the experiences of hundreds of people (not to mention my own--you expect me to scan my credit card receipts?), citing as an authoritative source another Wikipedia entry where you, in fact, contributed to the content without external references? SpanishBabe (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Falls Church

I agree with you re: the NPOV on The Falls Church page. Please help create a disambiguity.

Thanks! Cranmeresque (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorting AfC categories chronologically

Hi Someguy, need your help again! With this edit I was trying to sort the completed category chronologically. All new requests should come with the submit parameter containing the timestamp from when it was originally submitted. Obviously the old ones don't contain this so I tried to specify the default sortkey using the basepagename as usual. However it didn't work. Indeed it depopulated the category - because the sort key was empty it just printed [[Category:Completed Afc requests|]] on the page. Anyway I've undone myself until I/we can fix this. Thanks, MSGJ 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So some templates simply have the wrong parameters? I can run a modified version of my lost submission tracker to retrieve them when I have time - probably late tonight or sometime tomorrow. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No because when an article is resubmitted the author is instructed to add {{AFC submission|P}} to the top. If I hadn't undone myself these would be getting lost. I was trying to use the submit parameter as the sort key if it exists, and if it doesn't exist then just use the page name. MSGJ 11:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this edit has fixed it. (Seems to be a messy way to create the default option though.) And for the declined submissions, I have subtracted the timestamp from a constant (chosen so that every number starts with the digit 1)so that it sorts in reverse order (newer submissions at the top). However the six at the top of the "1" heading on Category:Completed Afc requests are in the wrong order and I cannot work out why as I have added the correct date parameter ... MSGJ 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Problem sorted. It turns out that sometimes the result of the calculation was put in standard form which resulted in the sort order going haywire. Dividing everything by 100 (and igoring seconds) prevents this from happening. MSGJ 19:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Namespace question

Hi there, I have a question for you again. The magic word {{TALKPAGENAME}} gives the title of the talk page of the current page. Is there any template that will take a page name as a parameter and output the title of that page's talkpage? In my recent edit on Template:Afc talk, I added Talk: before the page name. But I think this will only work if the page is in mainspace! Thanks, Martin 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a way. The main difficulty I see is that there are no parser functions that can minupulate text. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC active participant

Hi, I have added your name to this page which I am planning to transclude to the instruction page and the main project page. Basically I thought it would be a good idea to tell new reviewers who they can ask for help about the AfC process. Hope you are happy about this. If not, I will remove your name. Cheers, Martin 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Hey! One of your uncategorised submissions made it through: Karel Rüütli. It could use some more sources, but he sounded significant enough that there will be other sources. I noticed we were both working on the uncategorized category at the same time the other day, because it was reducing much more quickly than I expected :) So are you not taking part in the AfC challenge?? Martin 08:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was wondering who was helping shrink it :) I'll probably help out in the challenge, at least getting something beyond stub or start class. Things have been really hectic lately, but it should all cool down soon (until it explodes after new won't be seeing much of me). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I've drafted some instructions at Category:Uncategorized Afc requests. Martin 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Goth fashion

Some guy: I would like to dispute your removal of my edit to goth sub culture.

My comment that goth fashion is ridiculous is no more unconstructive than calling it Morbid. Please justify why that comment remains but mine has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Morbid and rediculous are both purely subjective terms, but morbid is actually substantive. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think if you did a poll that the majority of people would agree that ridiculous is a substantive way to descrive goth fashion. Anyway, as you just commented describing goth fashion as morbid is entireley subjective so shouldn't that be removed if wikipedia isn't a place for personal opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is a place for facts and subjective opinions if they are significant. That is to say, has a reliable source stated, supported, or at least reported the fact or opinion? So opinions are OK, but not if you're just adding your own. As for morbid vs. rediculous, there is also a need for the content to actually mean something. Morbid has very clear substantive implications. Rediculous doesn't, so even if you did find a reliable source to call it that, it probably wouldn't matter. You could, however, find a reliable source describing what is so rediculous about it...Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mehcwarrior living legends

Just for curiosity, you said that fan mods are not listed? Why? The article is about the Mechwarrior series and games in that series, and Mechwarrior Living Legends is a game in that series. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merely existing does not get a fact into Wikipedia, however; we do have inclusion criteria. A topic does not get its own article unless it's notable, and a fact does not get mentioned in an article unless it's significant (amongst other policies). One purpose of these policies is to prevent users from using the encyclopedias to promote their own ideas, their favored viewpoints, or products/companies they like. Therefore, the most content is restricted to that which can be supported by reliable sources or at least official sources of the article's topic. Thus, any official Mechwarrior game makes the list. But unofficial, fan creations don't (you may also be interested in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Unless the game is notable, its inclusion on the list is indistinguishable from spam. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I readded it back in, but honestly, I think the game is notable. It may be a fan creation, but it is a mechwarrior game that is official (sanctioned by Microsoft). If you need me to, I can give more references to the games notability. --Rockstone35 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I found them myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist, the movie

I really think that it is fair that the criticism section should actually quote the references rather than negate them. I changed the first sentence according to your suggestion, the rest is merely a collection of fairly characteristic quotes from the references already given in your edit. Sardath (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dispute

The dispute in question is in regards to the Wild ARMs series of video games. Two users changed the title in every instance it appears to "Wild Arms", and whenever someone dares to challenge this, they accuse that person of being a sockpuppet of someone. I've read various user talk pages, and it does seem that the main instigator, Erigu, wins by targeting people who revive the dispute in some way-such as bringing it up again or joining a discussion to provide a fresh opinion. He will then instigate said persons, doing stuff such as quoting their posts and making snide comments, until they finally defend themselves. Erigu will then insist to one of his admin friends that this is proof of sockpuppetry, along with a few other lame points, then get the user banned. They will then "officially" call an end to all discussion. This was the theory on the talk page of their most recent victim, and after reading the Wild ARMs series talk page, I can definitely see where one would get that idea. But the main way to put a stop to this person and their page-owning, would be to finally solve the title dispute.

As you can see, the consensus supports "Wild ARMs". The Wikipedia guidelines states that titles shouldn't honor unique capitalization, EXCEPT when it comes to acronyms, which is what "ARMs" is. You can read the discussion and see for yourself. Though everyone seemed to be in agreement, all progress was halted when a well-meaning user posted on the Wild ARMs series talk page to get an opinion, which alerted that user-Erigu. That is why I requested you not do that. I'm sure that, once that user becomes aware of this, I will be accused of being a sockpuppet. It's better for everyone if a decision he can't argue with can somehow be reached, but I'm at a loss. Getting other people's opinions won't work, due to his accusations cutting down anyone who hopes to join in any discussion, and you can't be sure just whose opinion you are getting. Besides, the general opinion gathered through the discussion in that link above was that the title should be changed back to "Wild ARMs". But no one can change it, because that user will just change it back, unless someone can point to something and say why it can't be changed back. Sorry for the lengthy post. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be the correct forum for the Q-Bomb. Please view this page to gather enough information to form an opinion. I am outside of academia and this skirts close to the NNSA. I (like Captain Hook) think I hear a clock ticking. If your talents match your arrogance then I do consider your opinion to be valuable. Thank You--Lokist (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo Avila

So in what way am I violating guidelines?

You're violating the policy on biographies of living persons. This policy requires that any negative claim about a living person directly cite a reliable source that makes that negative claim. But that claim doesn't cite a reliable source; it cites an interview. He never says he "idolizes" a murderer. He says he's proud of what they did to fight communism. Now, maybe he does idolize a murderer, but making that implication from a quote is original research. Including the quote at all actually violates the policy because it's obvious what you're trying to imply. Basically, we don't pick and choose quotes to paint a picture of a man, we stick to what reliable sources (like newspaper articles, and not interviews or blogs) say about him. I'll copy this to your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AfC submissions

Hey, we are experimenting with putting new AfC submissions into subpages of WT:Articles for creation rather than WT:Articles for creation/Submissions. I was just wondering how this was going to affect your sweep for untagged articles, because there will be a few pages with that prefix which are part of the project. Also, if you wouldn't mind writing up the procedure somewhere, I could help out with it occasionally. Regards, Martinmsgj 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When I figure out the procedure for the new naming system, I'll write it up for you ;-) Actually, it would make it a lot easier if there were a category for all AFC pages that aren't submissions. There were only two under the previous naming system, and I am used to removing those from the AWB queue manually. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and moly. Didn't notice you were an admin. Good job. I wonder where I can get one of those magical noms...Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've spent part of the last few days going through your contributions and logs over the past couple of years and have concluded that you would make a fine administrator. I can't promise it will be magical, but I'd be very pleased to nominate you whenever you feel you have the time for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I'll need some time to mull over the right time to accept - I often don't know when I'm going to disappear for a few days. But thanks again. I'll do another CAT:UNCAT run in a few days, and I'll make sure to take detailed notes of how I do it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start answering the questions when you have time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

On my userpage SpitfireTally-ho! 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

USS impeccable

Is there any reason why you would like to remain the official statements of the US governments and stated as facts on the wikipedia page about the USS impeccable incident near China? Also you make no reference about the official Chinese response. This certainly isn't NPOV. You reacted on my discussions but you simply ignore it and reverse my changes. Who gives you the authority? This doesn't do your cause any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment is now sourced to CNN as well, so the rightpundits comment is irrelevant. And no, I didn't make any reference to the official Chinese response because I didn't know what it was. As I suggested, feel free to add any reliably sourced content you can find. And I have no cause here, except to confine the article what can be reliably sourced, something you don't seem to understand. Like I said before, the neutral point of view is all about sticking to reliable sources; if the vast majority sources favor the US interpretation, then so will the article. If you'd like to challenge that, bring up the sources that don't. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lourens Bass Becking

  On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lourens Bass Becking, 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.

21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


  On March 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMGA2, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message regarding simple living

Thanks for the message. I have read the policy for personal contributions. However I am trying to put an external link and that can only be in the form of a personal essay. BTW this essay was a published as a full scale article in a leading English Newspaper of India and has been discussed in some forums on sustainable living. There is a link in the essay to that effect. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to enrich the knowledge. This article gives a good estimate of the energy consumption of a person which came after 2 years data taking.

My statement regarding Themfromspace was exactly this that not knowing and understanding the basis of the article and continously deleting it on trivial issues of technicality was not proper and good.

I will appreciate if you follow the links in the article then you will find more information on sustainability and simple living. (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I that is why I did not remove the link myself. And this is what you should tell Themfromspace. A common saying on Wikipedia is "Comment on the content, not the contributor." Someguy1221 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


You have mail, re the Nature article request. Thanks, --BencherliteTalk 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now so do you. You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Marvellous. Thanks very much for your helpful and prompt response. BencherliteTalk 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In Response to the deletion of My Wikipedia Message of the "Save the Tub" Campaign

I was not being disrespectful, profane, or in any way damaging to Wikipedia or ABC. Also, did not complain; I only stated the facts. The massive copying of "callabcfamilycallabcfamily..." was not my addition. It was posted by someone that i showed my addition to. Also, as I do live in America and to my knowledge WIkipedia is an American website, although the internet does not demand freedom of speech, I beseech you to give it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectually, no. I agree that you were neither disrespectful, nor profane, nor damaging ABC, but you were damaging Wikipedia. You might want to take a good read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Briefly, this website is not a place for people to state their beef with this that or the other thing. We only discuss notable and significant topics; topics that have received coverage from reliable sources. This purpose is not aided and can indeed be hampered by people who use the site to promote their personal opinions. I am not trying to restrict your freedom of speech, and I have nothing against your campaign, as long as you don't use Wikipedia to advertise it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern now. I posted the edit again before i read this, but i understand if you remove it. I will not continue trying to post the information, because i realize that although i was trying to be unbiased, not everyone will be, like the mass listing of "callabcfamily" shows. However, would I be able to make a page strictly stating the facts of the campaign (but not a part of the kyle xy page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Carlton Hayes

Dear Someguy,

Thanks for your reply regarding the Carlton Hayes article.

Isn't the Columbia Encyclopedia citation sufficient? Anything I inserted is reflected there.

I'll try to work out the formatting details on my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duanetucker (talkcontribs) 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


CAN NOT for the life of me figure out what happened to many of my changes. I mean "indulged in postgraduate studies" is not only awkward English but not as specific as complete his PHD etc.

THIS IS NOT my thing at all. But my mother was very upset about it, as you can imagine. Implying that he was a Fashist sympathizer, when in fact it was his mission to keep Spain neutral. I'll hunt for the proper citation.

Here's what I did, but much of it wasn't SAVED. For example: As you can see he published far more books than were listed etc.

Can this be pasted in the way it is.

Carlton Hayes From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Carlton Hayes Born May 16 1882 Afton, United States

Died Sept. 2, 1964 (aged 82) Afton, United States

Education B.A., Ph.D. Columbia University

Occupation Ambassador; Historian

Employer United States Government; Columbia University

Title Ambassador; Professor

Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, Ph.D. (1882-1964) was an American educator and historian, born at Afton, New York.

He graduated from Columbia University in 1904, completed his PHD from Columbia in 1909, became a lecturer at Columbia in European history (1907), assistant professor (1910), associate professor (1915), and full professor (1919). He was head of the History department there several times, developed the theory of Nationalism and was known as the Father of Nationalism, inspiring many students to research in this field.

He held the Seth Low chair of history at Columbia from 1935 until his retirement in 1950.

In 1903 Carlton Hayes became an active member of his fraternity Alpha Chi Rho and remained a member over his lifetime.

In 1904 he converted to Catholicism -- and went on to be the first Catholic co-chairman of the Nationalism Conference of Christians and Jews along with Everett Clinchy, and Roger Strauss

During World War I he served as captain of the United States Military Intelligence Division of the General Staff in 1918-1919.

Nine years later, under the direction of General Connor, the head of the War Department, he was asked to serve on an advisory committee of historians to organize documents pertaining to the American participation in the fighting in France. This earned him the title of Major.

After the First World War, Carlton Hayes joined with Peter Guilday in establishing the American Catholic Historical Association and became its first secretary. In the 30’s he was a member of the Catholic Association for International Peace. He became president of the American Historical Association when his turn came up in 1945 and was head the New York State Historical Association in Cooperstown. He was also a member of the American Philosophical Society.

He was a sought after speaker. He was awarded the Laetare medal from Notre Dame in 1946 along with all the medals Columbi University had to offer including: Cardinal Gibbons medal from Catholic University in DC in 1949. The Alexander Hamilton medal in 1952.

He was also a guest lecturer and teacher at various academic institutions throughout his career and into his retirement and earned the following honorary degrees: University of Notre Dame- 1921 Marquette University – 1929 Niagara College – 1936 Williams College – 1939 Fordham University – 1946 University of Detroit – 1950 Georgetown University – 1953 Michigan State University – 1955 LeMoyne College - 1960

From 1942 to 1944 he was US ambassador to Spain. Though some criticized him for being too friendly with Francisco Franco, it was generally held that he played a vital role in preventing Franco from siding with the Axis during the war.

He died of a heart ailment, at Sidney Hospital, Sidney, New York on [[September 2}] 1964, aged 82.

He was buried from the church he founded in Afton, NY, St. Agnes, and laid to rest at Glenwood Cemetery in Afton, NY. He was survived by his wife of 44 years, Evelyn Carroll originally from Oswego NY and by his daughter, Mary Elizabeth Tucker and his son, Carroll J.Hayes.

He was the coauthor of The League of Nations, Principle and Practice (1919).

He was the author of: • Sources Relating to Germanic Invasions (1909) • British Social Politics (1913) • A Political and Social History of Modern Europe Vol.I: 1500-1815 (1916, 1924) • A Political and Social History of Modern Europe Vol. ll: 1830-1930 (1932, 1939) • Brief History of the Great War (1920) • Modern History (1923, 1936) • "Essays on Nationalism" (1926) • Ancient and Medieval History (1929) • France, A Nation of Patriots (1930) • The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (1931) • A Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe (2 vols.1932-36 rev. ed., 1939)


	 This biography of an American historian is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
	This biographical article related to politics in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "" Categories: American political writers | American historians | People from Chenango County, New York | Columbia University alumni | United States Army officers | 1882 births | 1964 deaths | Scholars of nationalism | United States historian stubs | United States politics biographical stubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duanetucker (talkcontribs) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)



I don't see a problem with it, although if you use more than one source, it's good to use plenty of footnotes so people know which facts came from which source. But please don't type in all caps. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Duanetucker (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I have no idea how to sign this using the menu above. So I put four tildes there as per someone else's instruction. A heads up would be appreciated.

The menu above only provides shortcuts, so you don't actually have to use it. Typing four tildes will still place your signature, which it did above. I personally find it faster to just type everything instead of using the menu. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

Thanks for reverting the edits to my userpage. Really good work on on recent changes patrol, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 07:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. And thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

About: Mark Roberts (Debunker)

Mr Roberts is not editing this page. He's email is: Email removed Please send praises to him directly. (He truly is a remarkable debunker...)

I am just a fellow from Finland. --RicHard (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)--)

We don't list contact information for individuals here, although we can list official/personal website if one exists, which is already done on the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies. What happend, user changed page with this comment: "Mark Roberts is still MY Hero!! You Go Mark!" and removed See Also-section. I undo that and You undo mine. Again sorry.Thought U as user RicHard (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Significant Coverage

You replied with this message after I stated my plea to allow my addition of the Save the Tub Campaign to remain on the Kyle XY Wikipedia Page:

"Wikipedia is not America, and you have no freedom of speech here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you or anyone else to complain that a show is off the air, or to advertise your fan-based campaign. If the campaign has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it will continue to be removed from Wikipedia. If you disagree, take it to the talk page or dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)"

The following links will prove to you that the campaign does exist, and there has been significant coverage on the issue from online sources. The first two are articles that mention the campaign. The third one is a blog that accepts comments. The fourth is an article with a link to a petition. The fifth and sixth sites are the main campaign sites with many links to comments, articles, support ideas, etc., and the eighth is another petition.

These sites clearly show by their multitude and nature that there has been significant coverage of the campaign. All of my previous posts have been unbiased and strictly factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read the policy on significance and reliable sources. A reliable source is one that has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." A necessary criterion for "significant coverage" is coverage in reliable sources. Blogs, web petitions, and other self-published sources do not demonstrate the significance of anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

Good work with the vandalism prevention :), also, congrats on reaching 20,000 edits :0 - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's amazing!! Congratulations. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Irwin Anglican School

Please, I need you to not delete my edit, I put names of people involved, and they want me to take it off, and can you please remove their names from the Wikipedia page, thankyou. (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from Bali

Hi. I just saw Pixelface's allegation and commented there that it is not the case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling I wasn't you. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism mistake on Cassini oval

In trying to clean up vandalism, you appear to have accidentally reverted to a bad revision here. I've fixed it. Kingdon (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

carlton hayes

Hi Some Guy,

Sorry to bother you again. I can't seem to change Carlton Hayes to Carlton J.H. Hayes at the top. Any way to do that.

Found the citation you wanted -- it TOO is in the Columbia Encyclopedia.

Duanetucker (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can accomplish this by moving the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess he/she is not autoconfirmed yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, yes. More than two days in the future, when you are autoconfirmed...Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Check out the new admin school, then get to work! Good luck, and have fun. BencherliteTalk 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice one! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well done! Welcome to the new admin's club! --GedUK  20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I just logged for the first time today and noticed an extra link in my toolbox...thanks guys. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats. And an fyidiff — you may want maintain the clarity of the RfA archive. Cheers, Jack Merridew

My apologies

I'm sorry for thinking that you might possibly be the user Jack Merridew. I was wrong. I sincerely apologize.

Congratulations on becoming an admin. --Pixelface (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. And thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread at WP:ANI about Pixelface's behaviour in this matter. Reyk YO! 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/akash vedi

Hello, I just wanted to know your putting this article on hold. It seems this is pretty applicable for a decline, seeing as there aren't any sources, and there's really no assertion of notability, or evidence of notability. FingersOnRoids 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacarandaa. FingersOnRoids 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to keep adding on...but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garrett Forbes. FingersOnRoids 01:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Just giving them a chance, really. It was my observation from about ~1000 speedy taggings that 0.5-1.0% of obvious A7 candidates turn up good sources later on. I think it's reasonable to give the submitters 24 hours to demonstrate whether their submissions are in that 1%, but I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone who closed them early or immediately. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. I was just curious what your thinking was. I usually just decline nominations with no 3rd party sources and no coverage from a google search after an hour or so, because nominators can resubmit articles any number of times, and add more sources with the resubmissions. But I suppose that unless there's a major backlog, it's a matter of preference. Regards, FingersOnRoids 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit - I've declined the articles because they have been on hold for more than 24 hours. FingersOnRoids 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Right. For some reason I've just been feeling exceptionally generous lately. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

eten entry

Dear Someguy1221 I am the chair of the board of ETEN - European TEacher Education Network, as you can see thriugh this link . We are trying to write an entry about ETEN in wikipedia. Please undelete what you deleted. Thank you, José Portela PS We are new using this fantastic tool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseportela (talkcontribs) 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it read like a piece of advertising for the network, instead of a neutral encyclopedic article. Any article on Wikipedia should read as it is portrayed in reliable sources (mainstream newspapers, magazines, etc.) and not like a press release from the article's subject. I should also let you know that individuals are strongly discouraged from writing about organizations they work for. While you're welcome to have another try at writing the article, it will probably be deleted if it has the same problems as the one that I deleted, which I am not restoring. If you'd like, however, I could restore it in your userspace so you can try to make it more acceptable. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How I can create an Article

We are a company and we want to know how we could get ourselves on WikipediaMassivemedia (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You can get yourselves on Wikipedia when someone writes a neutral article about you that references reliable sources. Articles that read like press releases or official websites will continue to be deleted. You are strongly discouraged from writing about your own company. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, if you insist, but continued creation of articles that appear to be corporate spam may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at WacoJacko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Gay Marriage Thing [hangon]

Thank you - I didn't realize there was a difference between flagged and speedy deletion. I have added a bunch of references and continue to add to the page. Though I had previous such entries as well as links from other pages - someone removed those, thereby causing me to get a warning that I didn't have links to the page! Kind of crazy. How can I add links to the entry, if someone keeps going behind me and deleting them? They are valid links.

Specifically, this documentary was added to the Documentaries and Literature section of the Same Sex Marriage page as it is entirely legitimate next to the others listed. But for some reason, the link has been removed. This film entry could not be more appropriate for the Same Sex Marriage entry. It is confusing and frustrating do be doing the work over and over again, with no valid reason for removal in the first place.

I appreciate your explanation very much on the hangon tag. I was just panicked that all my work would disappear without just cause. Millies (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the link was removed. You should discuss that with TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs), the editor who removed the link. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Weston

You posted a message about a revision I made to Gabriel Weston's entry claiming that saying her book had been critically acclaimed is non-neutral. This is not correct - it is a statement of fact and it is a necessary statement of fact to establish the notability of the article about her - because if her book had been critically panned, it wouldn't be worth writing about her would it? Given that she is a new author, it is necessary to establish that her debut novel was critically acclaimed which it was.

Replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your response - point taken about notability. But you are wrong to say that my claim of wide acclaim for the work is a matter of personal opinion: it's not. If a book receives universally good reviews in national newspapers, it's fair to record that it received wide critical acclaim isn't it? How else are Wikipedia articles supposed to report the critical success or otherwise of artistic works. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines to suggest that one should not record critical acclaim of a work when that is the factual case, and there must be numerous legitimate Wiki articles about a range of subjects, from music to art, that record critical success or critical failure. It is perfectly good practice to indicate that a surgeon who then became a successful author did so because her first book was an critical success. That is not personal opinion, it's a matter of public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Exore Gaming

Hey,thanks for the page and the information on what to do on companies. I will now try to find a good site that can give a good amount of information. Thanks Again, Winner11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner11 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Telephone Number In Edit Summary

An editor just posted a person's telephone number in an edit summary: -WarthogDemon 06:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)



Just wanted to understand what notability means in simple english? There are a lot of articles on companies and people in wikipedia.

Thanks, Rahul —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, notability usually means that a company or person has been described by multiple reliable sources. Typical reliable sources are newspapers, magazines, etc. Put very simply, a company is probably notable if it's been the subject of multiple newspaper or magazine articles, and press releases don't count (not that that's the only way to be notable). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Exore Gaming Article

Ok, I used the comapany site and got a quote from the CEO. Please look at my page and tell me if more information is needed.If ok then could you help me post it on a page :) Thanks Much, Winner11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner11 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article still fails the notability guideline because it doesn't cite any secondary sources. The company's website is OK for some facts, but it doesn't demonstrate that the company is notable. Doing that requires sources like newspaper articles, magazine articles, or reviews of the company from one of the more WP:reliable websites like CNet. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Response Exore Gaming Article

Ok, so do you think I should surf the web and look for another source to get information from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner11 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. Although I see that very few sources are likely to exist. I don't mean this as any offence to your company, but it's possible the proper sources simply don't exist. And articles on such companies are uniformly deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I received a message that my entry on InNOVAcorp was advertising and it was deleted. See note below. This was not intentional.

We (I am the president and CEO of InNOVAcorp learned that there was a Wikipedia entry on "Crown Corporations" which included InNOVAcorp. Rather than leave it empty I entered our basic corporate factual information.

While I am more than open to entering Wiki data properly, I would like to ensure that any information entered is factual.

Please let me know how to best proceed.

Dan... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmacdonald100 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 30 March 2009

The article was deleted because it read like advertising (like a press release or official website), regardless of your intention (see Wikipedia:Spam for more information). As to the other issues, not every Crown Corporation is automatically notable. Only those companies that have received coverage from multiple reliable sources (typically major news sources) will have articles. If these sources don't exist, the article will be deleted no matter how it sounds. Also, you are strongly discouraged from writing about your own company. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fall of Envy

I created a article on a band and it was marked for speedy deletion but the band The "Fall of Envy" has notability Proof is Recently, Fall of envy was named the official band of the XFC (Xtreme Fighting Championship). Their track, “For You,” was chosen to be the theme song for the XFC’s nationally televised MMA series, scheduled to premiere in the spring of 2009, with exposure to roughly 80,000,000 TV viewers. They have also played in main events such as House of Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondasc12 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanford housing Co-operative

Hi, I cannot understand why you would delete this page with out allowing me to reply to your comments. Can you please undelete this page and allow us time to address any problems you have with it?

As for copyright, I understand you 'cannot take my word for it', however, I have emailed my permission, and I would be able to put a licence on if it is needed. You can clearly see from the supposed infringing material (a few paragraphs of the 'about us' section of a small, non-profit making social housing project) that it is unlikely that the copyright holder would take immediate action if it turned out that an infringement had indeed taken place.

As for notability, again, perhaps you could have just left a note, at least for the first 24 hours, which would have given us time to put some references in. We have had articles published about it many times in the local press, as well as in the national press, government and sites such as

Sustainability award for Sanford Housing Co-operative

South London Street Goes Green


Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the comment which I put on the discussion page was wrong, maybe a page shouldn't exist about this place on wikipedia, about one of the few places in the whole of the UK, and London's oldest purpose built housing co-op, which is pioneering low carbon technology, which has won awards for this and for which there's loads of other interesting and useful information.

Or maybe we were just supposed to immediately create the fully finished page, with out using any previous work in case the copyright police attacked.

I'm sorry if I'm starting to ramble like a internet-nutter, but your actions just seem a bit unreasonable.

Maybe you can tell me where I went wrong so I don't fuck up again?

Magic teacup (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion isn't as bad as a lot of people think it is. It's just hidden from view, not gone forever. If the article is going to be rewritten sans copyrighted material, then you'd have to have deleted your original work anyway. And if your permissions have been received by OTRS or posted on the website, you can ask the responding OTRS member or another administrator to restore the deleted article. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Resource request

If it's not too much trouble, that really would be fantastic. But if a quick skim of the article(s) doesn't help with the dates when he started or left Oxford, don't bother scanning. I'm trying to plug as many missing dates as possible at List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Mathematics, medicine and science, hence my request. Regards, BencherliteTalk 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


hey, you deleted my javaBeats.FM wiki. How is it any different from other internet radio station wikis? I really want to create one for the site so please let me know what I need to change about it so you wont delete it again! thanks.

The main problem with the article was the complete lack of evidence of notability. Even if the minor advertisingish language had been fixed, the article still would have been deleted on these grounds. The best way to demonstrate notability is to provide citations to multiple reliable sources. Merely existing on the web and being used does not entitle a website to a Wikipedia article. If other articles on internet radio stations suffer from the same problems, they should be deleted too, unless those sources can be found. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Express blatant advertising

I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia contributor, but as the founder of the Blind Pig, did do some necessary editing to the Blind Pig article over the weekend. This led me to attempt to create an article for my company, Coffee Express. I have a history that is certainly noteworthy in coffee, both locally and nationally. I attempted to spell that out in the article, but I'm probably not using a proper template or format, as it was deleted for blatant advertising. I protest. Perhaps you wouldn't mind advising me. Thanks.

Coffeetom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeetom (talkcontribs) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Coffeetom (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Coffeetom

If the history of your company is nationally noteworthy, then you should demonstrate it by providing those reliable sources that have actually taken note of it. I would have happily fixed any advertising language if any real suggestion of notability had been present, the lack of which was enough to deleted the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC) - deleted

Hi - this page has been deleted recently which was created by me. I had placed the tag {{hangon}} on my page itself. Please guide me

You didn't create the page; you copy-pasted another website over the page that was already there. This is called a copyright violation, and it's something that is forbidden on Wikipedia. The article was deleted instead of being returned to the version before you edited it because it contained no assertion of notability, or any reasonable assertion of importance or significance. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ask a new question if you want more guidance. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Express Article

I'd like to continue work on the article that was deleted. I can build upon it in my user space so that it can be reviewed. I will work on sources, as there are some. Here are some tips by another user:

You can go to the deleting admin's talk page and ask for a copy, or you can go to WP:AN and ask there for a copy of your deleted article to be restored in your userspace. Make sure you name exactly what article you want restored to save the admins some confusion. As I said, if I could I would restore it for you to work on, but I am just a normal editor and not an admin. Good luck. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you restore the article, as written so far, to my userspace? Thanks.

Coffeetom (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Coffeetom

I've restored it to User:Coffeetom/Coffee Express Co. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Please see: Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjava (talkcontribs) 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


why didu delete the article manchulapoopandian

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagakumaran (talkcontribs) 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#A7. Articles containing no assertion of notability or importance are not entitled to an article. In other words, you and your friends don't get articles just because you exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Please don't be fooled by his edit summaries. The source I provoded on Phil Gartside is pretty clear that he is irish. All Bolton fans know the club are nicknamed the Trotters. Lots of Bolton fans consider the club to be a Lancashire club, hence his removal of Greater Manchester from the article. Bolton Wanderers are based in the Borough of Bolton, which is in Greater Manchester. This is no content dispute, is clearly a misinformation troll/vandal. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a veritable faucet of AGF ;-) though I'm inclined to believe you. And vandal or not, TruthTM warriors with no respect for discussion or sources have no place on Wikipedia, hence the block. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please block his latest sock IP as well? Special:Contributions/ Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 22:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You can ask another admin via AIV to block him, but I'm inclined not to as long as he's only editing his user talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And Fisher blocked him anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete kviar?

'why did you delete the kviar article? because it was deleted last YEAR? that means that if an article is deleted some day in the past it will NEVER be allowed again? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talkcontribs) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was deleted one day or one year ago, the consensus that appears at an AFD never expires. If you wish to challenge that consensus, you can go to deletion review. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

sounds like the page that very page says "While not forbidden, this is rarely helpful." agreed! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talkcontribs) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That requires you to selectively ignore the actual agreement that exists amongst seven editors, myself included, that the article should not exist in the given form. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

well, if the article should not exist "in the given form" then there must be a proper "form" for it right? what is the consensus amongst the 7 editors then to put this in that proper form? :) Galonga (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The form that is written from and cites significant coverage in reliable sources. If you're going to have another go at this, I'd suggest you do it in your userspace, and then suggest the new version at deletion review. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the article had enough quality links? Also, the form resembles a lot other articles such as amazon etc. but hey thanks for the advice I´ll do that and post here once I´m done :) Galonga (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Augusto Valverde

Nice to meet you. I noticed that you deleted my Wikipedia Bio. I currently host a National Television Program called "La Tijera" which airs every day in all the United States from 6 to 7pm, so I believe that qualifies me to have a Wikipedia entry. I am attaching a link for some interviews I've done, but you if you google my name then you'll be able to see various Television appearances and commercials: I would appreciate it very much if you could re-instate my entry, or if you could explain to me how to do so. I am relatively new to this medium but I am well aware of its importance. My website is and if you "" me you'll see over 14 commercials I've done for brands such as Domino's Pizza, South West Airlines etc. Thank you!

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 
Articles only exist on individuals who are notable. That means that the person has received significant coverage from reliable sources, or that he meets one of the following criteria. In the absence of reliable sources, television personalities are generally only considered notable if they have had lead roles in multiple television programs. Commercials don't count for anything, unless they have generated the same significant coverage described above. You're also strongly discouraged from writing about yourself. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Someguy1221/Archive 2".