User talk:SpuriousQ/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello SpuriousQ/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Y0u (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 June 2005.

Meg Griffin

The reason I reverted your edit, which may not have been you directly but there was a spoiler in there for the DVD and I removed it since the DVD hasn't come out yet. Misterrick 20:51, 08 August 2004 (UTC).

ALSOS and CSLI

No problem. Thank you for reporting them. Niteowlneils 02:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Great catch on Simons

Thanks -- that went right over my head. I'm going to redo the Witten quote in a moment. Not a revert, but a recasting of the sentence. Paul Klenk

Mathematics and God

Glad to discuss. Will take it up on the talk page there. --KSmrq^T 03:25, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

DikuMUD

Thank you very much for your response! It was terribly frustrating that Aug. 25 - Sep. 2 didn't get a response from anyone at all, when I'm sure a bunch of people are interested in Diku. I hate having to put "this is misleading" right next to link titles and stuff, but kinda have to if nobody more familiar with the subject is gonna do it. I also like your most recent edit. Atari2600tim 12:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sturmgrenadier AfD

I'm dropping you this note, as I've seen you vote on some gaming articles that were up for deletion and you probably have an interest. Recently, the article for Sturmgrenadier met with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmgrenadier (2nd nomination). I would appreciate your input on the article and comments on the AfD page, whether you see fit to retain it or delete it. --Habap 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Los Gatos High School 9/11 victims

Thanks for restoring the links to the 9/11 victims I reverted... oops! I didn't realize they were 9/11 "notables". Some editors try to add links to all victims of 9/11, whether they were notable or not. While all the deaths are tragic, we don't need articles on all of the victims. But these two, of course, do deserve mention. Thanks for restoring the entries and the expanding their descriptions. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that was what had happened. -SpuriousQ 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

fast and easy IQ test

Why can't I link to my IQ test? isn't that what the external links section is for? wiki can't do dynamic applications. Shoudn't an Free Online IQ Test be available from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ? The site is non profit. If you are worried about the advertisments I will remove them apon request? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.3 (talk • contribs)

Responded to on user's talk page. -SpuriousQ 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi SpuriousQ and welcome to WikiProject Chess‎. If I/we can help you there, let me/us know on my/project's talk page. In my opinion, the most important task now is to lead the root article Chess through the FAR process - so if you wish to help there, you are very welcomed. Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look and help as I can. -SpuriousQ 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

Actually, while I normally wouldn't mind the help keeping the spam out, that link contains some useful information concerning the upcoming (Tuesday) DVD release. So I'm going to bring it back, at least temporarily, as a reference. Daniel Case 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right, thanks for letting me know. -SpuriousQ 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Public Radio Interview

Hi there,

My name is Neille and I'm a producer with a national public radio show called Weekend America. We want to do a story on the fine line between an individual who deserves an entry on Wikepedia and one who doesn't. As someone who's weighed in on the issue, I was hoping you might be able to chat over the phone for a few minutes.

We're a conversational show and want to have a relatively laid-back discussion about what goes on in Wikipedia, just to let you know that this isn't a debate-type show where we encourage fighting or negativity.

If you're up for it, or if you have any questions, you can e-mail me at nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org to set something up.

[http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/ ] Thanks! Neille

Neille i 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Resizing

Hi Spurious, The image resizing does look much better in most cases. For example check out Albert Einstein and Carolus Linnaeus. The visual quality is much better at this size. No one has complained yet (except you :-) However, if graininess is your concern please let me know which ones look too grainy and I'll ensure that I upgrade the photo. No problem. Will fix. bunix 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey bunix, thanks for getting back to me. It looks like in the minority here— I suppose I just prefer images not to be stretched beyond their original. By upgrade the photo, do you mean touch it up or resize it back down? Joseph Fourier is particularly grating to me, do you agree? -SpuriousQ 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Humphry Davy is one of the more grainy ones. -SpuriousQ 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that I will hunt down an alternative portrait that can take the resizing without looking grainy. I'll see if I can hunt down some super cool photos of Fourier and Davy. Thanks for the heads up. bunix 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Good luck! -SpuriousQ 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pineapple

I believed he was just blanking the page, since he removed several other points of information while modifying the other phrase. --Nehrams2020 08:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that he did that, but it doesn't seem like blatant vandalism to me. He might have been clearing what he felt were nonnotable trivia items. I would have gone for a less strong message, is all. :-) -SpuriousQ 08:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When I see blanking of information without an edit summary, which is common for IP addresses, I usually assume that it is for vandalism. I see what you're saying about the warning, but again, I initially thought he was just deleting information to draw focus to the whole "benefits of pineapples". Anyway, thanks for watching out and letting me know, I'll take more caution in the future. --Nehrams2020 08:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics and God

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mathematics and God, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Mathematics and God. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 10:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Germanium

Thank you SpuriousQ. It's not orginal research.

• Thank you again for your concern and appreciation SpuriousQ. The source is everywhere. Sincerely, Germanium

Douglas Dedge

My bad on the removals, at first I was thinking something else was cited... brain fart, reverted my edit Thesaddestday 13:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem... let me know if something could be more clear. -SpuriousQ 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad Religion

“ No big deal, but you fixed a typo in quoted text. I cannot access the source of the quotation at the moment, but given the other bad grammar, it seems probable that the original text contained the typo. Thus, I've reinstated the typo and added [sic] to it. -SpuriousQ 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ”

Good idea. I will keep an eye out for quotes in my future editing. Would you suggest that instead of correcting the typo in the quotes I just add [sic] by the word? Regards.

Wiki Raja 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

“ Yep, that's what I tend to do, after verifying the typo is in the original. If there are many errors you can also just put the [sic] at the end, or write some note to that effect (see for example [1]) -SpuriousQ 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ”

Thanks. Wiki Raja 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc

I forget now what page I was editing but the section I removed seemed to come directly from a commercial site and it was added above a normal article intro. I hope this helps.

OK. I was talking about this comment. Does the article look okay now? -SpuriousQ 23:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, now it's the way it should be. 68.119.66.223 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtual-OS

Greetings SpuriousQ, thank you for your interest in Virtual-OS and the recent events that led to our submission of this info to wikipedia. As mentioned in the article the open source distribution of the framework has currently been suspended. Perhaps I did not make the reasons for this or the circumstances surrounding the events totally clear in the article and would appreciate your help to clarify the article.

The software was initially released for closed beta testing with public distribution of the script in August 2006. Regardless of a liability of fitness disclaimer the online windowed desktop emulator was implemented on several sites that contained sensitive user data. In December 2006 an exploit was found in the application which resulted in the compromise of these sites, potential release of private information and defacement, which subsequently reported to press in Toronto, ON.

The (very one sided) article "How Safe is Your Private Information on the Web" was ran in The Mississauga News in the first week of December 2006 which basically (IMHO) held Virtual-OS and the developers personally responsible for the incident and attributed interactive websites to the lost of personal security on the internet. This sensational article was picked up and briefly reiterate on ChumTV CityNEWS the main televised newsfeed for the Toronto area (link provided).

This resulted in an out break of copy-cat attacks on our main server which really was endangering the safety of private info. The server is currently operating in a limited "safemode" and distribution channels for the script archive has been restricted to limit further exploits of live beta sites that have opted to continue testing regardless of the vulnerabilities. These sites have been patched to a reasonable degree, and several other Virtual-OS beta sites are running in a safemode CMS configuration.

The security issues should be fully addressed and resolved by February 1st and distribution of RC 1 will continue free of charge from SourceForge.net. This is a free MIT / X11 style licensed PHP Application / framework, and in no way do we intended to sound like we are advertising this as a commercial product, Virtual-OS is the result of the collaborative volunteer efforts of over a dozen people. The main intent of this article is to address the security issue from a neutral point of view, to address recent negative media attention from mainstream news sources in a non-objective environment and to provide basic information about the features and potential application of this framework.

I understand that you may not be familiar with this product or events but feel free to contribute to the article presentation to help bring it up to what you feel would be a more appropriate standard. As the developer of the product, and the focus of much public scrutiny it is difficult for us to maintain a totally non-objective point of view. Please help us to improve this article.

Thank you for your efforts.

Kind Regards,

AdvancedWebhosting 08:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed information. My main concern with the article is that it does not cite any reliable sources. There was one news link, but the article it was pointing to was removed. Searching Google, LexisNexis, Newsbank, etc. I can find no significant mentions of Virtual-OS. If sources can be found we can fix the article to not read like an advertisement, but without them, it won't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -SpuriousQ 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Notability (Web) guidelines. WP:WEB. Articles have been release in multiple formats from various reliable independent sources. I believe (but could be mistaken, so please forgive if I'm wrong) whether or not summations of these articles are currently available online is a mute point, I can provide an exact reference for the periodic literature, at which point I believe the prodding of this issue should halt.(?)

While I'm surprised (and delighted) that the defamatory CityNews article summary has been removed in such a short time, the original newspress release is still available via library archive and may also be available in online archive (i.e. way back machine). Once again I may be misunderstanding the WP:WEB guideline incorrectly but this seems to me to be a valid "Reference" given that the content of the article addresses the site/application directly, I will provide the reference as soon as possible in the following format: Lastname, Author "Title of Article" Publisher, Issue. Date.

I apologize for not having this information available for your immediate attention.

Either way I'm not too worried, if it comes to an RfD please recommend userification over deletion if that's your final decision, as I'm sure Virtual-OS will be back in the news (and on Wikipedia) in a more positive manner soon enough. In the grand scheme of things this has been a relatively minor situation, so I can understand your concerns from an altruistic encyclopedic nature.

Although I do strongly believe these current developments in future technology which have been the focus of media attention should take precedent (in regards to WP:NP/WEB) over the piles of trivial humor, parody and fiction that I've encountered here. At very least Wikipedia has given us a temporary soapbox to convey, "we're not the root of identity theft on the web, our software has function." AdvancedWebhosting 10:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. Appreciate it! - Alison^✍ 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -SpuriousQ 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever SpuriousQ doesn't like is spam.

But what he does to remove it is clearly vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.252.203 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Convention Planner

I don't really see how the two links You removed fall under the guide-lines You refer to. I think they're appropriate (But I'm not interested in a revert war, so I'm just asking You to reconsider). Kdammers 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kdammers, thanks for your concern. I did reconsider, but I still stand by my decision. The first link, to a directory of party planning companies, seems low quality and "spammish", e.g., go here [http://www. 123-party .com/Videographer/] and view a few states and you will find most of them are empty and have strange links in "Related Categories" to unrelated pages. The second link was added by a user who was spamming Wikipedia with links solely to sites owned by "Prism Business Media" and thereby violates "Links mainly intended to promote a website." I navigated around and it also seems low quality and spammish with strange links like "What is your terrorist risk rating". Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is what this link provides. -SpuriousQ 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve Parkinson

Hi SpuriousQ - can you let me know what's missing from the BIO on Steve Parkinson? I included references to Superior Software and Electron User magazine. What more can I do? Do I need to send scans? Note I also have a link on the SuperiorInteractive.com website, run by Richard Hanson (CEO of Superior Software) Let me know and i'll be happy to make the updates.

Also, on Draughts, why remove the link to a place where you can play the game for free?

Many thanks, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.190.207 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your message Steve. Are you Steve Parkinson himself? If so, you should have a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Editing articles about yourself is generally discouraged. But if you create an account, the content could be suitable on your user page.

To provide a source, you don't need to scan anything in, just provide information that would allow other people to find the source, e.g., the publication, date, page number, etc. See WP:CITE for more information about that.

The larger problem is that this person just doesn't appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. I couldn't find independent non-trivial works about him.

As for Draughts, we try to keep external links to an absolute minimum, Wikipedia is not a link farm. -SpuriousQ 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PH

hey... I wasn't deleting, I just thought the content should be in chronological order :) --Jennica 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't revert you, someone else did, perhaps because they thought the same thing as me. That's why you should use an edit summary :-) -SpuriousQ 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the tip! I did use them and sorry I didn't sign with my name! --Jennica 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New warning

My bad, i thought that was an old one. That article has been receiving a lot of spam links. - Ocatecir 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No biggie, just wanted to make sure. -SpuriousQ 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yelloone

Thanks for your contributions Yelloone. However, I'm worried that some of them are copyright violations. The articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Justin&oldid=104329187 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Witkin&oldid=100519825, at the time you created them, appear to be obituaries that were perhaps slightly changed. How did you go about creating them? The people they are about easily pass WP:BIO so I definitely agree that there should be Wikipedia articles about them, but we have to ensure that all content here is free and licensed under the GFDL. -SpuriousQ 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Bob Justin is not a copy of anything, but rather a compilation of information from numerous sources set forth in the Sources section of the article. The Witkin article is also a compilation of information from the Sources listed in the article and is not a violation of copyright, and its also been edited by someone else after I posted it in any case. The Adam Maxwell article you mentioned in the earlier post, is largely a copy, though not completely, however the website it comes from is not copyrighted, and in any case I wrote that article several years ago as well (from the written source mentioned in the Sources on both pages), and the article is not a copy of anything in the written source. Trust me, I'm a writer AND a lawyer, copyright law is not something I take lightly. I will repost that one. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelloone (talk • contribs)

Thanks for clearing this up, Yelloone. When I see a pretty complete article added off the bat, red flags go off :-). It makes sense that you're a writer. If I understand your comment correctly, you created the content at http://members.aol.com/tjoschultz/maxwell.html? Next time you use content from one of your sites, you should put a note on the talk page that you are the owner and agree to license it under the GFDL. Otherwise, it will look like a copyright violation. Hope this helps. -SpuriousQ 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NP and Thanks - Y1

External link for Estudiantes de La Plata

If you want to enforce the guideline meaning that fan site removal is OK, please do same for Gimnasia y Esgrima de La Plata. I won't be happy if the removal is one-sided. elpincha 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the link yourself. I just remove inappropriate links as I see them. -SpuriousQ 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic reviews

Hi, I've seen Sputnikmusic reviews being removed from multiple album articles (you did so in Coming Home (album)), and I was wondering if there was some kind of consensus on that matter? I mean, it's always difficult to decide what's a professional review and what's not, but since the webzine does have some degree of notability (it has its own article after all) and the review itself says "staff review" (instead of user-submitted review), I thought listing it would be alright. Just checking. Have a great day, HarryCane 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Harry, thanks for your message. I had examined Sputnikmusic, and it was pretty clear to me the site wouldn't hold up as a reliable source, since it's all user-created content. I was not aware they had a staff different than the general user base, but it still seems pretty weak. I know what you mean about distinguishing professional reviews, but if the site's opinions held more credibility, you would see significant mention in the mainstream media. My search on news databases like LexisNexis and NewsBank returned only one hit for Sputnikmusic, and it was merely one particularly witty quotation from a single review. In contrast, other independent websites like Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide get tons of non-trivial hits and have clearly established themselves as notable critics. I'm certainly open to hearing other opinions though. -SpuriousQ 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MMA

I removed a section in the mma artice because it was an attack on a few fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.104.231 (talk • contribs)

Hm, I can see why you would feel that way. The section is a bit biased, but I certainly think it is salvageable and does not need to be removed outright. I would suggest you post your concerns on the article's talk page and work toward a consensus. I may do so myself if I get a chance.

In the future, when deleting content that is not blatantly inappropriate, you should be sure to include an edit summary or write on the talk page to explain your intentions; otherwise people might think you are maliciously vandalizing the page! -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just gone ahead and removed the fighters from the section, and posted something on the talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure why I deleted the reference to seattle IP, but I think I just wasn't sure where to put it. Non of us are the final word on MMA, especially regarding our adopted slang. And even now I can think of a few more facts regarding the developement of the term LNP that are occuring to me but I think it would just cloud the overall issue. I also appreciated you additions and corrections to what I started with, good stuff. With all of our help we can make this article worthy of Wiki "featured article" bro. -thunderlippps

Reverting vandalism

Thanks, I'll pay more attention next time. RB972 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, happy vandalism hunting :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch

Sorry I missed that one. It upsets me that someone would vandalize Barack Obama like that. Ronbo76 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No worrries. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You Reverting My Ellen Degenres Edit

I have written to explain why I edited the Ellen Degenres article with such bluntness and simplicity. I felt that the public--nay, the world--should not have to read all of that other stuff. All they need to know is that she is a lesbian. As blunt and as simple as that. If you don't feel the same way then it's a problem that you have, not one that I have. And withhold from pretending that the information was not true, as it was. I merely made a revision to a segment of an article I felt needed revising, that most of the general public would not need to nor want to read. The whole theme of this site, its structure, the ground on which it stands, is that anyone can edit an article. I edited an article; you un-edited it. If this is the way things work, then please ask the site to mention that on the main screen..."Where anyone can edit...as long as we approve of and agree with what you think needs and needn't be edited."...yeah, that'll attract new members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weezerfan9591 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

If you're referring to this, I removed that because it was not sourced: see Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you're referring to this, that wasn't me, but Wikipedia works by building consensus, and if you seriously think that's how the section should read, feel free to make your arguments on the article's talk page. But I feel it is an untenable position, to say the least. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In Response to Your Statement Regarding My Statement

I feel that you wrote your response to my input in a spiteful manner. I do not appreciate the tone in which you responded. I mean, I know I wrote to you in a kind of mean manner, but please, have some professionality with these kinds of things. And, back to my first input, what gives you the authority to edit my edit in the name of Wikipedia. I mean, it would be alright if you did it even just to make me angry...but to do it in the name of Wikipedia. Man, where's your balls? You're pathetic. I'll have you know, I'm changing the whole article. So, in a more elementary manner--Nanny Nanny Boo Boo, Stick Your Head in Doo Doo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezerfan9591 (talk • contribs)

J.R Writer

Check The Sound Scan.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.19.196 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Responded on your talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC

Why?

I don't understand why i was warned when it's a known fact that Stephen Colbert has tripled the population of African elephants. I don't appreciate you're wiki-fascism and threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenade380 (talk • contribs)

OK. Don't you think this joke is a little old? -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

You say i'm not siting sources? I don't see any online links that support the idea that Corcoran is of British origin in the wikipedia article. Here this proves that Corcoran is of Irish descent- http://www.irishgen.com/surnames/details.asp?surname_id=1048 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenade380 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Mea culpa, looks like you're right. But in the future, I'd suggest using an edit summary or citing a source with your change so it doesn't appear, as it did to me, that you're just arbitrarily changing the article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

121.44.148.27

Why did you revise the last Steve Vizard edit. It was not POV, butfully supported by a judgment of a Victorian County Court. A Court judgment I might add visard has not appealed against. Do you actually know anything about Australian current affairs? Perhaps you should stick to the topics of which you have some knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.148.27 (talk • contribs)

I did this because it was blatant POV. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Utongmar's talk page

Anytime. I am fairly new to this so I have people editing away my cock-ups frequently! Jules1975 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stories from East High

Thanks for rv'ing for me. :P Graphitesmoothie 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that bot has some other incorrect edits and needs a bit of ironing out... -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Thanks for the revert of 213.112.237.191's vandalism on my userpage, and the AIV report on them. I really hate the type of vandalism they were engaged in, changing/removing information. I much prefer dirty words and random garbage, at least then it's perfectly clear that it's vandalism, and doesn't require research to make sure they're not just correcting old misinformation :) Again, thanks, and keep up the good work! —Krellis 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. That vandal was certainly more subtle than most until he exploded :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Britney

Ok, no problem. You're right. Dantadd 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mixed Martial Arts

Thanks for the help. I have added the full citation to the discussion page, let me know what you think, and I can move it onto the main page. --Clausewitz01 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra help, I have added the book under the "Main References" Section. --Clausewitz01 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

John Prescott

Mate,

John Prescott really is a prize chump - perhaps you are american and don't know him. I see no harm in pointing this out in non-foul language. Please do not threaten me with being blocked from Wikipedia unless you have some proper cause. Moreover, please explain to me your authority for making such a threat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.189.107 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The harm is that it violates WP:NPOV. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your persistent anti-spam efforts (particularly against today's "hometown" spammer) and your quick and accurate reports at AIV, I award you this anti-vandalism barnstar. Keep up the great work! Kafziel Talk 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

66.215.11.144

ok then ake a page for this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.11.144 (talk • contribs)

Please see my comment on your talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:130.94.107.248

This one is a barrel of laughs, eh? Why the HELL haven't they processed the block request yet!?!? Cornell Rockey 02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm sure someone will get to it eventually :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

hey

hey! and why do you intend to block me???? chulals amn cguro ka oi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryn mae (talk • contribs)

Responded on your talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from California Gold Rush

Thanks for helping protect this article from vandalism! NorCalHistory 06:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, that was pretty easy to spot :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry for spam

thats be a last time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.33.217.150 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

No worries. Why not create an account? -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobininer84

EDIT IT BACK THE WAY YOU WANT TO GENIUS!! DON'T EVER USE THAT LANGUAGE EVER AGAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobininer84 (talk • contribs)

See my response on your talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: SelketBot

I just noticed SelketBot tagging talk pages today; it's doing a very nice and useful job. Thanks for writing it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the support. I'm still hammering a few bugs out (you just can never find them all until after you go live) so if you see a mistake, let me know. --Selket ^Talk 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)