User talk:Weregerbil

This user may have left Wikipedia. Weregerbil has not edited Wikipedia since since October 19, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, Weregerbil, 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 my talk page. Again, welcome! — Graibeard 12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IS group[edit]

Thank you for your concern about this item. The IS group is a serious group of intellectuals and scientists that has met for over 20 years to discuss issues of science, technology, and culture. It started at Haskins Laboratories and Yale University in New Haven. The topics discussed over the years at the group have had a profound influence on scientific directions of those who attend the group and their related research groups and institutions. The website that began recently documenting the group's activities is not run by me and I have no control over its content. However, the light-hearted approach that it takes (humour, references to beer, etc.), are intended to reflect the spirit of the "IS group" which is a light-hearted one. Although the group deals with serious issues of science and technology, it tries not to take itself too seriously. However, it is not simply a chat and beer drinking group (though there is nothing wrong with that), and has as much credibility as other groups documented on Wikipedia. The item was added because numerous requests have been received over the years about the group (which is informal) and about how informal groups such as this have helped to shape the history of science. As indicated in its description, recent books have begun to document such informal history of science. It is important to add to the encyclopedic documentation of such history by providing information about this and other similar groups where and when possible. Wikipedia is already doing so and plays an important role in interactive documentation of history and science. The "IS group", and others such as "The Reality Club" the "Homebrew Computer Club" are an essential part of the history of science and technology. I am member, chair, or fellow of a number of reputable scientific societies. I founded this group many years ago and continue to participate in its activities. My credibility and seriousness as a scientist can be sourced and established on Wikipedia and in other documented locations, including journals, news stories, websites, etc. I strongly feel that documenting such groups helps our understanding of the informal networks that create the intricate tapestry of our current approaches to science, technology, and culture. This is what Wikipedia is about. Ddp224 13:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to your comment at Oklahoma, I believe it passes the test and as a consequence I've removed it. Very few external links are useful, and unless we're ruthless linkspam will only devalue wikipedia. If you have any doubts as to a users intention it pays review their current contributions, in this case that's mostly what they had been adding in their previous edits (as well as spamming their favourite hungarian site to Linux). It's also worth reviewing their edits to continue the clean up process. Keep up the good work. — Graibeard 12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. «Weregerbil» kindly refrain from vandalising the Laval page or I will have to report you. History, and the TRUTH are permitted on Wikipedia. What I have added is legitimate, sorry you do not agree but that is TOO BAD for you.

John Adams for Rick Blatter

If you think I am vandalising, you know what to do (when you get unblocked). For any third parties reading this: check out the persistent Rick Blatter political spam on Laval, Quebec and make up your own mind. Weregerbil 12:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. «Weregerbil» kindly refrain from deleting section Different Security systems in the Security page because it is not spam and does not damage or effect the article in a negative way. If it does not seem fit because it is not complete, that is because I have not had time to finish with when you keep deleting it! It is perfictly legit and no one else is deleting it.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 198.166.48.219 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding "test" template was inserted due to a disagreement over external links in Security. It is my opinion that the links are spam. The two editors adding the links disagree: Ice-Evil (talk | contribs); 198.166.48.219 (talk | contribs). Diff showing links.

I suggest you actually try the links before making decisions. For if you had explored the links you would have found that they displayed a veraity of security systems and more would would be added to momentarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.48.219 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I don't know if you're really new or just a new user ID of an existing person but I see you're finding a whole bunch of vandalism. Nice job! You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism and follow those procedures to warn vandals and/or get them blocked.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about not sending a note for every one - but I still do. If for no other reason than to let them know it's been caught and reverted. Anyway, you know about Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism now so my job is done! Personally, I try not to get sucked into fighting vandalism because it's too addictive and, like you said, just feeds into more vandalism. There's so much, it could turn into a full-time job by itself.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It restored vandalism over a good version! - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've used Template:Spam on User talk:200.19.48.34 by copying the template text there, but doing so places the user's page under Category:User_warning_templates. Instead, you can use the template by typing {{subst:spam}} on that page. Regards. Shawnc 11:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for smiting all that link spam on the Spyware and Adware articles. Reyk 06:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my knowledge of the math has become a little rusty. You might try to ask Michael Hardy, who wrote a lot on Statistics. Cheers, J heisenberg 11:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an explanation of the following? On the article Primitive Baptist, an anonymous editor removed certain links, which I put back. They were removed again and I added them back. Later you removed them and added this note: "rv linkspam 'cleverly' hidden as 'rv POV edits". Would you please explain why these particular links are "linkspam"? It appears curious to me that external links that present the viewpoints of certain types of Primitive Baptists mentioned in the article have been left, while external links that present other views have been edited out.?? That seems point of view related to me, but perhaps I just don't understand. If there are better links that can be provided, I'm all for it. But if these are being edited because someone only wants one view of Primitive Baptists linked, there is something rotten in Denmark. Perhaps you did not check the history carefully. Perhaps I have no idea what "linkspam" is. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discrimination against Pastafarian religion is not a joke. --8bitJake 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I don't understand your policies.

I added a link to a new public website with Eastern European photos, ee-photo.com and you removed it, classifying it as spam. Am I missing something?

It is my new website, but it's not a personal website, it's a gallery with people being able to view and add photos. It's not a profit website, we have no advertising on the website. I have nothing to gain from it, so how is it spam?

I wanted to share the new website with people, so they can see photos of Eastern Europe, which is exactly why I added it. It's not false advertising, it's not spam. I think it's a perfectly legitimate link for Wikipedia users to use at their own leisure. What's wrong with that? And even if you disagree with me on that, I've seen so many other websites listed that are in the same position as mine, so why are they allowed to stay?

Thanks for your time, I'd appreciate a reply very much.

Sergei y 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why the ee-photo.com link was removed from the Eastern European article?

It's been removed recently by another person because they believed it was spam, and once I discussed it with them, they checked the Wiki Spam guidelines, apologozed and allowed me to put it back up. Now, you take it off once again. Sergei y 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote:

Actually, after reading Wikipedia:Spam, it looks like your links aren't considered spam, because they're not commercial. About talk pages, you can chose to either leave comments here or on my talk page. Once again, sorry about that. --Khoikhoi 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Sergei y 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand what's wrong with a link to photos? It's useful for the users. Plus, I've seen many other pages which have links to similar photo galleries.

Sergei y 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove it. I understand this is your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I've consulted other people, and the Wikipedia guidelines, and it isn't breaking any rules.

As for your comments:

- the article only has two links, it's not a link farm.

- I'm not saying that this page is the most important link for Eastern Europe, but unfortunately nobody has added any others. I think a photo gallery is a good resource for users who want to know more about Eastern Europe - "remember a picture says a thousand words". But I will try my best to find more good links for Eastern Europe.

Sergei y 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether you should remove completed (or redirected) entries from the list. I usually like to wait a couple of hours or a day until I remove a listing because somebody might be interested in the fate of the article. However, I think it is perfectly fine to remove an article that you have dealt with if you provide a decent edit summary. (I have done a lot of housekeeping at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English recently, and nobody has complained yet, so it seems to be okay). Happy editing, and thank you for your help! Kusma (討論) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schildt.a menat that the math-related articles that DYLAN LENNON have interwiki-linked to ja.wikiedia lately do not exist on the Japanese Wikipedia, not that the figures or the concepts that those articles are about do not exist at all. Saintjust 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that biographies that do not assert significance of the subject can be speedily deleted: WP:CSD. enochlau (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Weregerbil. Thankyou for removing the vandalism on my userpage. Regards, Blnguyen 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page, I very much appreciate it. Thanks for all your hard work. --Hansnesse 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for reverting (very quickly) the vandalism on eliminative materialism. I just don't understand why Wikipedia still accepts anonymous edits. --Kripkenstein 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

You should look again, I never removed, just moved it slightly. --210.54.12.72 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing everybody else here, thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism. -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're probably right, but I didn't look into it. I just saw that he was a new editor, and was doing some massive edit warring. I blocked for 24 hours, but if he continues, he'll get a longer block, and if he's someone else, he may be blocked indefinitely. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking after the article. User:GrahamDouglas appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Beucephalia, if it comes to banning. Choess 06:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weregerbil,

Listen, don't let yourself get too drawn into this argument with our friend Striver. He's just spinning his wheels. The article will be deleted once an admit gets a look at it. Arguing with him only fuels the fire. Thanks for your understanding. Bobby1011 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. I understand what you mean. I feel compelled to loose my civility and argue the point ad nauseaum, by it serves no real purpose. A the moment, he is the raving lunatic, and we're maintaining civility, which will go a long way for us. Your interpretation of the term Conspiracy theory is to my native english speaking knowledge correct. Don't worry about striver, he types horrid english.

By the way, what is your native language? Bobby1011 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you prodded Captain Useless, it was actually the second time it'd been prodded. So as a contested deletion I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Useless, if you'd like to comment. NickelShoe 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. My last change was to finish up a fix of a vandalism. Before that I improved the explanation of the serious meaning of the thought experiment. I did notice that the history was unusually hard to follow. Perhaps you miss-attributed something. David R. Ingham 21:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history does look like I restored the vandalism instead of the original link. I don't understand this, as I checked by following the link from "Show preview" before saving the edit. David R. Ingham 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to explain further. I mean no offense and I understand the points that you are making entirely, I just think it's superfluous to make statements like:

• "(no fair depicting Mohammed in your basket! Must wear a burqa when weaving outside!)"; and,
• "Are these people Muslims because they really are or because they live in countries where they are likely to be beheaded for not acting like one?"

I understand that these comments were made in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to bolster your argument, but some people may view these comments as being inflammatory, which is why I commented on civility. I note that this is the 2nd AfD on this page, with a related AfD on Muslim athletes that was very heated. No offense to you at all. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to, of course, but I noticed on User:Dragons flight/AFD summary that a bot counts bold "merge" "delete" etc. so if you want it to count them correctly, if you change a vote by striking it out (I saw you'd done this on one of Striver's hadith AfDs), you might want to also remove the 's. I made a suggestion on the talk page there that it make note of strikeouts, though. Esquizombi 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Details of a book on offshoring by Prof. Erran Carmel and Paul Tjia appear as references. Why not allow inclusion of Abstract of a new book by Mohan Babu "Offshoring IT Services : A framework for managing outsourced projects" (McGrawHill India) http://www.offshoringmanagement.com/theBook.htm?

Loved your comment ("may I have my nekkid girlz without spam please."). Made me burst out laughing. I've been removing some of the latest spam in the database section myself. Wanted to let you know that the second to last one you removed is actually not spam. I originally posted it because it is the only comprehensive adult image and movie database out there not dripping with ads. I've discussed this with other wikipedia editors and they agree. Even the rest that point to Wikipedia articles about sites are, in my opinion, spam, because they are blatantly commercial. But, I've left them alone. Thanks again for the laugh. Coolmojito 13:15, 14 March 2006 (PST)

This is not productive. Thank you. Rob Church 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your involvement in the discussion and your revision of the article creator's illegal closure of the AfD discussion, and I agree that reverting it was the right thing to do, but I'm curious how all this transpired in the first place. As you can see, the article has been deleted, so technically the discussion can't continue any longer (unless an administrator decides to restore it on the grounds of sabotage). What I would like to know is why an administrator deleted it in the first place. How could he or she not have noticed that: a) The article was closed by someone other than an administrator, and b) That the discussion was nowhere near the proper minimal closing date of five days after the start of the AfD discussion.

Furthermore, what do you think might have been the creator's motive for declaring Delete as the final decision? None of this makes much sense to me: the hoaxer willingly has his article which he has been fighting to keep for a while deleted, and an administrator wrongly and prematurely deleted the article for some strange reason.

Should we just leave the discussion as-is until an administrator sorts it out in a few days? --Spring Rubber 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your messages got shorter as you progressed through the Family Tree AfD's - did you get as bored as I did of seeing so many pointless articles? :P Green Giant 09:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, realize that the Canadian Army redirects to Land Forces, wondering what your reasoning was for removing the link. Just curious, as this link is the only practicable one that allows the reader to delve further into the Land Component/Army Bridesmill 16:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick lesson about placing external links and writing pages for inclusion. I've learnt that wikipedia (or weregerbil) allows:

Pages about commericial organisations but only if they are already large and well established (ie 'noted' X times on google) External commercial links if the page has text about the 'key term' on it (even if its a page of spammy text that isnt written well)

Some great resource though! Category:Sexual slang and I can see how many of these are deemed suitable whereas my page isn't.....no fun in looking up small software developers...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluidcreativity (talk • contribs)

You brought up an important question, other than being the great granddaughter of Theordore Roosevelt, what else qualifies Joanna Sturm as a candidate for a Wikipedia article?

• Wikipedia gives some guidance on "notability," saying the following:
• "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important."

• The subjects Theodore Roosevelt and his highly controversial daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth are subjects of intense historical scrutiny. In the past 30 years, no less than 20 major books have been written about TR. In the past 30 years, no less than 6 books have been written about Alice Roosevelt.

In virtually EVERY major work on EITHER of these Roosevelts, Sturm has a significan resource. As of the 21st Centurym she remains the most valuable living historic resource on Alice Roosevelt Longworth and as Alice is a significant player in 20th Century US history, in particular, women's history. And why, because, Joanna, in effect was raised by Alice as a semi-daughter from the age of 10. Joanna was a witness to and participant in the last 22 years of Alice's life. She was more than a normal daughter, she was Alice's almost constant companion and facilitarot.

Thus, Joanna was a key player in the life of the most famous presidential daughter in US history, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. And why - because Alice's relationship with Joanna was the ONLY 100% successful relationship in Alice's life. Joanna has made significant contributions to the making of the last 1/4 of Alice's life and the recording of Alice's story. Joanna was the main facilitator of Alice's famous interviews with Michael Teague over a period of more than five years that formed the basis of his book "Conversations with Mrs. L. which is Alice's only accurate auto-biography. She is pictured in that book in numerous pages. Indeed, the author thanked Joanna for making the interviews, themselves, and hence, the best "inside Alice's mind" book ever written and I've read every biography of Alice in or out of pring.

• Joanna also was the chief facilitator of Alice being able to finish these important interviews and, by her support of this woman, literally prolonged her life into her 96th year. Withouth Joanna, Alice would never have lived to age 90 and ended up forgotten in some DC area resthome. Joanna has "inside the Roosevelt family" view that only a literal handful of living Roosevelt family members have. You can count them on one hand! Joanna has provided information to virtually every Roosevelt biographer of the last 30 years.

She IS credited by virtually every TR biographer since 1970.

Why doesn't the world know more about this remarkable woman? I suspect the plain simple fact is, that Sturm is a modest woman and keeps a very low profile. That is her right. right. That fact of NOT looking for the proverbial spotlight is NOT grounds for an article on her being NOT notable. Do some research, editors.

• I will be footnoting this article to provide additional background information to establish the validity of this article. This process is very time-consuming, but I am starting on it ASAP.

Just because one of our esteemed editors may be unfamliar with Joanna Sturm is not grounds for removal. In the meantime, I welcome discussion on this issue. Thanks. SimonATL 08:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia also defines a notable biography as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Joanna Sturm falls precisely into this category.

Please go back to the Joanna Sturm article and see my expanded comments on Joanna Sturm's place as a collaborator and facilitator in the life of Alice Roosevelt and her contributions to virtually every Roosevelt historian in the last 30 years and to 20th Century Womens history. Thanks. SimonATL 10:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to bundle Purlieu (album) into the Second thought AfD.--Isotope23 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weregerbil, I am from the Welcoming Committee and in following up on some new users I saw that you and another had questioned the notibility/etc of a page created by a new user. The reason I am writing you is because I could not see link to the article's afd. I wanted to look into it and possibly enter my vote. Thankyou ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were not of my doing, and as a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I am being merely curious. Why are the recently removed music links on the Prefab Sprout, and The Blow Monkeys pages, considered to be spam ? I have seen other such links elsewhere.

Derek R Bullamore 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you marked MySpam as {prod} because the name was a protologism: I've now moved the article to social networking spam, since it seems to have some otherwise valid content, and removed the redirect from the protologism. Please let me know if you disagree with this. -- Karada 10:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across the term "invisible univeristy" as defined in the article I wrote when one of my freinds lent me the book Peak Learning by Richard Gross. I have since returned the book, but its Amazon listing contains the following text:

-Tap into the vast resources of THE INVISIBLE UNIVERSITY--the global network of learning opportunities that surrounds you.

What I did with the article was expand that definition slightly and provide an example of how the "invisible university" works in that context.

(By the way, that link was result number 21 on my Google search.)

--SpecOp Macavity 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why is my article up for deletion? I worked hard to create that. Rosies 13:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Meiers changes speak for himself. I wonder, why an editor with that attitude should edit on Islamophobia. Raphael1 13:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Raphaels talkpage. For your information, he has just recently returned from a week long block for disruptions on another article. -- Karl Meier 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humor?!? You consider that Website is funny?!? Raphael1 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "tongue-in-cheek" resp. "levity", I call "blatant racism". Anyway, defending such a website tells a lot about your character. Raphael1 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a True Crime 3 in production and a DS version called "True Crime: Diaries" in production

Greetings Weregerbil, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia category?

Weregerbil, as a long time editor on the islamophobia article you should express your opinion on this "islamophobia" CfD. Netscott 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is supposed to refer to Krakozhia. Sort of an out there spelling, so we might as well delete it. :) Mangojuice^talk 15:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a true crime 3, I heard about it on MTV News.

I am unsure why you removed the paragraph in this article about a retrospective called Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job. While it may not have been published, not one, not two, but THREE sources which Wikipedia considers valid (ObsessedWithWrestling.com, DeclarationOfIndependents.net, and SoCalUncensored.com) have published the articles. The fact that these sites are considered valid sources by Wikipedia is evidenced by their being included in the References section of many different articles. Whether the retrospective is actually published or not should not have any bearing on its inclusion in the article, as it is totally relevent to the topic hand. Please let me know how you feel about this. Thanks. JB196 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written by a fan of the organization although its information has indeed been verified by several credible sources, such as those I mentioned above. I agree with you to a degree that Wikipedia "is not a crystal ball" but at the same time there are many examples of books, projects, and organized events related to professional wrestling which have entries on Wikipedia even though they have not been released yet/happened yet. As far as its notability, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be considered "notable," being that it directly involves mainstream celebrities (both professional wrestlers and adult film stars). Also, note that the original inclusion of the mention of the retrospective in the XPW article was made by Parsonburg, who has shown a respectable committment to Wikipedia's integrity with his past contributions.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written by YOU and is nothing but an attempt to hijack the page to get yourself some publicity. TruthCrusader 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go to the sites I've mentioned. They are all considered credible sources by Wikipedia standards and are used as References in over 100 Wikipedia articles, and all of them have printed this retrospective. If you would like direct links let me know.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, check the XPW page in a few mins and I'll have two links up. Although even without those links the article should still be considered valid in my opinion for the several reasons stated above.JB196 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a lot of trouble with the HTML on the page so that needs some work. I forgot to mention that Verne Langdon - who helped produce "Planet of the Apes," has appeared in many different magazines, has his own radio show, and overall is very respected in a number of different industries (from magicianry to makeup artistry to pro wrestling to radio) - has endorsed the retrospective as well. So again, I see no reason why the authority of this "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" entry should be questioned. If someone could give me a host I would be happy to upload the Ron Jeremy video which endorses it. JB196 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weregerbil, did you get my last message (see directly above)? Thanks in advance.JB196 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my reply on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2? Raphael1 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute (alleged blocking abuse) can be found in the link #7. Unfortunately this dispute is rather short, because Cyde refused any further communication after I summerized his engagement in the other dispute (display of an image).Raphael1 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your good-natured, humourous answers here, I award you this barnstar! EvocativeIntrigue 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thank you! It's purty, I love it!

You deserve it, gave me a chuckle!EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it notable? Yes. They are a team that has played in the Thunder Bay area for a long time. I have at least 4 years of stats for them and a history. It will be much more notable once I've gotten to writing it. It is currently a stub only because I've had to do about 200 other sports teams in the past 2 months. This teams is also a team that is eligible to compete for the Keystone Cup which is a national event and has competed for it on multiple occasions. I plan to expand this article in about a week or two. DMighton 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I just wrote this back to you: [1]. My deepest apologies if I have been found offencive, but this guy is just a little much for a lot of us. DMighton 09:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you. DMighton 09:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the speedy close on the first nominatio I have reoprned the nomination for deletion of this non-notable team - it would be good to have your input. Robertsteadman 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this revert, I've probably missed a couple of episodes or something. LMTO used to exist in List of Internet slang#L (one old version here). Then I saw an article for LOL (Internet slang) which doesn't include it. Can you please explain briefly what has happened in the meantime? I wouldn't want to add unnecessary entries either, but really think this is common enough. So, do we have to create a wictionary entry? :NikoSilver: 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my place)

There is something of a consensus rule in LOL; from the HTML comments:

ACHTUNG: This article is not a dumping ground for arbitrary variations. Any variation added here MUST already have a Wiktionary article, and satisfy the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion as a word.

There is a ontinuous flow of freshly invented, little used LOL variants added to that page (and then removed). Check out Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Google gives eight unique hits[2]; I wouldn't bet too much Wiktionary wants it. Weregerbil 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, right. Thanks for the briefing! Checking it out more carefully, I found there are many other variations of the same acronym:

I googled +LMTO +Laughing and got some 1,300 hits. There are also other interesting variations for the letter "T". Care to give them a look? :-) :NikoSilver: 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Weregerbil, just a note to suggest that relative to your commentary there you might want to clearly indicate your support (or not be it the case) to Kim Van der Lindt's proposal. Thanks. Netscott 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edits to Gail McKenna. The article was a horrifically bad piece of attack POV, almost completely unreferenced (discounting unreliable sources, of which it has plenty), completely unencyclopedic and full of original research to boot. It may actually be better to wipe entirely and rewrite from a stub, but for now I'm making some NPOV edits and removing some of the worst attacks, and adding cite needed tags. Please help me out, as editor Rintelen seems determined to attack McKenna, having recently inserted a similar allegation, unsourced, in Prostitution: [3]. I expect he may attempt to revert my NPOV changes. If I can't get the article to an NPOV state, I will put it up for a speedy AfD. I'd appreciate your help. Thanks, Kasreyn 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how strongly you feel about spamming or attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.. so I thought that you might like to take some action regarding User:Robertsteadman. He has been leaving messages on talk pages [[4]] [[5][[6]]. to ask editors to comment on an AfD of one of his articles. But the editors he contacted are those who have either edited the article or who have offerred him some kind of support. This is a much more blatant example of spamming than [[7]]. I am assuming good faith in that Robertsteadman wasn't aware of Wp:Spam - although he did edit the page after you had warned Dmighton about spamming. Regardless, I look forward to seeing you act in your usual impartial way regarding this.Neuropean 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weregerbil, I contacted you about the internal spamming because I knew that you had had some dealings with Robsteadman. As far as your warning is concerned, I notice NO warning on Robsteadman's page about accusing me of being a sock, that is hardly impartial. There are dozens of pages on wiki where he has posted personal attacks and nothing has been done - you are aware of it. So please don't send me advice when you ignore his failure to AGF and his repeated violations of NPA. Every time he refers to me as a sockpuppet, I will keep adding the lonks until he removes the allegation.Neuropean 08:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't be ridiculous. No, I don't expect you to be aware of everything, but if you read enough of the article to see my 'personal attacks', then the reason for them must have been glaringly obvious. You chose to warn me but not the other editor. I didn't involve you in this childish argument, you chose to involve yourself. Well, as you have done so, at least act in an impartial manner and don't complain when you are pulled up about not doing so.Neuropean 08:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you see nothing wrong with ignoring an unproved allegation of sock puppetry on your talk page and then posting a warning to an editor who sees this allegation and provides a link to a proved case of sockpuppetry? Seriously? No, seriously? Me, I can't undeerstand the logic.Neuropean 09:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whatever, weregerbil. There was no need for you to look anywhere - it was there on your own talkpage: I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I should assume good faith and assume that you missed He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint and He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way yet you were sharp enough to notice Only one sockpuppet here. As far as your statement that you will drop out of this conversation, feel free. Feel free to stay away dfrom my page altogether. If you must add warnings to my page, then make sure that you do act in an imaprtial way.Neuropean 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what their viewpoint would be. I merely invited them to take part because they had shown an interest in the subject matter and in order to widen the debate. I know its not a vote, though many don;t, I just think that having a good cross section of opinions is sensible. And, if you look closely, I believe one of those I invited to express THEIR opinion has expresse an opinion contrary to mine. Robertsteadman 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you warned Neuropean not to do this sort of thing yesterday [[[8]] - sadly, as you can see, he is continuing today. What do you suggest? It is very hard to AGF when someone (a clear sock) is virtually stalking me on here. Robertsteadman 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for marking the article I wrote for deletion without even reading it. I'm referring to Bruce Willis is a robot which you state that "non-notable phrase (neologism/protologism). Let it catch on first; document it after major newspapers start using it in movie reviews. Not when a handful of people use it in a chat forum."

• First of all, as stated in the article itself, the type of term that it is prohibits its proper usage in a form like newspapers or movie reviews. It is mostly used in speech. If you had taken the time to read the article, you might have understood that the type of usage it has prohibits it from being included in that kind of media.
• Secondly, it's in several chat forums, not just one, including Slashdot.
• Is Wikipedia only about history that can be seen in written form? --Terevos 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please keep expressing your opinion on the matter but please also be mindful of Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sources so as not to spend too much time on articles that do not conform to policy and have no hope of doing so. I'm saying that in all friendliness, in the interest of saving your time as well as others'. Thanks! Weregerbil 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia policy to not allow colloquialisms used in forums? For a colloquialism, you should only need to show that people are using it. I believe that is what I have done. How else would a speech-only (or primarily speech) type colloquialism ever get included in wikipedia?

[I have added it to Wiktionary.] Minitrue 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments involving German organized crime. Please understand that the only source available is the U.S. Census. The only way to describe these people as gangsters is to say that they don't get caught. Please try to help me keep this article alive and to get through to people that gangsters don't get caught. Just curious, why do you think Joseph P. Baker is the only real person in the entire article? He's 17-years-old. Honestly, if you think this article is a hoax, that would most likely be the most fabricated indivdual.

Wow. From 15 May to 10 July.[9] Amazingly long time for a vandal edit to stick around, but the deceptive edit summary was especially well-done. Thanks for the fun! --Habap 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to relfect notability, please take another look. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you did something to Rule Based Trading. How do we delete the whole article? I obviously need to read up on this, but could you point me in the right direction?

Rule based trading is just Technical analysis made simple, and TA is pretty simple-minded to start with. If you have some statistical expertise you might look at some of the claims of statistical significance that they are now making in the TA article. Smallbones 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted many many times in the last 24 hours. Suggest you self revert (restore the lead) or your reverts will be reported and may getblocked. Best, Zeq 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide diffs of what I have reverted more than three times? Thanks. Weregerbil 19:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is friendly warning, not a formal report. I want to avoid having you blocked.

The best would be the check all your edits in the last 24 hours, count how many reverts there were (many) and self revert all but the first 3. You can start with the last revert. Zeq 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that. I didn't find the 3rr violation you claim. Can you prove your claim? Weregerbil 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits are reactions to other people edits and thus almost all of them qulify as reverts (cause you undo editing by others) here is a partila list. This is your last warnning I am not intersted in long debates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63833707

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63817510

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63809923

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63808202

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=63762653

Err... did you notice those diffs are edits of three completely unrelated things? Weregerbil 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually turn into a gerbil during the full moon? :) AntonioBu 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Mariano Ristori Morakis before..... Whoever edited after that removed your tags without addressing the problem, I think. I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre. One or both of these guys appear to be using Wikipedia to plug their artwork, and they are editing a number of pages related to their work in support of this. It would not be such a big deal, except they don't appear to be "notable" WP:BIO

Will you help? I'm only one man (or Antelope)....  ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put it on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence. Homey 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was irelevant because the issue is not at all if I was right or wrong to advertize the Afd. The issue is Homey FALSE claim that it did had an affaect on the Afd. Zeq 13:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not edit by Gfwesq. Gfwesq is my spouse, but I assure you we are not 'one'.jawesq 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your agenda is. There are 11 OTHER independent editors who voted 'delete' and had comments about this article. AND YES I DO THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD MINE AND GFWESQ. THAT IS 13. THERE ARE NOW ONLY 3 KEEP. Last time I checked, even 11 v. 3 is a consensus. Gfwesq and I are NOT a potential WP::SOCK and we can prove it. I gave no 3RR warning on this basis, so I do not know what you are talking about.jawesq 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An accusation of WP:SOCK and reality are two different things. I can easily prove this is not the case. Neither Gfwesq nor I should be considered as 'one' except maybe in the eyes of the Church. Thank you for your concern, though.jawesq 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are married or not. If you are married, are you capable of independent thought from your spouse? When you vote in elections, are both you and your spouses votes counted? Or do you and your spouse only get one vote to split between you? How about your extended family? Are they disenfranchised because you vote? Do you see how insulting and ridiculous your comments on jawesq's page were? I am my own person, I do not tell jawesq what to think or how to vote and vice versa. In the future please be civil. Respectfully, Gfwesq 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read advertising and soliciting meatpuppets.

I did awhile back and again recently.

Somehow you and your spouse seem to find the same articles to edit, do the same reverts and edit warring, "vote"AfdIsNotAVote(TM) the same way in AfDs, and give WP:3RR warnings to people for each others' edits.

This is not exactly true. We have collaborated on some things and some things we have not. In any event, that shouldn't matter. I gather you are not married. I think someday you will find that married couples often have common interests and common beliefs and positions. Is it that hard for you to believe that a couple, who are both lawyers, have common interests and common beliefs and positions? I don't think you get it. If we were not married, but were a couple of lawyers from different cities with similar interests, I doubt anyone would make anything of it. Wikipedians need to get over it. As I have been lectured by some admins that no rule is set in stone, I guess it applies to WP:Sock as well. In any event, I am not going to change my beliefs or my spouse over to satisfy some imaginary question of sock puppetry by some Wikipedians. Some folks are just going to have to read WP:AGF and apply it my case. That and learn how to examine writing styles. An examination of style should tell any intelligent reader that jawesq and I are not the same. There is only so much I can do for those incapable of that analysis.

I am not aware of the WP:3RR warning you keep citing. I did give someone a WP:3RR warning awhile back it is true. S/he was an instigator. If you followed the history, you would see that s/he had stated they read comments by jawesq and found them "emotional" and came to comment. Sounds like an instigator. Hard to credit with GF.

Its my observation in large firm/corporate politics, friendly warnings are not actually friendly. Despite this experience, I will view you message as WP:AGF.Gfwesq 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfwesq (talk • contribs) [reply]

Memo to self (or whoever is interested): discussion prior to User_talk:Jgwlaw archived his talk page: [10]. — Weregerbil 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned. It's on AN/I. Tyrenius 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The couple in this case appear to have contact outside Wikipedia, such as when I write on one participant's talk page, the other responds." It would be helpful if you could supply diffs for this. Thanks. Tyrenius 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying diffs for your statement. Tyrenius 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I tagged this as patent nonsense right after you added the repost tag! What is it with vandals and repostings?? --TheM62Manchester 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is patent nonsense, isn't it?? --TheM62Manchester 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my entry would be considered a coatrack of self promotion.

I am a newbie to the wikipedia scene but by no means new to the notion of open communication and sharing of knowledge which is the whole reason for my venturing into this medium. Bulletin Boards were nice as are blogs, but they are not quite the same thing as what wiki has to offer which is that whole notion of Knowledge Sharing.

So to my own defense I really do feel I have made significant contributions in the area of Design Technology and very much intend to continue to do so and since that is the primary objective of my entry I would welcome any advice you might have to save my article from quick deletion.

Thank you.

Yes, I'd like to make a video of what I do on my screen. How do I do that? Is there any software? Thanks. Reply on my talkpage, please!--203.124.2.6 08:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i hope you are satisfied with the answer. --Striver 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice it was only 6 minutes old when adding the db-band tag? I'm not sure of anything, but the page can be in process of editing right now. Just give new pages some time to evolve. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages from the recent changes list is perfectly valid. The tag itself indicates to an editor who might be "in progress" how to respond. -Harmil 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put Legacy of Tirlannon up for AfD. In future, please consider using {{prod}} first. This reduces the volume of pages that hit the AfD process, and results in removing a majority of the cruft. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Weregerbil. We have talked before, and we have not always agreed. But this one was clearly bad faith, you could just have taken on my offer on turning it into a full redirect, but no, instead you made it into a articles fd, arguing that it was not a article. BUT OF COURSE it is not, it not even supposed to be, as stated in the page AND talk page. The main arguements and circumstances are in the article it redirected to. This did not improve our relationship as fellow editors.

And no, not AGF is not a PA. --Striver 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry if you were offended. I got very uppset on that one. try see it from my pov, when articles like S9/11T get nom AGAIN. --Striver 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weregerbil, the afd closed. Would you preferer if the article would be deleted? In that case, i could offer to speedy it, as the creator of the redirect. Rather that then cultivating a bad an even more hostile editing enviorment. --Striver 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I just saw you tagged them. Not sure if you've done one of those before, but you need to edit/make the daily page too I think. rootology (T) 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got it. My reasoning is actually based on the links I put up there. We'll see, good luck. rootology (T) 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show every single lie and perspective, right there from the start, from election, to forming Al Qaeda, to Katarina, to Armenian genocide… http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf#search=%22ohio%20hearings%20pdf%22; http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&lr=&q=clint%20curtis%20testimony&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wv; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1963391; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide. How about that? And I'll use logic, not this Milli Vanilli CRAP:)… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelight (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you are saying. Weregerbil 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work Jeffklib 09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article should probably be deleted, not edited...trying to get it to be NPOV is going to be impossible.--MONGO 12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it should be rolled back into the conspiracy theory article and cut to what reliable impartial sources say. But the AfD is so "keep"ish already I don't give it much chance of happening, unfortunately. Weregerbil 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a graphic design major and not related to the company but I have heard of this company. It easily passed WP:CORP with the reliable sources. The company was featured in popular publications that you may heard of The New York Times [11] and Business Week [12]. --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after thinking about you're were correct about that the majority of the articles weren't about the company as a subject. However, one of the BusinessWeek article the company was one of the subjects about its work on the American cable television show, The Daily Show on the program's redesign set, screen graphics, and first published book in 2004/05. That article is probably the closest thing about the company being a subject.

From the BusinessWeek article, "The Daily Show: Satire Restyled":

"James Biber, an architect with the New York firm Pentagram who led the set project...."

"Pentagram was asked to rethink the set -- as well as the show's graphics -- after its successful collaboration with the Stewart team on America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction..."

Well good work on Wikipedia, but I just disagree with your placement of the {{notability}} template. ;-P --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening me out about "sheer"/"shear."

A suggestion on how to distinguish between "9/11 researchers" and non-CT 9/11 researchers": For the latter, mention their relevant credentials or academic affiliation. That leaves bare "9/11 researchers" for the former (some of whom, whatever their shortcomings, have indeed done prodigious research).

Thanks again.

Cordially, O Govinda 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your edit removing the spurious "courtesy title" of "9/11 Researcher" from Hoffman. Are there other examples of such incorrect attributions of titles or roles to named individuals in the article that you can see? It would be great to get the lot on one sweep, if you can see any. I've noted it as a point we all need to be careful of on the talk page.

I know you found the original article highly contentious. I can see why. I think and hope the various editors are making good progress on this to make it a competent and later an excellent article. Any extra issues you spot would be good news for a better article. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of my books are a bit wierd but now they have been translated properly. Here's at least one website "proving" that these books exist: http://www.uccs.edu/~asoifer/books/book2.htm Tosayit 11:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article labelled Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar)is about a real person. If you google Jason Lee Tennis in google.com.au the first two sites at least will take you to stuff about him, plus he has his own profile on the Victorian Institute of Sport Page. Just so you know, he does not write this stuff, at this moment he is in a competition in Thailand, trust me, I'm part of his fanclub at school. You keep saying nothing can be found about him, follow the links on his wikipedia site and that's him, the african/asian looking kid in the hat. We are trying to add more to his site but we're busy with exams at school, as we are in year 11. Don't delete it. Lee Enterprizes 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weregerbil. My apologies for the double redirect. I had THOUGHT I had been reading the behavioural psychology article just days beforehand --- and it turned out (when I bothered to double check this evening) another article that also began with behavioural. Sorry to have caused you extra work, but I did end up learning a lot - and that is always a plus! Thanks for your patience. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. --Lijnema 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creator detagged 3 times. I wound up vandal warning him. He also left an inquiry with user:srose I have to stop now (too much coffee) and wanted to let you know in case you wanted to follow up. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing better to do than attempt to delete people's work, when it is correct, and you have no written evidence of this works non-existence. I suggest you get a life and grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.237.37 (talk • contribs)

Regarding recent edits to State Farm Insurance, I recently made a suggestion in Talk:State Farm Insurance on what I believe would be a better way to address the Hurricane Katrina related issues on Wikipedia. I do find it rather unbalanced that for a company that's been in business for more than 80 years and is involved in many lines of business, present and past, nearly half the article addresses one recent controversy, but I also concur that simply removing the material is not the right way to handle it either. --Mwalimu59 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about The Wheel of Buddhist Terms article. I'm trying to work with the creator to see if he can provide some evidence of notability. If he can, then great... we'll have an article on a poster. If he can't, then of course it should be deleted, but hopefully the author will have seen that we aren't really a bunch of pompous bastards who get off on deleting pages and he'll be able to contribute constructively elsewhere. --tjstrf talk 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Gittens. -- Fan-1967 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see your point, PM should have known about this "weird theory" when they wrote the article. I'm adding a similar sentence back. If you want to continue this discussion, use either my talk page or the conspiracy theoires discuission page. thanks DanCrowter 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was quite right to delete it. You can't use 'should have known about this' as that is classed as original research. --Davril2020 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, 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:Philanthropist. 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. — Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Whilst cleaning up that page, I spotted Rodriguez, who at the time was a blue link. The Afd I started was successful, but I then forgot all about going back here and removing the red link! :-) So thanks! --Dweller 10:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove Milena and Tori they are both apearing in OVW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.42.163 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Since you appear to have a changing IP address it's a bit hard to answer to you; I hope you see this. Do you have some reliable sources that they appear in the Ohio Valley Wrestling roster? All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. Also, see here and here. Weregerbil 08:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your comments in edit summaries, I have supplied several academic and reliable journalistic sources that support the criticisms. I also removed an unreferenced section. If you had read the article prior to my most recent edits, you would have seen (check throught history) that two reliable sources were cited, one from a tenured Philosophy professor and another from an SNL transcript supporting the claim of Shatner's criticisms. Henceforth, I request you to refrain from making disingenuous remarks about "zero sources" in your edit summaries as it suggests a lack of sincerity. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer here. WP:NPA, WP:AGF please. Weregerbil 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't know how one would measure it, but based on income alone (from another project I'm doing dealing with ABS stats), entire regions of Melbourne and about 4 suburbs in Adelaide are wealthier. Perth and Brisbane have very evenly distributed wealth with about 85% of suburbs within 1 SD of the median income, while Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne have more disparity. (It's a comment only - would be WP:OR if I added it) Orderinchaos78 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had just typed this comment to the Nemesea debate and was about to upload it when at that moment an admin closed the AfD. I therefore submit it to you direct, for your consideration.

Comment By Weregerbil's own definition of what a personal attack is, I would suggest that the first half of his last comment is at least as much a personal attack as any I'm supposed to have made. Remarks such as "don't even try" "essays" and "running joke" seem somewhat disrespectful to me. The second half, though somewhat terse, at least stuck to the point. Weregerbil's delete argument is, to its credit, devoid of any unpleasantness and is a reasonable-sounding argument, and should have been entered on its own, minus the comment. This would have been in line with the Wikipedia policy of assuming the good faith of another editor, even (especially?) when you believe them to be misguided. One Night in Hackney's Delete argument is the most powerful and convincing argument I've had to counter, direct and to the point. And the answer is I cannot counter it, at least not at this moment. I am sure they have had articles written, but cannot right now produce the evidence. I would need time that I could better spend elsewhere. Unless I get more supporting votes, I may instead let the defence rest and bide my time until the band grows bigger. At least Google and my own site will keep free access to information on the band until then. -- Headshaker 08:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned these articles up to a more acceptable standard. Rather than biting the new editor by putting numerous tags on his pages, I think it would be more helpful to point him/her in the right direction, as at the time he didn't even have a welcome notice on his page. He seems to be creating new articles for Northampton Town F.C. players, and looking at the relevant template that can only be a good thing. Thanks One Night In Hackney 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this should go right to AFD. A Google search shows precisely two hits for the phrase, and they're both on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni/Evidence and the other referring to a notorious Jew-hater's posting on Stormfront at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/archive 2. I don't see a WP:CSD that applies, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weregerbil i noticed you put some kind of tag on the article, where could we discuss this, i can maybe address some of your concerns Friendship6 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page.Friendship6 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Hi could you help me rename the article inserting allegations before the current title i cant figure out how to do it. Friendship6 10:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I do understand why you have restored (or added) the link(s) to Google/Youtube videos to the CDH article. They add value to the article. The issue is one of highly debatable copyright and Wikipedia's desire (as I perceive it from many discussions elsewhere) not to be associated with nor to link to such videos.

The challenge with linking to them, unless their copyright is explicitly noted somehow, is that there is a properly intentioned loose collection of editors and admins who are patrolling for and removing these links.

I can't really work out what the correct approach should be, here, other than to source permission explicitly for such use and lodge that permission with Wikipedia via OTRS in the usual way.

I'm not about to revert your relinking, I was simply wondering how you woudl solve this issue? Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, of course, I may have misread the dif! Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's some chance of that :-) I don't think I've ever added a YouTube link anywhere, except maybe when reverting page blanking. Weregerbil 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Licks egg off face* Yup. Mea culpa. Fooled myself. hardly surprising in this enormous article. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]