This is an archive of past discussions with User:GB fan. 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.
Hello, GB fan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you assistance in fighting vandalism and inappropriate content on this page. There appears to be a number sock puppets repeatedly adding the same (and other) strongly-biased content to this page. Do you have any advice on how to deal with this issue?--E8 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You can source it yourself (plenty on that page that isn't sourced that is equivalent to the quality of my information!) by doing a google search with Valley Girl House Cuddy Cameron and it is a popular outtake of House that not everyone knows about. It is relevant because it is directly related to House MD. It is a significant component of the whole aspect of House apart from the finished product. Can also be put in the DVD area, but I thought it didn't go well there. I just don't understand why this is getting completely deleted when it reveals a show component75.179.161.245 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you tagged up a vandalized version of the article, and then you reinstated the vandalism whien you reverted... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You ended up tying your edits to those of the "Iraqi dinar" vandal: an unwise decision, since he's accomplished absolutely nothing whatever remotely worthwhile on article Rafida in two years of messing around with it, as documented at tedious boring length at [[1]] AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Calories/pound
Hi,
I appreciate your anti-vandalism effort but please check the page (as well as other pages that refer to fat) above where in the table it cleary states that 1 gram of fat contains 9 kcal (do you dispute this?). That means 1kg of fat contains 9000 kcals. 1 pound is 0.45359237 kg (do you dispute this?) therefore it contains 4082.33133 kcal (that's of course assuming 9kcal/g which is an approximation since the actual content is more along the lines of 9.35). So.. there are two statements that contradict each other on the page.. which means you either accept that a pound has ~4000 kcal or you should also edit the table with the calorie content of fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.48.97 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't do the original research to determine the values to use in the article. I report the information that sources provide. Sources say that fat has 9 calories per gram and 3500 calories per pound, if you disagree provide a source that agrees with the information you want to put in. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Since we don't disagree with 9kcal/g and since the actual number of calories per pound is not the importat issue that paragraph is trying to address, I have edited the text to use more SI units so that it is consistent with the rest of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.48.97 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
i dident do anything with harry reid, you guys got this all fucked up!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6786789999 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 November 2008
You did do something. In this edit you added "who the hell is he" into the article. That is an unconstructive edit. You have made 7 edits with this username. Of those 7 only 1 edit, asking this question, is even close to constructive. If you continue with the course you are taking you will be blocked from editing. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't deleted your page. Only an administrator can delete an article and I am not an administrator. Now as to why your article was deleted. Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines. Your article did not meet the guidelines and so I tagged it as not meeting those guidelines and an administrator agreed and deleted the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ed Gilbert Tower
The reason why I removed the speedy delete notice from Ed Gilbert Tower, is because the speedy delete criteria you applied stated "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". The subject of the article is identified, both by the title, and by "Ed Gilbert towers will be designed by Ed Gilbert". I do have major concerns regarding the article, though, and I have addressed them to the creator. Hope my removal hasn't caused any bad blood. Terrakyte (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the setting up of the AFD. May I ask why you think the criteria was valid? The criteria states "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". I could identify the subject of the article as the "Ed Gilbert Tower". Thank you in advance if you answer my query. Terrakyte (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There wasn't enough context to truly identify the subject to even begin verifying the information. Except for the part about the advisor the rest is just a restatement of the title. If it was just the initial sentence the No Contentcriteria for speedy delete would apply. With the second sentence that criteria no longer applies, but the second sentence does nothing to understand the subject of the article so the No Context criteria applies. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I now understand why the criteria was valid, and I apologise for having removed the Speedy Delete tag (can I put it back up?). Guess I'm not as versed with the CSD as I thought. Cheers for your information. Terrakyte (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem, at this point I would just let the AfD run. It will end up the same just a couple of days later and a it is more final than CSD. So you learned something new today that is a good thing. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought the previous edit inserted all the vandalism and the same IP address removed part of the vandalism. But going back now I see it was 2 different IP addresses. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The general precedent regarding Wikipedia infobox main photographs is that a photograph of the subject showing the subject looking at the camera, as opposed to looking away, is preferred, regardless of the age of the subject when the photograph was taken in as so far as the the photograph was taking during a time in which the subject was notable. Hope this clears things up. Terrakyte (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
could not understand what do you mean by "entirely unreferenced" you were commented for the UFO info I had added to the article, after deleting. How can we resolve this dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Florida Today a reliable source? But first, reliability of the source should not be the concern here because the information I put into the article was not about a "fact", it was about a "claim". Since NASA will never publish the original version of the footage, people at least should be able to be informed about the claims.Lyckey (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject, publish this claim? Reiability always is a concern. But it doesn't matter, because I found a reliable source "jack+Kasher"+professor+spacecraft#PPA209,M1 which can be used. Search the book using the search box in the upper right hand corner for Kasher, then click on page 209. That both tells people that the claims have been made and explains what actually happened. dougweller (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
And you think, that 1 page of "this and that" explains what actually happened? Where is the physics, kinematics? Jack Kasher does the explanation in a different way. Putting what actually happened aside, even the reliable source you found is a proof for the information I put into the article, that means this is an occurred event, on which some people felt a need to discuss. So, when there is a video on youtube showing the exact footage, why not use on wikipedia? I have a right to put a controversial subject on wikipedia, in order to bring the issue to the peoples' attention and/or awareness without infringing upon reliability and verifiability rules of wikipedia. Because I am presenting the information from a neutral point of view. I am not saying that those are real UFOs, I am just bringing the issue into the article. Lyckey (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that what Wikipedia does is present what reliable, verifiable sources say. Youtube is neither reliable nor verifiable - how can you verify that that is the exact footage for instance? You first said you only wanted to bring the claim to people's attention, I gave you a reliable source, and that isn't enough for you now? And please, none of us have a 'right to put a controversial subject on Wikipedia', we all must work within the collaborative framework of policies and guidelines. dougweller (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I take "claim" as the "point of view" (in wikipedia terminology). If I can present any "claim"/"point of view" neutrally, it has right to survive, that's what I'm saying. If there are more than one "points of views" then there may arise controversies, wikipedia can't satisfy everybody. As I read through policies and guidelines of wikipedia, I see no objecting bit in adding such an information into the article STS-48. Since you provided me a reliable source, now I can add that other section referring the reliable source once again.Lyckey (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
What is this about? I haven't edited anything to do with Hannah Montana and I have no clue what personal attacks you could be referring to. Oren0 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I made a mistake. I tagged an article [2] for deletion as an attack page and didn't look to see that it was vandalism instead of newly created article. You had originally created the redirect in March 2008. I apologize for the warning. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Just be careful about warning people in the future I guess and always remember to check the history before tagging for WP:CSD. Happy editing, Oren0 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bogdon Box Bass
I randomly ran across this article just after you placed the Speedy Delete No Context template, the article Bogdon Box Bass. Whenever I run across a single line article such as this, I always go to google and check its notability first. I actually found a large number of hits for such a thing and I have placed two links on the page and slightly expanded the article (by one sentence). Do you have a problem with me deleting the No Context template? SilverserenC20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently became aware of a ficticious article about me. I attempted to delete the article but you restored it and labled it as vandalism. This article is in no way true but has enough information in it for me to be positive that it is a hoax toward me although the username is my name, It was not created by me and i would like to have both the username and all articles assosiated with it deleted due to its slanderous nature. I you have any concerens or questions please let me know, Thank you for your assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrane1138 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but your actions were vandalism. You were removing content from other another user page and not explaining why. In the future please explain your edits in your edit summaries. Thanks A new name 2008 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your post was unreferenced and appeared to be original research. Blogs and customer reviews are not generally considered reliable sources. The two websites above definitely fall into the the category of non-reliable source. Anyone can write any information they want to on those sites, but that does not make it true. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not violate any of your rights. You do not have a right on wikipedia to say anything you want. The talkpage guidelines say that talk pages are for discussing how to make articles better not for use as a forum or to say stupid things. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you didn't take the comment that he gave to you as "serious". It is clear to me that he was pulling your leg and that you fell for it!--74.95.90.14 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi and hello User:A new name 2008, I wanted to say that I don't seem to be able to find any authoritative sources meaning newspapers where the general public and other types of authorities talk about this party and its leaders to make it notable in this article. However apart from this party's website I have found two other websites. First one is about American politics and logos, the other called Way Back Machine shows the development of a website and finally another is an essay from America's Indiana University created by possibly a student called Kevin Makice. I've used those three websites to support my article
I looked on the Internet for American news websites like the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, USA TODAY and the Washington Post but didn't seem to find any newspaper articles from them on the 3rd Party
I know that one article I constructed on the Japan Nation Party was with only two types of sources/websites I referenced which were the Way Back Machine and this party's website even when I hadn't thought of looking for new wbsites as sources. If I want to take away the tags on my article on the 3rd party is it possible to do so or is there anything else I could do to this article in order to do this suitably.Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC).
What a breath of fresh air to see someone other than me clean up the zoot page! Thank you!
However, be warned of the actions of an obnoxious editor who, I have little doubt, will want to revert the page back to the mess it was.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For your information and possible entertainment, my prediction was accurate.
(Now, if I could just make one such reliable prediction about the stock market ... )
Hello and good evening user:A new name 2008 I want to say that on America's We The People article's history a user who made changes to it was called "62.235.196.224" which I think is my IP address which is me who made those changes. I also want to let you know that on We The People's website was a list of all the news programs and newspapers of the party and its leader's presidential candidacy from this link here.[1] I therefore went through the list today trying to go through as many of those news programs/newspapers on the internet to find some articles they made on this party.
Since there is as much authoritative sources here that do not come directly from the We The People party website or from any of its promotional material but from different authoritative newspapers, colleges and Universities from the Internet is that enough notable and extra sources for me to ask you to possibly take down the two tags on my political party article. If you feel there are any other types of improvements to this article I could make to it then please let me know and I will do my best to solve them, thank you. By the way on the tag that talks about sources it mentions "third-party publications" could you explain to me what that three lettered phrase means?
You appear to have deleted out the section referring to Christopher Maby, Graham's first child. I'm not sure how I can verify this fact other than to say that I am Christopher's mother and felt that it completed the biography to mention that he existed.
You are right it would complete the biography, but only if it can be verified. You saying you are his mother is not verifiable and you saying that he lived and died is not verifiable. You need to find a reliable source that talks about him for it to be included in the biography. The next thing is the wording that you kept insisting that be included. That wording is not neutral and it would have to be written in a neutral point of view. If you have any questions let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Removal of Brampton artists
Hello Sir/Madam,
I believe you recently removed three artists from the Brampton page that I added recently? Curtis Williamsom, Caroline Armington and Ronald Bloor are all internationally know and born in Brampton Ontario. How to I go about sourcing these facts and I need to write articles for Williamson and Armington? Bloore already has a page on Wikipedia sourcing Brampton as his birthplace.
I am not sure which edit of mine you are talking about, but if they belong in the article, you are welcome to put them back with references to show they belong in the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarah
What I added in the middle of the sentence was a reference. The way that works is it places a number after the word the reference replies to and then the reference in a list under the reflist tag Rktect (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalismonly, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias//discussion13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The text of the template box was overlapping text of the article, never have seen that before, but it was interfering with being able to read the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Salad: Its contribution to building lasting friendships
Are you trying to suggest that friends can indeed be made with salad? If you believe this to be the case could you please fill a brother in on how exactly to go about it as i have failed many times in attempts to make friends with salads of all descriptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.69.223 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - just wanted you to know that I plan to undo an edit you made on some references I included in the Cooking Oil entry on hemp oil. I'm quite new to Wikipedia so would appreciate it if you could let me know why it was taken down- I thought they were quite relevant. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.222 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hemp
Again I don't really agree with your removal of this link- I feel it is quite relevant? Please do let me know your reasoning for taking this down - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.222 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
List of vegetables
I've undone your edit because I feel the report is hugely relevant to the topic. Would like to discuss these changes if you'd like to drop me a line! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.222 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Fatty acids entry
Sorry, looks like there will be a few messages from me. I believe this entry to be relevant too. Have undone- let's discuss! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.222 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oil entries
Hi there again - i see that you have removed some other references I included in the fatty acid, vegetable fats and oils, essential fattya cid and cannabis sativa entries on hemp oil. Like I mentioned I'm quite new to Wikipedia so would appreciate it if you could let me know why it was taken down- I thought they were relevant. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.222 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
heavy handed revert
Your revert of seemingly good faith edits over at the Second Amendment article seems a bit heavy handed, especially considering that you gave no feedback to the new editor. Do you think it to be in line with WP:NOOB? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I gave a detailed reason on my edit summary and I am working on writing a detailed explanation of my revert on the talk page. If you think that the edits are good edits revert me, I have no problem with that and won't object. That is the way wikipedia works. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Glider aircraft
There's no issue with attribution because I independently developed it myself in my user space. So even though it is a cut-and-paste move it doesn't cause any problems; it's all attributable to me.GliderMaven (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
All alumni information must be referenced. See Wikipedia:Footnoting for technical help. Individual alumni need a citation a) to verify that they did indeed attend the school and b) to verify the statement of their notability in their short one or two line description. If an alumnus has their own article in mainspace, then it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done on their actual page.
Who should be included on the list?
As well as satisfying Notability criteria, editors on any particular list of alumni can institute their own policies for deciding who is notable enough for inclusion. All alumni, provided that they meet these criteria, are to be included on an alumni list regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll, from one day to several years. Whether or not someone graduated from the institution is irrelevant.
You have removed names simply because they were not linked to their own pages. Having a page is obviously not a requirement. "Editors on any particular list of alumni can institute their own policies for deciding who is notable". The Western high school page has editors who have been contributing for weeks, months or even years. Most of them are alumni of the school and would have a better take on who is notable to that school than you would. Rather than go and remove the people you think are not notable, go to the talk page and start a discussion. Respect the efforts of those who have actually put in some work.
--67Knight19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Since all alumni information must be referenced and the ones I removed were not referenced to show that they did attend the school nor to show that they were notable in any sense, they did not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You and I disagree on how to handle this information that is not referenced. Both our approaches are valid ways of handling the information, but it is not worth arguing over. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcoming new users
Hi A new name, thanks for all your work fighting vandalism. I just wanted to remind you to please careful whom you welcome using Friendly. New users who are vandalism-only accounts should get a level 1 vandalism warning or level 1 delete warning ({{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-delete1}}) rather than a welcome template, as you gave here and here. Level 1 warnings still give them all that newbie information, but also give them the message not to disrupt the encyclopedia; giving them a regular welcome might make them think their vandalism is permissible. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Both of those welcomes told those editors that their edits were unconstructive and that they do not conform to policies. I think sometimes it is better to try a little less abrasive approach to warning the first time. These templates were created for a reason and I will continue to use them to give an initial welcome and warning all in one. I don't like to bite noob's and I think this is a place to start. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you are right. Sorry, I was editing in a hurry and thought it was just a normal {{welcome}}; didn't notice that the template also gave them a warning. My bad, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
i dont know why my article has been deleted. because i thought it was a reasonable thing to say since it has some thing to do with windows vista???????? ps im not anoyed or eny ting like that im just confussed.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyree (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The post did have to do with Windows Vista, but the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. What I removed appeared to be your personal view of Windows Vista. Were you suggesting that a change be made to the article that said that Windows Vista is a "waste of time"? If that is what you are suggesting, then you need to find a reliable source that says that so it does not appear to be your opinion. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You removed sourced content with a edit summary of reverting vandalism. That is not constructive. If you believe the sourced content is not correct, discuss it, do not call removing sourced content vandalism. A new name 2008 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Gliese IT
As a matter of interest, why did you revert your speedy of Gliese IT? I'm having trouble keeping half a dozen associated SPAs under control (deleting AfD templates, blanking sock investigations, etc.). -- samjinout19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember for sure why I removed the Speedy, it might have been because I looked at the history and saw that it had already been tagged for speedy once before and an editor other than the creator (AGF) had removed the earlier speedy. So I probably did not believe that the speedy would hold up. As that was a couple of weeks ago, I can't be sure. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
X-Box Article
Hey, if I could get some word from the people at Microsoft that would be interesting (so as to get a reference). Tried Google, no official references. Sadly I dont have anybody official to talk to about this. Maybe you could forward this to a Wikipedia editor that has contact with them and is a specialized editor on this subject? (Videogames/Xbox).
I am not sure what you are asking, the website I provided says that Sean Hannity is a pundit, so I restored the category that you had removed and provided a reliable source that says he is a pundit. If I am missing something let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
After going back and reading a similar post on Rush Limbaugh's talk page, I think I understand a little better what you are saying. No, you are not a pundit just because you have a radio host or are a DJ, there needs to be a reliable source that says you are a pundit. Th Forbes site is a reliable source and it says that both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are pundits. I don't know if it or any other reliable source says that you are a pundit because I do not know who you are but it does not say that all radio hosts or DJs are pundits. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Rollback is just a quicker way to revert vandalism. It reverts all the edits of an editor with just one click. It is a tool that administrators have along with more tools but it can also be given to regular editors and I have that ability. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the assistance with that recently-recurring unencyclopedic edit to Pop music. although the editor's last edit summary was fairly uncivil, i'm still hoping it won't escalate into anything ugly; maybe this new section on the talk page will help him/her understand why people are reverting that material. if you have the time and inclination to add a comment there, that would be great - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
ps: a "talkback" notice on my talk page isn't necessary, thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading the 'citation needed' as wanting proof that the phrase is used in Mexico (which the provided source seems to support), not that it was considered politcally incorrect. How about if we keep the source, but shift the tag to the statement that the phrase is politically incorrect? Scog (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I can live with that, I was reading it as wanting a citation for the contentious part of the sentence that it is politically incorrect. That is the important part of the sentence not just that it is used. If someone was to read that and see there is a citation in spanish they might just accept that it corroborates the whole sentence. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Source does not support statement
I noticed the back-and-forth regarding deletion of the statement "Few senior economists in the U.S. agreed with Keynes in the 1930s." The statement is soured to this recent newspaper article ^ a b c d e Liz Hoggard (21 October 2008), Ten things you didn't know about Keynes, Evening Standard, a copy of which can be read by following this link:Hoggard.
No where in the Hoggard article did I find any mention of how the work of Keynes was perceived by senior US economists of the 1930s.
Hey just a quick question, I want to make a page for my Friends kindergarten teacher; it will include mostly tips on gardening and little things here and there for her students. Will this be possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyisbetter (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
At first look, without seeing the content, I would have to guess that an article on a kindergarten teacher would not be appropriate. An article must meet certain notability requirements, for biographies these guidelines can be found at WP:Bio. If you have any additional questions let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
baking questions
I just posted some questions in response to your feedback. I need to leave in about 15 minutes, but will try to remember to check back in later if I don't hear from you before I leave. Thanks for your time and feedback - this is new to me and I'm pretty frustrated with it so far (yet another shortcoming of ADD!), so I'd really appreciate your help.Philologia (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ban a user?
Not sure if you're an admin or how this works, but since you've made a few changes for me, I figure you know how to handle something like this. This IP address seems to only spam articles: Special:Contributions/164.116.161.193
I am not an admin, just an editor like you, but with a little more experience. IP address blocking is problematic. Most of the time IP addresses only receive short term blocks because it is possible for the user to change frequently. In this specific case at this point that IP address will not be blocked at all. There is a series of warnings that need to be placed on the talk page. Then the editor would need to continue to violate the policies after a final warning is given. This IP address has only made a few edits at a time and has never gotten to the point of getting a final warning, so no block is justified. If you have any additional questions let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
JNETTLES
Where did you get the notion that JNettles is dating BCurrington? I saw where your IP address, where you posted the entry then undid the entry as unsupported (and that was the correct thing to do). Where did you get the info? Regards, Sugarlandfan (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
24.95.74.48 added that piece of information to the article[3] 01:16, 26 March 2009 UTC. I did not add it. I then removed it[4] 9 minutes later. I am not sure where you are getting that I added this information. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, A new name never adds content to Wikipedia, a quick review of his edits shows that all his edits subtract from Wikipedia. 66.19.201.77 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not add much content, I remove a lot of junk that other people put in. I have added content, but do not have a lot of time to research and add well sourced data. So I spend time removing bad unsourced data. This is a vitl function of wikipedia also. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a less contentious approach would be to tag unsourced material with a dated {{citation}} tag and then remove it later if a reference is not presented. 66.19.201.77 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an diff of what material you are talking about? Most of the material I remove does not belong and there is no reason to add a {{fact}} tag. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So where in that would you suggest I add a {{fact}} tag? I thought the edit was unconstructive and it was better in the previous version. That was not about the information being unsourced it was about flow. That information is all sourced. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also if you believe that it is better, I won't revert it again, those changes are not worth arguing over they are a preference. I take it the IP that made the original edit and you are the same. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The original edit introduced the aspect of miscategorization of horror as sf, which was not previously covered in the article. Those familiar with the sf genre know that but a casual reader may not, so the edit was augmentative. 66.19.204.190 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (aka 66.19.201.77)
Then explain that in the edit summary and change it. Like I said, it did not appear to be a constructive edit so I reverted it. The other way to go is to start a discussion on the talk page. I would suggest that when you make changes to the article, explain your changes in the edit summary, it helps people understand the reason for the change. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
George W Bush
The Russ Baker book is the source of the no OCS reference. I judge the quality of an editor by whether they edit material or just delete when they don't like the content. Why did you delete the entire edit if you differed with one part of it? --Zeamays (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I started to review the all the new data, but ran out of time. The material is extremely contentious and POV, and since this is a biography of a living person when I found one piece of information that was not in the provided source the rest became instantly suspect. Not having the time to review the rest of the contentious claims, I removed the entire section. As other editor's have told you with this contentious material it is best to discuss these edits on the talk page and gain consensus. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not jealous at all. I am just looking at the article and there is nothing in the article that says you are notable. If you are notable add something in and I will rrmove the speedy delete tag. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
15-April-2009: I realize that Wikipedia efforts can produce some intense psychological pressures, especially when focused on quickly reverting vandalism, but please don't lose some perspective on acting human, rather than as some rude, vicious animal. Do you realize that some current Wikipedia editors are rehabilitated, former vandals who once hacked Wikipedia articles? I see the Wikipedia system as a test of civility, to see how quickly people sink into rude, disgusting self-righteous behavior. Please come back from the depths and re-think how quickly you revert some UTTERLY TOTALLY INTENSE edits. Can you even begin to understand the effect of unilaterally reverting an edit that was UBER-INTENTIONALLY crafted? Do you think you can quote a policy and then do anything you want? Dear God, were you born under a rock? I cannot believe that anyone could be that hopelessly stupid. So, you know what I'm thinking, "What is your malfunction?" How do I feel? I utterly pity that you have sunk so low. Please come back from the depths. If you feel that you can no longer act civilized on Wikipedia, then perhaps it is time for a wiki-break. I am not angry, but we do not need your kind of antics on Wikipedia. Honestly, think about people first, not policies. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil and do not attack other editors as you did here to me. I was not rude, I explained why I reverted the edit in a detailed edit summary and then also responded at the Manual of Style talk page. Others have explained their side also. Maybe you are the one that needs to step back and take a break. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolute Majority.
(my edit summary was cut off)
See Voting basis for a further explanation. In electoral contests, the phrase "Absolute Majority" is used to denote a total greater than 50% (also sometimes called a "true" majority. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't mean the same thing at all. That's my point. A simple majority, is generally used to indicate winning the most votes, while an absolute majority indicates winning a majority of the vote. If the contest is split more than two ways, one can easily win the most votes without achieving an absolute majority. The fact that 2004 was the first time in several elections when the victor won an absolute majority is discussed at George W. Bush. Or for that matter, see Majority where it states in the lede "The term absolute majority is used to indicate more than fifty percent of the vote.[1]" Clinton never won an absolute majority (because of Perot) and Bush did not win one in 2000 (because of Nader). That's why it's notable that he did in 2004 (and that Obama did in 2008). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The way I read these is different than the way you seem to be reading them.
Plurality (voting), When 3 or more candidates run for office and the winner has the most votes, but less than 50%.
Simple majority, when the winning candidate has >50% of the votes cast, no matter how many people are running.
Absolute majority, when the winner has >50% of the entire membership of the group, no matter how many are running or vote.
Based on the examples in Majority, Clinton and Bush (2000) had a plurality of the popular vote and Bush (2004) and Obama had a simple majority none of them had an absolute majority. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Gang article
I made a COI notice here: [5] . I suspect the editor is Valdivia. This looks to me like a COI and Self-promotion. I've also warned the editor about his 3r violation. I have reverted twice, so I'm out for a while, but if someone else removes it and he reverts again, he may earn himself a block. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it back because you took referenced material and replaced it with unreferenced material. You also removed the reference You did this all without explaining what you were doing or why you were doing it. The edit did not appear to be constructive. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Re Vandalism
I had read the rules on vandalism and the images I reported as vandalism are clearly within the scope of the description:
-qoute-Image vandalism Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).-endquote-
OK, then you need to explain that in the edit summary so other people know what is going on. Also sources to show those are the correct numbers help also. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I made a few changes here. Hopefully that is okay with you. Normally I would leave others comments alone, but I figured that the changes would be okay with you since the discussion will archive eventually. Feel free to revert if I feel I have misrepresented you.--Terrillja talk14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Damn your fast! It only took 2 minutes for you to change around what I posted to what really happend, well what I said is true, you just made it more specific. Thus I salute thee for you help. Don't find it strange that I send people messages who expand on what I put, I am a very sociable person. Thanks and Cheerio!--Ezekiel 7:19S†rawberry Fields15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't find it strange at all. I find it more strange that people get upset when someone changes what they wrote. I saw what you wrote and hadn't hear the update yet, so I googled and found the info and it was close to what I found so I just tweaked to what the source said. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, a collabrative effort to make the articles better. I don't find much time to do this though because most of the edits I see are just to far out and there is no saving them. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. I do most wikipedia work at school and all the decent sporting news sites are all blocked. I watch ESPNEWS at home though so I manage to get by. A unified wikipedia would be much better, which kind of explains the wikiprojects, task forces, and anything else similar to that, but there are just too many whacked out people and stalkers on the internet which really slows down progress. You don't seem to have a lot of info about yourself, editing the wikipedia main space constantly is great, but having a little something about yourself on your page isn't too bad either. Cheerio!--Ezekiel 7:19S†rawberry Fields15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had reverted it. I didn't mean to write why you were reverting it. I hit rollback and then went to the userpage and explained why I had reverted it. Didn't realize that it wasn't my edit that reverted it until after I went back and looked again. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Also I want to point out that was a BLP/OTRS type situation, since he claims to be the husband of the subject of the article, so make sure to handle those cases delicately. Prodegotalk00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
comment
hey A new name, I noticed an edit you performed here and it appears to me that it actually re-introduced a mild vandalism edit from a previous editor. I reverted your revert. I agree that it is preferable to have people use the edit summary, but I don't think we want to actually re-add poor content in order to enforce this. Just wanted to mention it, if you're seeing something here that I'm not, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. — Ched : ? 00:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I did make a mistake. That wasn't what i meant to do. I hit rollback on twinkle and it it took the edit back to the last edit. I meant to take it back prior to the edit that took out diligent and added idiot. Sorry. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Moles
First, thanks for your help protecting the article Mole (animal) from vandals.
Next, a message from me:
As an established editor of the article Mole (animal), your input is solicited on the Talk page to help resolve an ongoing dispute as to the nature and scope of the article.
Finally, a little background/advice: I hope that you will find this case very interesting, but if it gets a little confusing/boring in the "clarifications" section, you can skip to the subsection "conclusions". Although it can seem technical, you need not be any expert to weigh in. You only need to say if/what makes sense to you. Chrisrus (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright vio
I tagged the Peter M. Shane article for copyright vio. You removed the speedy stating that it did not come from that website. However, the third paragraph of that version, second sentence, starting with "Shane argues that American presidents during this period..." matches the third paragraph of the page I indicated the violation was from, beginning "The book argues that American presidents during this period..." The remainder of that paragraph appears to be a verbatim copy.
I'm not sure about the rest of the page. The rest of the formatting on the page also led me to believe it had been directly copy-pasted. The portion I identified above was in different forms on different pages on the internet, which led me to believe perhaps it had been apart of another piece, which had been copy pasted and I was unable to identify.
In any case, the revisions up to this point had not done enough to fix the issue, and when I found it again it not only had the speedy denied but had been untagged as a potential violator. I hope you'll have another look. Arguably the initial edit should be deleted to remove the copyrighted material, but in any event, the article needs to be substantially reformed. I would appreciate your second look, or comment. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I do not see the copyrite violation. I have searched for different passages, but all I find are those points that are listed as quotes. Since they are listed as quotes they are not a copyrite violation. If I am missing something let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
SocialSense
Hi New Name 2008.
I am looking for a second opinion regarding an article I wrote (SocialSense). Can you or someone you recommend review the article and give feedback regarding Notability?
I have revieved the article, the comments made at the AFD, external links/references and searche din google for information. I believe that the product is not notable enough at this time to warrant its own article. Some additional info should proably be inserted into the companies article. Hope this helps but don't get discouraged it is a good learning experience. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I really appreciate the second opinion and the fair assessment! I know I shouldn’t take it personally, but at one point I was getting a bit claustrophobic. In retrospect, my first 2 articles turned out to be both a rewarding and a horrifying experience at the same time. Is it always like this?--PiRSqr (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't always like this, it is a learning curve. If you take what you have learned here and apply it in the future I think you will do very good here. Also it would be good to go and read some of the policies and guidelines if you haven't already. Here are the ones that I have found to be the most useful:
A quick question, What would you recommend I do to develop my editing skills? Should I start on the articles just added to Wikipedia (where can I find them?) or should I look at creating new articles--PiRSqr (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think working on existing articles is the best way to learn to develop editing skills. IMO, most new editors should not be creating articles. New articles get a lot of scrutiny and a lot of times new editors get discouraged when they get treated like you did on this article. To find a list of new articles go to Special:NewPages. And if you haven't I still suggest looking at the policy pages. Hope this helps. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I am luke 'ming' flanagan. I have attempted to edit an article about myself. However when I do it is changed back. In my biog it is stated that I sent 200 Joints to Td's and senators. In fact I sent over 400 joints to the afore mentioned group of people as well as to many journalists. The biog was changed back on the basis that I had no proof. I rolled them what more proof do you need.
The reason it gets changed back is the soure for the information says that 222 (160+62) were sent out. That is "more than 200" which is what it says in the article. If the information is incorrect what you would need to do is find a reliable source that says differently. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you even read the article? It's all about a separate goddess, and this does not appear to possess anything, either. :) Best, ceranthor16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did read the article. You are right that it appears to be a bogus article. Did you read the what db-nonsense means in WP:CSD#G1? That was not incoherent text or gibberish, which is the criteria for G1. I removed the tag because the G1 tag does not apply not because I felt the article should remain. The only speedy tag that might apply to that article is G3 (vandalism) as a blatant hoax if you feel that it is a baltant hoax. --A new name 2008 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Inline citations added, as required. The sources included are reliable, independent review bodies who review genre work, and therefore adheres to the guidelines which require such independent bodies, as notability is established by the recognition created by professional critics. Notability is also established by the author's continued appearance with other well-known authors, as noted on the page. Proof that reviews are independent can be seen by clicking through the listed websites to scan for various content and reviews of other bodies of work.
Since footnotes/citations have been added, I have removed the yellow, inline citation bar, featuring question mark, since it did not state I could not.
Since the sources are reliable, independent sources, I have removed the orange biography bar featuring exclamation mark, since it did not state I coud not.
OK, not sure where you are reading that. The only thing I see is "image pages without a corresponding image;". That page has an image and it did not appear to fall into the criteria. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This page has an image on a different project. On Wikipedia it only bears a category. The scope of Wikipedia is not to categorize images from other projects. --Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Spam links
Hello A new name 2008, you keep removing my links considering them as spam links, i'm sure this is not right, my company interviews top internet guys and i'm sure it's great to read it so i add links to these pages on interviewee's pages.
this not promotion or link planting, i just find them usefull. Why them get deleted? maybe you can give me an advice on how i should add them...maybe the way i'm doing it is wrong?
thanks!
Hardice82 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I remove them based on the Wikipedia style guideline about external links. There is a short list of links that should be linked and your links do not fall into any of the criteria on that list. There is also a list of links that may be appropriate. Your links do no fall into any of that criteria either. The longest list is links to be avoided. I believe your links fall into categories #1 and #4 on the list. The last reason that the links don't belong is that you have a conflict of interest with the links you are adding. If you have any additional questions --A new name 2008 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi: Per your reason #1 that the links do not fall in the criteria of sites to be linked: specifically in your list of sites which should be linked it includes "interview transcripts". This is what we are linking.
Per #2: These interviews are sometimes the only full length interviews availble on the topic per links to be avoided. They are most certainly unique resources! Are they to promote a website? We're trying to create value for everyone by producing these interviews. Note that there is no place on the site where people are charged money; this is simply a free site to share useful information and there is no other site which conducts full length interviews like these for free. I'd encourage you to take a look at a couple of the interviews and read them to see what we mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.22 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. However given that interviews are explicitly listed in the wikipedia approved list of content for external links, and these are links to interviews with the CEO, is there really anything further to debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.22 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You and I disagree that interviews are explicitly listed as good external links. You are taking a small part of the statement and interpretting that alone without the rest of the statement. The whole statement says: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons" It says they appropriate if the material can not be incorporated into the article. Incorporating the material into the article and using the transcript as a reference is the first choice and just linking it as an external link is the last choice. Gratis Internet is an example where one of your interviews is used as a reference for some of the information in the article. That is an appropriate use of the interview.
One last note, the part you disregarded in my first reply above is the section about conflict of interest. You have a conflict of interest since it is your company that does the interviews. If you don't want to ask the question at Wikipedia talk:External links then I would suggest rather than you adding the links to the pages you think are appropriate, add a note to the articles talk page, describing who you are and that you believe the link is appropriate. Then leave the decision to the editor's that work on the page. --A new name 2008 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Glutton Bear
Thanks for the fix. I wasn't sure which criteria really applied. Now I know to use one of the 'redirect' ones - even if it doesn't quite make sense to me! JohnInDC (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I saw it. If you think you are ready, I have no problems with you going to RfA right now. Of course, it is completeley up to you, but I can see only reason to support you. Cheers. --Sky AttackerHere comes the bird!22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (same person, different signature)
Hi:
The link I put on the ERG page was the only one I could find where the ERG video is available. US DOT has the video but does not offer a player and cannot be viewed on the web. You have to download it and have a special player or convert it to another format to view it.
That link is the only site I could find that has the actual video that can be viewed without paying or creating an account just to view it. The ERG video is not available on youtube at least not the original DOT version, which this article deals with.
Since the page deals with ERG, the ERG video which is THE ERG is relevant to the page. If they had a page where the ERG video was by itself, then I would post it, but they do not.
The video is close to the top, and it uses real player.
(cur) (prev) 22:42, 9 September 2009 A new name 2008 (talk | contribs) (3,488 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by MauriceMB; Do not see any useful information in the link, appears more spammy than anything. (TW)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:50, 9 September 2009 MauriceMB (talk | contribs) m (3,636 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
I went back and looked again. It is not an appropriate external link. Please read WP:ELNO please pay particular attention to #5 and #8. The page is mostly there to sell products and it requires a plugin to watch. --A new name 2008 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
abandoned account
Is there someone who is able to verify that you are the operator of a abandoned account? I would like to talk to them to verify that they have taken the necessary steps to confirm that you are the person who operated the abandoned account. Would you be willing to verify that you have a abandoned account to an arbitrator?
John Vandenberg(chat)09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave my personal congrats on your RfA taking a quick turn. I can understand people who still may dislike the whole "there was a secret account" thing, but I'm (personally) glad to see that the consensus has taken a swing. As I recall, earlier the RfA had lost hope at ~65%, and now it's a much better 76%. :) I wish you well with this RfA, and any administrative duties beyond. JamieS9322:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to notify some other editors who don't seem to know about your confirmation by two users? On the bright side of all of this rollercoaster riding, you can write a pretty interesting story about this someday. All in all, I think you should definitely come back and run again should this RFA fail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If you think that might be helpful, I would appreciate it. I don't want anyone to think I am canvassing for !votes. Thanks for the encouragement. Whatever the outcome the first thing I am going to do is have my username changed and then I will continue on and try to fix some of the things that have been brought up that I can fix. -- A new name 2008 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, all I was saying was that whoever closes the RfA will read each oppose vote and decide what to do with them. THere's only about 24 hours left in the RfA now, and my guess is that no more oppose voters will switch to support between now and then, so if it were my RfA I would just let it be. Don't take my advice if you don't think it's good advice, though. -- SoapTalk/Contributions19:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've closed the RfA as unsuccessful, but I did want to remark on the substantial support you received. I think where it went astray was in claiming the good contributions of the previous account where people couldn't evaluate them. If you had instead disclosed the previous account existed, but asked for your current account to be considered solely on its own merits, perhaps the outcome would have been better. Keep up the good work, make whatever adjustments you can based on the feedback you received, and I imagine you won't have much trouble having a successful RfA in the future. - TaxmanTalk17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You had a very good showing considering the roller-coaster of an RFA you had. With a new name (no pun intended) and not using your past account as a selling feature, I think you will have success the next time around. –xenotalk17:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do, I think you got a ridiculously raw deal, and that the closing crat made the wrong call. It's unfortunate that repeated RfA's greatly hurt one's ability to become an admin. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I strongly encourage that you run for adminship again in the future, ditto xeno. You had a lot of support with this one. Plenty of admins have second RfAs before gaining the tools, so that's really nothing against you. And as long as you gain experience and continue to be a decent user, you won't have the same troubled RfA like this one. A primary issue was citing experience on an abandoned/private account, and the buzz surrounding that (it's too bad that you inadvertently were caught in PT's problems, too). Once you have some time removed from this RfA, a few months, and continue gaining experience with both article-writing (DYKs are nice) and WP stuff (i.e., AfDs), you'll have a high potential for success, and I don't see the same unusual situation repeating itself. My first RfA was kind of dramatic; the second one went easily and without too much stress. I wish you well, lemme know if you need a hand with anything. :) JamieS9320:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
To expand on what Jamie said and basing of your username (the football fan in me, makes me think it's related to the Green Bay Packers, but I guess it could be for something else), WP:NFL and WP:CFL always could use some more DYKs, GAs etc. Then again any project within your interests could use them. Point is, find an area that interests you in article writing and take it from there.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is Green Bay Packers. I do thank you all for the support. Right now I am just going back to working on improving the encyclopedia. I learned from this experience and I will continue to re-evaluate where I want to go from here. I have not gotten involved in the DYKs, I might try that and see how that goes. -- GB fan (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
My first RFA failed as well so I know what it feels like, though I wasn't quite so frustratingly close to success as you were and most of the reasons I failed were my own fault. My suggestion is to concentrate on the things you enjoy here for at least the next couple of months, then reread your RFA and see if there was any constructive criticism that you can act on. Later when the de-facto three month minimum has elapsed start an editor review and ask those who opposed you if they'd be willing to comment in it. My second RFA was surprisingly easy, as I hope yours will be. ϢereSpielChequers08:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ANN2008. I just wanted to drop you a line to say I was surprised to find out that your RFA failed. I think it was the wrong call by the closing 'crat. A second RFA in a few months, without the Pastor Theo shenanagins, should pass. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestion on this AFD! I already removed the questionable names listed by the nominator to the talk page. Ikip (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
