This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cbrown1023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
Hey Cbrown1023. With all due respect, I think it is important for any AFD that editors are allowed to improve the article, which is why I reduced the protection level to autoconfirmed. There are several editors who call for sources that existed before the Internet fame. Since these sources exist, users should be allowed to edit the article. You upgraded the protection to sysop without giving any further information besides "BLP". Can you elaborate on this? Prolog00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107. Tel: (215) 829-8939
This problem won't be gone for a while. Me and a group of editors are tryin to get rid of this guy for good. here is the group and here is a list of most sock. This one doesn't include all the ones block through our imformal proccess. Kingjeff00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, a friend of mine suggested you to help me. I have been involved in a dispute on the Eagle Talon page, where a user called User:Spoolintsi added images of a heavilly modified facelifted Talon. Now, images of highly modified cars are obviously not allowed, since they would fail in being discriptive of the details of the car. Anyways, me and User:IFCAR, a friend of mine, reverted his edits a few times. So he took to creating a sockpuppet called User:MikeTSIawd, and continued edit warring. I thought that since the accounts were new, I got the page just semi protected. But, the original account got around it, and continued to edit war. They also took to trolling on the talk page, talking about how teh current images disgrace the car. All that aside, Checkuser confirmed that MikeTSIawd is a sockpuppet of Spoolintsi, and all my work to get this taken care of through the systems has gotten nowhere. I can tell from their contributions that they all they done is edit war on the Talon page, and that is all they will continue to do. Pretty much, I am hoping that you will able to do something to end this, so I will not have so sit forever with the page protected, so this petty dispute can be ended before it gets out of hand. Karrmann01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please disregard, dear - new events after Karrmann's post made this case to be solved faster than expected. Have a beautiful day! :) Love, Phaedriel - 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:NPOV when creating articles and be mindful of the need for reliable sources. Adding a POV-pushing category to an article that discusses nothing of the subject is not an idle course of action for a Wikipedia editor. Cbrown1023talk23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, do you know what are doing and claiming? How you can delete this category, which is accepted by our Participants including some admins see here rev., 2. You delete this category without user's votes and say this this WP:POV. Ony some turkish nationalist users like User:cool cat or User:White Cat. try to remove all kurdish related thinks here in Wikipedia. That is well known. see here.--Bohater23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You placed this in articles where it discussed nothing about Kurdistan. Kurdistan is not an official location and, therefore, an article needs to have sources specifying why they are deemed being in Kurdistan to be included in the category. Read what I said, the category should not exist under that naming scheme. Use a more neutral title like the list page that was included in the category. Cbrown1023talk23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"""Kurdistan is not an official location""". These are cat's words. Please look the links over there and don't claim thinks, where you don't have idea. thanks. --Bohater23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please ask for Khoikhoi's opinion on this, I trust him and know he will understand my objection to the naming as it currently stands. However, please note that I am not against to a category like this in ever, there are just some conditions one must meet that are needed for it to exists. Cbrown1023talk00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
For patiently explaining a lot of things to me ever since I first started out as an administrator, and for his dedication to, knowledge of, and enthusiasm for virtually every aspect of Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I award Cbrown1023 this Original Barnstar. Have a great summer. Newyorkbrad02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007
The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Your bot is stuffing up on names with a space. This is because the wiki parser is treating the space as the break between the URL and the link title. This can be fixed by URL encoding the spaces by replacing them with a %20. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (I also left a note on your wikiquote talk page)
FYI, Your protection of Evangeline Williamson was a month old. The page was unprotected per this post and this help page discussion. Apparently, your actions prevented "the fact that Todd Manning provided the life saving surgery that restored Evangeline Williamson's eyesight"[1] from being added to the article. Three lashes with a wet wikinoodle to you! :) -- Jreferee(Talk)22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Jumping in here because Cbrown1023 is travelling (see top of page). It appears from the logs that Cbrown1023 took some procedural actions but he was not the administrator who originally decided to delete the articles. That would be Coredesat and before that Kafziel. You should notify them of the DRV listings as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films newsletter
I've finished the newsletter for the most part so you can feel free to send it out whenever you are able. Does the bot automatically send it out on a specific time or do you have to tell it to do it? --Nehrams202005:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I sent it out using AWB, which took 2 and a half hours. We have too many members! Anyway, enjoy the rest of your summer and hopefully go see some of these summer blockbusters. --Nehrams202009:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sooo much, Nehrams, I couldn't do it because I was away. I'm glad I can count on you to do it. :) Thanks so much, it looks great! Cbrown1023talk20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams202007:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
Hi. I also just got your message about Wikimedia Pennsylvania, and I'd love to be involved! I am, however, still in high school, so what I can do may be slightly limited, but I'd like to do what I can to help out. I've visited the blog, joined the mailing list, and added my name to the interested users list. Keep me posted! FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
VICTORIA CRAWFORD!
Hi,
I'd like to create a Wikipedia page, on OVW Diva and model Victoria Crawford, though this cannot occur, as it has been previously deleted by Cbrown1023 (you). So I would like to know, if there is an opportunity I can have, to actually create this page.
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBachelorDVDcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007
The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hello, I noticed you deleted Mario Party DS due to policy of AfD but the game has recently been announced by Nintendo at E3. Could it be possible that you restore the article? LinkDouglasr00721:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I will not restore the article because it contained only guesswork and original research. However, I have made it so that you can recreate the article. :) Cbrown1023talk04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just started the newsletter today and adding some basic stories, the GAs, and new members. I'll keep updating it, but on the 25th of this month, I'm going to Orlando, FL until August 2 for a large conference and I'm not sure how much editing I will be able to do. If possible, would you be willing to finish the newsletter for any last minute stories that appear or any more new members/passed GA/FAs? You would also have to set your bot up to run because I can't deliver them either. If worse comes to worse and you're also unavailable, I'll probably just send it out on the 3rd when I get back. --Nehrams202000:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I, myself, would have voted delete in that AfD, but in my opinion, most of the users who commented there felt that the article should be kept. Cbrown1023talk01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And what of the unanswerable/ed claims of the issue being inherrant OR? I dont feel that policy matter was ever adressed by any of the supporters. ViridaeTalk02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please renominate the article and provide me with a link so that I may express my opinion that article should be deleted. Cbrown1023talk02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Not reaally appropriate straight away, but should the article not come up to scratch, I will do so and link you to the nom. ViridaeTalk02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm terribly busy at the moment, but I think a DRV is a more appropriate venue. Sorry Cbrown, but editors' feelings (aka WP:ILIKEIT) and the number thereof should not affect the policy-based arguments of the deleters, and I see little or nothing refuting the fundamental WP:SYN arguments raised. I gotta run now, but I think a DRV would be a better place than re-nomination, which could be taken as disruptive. At worst, that should have been "no consensus". Duja►09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Cbrown1023 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Cbrown1023's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Cbrown!
Awwwwwwww, Phaedriel I am touched and ever so thankful!!! You are just one of the kindest Wikimedians currently here. I am speachless. You really have made my day, I'll have an extra spring in my step because of you! :) :) :) :) :) :) Cbrown1023talk02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My dear friend, I had been planning to celebrate your day for a long time; and I decided, you had waited long enough. You deserve all the joy in the world, because sharing our time with you is, for us all, a reason to be happy. I hope you're enjoying your day, sweetie - and while I'm here, let me tell you it's wonderful to work by your side at Wikiquote, and you are one of the main reasons I'm having a good time there now too. Enjoy your day! :) Love, Phaedriel - 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Let me join in also in congratulating you on your "day"—Phadriel has a good sense of timing, too. :)
As for your clerking tasks, "List of Republics" shouldn't open until tomorrow and David gets home tomorrow, so you are off the hook on that one. As for "Vision Thing", just replace your initials with mine in the template before you leave on your trip. You may use an edit summary such as "clerk substitution while CB is away", or, if you prefer, a more accurate one such as "this job is much too dull for someone with an extra spring in his step." :)
Removing sourced material per request of subject of bios
Hi Cbrown, I see that you removed some material from two (2) bios Zac Efron and Nicky Campbell with the edit summary mentioning you did this at the subjects request and that some material was not correct. In my opinion, this sets a very bad precedent. In Zac's case, I am not sure if his ethnicity was ever properly sourced, so no big deal. If the material CAN be sourced, what is the problem? In the case of Cambbell, it appears that you removed a properly sourced article about him. Maybe the material could be tweeked to be more neutral or reflect more accurately what the article pointed out. Anyways, how is this verified about what the subject is requesting and regardless unless it is blatantly libelous and harmful it seems that it should be included. Again, this seems like a VERY slippery slope to start down. Thanks! --Tom23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the bio of Zac Efron, that material definitely shouldn't have been there. But for Nicky Campbell, I do agree that the evidence is conving. Although the subject did send an e-mail saying that this was false. I will not revert the other user at this time, but it may happen next time the subject e-mails (in which case I will let another agent handle the case). Whether or not that bit in the Campbell biography was untrue or not, it definitely was harmful to that person's career.
The infomration is verifiable by those who have accounts on OTRS and can see the tickets I was referring to. If the instructions were from private correspondance, I would share that infomration with others who had account on OTRS (if and only if it was truly needed). It may be a "VERY slippery slope" (not sure what you mean by "to start down"), but this is people biographies we are talking about. These can affect there lives in many ways. We aim to portray them accurately and verifiably, but sometimes that does not happen. We have policies and the ability for the subjects to e-mail us for these reasons. It may be a slippery slope, but it is a necessary one nevertheless. Cbrown1023talk23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cbrown thanks for the reply. Even if its harmful, if its properly sourced and VERIFIABLE it should be included. There is a ton of material that is harmful to people in here but it is included anyways. I agree that ANY inaccurate material should be removed, especially if it is harmful, but verifiably ACCURATE material should be included. The slope I refer to is when people want their bios to read a certain way. I am of the opinion that we should accept zero to very little imput from the subjects of bios about their article. Again, if material is inaccurate/libelous it should be removed and subjects can help point that out. Also, you say that the subject emailed you? How can you verify the authenticity of the request? Also, it seems that the whole community should be able to review and have imput into whether or not the material is added or not. The thing I love most about Wikipedia is the transparancy of the editing and the history that goes with it. The more that things can be done where everybody can have imput and verify information for themselves and make up their own minds the better. Anyways, cheers! --Tom23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ps, from my contributions, you will see that I am BIG into removing unsourced material which I feel is a big problem for this project right now.
I agree with you on most points, and feel you fought your point too hard when I agreed with you mostly in my last response. But the fact of the matter is, you can't be so naiive to think that *all* the information is transparent, some most remain private. Furthermore, we do not take requests of subjects for non-important things. If there is a very large problem that can ruin someone or is libellous, we take care into looking at it. Cbrown1023talk23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
July newsletter
I definitely will be unable to do it, so I'll leave a message on the talk page of the project and see if anyone is willing to do it. Are they able to run your bot to do it or can that solely be done by you? If not, then I'll give them the instructions on how to do it using AWB. For me, AWB still takes to long for the amount of names, so in between loading times, I copy and paste the information in random member's talk pages to speed up the process. But hopefully somebody steps up soon, I'm leaving in two days. --Nehrams202005:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's what I thought, but just figured I'd check. If I don't hear a response soon, I'll just leave a message on the project's talk page, saying that it will be delivered a few days late. I don't think that will be a problem, as I'm sure our members are not constantly refreshing their talk page waiting for the delivery of their beloved newsletter. --Nehrams202017:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody was thrilled at the prospect of doing the delivery, so it looks like I'm canceling my trip to Florida. No, I'll just deliver it when I get back. Or if you have the chance, could you possibly leave a message for one of the bots that deliver newsletters at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Newsletters? There are four of them there that could deliver it if the newsletter is completed and ready to go. I can't leave a message as I'm leaving in the next twenty minutes. If you're unable to reach one of them to deliver the newsletter then I will just wait until August 4 or 5. Anyway, hopefully this doesn't happen again next month, but it should be too much of a problem. Talk to you when I get back. --Nehrams202021:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PA Chapter
Hey - I realize I'm responding a lot later to an almost certainly automated message, sorry. I love the idea of a PA chapter... how do I join? The amount of free time I'll have varies unpredictably, but I'd love to help out if I can. (Just in case it's needed, I'm in Doylestown, Bucks County) David DiBattiste00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It was only semi-automated :). It has not been officially set-up yet, but if you wish to participate, you could create an account on our official wiki (http://pa.us.wikimedia.org) and view what we have there/partiicpate in our discussions). Thank you so much for showing interest! Cbrown1023talk00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a phrase from the article with an edit summary: Removing bit that does not seem to be true... (OTRS: Ticket#: 2007071910002491). Can you give us some more specific guidance as to what was improper? See the published sources that User:Dual Freq posted on Talk:Daniel Walker. Is the problem with the word "fraudulently" versus "improperly" as reported in Walker's plea agreement? Is it the amount of the loans? Is it the fact that prosecutors charged that he used to the proceeds on repairs to his yacht and the plea agreement may not have covered that? Any assistance you can give will be appreciated. -- DS1953talk02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject e-mailed in saying that it was right except for that little bit. Please provide an easily accessible source to back that up, or we have no way of knowing what is right or not. Cbrown1023talk03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject e-mailed in saying there is one sentence in the article that was "seriously wrong". He said the bank fraud that he was convicted of solely involved borrowing money who borrowed it from S&L. He pointed to his book, "The Maverick and The Machine: Governor Dan Walker Tells His Story" (pages 293-297) for more information. Cbrown1023talk18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And what about the sources provided on Talk:Daniel Walker? Those are mostly articles written during that time period, and were/are the only sources available to me. Certainly his contention at the time was that he did not personally benefit, but the prosecutor and the judge disagreed with that. According to the AP article, Former Governor Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison from November 19, 1987, U.S. District Judge Ann Williams said at his sentencing, "It's clear to this court that a pattern was established and that you, Mr. Walker, thought this bank was your own personal piggy bank to bail you out whenever you got into trouble," Wikipedia's bio took a very lenient tone towards his crimes summarizing it in one sentence, which was removed because of a single e-mail. I still do not understand what the problem with the statement was. As for the autobiography you've listed, that is/was not available to me as a source and would reflect his opinion on the issue. Either way I have no way to verify what that book says or doesn't say. --Dual Freq22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nor do I, I have no opinion whatsoever, but the fact of the matter stands: that is what he told us, and that is what I acted upon. Cbrown1023talk22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed all my contributions to that article just to be sure that wikipedia is clear of any liability. Maybe he can get a PR firm to redo the article. I'm sorry to actually research an article before editing it, next time I'll skip the research step. --Dual Freq23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.... wtf? You missed my point, I was explaining my past actions, I meant that I wasn't going to do anything if you changed back. Meaning I believed you were right. *sigh* Cbrown1023talk23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering how come you decided that the outcome of that AfD was Keep, it would seem nobody who chose "keep" as an opinion, gave any references to policies, whereas the users having elected deletion did. Did I miss something ? Jackaranga21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That was months ago, but more people felt it should be kept as opposed to deleted, or so I thought when I closed it. :) Cbrown1023talk00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Diffs and links on the evidence page
Hi. I've asked the arbitrators on the RFAR talk page if I could edit the evidence template to be more helpful about diffs and links. The arbs that have replied have been all for it, but UC commented that the template "belongs to the clerks". So perhaps you might like to take a look at my suggestion and post a comment? Bishonen | talk10:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC).
One of the admins has unprotected the film article, much to my chagrin. There was no discussion or even request by a user for this to occur. Since you were the protecting admin and have an interest in the project at large, I thought I'd let you know. (In the interest of full disclosure, I had a prior run-in with him, documented on his talk page, regarding page protection for the recent Harry Potter book and it's fair to say that the two of us do not see eye-to-eye regarding his use of protection and de-protection.) In any case, I thought that the semi-protection was agreed to be indefinite until compelling discussion otherwise raised the issue. But perhaps the fact that we didn't really discuss the protection much when commencing it was a factor in adding to the confusion.
Well, no article should be kept protected forever, how about we give it a chance and if there are any problems, just tell me and I'll semi-protect it. Cbrown1023talk15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
urgent
Whew...I'm glad to see you took a look at your talk page as recently as this morning...your user page indicates you are scarce until September. Please take another look at this situation, the OTRS ticket at Church of Christ Temple Lot was abandoned after 24 hours (instead of the recommended 7 days) for perhaps the most ludicrous reasons possible: An administrator thought the BLP complaint was in regards to two deceased church leaders from the 19th Century! I even received a private reply from one guy at the "Wikipedia Team" who said my complaint was invalid because I am obviously neither the founder of the LDS church or the RLDS church. Good lord, what a nightmare! And now, administrator user:LessHeard vanU has jumped into the fray, and without significant investigation of the situation, is siding with user:Jade Knight, ...and LessHeard vanU deleted an urgent request I made at AIV...a request for an administrator to please keep Jade Knight from reverting to the defamatory material! They are all like a bunch of high school kids, they think this is a "game." Please feel free to contact me via email via User:Piledoggie if you need to communicate with me privately. Piledoggie23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your direct question, I hope I will answer it directly enough. I've wanted exactly the same thing since this dispute erupted last Friday when blahblah555 blithely added false information to the Wikipedia article, from a unreliable source, and then he added a link to the source. The source is, in my words, "mostly inaccurate, and completely defamatory," and it is about a living person. Jade Knight then read the linked source, and added another piece of false information from it, to the Wikipedia Article. I examined WP:BLP and was relieved to see it guards against exactly this scenario. So I deleted the erroneous info added by Jade Knight and the link added by Blahblah5555, and stated that both instances were a clear violation of WP:BLP. And then it was "on," both Jade Knight and blahblah555 took offense at the change and began a revert war, Jade Knight continually claiming it was a "content dispute" or a simple 3RR violation on my part, and because he is an established editor, even though he knows far less than me about print journalism, libel issues, and the incident in question (a political protest in 1990), other editors and administrators have instinctively "sided" or "sympathized" with him, without checking the facts.
I would like the offending citation be removed from the Wikipedia article, and Jade Knight and future editors of the page be instructed not to include such an unreliable and defamatory source about a living person. Piledoggie01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What the--?? Please read the previous, again. The BLP complaint has nothing to do with a deceased person, it has to do with a 42-year old American man. The entire Wikipedia article is not in violation of BLP policy, the paragraph about the 1990 incident, is. Piledoggie02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The page does not even state a name or even a hint of a name, and provides a source. I do not understand what you have a problem with. Either way, discuss this on the talk page, that is how best to solve it. Cbrown1023talk02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article LINKS to an online report which states the name of a LIVING PERSON and proceeds to publish false and defamatory information about that LIVING PERSON. Contrary to JadeKnight's understanding WP:BLP is very clear that LINKED REFERENCES/CITATIONS AND SOURCED MATERIAL which is unreliable or defamatory be removed from the Article, without discussion! WP:BLP also states in no uncertain terms that BLP disputes are NOT to be discussed on the articles Talk Page, or even in User Pages. Piledoggie02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP -- "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." Piledoggie02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How is that completely different? It's talking about references and sources and citations containing material about living persons 'whether negative, positive or just questionable.' How is that in any way different? And if you were to read even a fraction of my comments about this, you would see I provide multiple reasons why the source is very untrustworthy. Piledoggie02:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious now...in order to illustrate why you think my complaint is not valid, could you provide an instance where WP:BLP policy does apply? On second thought...you needn't bother. Have a good night, and thanks for your time! Piledoggie02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, that was pure laziness. I had moved over a couple hundred a few months ago, but never finished. The ones on that subpage are just ones I forgot to move over (see my previous contributions to the Protected titles). Cbrown1023talk23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem with the subpage thing, but figured you might want to take a look. Also, I reverted your edit to Jason Voorhees. I'm not sure what the issue was (reverting etc) but that last edit took about half the article. - auburnpilottalk23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
First, their edit is blanking half the page. Second, they are not supplying any reliable source for their information, thus it cannot be added. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
IMDb is also not considered reliable when it comes to such information, and the source listed there is from interviews taken of Lehman and Cunningham. Also, no source for that Bravo informatin (which is in the wrong place anyway). BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, what you don't understand is that I was reverting an edit different than the current version... per an e-mail we got. Cbrown1023talk23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Per what email? I don't know what email you got, or from whom, but the edition you reverted to was being sourced by IMDb (which you stated in your edit summary). Unfortunately, my source (Crystal Lake Memories) is more reliable than IMDb, and thus supercedes it. The Bravo information has no place in that section anyway, as it has nothing to do with the conception of the character. It also has no source. The only thing I got from your revert was that was a mistake was you accidentally reverted to an edition that blanked half the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm, dude... calm down... you are completely beating this to death. I told you I reverted the wrong version per an e-mail (Ticket#:2007080110012627) we (m:OTRS) got. However, it seems that the article was alredy fixed which is why I reverted my edits. Cbrown1023talk01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone posted this on the Zac Efron talkpage - a new interview with the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent that states that he is Jewish - [2]. Efron's official site (which is connected to/endorsed by his family) also states that he is of Jewish ancestry.[3] (under "Is Zac Jewish?") Can this be restored to the article? Mad Jack05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
We have little doubt in our minds that he may be of Jewish ancestry and that there are sources to prove it. But that text is altered too much by various visitors to keep in the article. Furthermore, it is not a necessary bit of encyclopedic information and his family has expressed that he does not wish it in the article. Cbrown1023talk19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Upgrading the film template
Hey Chris, hope all's well in your corner of town!
I've been spending a bit of time learning template coding and essentially have synthesized a hybrid project banner for WP Films that retains most of the look and feel of the current {{Film}} template while implementing a much more powerful infrastructure within the code to allow for the project to auto-populate certain categories when the right parameters are switched on, and even identify parameters which may have been mis-answered. It also will allow the new task forces to maintain independent assessment tables without impeding the current project-wide one. (I copied a lot of this from the {{WPMILHIST}} banner.) Anyway, I've currently been doing some final tinkering and tweaking in the template sandbox, but since you had a lot to do with the current template, I wanted to run this through you to have a look and "kick the tires". Check it out - User:Girolamo Savonarola/banner. Thanks! :) Girolamo Savonarola03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks very good. I see a few things that still need to intigrated into the current banner or removed from the template (if they only apply to WPMILHIST), but those are pretty obvious! Otherwise, looks great! :) Cbrown1023talk13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully I'll have them finished in short order. If there's anything outstanding that is less obvious, please do feel free to let me know! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:NorthernIrishTowns
You placed this template under protection, problem is since you did so it is impossible to make the template show, can you check that its not the placing of the protection template that is causing this.--padraig02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my edit that caused it, and no your suggestion would not work. I think the problem was caused when someone changed the general navbox template. I had replied ot you already, but we got edit conflicted. :) Cbrown1023talk02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Warning
You're a bad, bad personThis is your only warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Cbrown1023,[4] you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Really, consider the bot's feelings when you make heartless comments like that. Would you want your mother to know you talked like that to a total stranger? For shame. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotten images falsely tied to me just because I did some work on them (I had someone get on my case about not categorizing my Commons uploads, despite the fact that all I had done was some photo touch-up work on them). I was dealing with a real person, though; if I'd gone your route, I don't think it would have turned out nearly as well. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren
I strongly object to you including Eric Jesse as one of the parties without his consent and you ought to reverse his inclusion unless he agrees. Martintg23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was going to notify him, but forgot to! Either way, he's not going going to be removed except by ArbCom or another clerk, Arbitration doesn't need all user's consent Cbrown1023talk23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum Technically, he was already a party before it was accepted, because he was a part of one of the CheckUser cases run, but he wasn't explicitly stated. Now he is explicitly stated and notified, all those added as parties are left there pending the Arbitration Committee's reply to the motion for clarification. Cbrown1023talk23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you move Vercrumba's statement to the talk page? The main page clearly states "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case". People are free to nominate themselves, Vercrumba, by adding his statement to the main page clearly wants to be a participant. Martintg01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
...because that is not how it is done, why don't you provide evidence or write proposals in the Workshop instead of commenting on every little thing on the Main page? Your constant worry about the other users certainly is suspicious (but I remain neutral on this). I spoke with other clerks and an Arbitrator and they agreed with my decision, they also know they can revert me if need be. Cbrown1023talk02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If it is not the way it is done, why does the main page clearly state otherwise in its instructions? I'm curious, what's so suspicious about wanting to understand the process or questioning an action that appears to contradict written instructions? You no doubt have been acting as clerk for quite a while, so you know the process. I'm relatively new at this, I'm just struggling to understand the apparent contradictions. Obviously my perspective differs from yours. And I am sorry if others view my concern for the underdog with suspicion, they will simply have to accept that it is a part of my Australian nature of wanting to give people a fair go. Martintg04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, as long as you say that this is genuine interest and a need for understanding. (It could have been viewed with hostility and you can never be sure in these ArbCom cases.) The suspicion is not due completely to this comment, but al those that you made above and the fact that this case deals with sockpuppets. The instructions state that someone who isn't a party shouldn't put a comment on that page; that they should put them on the talk page or be more helpful, and provide evidence. The point of this is withstood by the fact that no one should want to be listed as a party the case. The ArbCom will review the history of that page when they clarify who the parties are. But keep in mind that the Arbitration committee can add users to the party or just act against them even when they aren't named as a party. As Arbitrator Jdforrester stated, The Arbitration committee will not restrain itself to the parties listed in the first 24 hours from which the case wad accepted. Ideally, no new parties should be addd after a case is accepted, but this is a rather unusual case. Furthermore, all those named as a party were notified (or should have been, if they weren't, you can notify them) on their talk pages, so they all have a fair go. I trust that you are of good faith, so don't hesitate to contact me again. Cbrown1023talk13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}