User talk:Prhartcom/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

In regards to research

Thank you for your response. Research is something I will consider doing.

I'm sorry for rushing into tagging the article as soon as I joined. I got a little over-excited and wanted to start right away. In retrospect, I probably should have started with something a little less controversial.

I can't guarantee research, but if I come across anything, I'll send it your way. Iangate (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Prhartcom's questions

Hello, Prhartcom. I admit, the tag I used might not have been appropriate. I'm still very new to editing, and while I have used this website for research in the past, I still need to get used to the editing guidelines. I think nominating it for a neutrality check might be a better option, if that is okay.

To respond to your question about bias, no, I do not work at Mannatech, nor do I belong to any organizations that favor them.

My placing of the tag was not because of any preexisting bias or inclination. It was because, frankly, there seemed to be a majorly negative slant in the article. The largest section of the article was Public Scrutiny, and even outside of that section, a considerable portion of the article contains largely negative coverage. The independent research section only sites sources which discredit Mannatech. If that was the only independent research done, or that could be found, then I apologize, but there is more: The section on Sam Caster before Mannatech only discusses "questionable dealings" in the past. I can understand the need to include such things, but more information is needed than that. The entire section only includes one source, and gives no other information on Caster. It gives the impression that the section's entire purpose is to criticize Caster rather than give information on him.

That's my impression anyway. I will remove the tag I placed. May I use instead a nomination for neutrality check? Edit: I will copy part of this post onto the discussion page. Iangate (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) iangate

The Mannatech article

Note: Shoemaker's Holiday had reverted the article back to the last time he had edited the article a year ago, deleting all my humble improvements. I contacted him on his user page and suggested that maybe he went a little overboard, and maybe he should have discussed his revert on the talk page first. --Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through it again, with a finer tooth comb - some marketing blurb was added, but it's probably possible to remove it without quite so much of a revert. Unfortunately, that article is highly prone to the addition of marketing content, so I try and check things every so often. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I definately know what you mean about this article; I have seen many attempts to add marketing content. I keep an eye on it frequently for that reason. I have, I believe, improved it quite a bit in the last few months so I do appreciate it if we talk before you remove any of those improvements.prhartcom (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've reviewed. I removed a paragraph that I thought gave way too much weight to an unblinded, preliminary, company-funded study, and one that only really existed to give a link, which might or might not be appropriate as an external link, but which isn't really body-of-the-article material. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Your two cuts are appropriate. Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. prhartcom (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Prhartcom - apologies for tagging my edit as "minor", that was a mistake on my part. I'm going to take the approach you suggest, and build out the "funded studies" section. However, my initial motive for editing the "research" section was that it's pretty one-sided and biased as is. The initial statement, "The body cannot digest Ambrotose..." is not an absolute fact. In the citation itself, in fact, we see that it's "doubt" on the part of "some researchers." That opening sentence should be toned down - it jumps out at me as simplistic and unverified. Thanks for your input! Tbenzinger (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

63.162.52.130 blanked the public scrutiny section in two successive edits, which I reverted assuming vandalism. I added a couple sentences to the criticisms from glycobiologists not affiliated with Mannatech. That section could be strengthened by citing original research about the clinical ineffectiveness of the indigestible fibers found in Ambrotose. The necessary sources are in the Schnaar, Freeze article. Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The George Harrison Article

Copied from MarnetteD's talk page

Thanks for your diligence on this sock puppet, MarnetteD. You'd better watch it though, because apparently "you're being very rude". Oh BTW, I realized that our sock has been at this for over a year now; see my last entry to the talk page. --prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Hello Prhartcom. Thanks for your note and for your work in this situation with the George Harrison article. I think that you also deserve kudos for bending over backwards to WP:AGF with this editor. For me their cries of "I was just trying to help the article" ring hollow. As you point out the editor was socking for over a year. By the way, when I started the section "April 4ths entries" on the talk page I did not realize that. As User:Salamurai pointed out in a couple of the sections of the talk page the editors sources usually did not meet wikipedia's standards. Then the socks started coming fast and furious - two or three a day at one point. The two laughable moments have to be the attempt to claim that the editor was actively editing many articles on wikipedia (an action that did not start until the FisherQueen started tagging and blocking some of the earlier socks) and the statement to you that "I didn't create this account today- it was created yesterday", again after editing under numerous IP's and named accounts. My AGF was pretty well smashed to pieces by all of this and if I the editor thought that I was rude then they were lucky that it was me and not some of the others that edit these pages. Having said that if anything I've done was rude to you then I apologize and I will thank you again for your vigilance on George's page and wish you happy editing in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, sometimes my wit can be dry to the point of non-existent. [1] I've never seen "The Concert for George", I'll have to look for it this November 29th; thanks for the tip. Have a good day, MarnetteD. Prhartcom (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
We shared a laugh with the "yesterday" moment, then! --prhartcom (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed we did share a laugh:-D over that. I also found the editors "You are being rude" edit about me and realized the context of your note to me. Unfortunately, I had to go offline and didn't get a chance to update my note to you. Thank you, very much, for the Barnstar and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
PS - As a film fan if George had done nothing other then start "HandMade Films" he would still deserve recognition in my book. Every year I watch "The Concert for George" on November 29th and I still choke up at a couple of moments so I feel that I have some understanding of our sock masters affection for the man and his work. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Award

It is a shame that you have not received one before now. When I started here these were an important part of editing. They seem to have faded into the background a bit. I had a bit of a hard time to chose the right one but I liked this one both for your patience in this matter and for the fact that a good cup of coffee is always welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility Award
For your extreme patience in dealing with a sockpuppet master on the George Harrison article. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he's back

Hello again after an all too brief rest it looks like our Demerkurev sock is back in the form of this user Firstlove1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You've already bumped into him on Paul McCartney's page. The usual flowery language along with sources that may or may not be reliable. Fully formed editing after only three days since registering. To be fair I thought that this editor would be back sooner but perhaps the page protection kept them away. I've tagged their page but I won't be online much longer so I thought I would let you know just for the sake of it. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he could be right. He does seem to "pop" up once a day and he is definitely like an annoying "pet" (I won't name one because as soon as I do it will be a pet that you like) getting underfoot at all times :-) Do you think we should start taking bets on how long before he returns? And what new creative name will he come up with to make the exact same kind of edits? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

would you please take a look at these and let me know what you think

Hi again Prhartcom. Would you do me a favor and take a look at these entries [2]. I don't think that I can automatically assume that this is a new incarnation of Demerkurev but there are some things to consider.

  1. Brand new editor registered today. Yet knows how to create a reference.
  2. Several of D's socks favored adding lists like this one. Some with questionable notability.
  3. Since FisherQueen tagged a batch of the April/early May socks the editor has tried to make a few edits on other pages to make it look like Harrison's page was not their only target. How better to WP:GAME the system then to enter all 50 people on the list and then be able to claim innocence/ignorance of wikipolicy regarding socks.

I also find the need to enter the info twice on most pages odd. I guess that I am asking for the following thoughts from you. First, what do you think of the Sock situation. Second, do you think that this list has any encyclopedic value. Another editor used the following edit summary "Nonsensical list that once again says nothing about Blackmore's greatness. You don't list an actor's Razzie in the opening text of their bio, so why not save the space for a more worthy honour?"

Lastly I would like to say that your edit to the two socks from yesterday may be the most reasoned reaction to this or any sock master that I have ever seen. Many kudos to you. MarnetteD | Talk 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I only got your message to me after adding the above so I think I know some of how you think about this. If you have anything further to add plz feel free to do so and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Finally finished removing the edits-whew that took some time. Thanks for adding the sock tag to the editors page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the note. The IP that made the edit geolocates to Argentina which makes me think that they may not be back or at least might not know how to cite a source. I would rely on your knowledge of the subject to put the info back in properly. I also feel sure that you will be able to make it readable grammatically and help it to flow into the article. It felt like a factoid that was plopped into the article the way the IP did it. I hope that you have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. To answer your first question you get to the "User contributions" page for an IP like this one Special:Contributions/209.13.96.227 from today's McCartney editor. Then look at the box at the bottom of the page and then the bottom line in that box. You will see WHOIS · RBLs · Traceroute · Geolocate etc. Click on the geolocate and that will tell you where in the world that Carmen San Diego is editing from :-) My understanding is that this is not full proof since someone editing from a mobile phone might be somewhere else entirely. We used to only have the WHOIS command and it still works but the info from it is limited. Just so you know I am not very tech savvy so there may be much more to any of this then what I have learned. As to your other question once an editor registers with a username regular editors like us can't find out where a person is editing from - unless they put that info on their userpage like I have. To find that info out you have to file a WP:CHECKUSER request. This is a thing that only admins (and I think that it is only a select number of them) can do. Checkuser requests can also be a part of any sockpuppet investigation. Hope this helps to find out more editors at the WP:HELPDESK are usually glad to explain things better. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whew I am tuckered out

Hi one more time. You may be interested on what has been going on here User_talk:MarnetteD#Re:_George_Harrison_2 and here User_talk:Bretonbanquet#Your_note and B's reply to me here User_talk:MarnetteD#Your_edit_summary. I have been dealing with this for over two hours now so I need to get out of the home and find something to eat. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In my editing frenzy I missed your note about having lived in Denver. I hoped that you enjoyed your time here and I hope that you are miserable being away from the city and the mountains. HAH :-D Just kidding - I hope that you are happy and well in your new home city and state. Oddly, I have not bumped into many editors from my area. One very good one has done a lot of excellent work on the page for the Denver Zoo. Well, back to the grind - Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Hi again Prhartcom. I know that this Wawzenek's talk page is on your watchlist but I wanted to make you aware that I started a new section here User_talk:Wawzenek#An_apology_followed_by_my_concerns wherein I apologize for my sockpuppet assumptions. I have also added my thoughts regarding the Gibson.com edits in question. As the editor that I involved most in this I must also apologize to you for passing along info that has turned out to be in error. You more than most other editors know that we have been struggling with the Dmerkurev socks for a couple of months. I jumped to some conclusions that I should not have. This is not an excuse it is a fact and I was in the wrong. I will try to be more careful in the future. As ever thanks for your reasoned patience in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This time I think it is Dmerkurev

Hi again. After taking 6 days off User:Firstlove1111 returned trying to add another best of list. Since then IP 164.67.46.21, which geolocates to the correct location for our Dmerkurev sock, has been trying to reenter the same list. Based on last weeks kerfuffle (I really like this word) I would like your opinion on how to proceed. I have been placing warnings on the correct pages but I wanted your advice on other ways to proceed. MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops meant to give you a quick link to GH's history page for ease of viewing so here it is [3]. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. It all sounds sensible to me. I've thought about reopening the SP investigation a time or two myself. When I look at the range of IP's he seems to be going online from several spots in LA and I know that wikiP doesn't like to block a wide range of IP's as it effects too many possible good editors. So the boring approach it is. Best editing wishes to you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on your recommendations I don't know if you are going to respond to the latest "brand new editor" who showed up today. I am not. I did want to show you something interesting that I found. If you look at the edit history here [4] their first edit was to GH's talk page and then they vandalized one page. The last four edits were all minor changes three of which created redirects and one introduced a grammar error. I also thought that I would see where this goes before adding the sock tag. Their desire to readd the Gibson list could mean that they are a friend of Wawzenek. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I had a thought while I was swimming this morning (it is a great form of exercising for letting the mind wander and a wandering mind is something I am good at :-)) Several of the actor pages that are on my watch list have won so many awards that we have had to create a separate article for them. Here is one example List of awards and nominations received by Helen Mirren. Why don't we start a page entitled "George Harrison's Best of and Top #" list. Then we could let our socks and COI editors go to town and we really could ignore them. I say this mostly in jest but there might be a glimmer of solution in it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hi again and thanks for your note. I don't know if you have eaten both but jelly beans and jelly babies are not at all alike and comparing them is a mistake - though I have seen it made before. Both the exterior and interior candies and textures are of totally different consistencies. Also I preferred the word sweets because there is no way to know, unless you were there, whether only jelly babies were tossed. Now I wasn't there either so this is speculation but I would guess that there may have been many kinds of candy involved.(the info I found when I made added the info below makes this speculation moot.) Having said all that please feel free to reword it and reenter the edit at your pleasure. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops I know there was something else I meant to type. Imo Jelly babys are more like our gum drops w/o the sugar crystal coating. They are soft and juicy to chew. Jelly beans outer coat is somewhat hard and crunchy and the interior can be a bit sticky and gummy. And as I am adding the links to this message I come across the "In popular culture" section of the Jelly baby page which explains, in detail, the use of each at various concerts. You may want to use a variation on what editors typed in there as you adjust them item on George's page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. One last visceral addition - when I am eating them jelly babies make my mouth water much more than belly beans do.MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And then one more. I change the edit to read like the one on the Jelly baby page. It brought together the two mentions that were split over the paragraph and removed the unsourced items. As I said in my edit summary it seems a bit odd to mention events at US gigs before the US tour is mentioned in the next paragraph so if you can figure a way to make it flow better please do so. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

Hi again. I had been following some of this on Rod's talk page. I have come to think that the Dmerkurev sock likes raising our hackles which made you advice to ignore him make even more sense and this is why I have not posted anything on his or GH's talk pages. The one part of Roseindela's post that interested me is the statement "I AM NOT INTERESTED AT PUTTING A SHRINE on GH". None of us ever said "Rose.." was trying to do this. My post in this section Talk:George_Harrison#Sock_puppet was back in May and was about the previous socks. This may be a case of "methinks the sock doth protest to much" (many apologies to Will) and makes me think even more that "Rose.." is the latest "D" sock. Further the statement that "The editors are being meaner to me than I have ever been" doesn't make sense if he is an uninvolved editor since neither Radiopathy or I posted anything on "Rose's..." talk page. It does makes sense if he has been some of these other "D" socks. I fear that the sock master will be back at some point after the protection expires on Sunday. It also seems that Rod sees this as a content dispute rather than a sock situation. I should add that he has a right to do this, it is just that I am coming at this from a different angle. These facts make me think that I will have to reopen the sock puppet investigation to get confirmation one way or the other of what is going on. Unfortunately my online time is a bit limited right now and researching all of the socks - named and IP's - is going to take some time. If he returns I guess I will just have to carve out that time. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. I'll do the research; I have started already. Side note: I can remember reading the recent history of the Linda McCartney article a year ago and finding someone was offended at the article's mention of her drug use, and so deleted all drug references (before being immediately reverted). When I happened to remember that today I went back and checked...yes, you guessed who it was. —Prhartcom 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And many thanks to you in doing the research. I've never had Linda's page on my watchlist but I remember the many attempts to alter the drug use section on Paul's page. I think that all of the California IP's that posted on George's talk page should be added (including the ones that we removed due to socks not being allowed to edit there) in the April to May whirlwind of socking. No doubt you were going to do this anyway but I thought I'd drop a note just in case. You are one of the best and your efforts and time are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About Casual games' developers

I'm not a creator of that list.

But I want to know: Do we really have to put that list into talk page? It's stayed for such a long time and followed the guideline that they're notable CG developers.

Off to your decision (to keep there or put thing back). Silvergoat (Chinese: 銀羊)

My opinion is that we do have to remove the list from the article as I have done, for the reasons I already gave in the talk pages. [5] —Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Pr. I was just thinking that, since Dmer hasn't returned, it has been awhile since we got to communicate. So I get to say thank you very much for fixing my spelling error that I made on my talk page. I have one of those computers that has the internal spell check that underlines possible errors in red (like our usernames) but, of course, it doesn't work when the word is spelled correctly but is the wrong word to use :-). Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

For your perusal

I have written a long and, perhaps, not very useful reply on my talk page. I wanted to give you this link User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior that goes to a page that is both well thought out and somewhat humorous. I like thumbing through it when things get frustrating around here. Enjoy. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ack! I just realized what item number one on this states. 1000 apologies - I most certainly did not mean this as a criticism of you. I hope that this crisis passes and that you can enjoy future editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dawn Wells

Strictly out of curiousity: which "essay" were you referring to with this? That IP was blocked for several reasons days ago, and the more "recent" participant was recently blocked as the same user. I don't think the block was in error, but I'm just looking into it. Any light you might shed on this would be much appreciated. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc9871, good to meet you. First, I should have linked to the "essay" when I mentioned it; I usually do and I'm surprised I didn't. I was refering to the lengthy text this IP posted on the Talk:Dawn Wells page. In my view, although this IP was guilty of the behavior that got them blocked, they also raised some excellent points. Then with the subsequent comments of User:Fences and windows, the concensus shifted and action was finally going to be taken on the Dawn Wells article. In my limited experience this is the first time I've seen a troublesome IP user that actually did some good. Although it was a longshot that they would ever read it, I wanted to acknowledge that on their talk page. I hope someday that person gets a username and begins to be a productive editor. So the second IP you mentioned is really the same user? That surprises me; their tone, style, and bias are all different. I'll go ahead and say I doubt that is the case. So feel free to reply back if you think I can help in any way. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - and thanks for replying at my talk page. I just wondered if this "essay" that was what "got" them: (excerpt) "The CONSENSUS is that Mary Ann is MORE WIDELY KNOWN for the arrest while in possession of marijuana than anything else she has ever done." This is simply preposterous, as she was famous long before the arrest. The soapboxing from this editor wouldn't sway me to agree with him at all, and he eventually forced his own block. Some parts of this rant are indeed amusing, and he's not wrong about everything; but it's mostly pointing fingers and taking sides. I'm looking closer at the other IP (among other things), but it was blocked by an administrator. Haven't seen any unlock requests as of yet. Cheers, —Prhartcom, and thank you. Happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Miss Wells was definitely famous long before the arrest, I was a huge fan in those days. But that's not what the IP is saying. Go ahead and type "Dawn Wells" into Google to get an idea of the bitter truth that everyone, even you, is having difficulty accepting, whether it is fair or not is off topic, it is TRUE: Dawn Wells will always be known for 1) Mary Anne, and 2) her arrest, in that order. Hopefully also: 3) her good public work, but we must, unfortunately, place that in third place, I am really sorry to say (none of it shows up on the first page of the Google search).
I'm not saying soapboxing is great, pointing fingers and taking sides is not cool, but I am still saying the IP made this point above. And I am also saying that few here at Wikipedia (except for me and many others who have tried and failed to add this information to her article in the past) seems willing to accept this cold hard fact. The IP was wrong to say "more than anything else she has ever done"; they should have said, "more than anything else she has ever done except for her role as Mary Anne." That is why I worked to get it into the article. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"You are correct, sir!" Very well said. Cheers, brother :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Longshot paid off. I saw. Thank you. 75.4.19.117 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC) formerly 75.4.195.159

FYI

I responded to you at my talk page. Don't know if you still have me on your watchlist of not. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MannaRelief edit on Mannatech article

I believe it is important to note that "MannaRelief is an independent, non-profit organization. It is not owned or operated by Mannatech, Incorporated." People are confused all of the time. I added this sentence but you had removed it and wanted to see if there was a specific reason. Thanks in advance. jaredhimself talk 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC) — Jaredhimself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello Jared and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate how you are doing your best to learn the ropes and adapt to the culture here. (Tip: Before hitting Save Page, hit Preview). I understand your question. You seem like a good guy, but please allow me to be absolutely straight with you. The fact is right now you are a single-purpose account. What you think is important stems from your commitment to your organization and not to Wikipedia. Therefore, I am going to protect this article from you (for now). I already took the best parts of your contribution to the MannaRelief section of the Mannatech article (including the word "independent") and incorporated it into the article. The goal here is to build a Good Article, not to clear up misunderstandings people may have about your organization. I hope you see what I mean, and understand where we're coming from here at the Wikipedia project. Do feel free to ask any questions you wish at my talk page. Have a good day. —Prhartcom (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, completely. However, the statements that have been removed are the basis of why MannaRelief operates. I think if you visit Vitamin Angels you'll find that we are very similar and the things the MannaRelief page has been scrutinized for are very common for all non-profit organizations. charity: water is another. I strongly feel that the section and text removed should be there. It's extremely hard for me to understand that another third party organization will know more about MannaRelief programs than the actual MannaRelief website itself. I understand third-party sources are needed, but I can pretty much guarantee there are not any out there. At least not to my knowledge. The one's that I have found are inaccurate, stating that Mannatech founded MannaRelief. In no way shape or form is MannaRelief controlled or operated by Mannatech. We simply have the same founder. I also saw that external links were added and then were removed. Again, not understanding how other organizations, Vitamin Angels, can have these links but MannaRelief cannot. I understood Wikipedia was to better inform someone about anything. In this case, it seems extremely difficult to give input and have it stay there even when sources are added. How can a random person know what is important to state about MannaRelief rather than someone that has been involved with the organization itself, or in close relationship? I do not believe that a neutral article cannot be written by someone in close relationship. Anyways, I really appreciate your help... and patience. jaredhimself talk 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and change the article text from "The independent organization has " to "The organization, independently owned and operated from Mannatech, has". I don't want to see the sentence you suggest. Is that okay?
I looked at the Vitamin Angels article and see a few problems with it; thanks for bringing it to my attention; I may suggest some changes to the editors there later.
I understand that sometimes Wikipedia policy can be a tough pill to swallow. I can try to help you understand them but of course I have no power to change them. I personally can understand why they have the Conflict of Interest and notability policies. Even though your story of MannaRelief may be the most accurate, it may also be the least objective. If something is notable enough to be a Wikipedia article there will be coverage of it in media, while if there is no coverage the subject of the article is not notable. Right now I notice the MannaRelief article sufferes from both of these problems, not to mention the single-purpose account problem I already mentioned. Good luck. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A possible return after 2+ months

Hi Prhartcom. I hope that you are well. I don't know if you've seen it already but I thought that you might want to take a look at this [6] for old times sake. Interesting that this is the first edit from a spanking new account. The stuff lower down about the awards is right out of Dmerkurev's playbook. I also remember the section about his childhood being added at least once, but it wasn't as often and I've done a brief search but couldn't find it. Hopefully one revert will be enough but I thought that you would want to be on the watch just in case. Enjoy the end of your summer. MarnetteD | Talk 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, I'll be watching. —Prhartcom (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Didn't realize that I had made a hash of the link so it is fixed now for easier use. MarnetteD | Talk 12:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really sound like him, but I'll keep watching. BTW: I just saw Concert for George on your recommendation. Very, very good. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I am glad you enjoyed it. I usually watch disc 1 which is the concert as it happened, more or less. Last November I also watch disc 2, for the first time, and was pleasantly surprised to see all of the extra interviews, with everyone's reflections on George. I am always struck by how much Dhani looks like a slightly smaller version of his dad. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oneworld (disambiguation)

Please take note that WP:D permits one blue link per item only. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

Will this work? I'm honestly not sure what you want...—Chowbok ☠ 19:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, Chowbok, yes, coming from you, this is much appreciated. To answer your question about what I want, I am pretty easy-going and don't want anything really. But back when you and I were making excellent points against the Dawn Wells lovers (ah, good times), it would have been nice if you had occasionally acknowledged a point I might have made that you agreed with to the rest of the group (as I did for points you made that I agreed with). That way, we would work together, building our case together against them, as well as creating rapport and community here on Wikipedia. They were certainly working together against us. It just would have been nice. But I ended up working alone, as you did not show an interest in working with me, and I assume you noticed that I eventually won the day. Cheers, and thanks (really) for all your edits. It's good to finally speak with you. See you around. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Abram for deletion

The article Michael Abram is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abram until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Prhartcom!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So good to hear from you. Thanks for the good wishes! MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You betcha

That is so funny - I was just clicking on your talk page to leave the same message! This 128.54.69.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP is the one time that the edit was made by someone other than the repeating letters Users (who are obviously the same person) but it geolocates to La Jolla and I think Dmerkurev was based in LA. Of course, in the seven or eight months since D's last spate of socking he could easily have moved. I am reluctant to add the sock tag to this new puppeteer's Userpage until we get more concrete evidence. Glad to know that you are protecting the page and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on Rodhullandemu's talk page as he was one of the admins who dealt with this last time. I had one thought while I was typing it due to the Cal University system connection - wouldn't it be sad if this was a Professor or a teacher's assistant? MarnetteD | Talk 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles

I suppose you are a fan of The Beatles, but do you seriously propose changing their name to Beatles? Without the definitive article, they could only be called "Beatles", and every article would have to reflect that. Try asking for copies of "Times, Guardian, and Independent". Geddit?--andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied to your remarks on your talk page. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note P. I'm not sure whether I want to weigh in on this. I read through the lengthy conversation and my eyes went glassy part way through (I hope that doesn't seem like an insult cause I certainly did not mean it that way and I apologize forthwith just in case.) Let me think about it far a bit and I'll see how I feel after a day or so. One question does arise - Will we have to have the same discussion about The Rutles? :-) Hope you are stayin warm as I'm seeing the breath of all the sportscasters that are reporting from your neck of the woods. Its been below zero for the last 48 hours here brrrr. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

the/The Beatles fixed (I hope!)

Thanks for the poke; I support the "the Beatles" form (it's what the band called themselves!) - I've amended the vote. Apepper (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tintin

Hey, I apologise for what I have done in editing down this section, but unfortunately it was necessary as per Wikipedia policy. As it stood, the synopsis on The Secret of the Unicorn was far, far too long. I myself had written synopises of similar length on Tintin in the Land of the Soviets and Tintin in the Congo, but as they went for reviews (including GA and FA), various editors highlighted that they had to be reduced down. I do appreciate the hard work that you must have put into it (I've had hard work that I've done removed from pages too), but I can assure you that if I hadn't edited it down, sooner or later someone else would have, because of Wikipedia policy. I can appreciate that that's frustrating but well, that's the life of a Wikipedian! Akll the best (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

It'll be great if you can help with working on these Tintin pages. Currently I'm tweaking Soviets and Congo to get them FA and GA class respectively, and am also working on Unicorn in the hope that it can be FA by the time the film comes out, when loads of internet users will do google searches for it and what not. It'd be great if you could help in any way with this! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
I'll start a discussion on the Unicorn talk page to discuss what needs to be done to the article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks

'Nuff said. :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A strange occurence: Piriczki recently added "the Beatles" to the lead, which would only inflame the discussion (as I mentioned it on his talk page). It's not over yet, as it is possible that other "Oppose" editors might follow suit. I'll be watching the page with interest. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles/Years Active

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tintin, Translation into English

Thanks for your note regarding the translation into English. You have asked for a citation. I believe that in providing the source "EAGLE" with dates and issue numbers, I have in fact provided everything necessary. You are probably not familiar with the magazine as it was published in the U.K by Hulton Press starting in April 1950. it sold between 750,000 and 1,000,000 copies a week in its heyday. I have all the original magazines and could send you a scan if you still doubt the veracity of the information. In them, Thompson and Thompson are clearly named, and that term was adopted when the 1958 translation was made. The story published was "King Ottakar's Sceptre". I trust the information I have supplied is satisfactory. Best regards David Britton — Preceding unsigned comment added by David G Britton (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the editor here. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I don't care enough to revert you and I'm not going to watch this page to see if you reply. But WP:MOSDAB says: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." It's implausible that a reader looking for the magazine would be helped by seeing the years it was active. Disambiguation pages are not articles designed to inform, and the Tintin page is not intended to be an informative overview of Tintin adaptations. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

John Landis

G'day, i made an edit to the John Landis page regarding the recurring in-joke –"See You Next Wednesday" – used in many of his films. This is generally accepted to be a thinly veiled reference to See You Next Tuesday a subtle way of calling someone a cunt, as the first letter from each word makes up the insult (whilst "see" is interpreted phonetically). I changed the page to reflect this, and it has been revised and flagged as vandalism. Given Wikipedia's longstanding policy on censorship and that objectionable material 'is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content' shouldn't this change stand, as it most effectively explains the reference and why it is humorous? cheers! Carlodellora (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating story, saying Landis' "See You Next Wednesday" is actually "See You Next Tuesday" and all the rest, but a story that is unfortunately completely without a reliable source (WP:RS). I have no objection under WP:CENSOR. Thanks for the fascinating story, cheers! —Prhartcom (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5