User talk:Calton/Archive12

; Archives
	Archive01 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC); Archive02 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC); Archive03 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC); Archive04 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC); Archive05 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC); Archive06 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC); Archive07 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC); Archive08 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC); Archive09 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC); Archive10 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC); Archive11 00:20, 4 December 2006; Archive12 23:59, 31 December 2006; Archive13 07:20, 12 February 2007; Archive14 14:46, 4 April 2007; Archive15 23:59, 31 May 2007; Archive16 23:59, 30 June 2007; Archive17 22:59, 14 September 2007; Archive18 23:59, 31 December 2007; Archive19 21:26, 8 February 2008; Archive20 09:50, 25 February 2009; Archive21 15:03, 4 July 2009; Archive22 08:13, 19 April 2010; Archive23 09:20, 17 November 2012; Archive24 00:00, 6 July 2015; Archive25 00:25, 3 November 2016; Archive26 16:00, 13 June 2017; Archive27 07:54, 28 June 2018‎; Archive28 01:34, 16 March 2019‎; Archive29 01:20, 18 May 2021; Archive30 07:02, 15 February 2022; Archive31 00:00, DAY MONTH YEAR;

Userspace pages can now be prodded[edit]

That way, you don't have to go to MfD any more to get rid of those myspace pages. MER-C 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehorst vodka[edit]

I'm surprised that you think the Rehorst Vodka page I just created is blatant advertizing because, well, it's not. I have nothing to do with the company, I just live in Milwaukee and work at a liquor store, whereby the vodka came to my attention. I don't see how the page I created differs significantly from, say, the Tito's Vodka page. Battlekow 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim you approve of the Tito's Vodka article, but someone obviously does, since it's still here. You think something is worthy of a Wikipedia article only if it's won an award? Seeing as the company has been around since (I think) October, that's hardly a fair standard. Again, I don't think I included anything excessively praising, or indeed anything praising at all, so it's hard for me to see how you'd construe it as advertizing. I suspect it's the clause about the founder enjoying his vodka in a dry martini that you're objecting to; if so, I wish you'd come out and say it. Battlekow 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile. I hardly think the article I've authored qualifies as publicity, given that it provides only information and no non-expert opinions. Also, my asking about your standards (such as they are) for what is and isn't deserving of a Wikipedia entry contradicts my comparison of the content in the Rehorst and Tito's articles? Okay, sure--logic apparently isn't your strong suit. Try something different.

You're misinterpreting my citation of the Tito's article. I wasn't using the existence of Tito's--an American vodka--to suggest that Rehorst--another American vodka--merits inclusion. I was comparing the relative informational content of the two articles, which I think are similar. Again, Rehorst has only been around for two months and as such it is nearly impossible to have earned any awards (or, in your mind, validation). The simple fact that a premium vodka is being produced in a city famous for its beer production seemed notable enough to me to warrant an article.

Dude, what is your problem?

That is such a non-sequitor it's hard to figure out how to respond to it. "The simple fact that a premium bratwurst is being produced in a city famous for its cheese production seemed notable enough to me to warrant an article." "The simple fact that a premium herbal tea is being produced in a city famous for its pharmaceutical production seemed notable enough to me to warrant an article." Something like that.

No. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article linked provides support for my linking of the two industries (craft distilling and craft brewing). FYI, it's "non sequitur"; correct spelling will certainly contribute to the air of imperiousness you're trying so hard to cultivate. I'm done talking to you.

User:Strawberry Prince[edit]

Actually, I don't think you can Prod a user page (even though I prod2'ed it). May need to get an admin involved, or just Be Bold and blank it, and post a link to WP:USER on the user's page. Fan-1967 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that was allowed now. Certainly appropriate, though I guess if the user takes the tag off we have to go to MFD just like with articles. Fan-1967 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on mouldy prodded userpages[edit]

When prodding user pages, if you come across any images, please also tag the images for deletion. This can be done by replacing an obviously false licence with {{subst:nld}} or sending it to WP:IFD. Thanks. MER-C 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you tag them, the delay on {{subst:nld}} is at least 7 days (depending on what the admins are doing) and on IFD it's meant to be 5 but it is currently backlogged to 14. You don't have to worry about the images disappearing before the pages, it's always the other way around. MER-C 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the "not used on any articles" instead. The other concerns - unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a free web host and absentee uploader - should be enough for deletion anyway. Though I'm not really that experienced with IFD because I hang out on AFD and MFD. MER-C 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevejackswan[edit]

David Moody is a genuine author and i can see no reason why this page should not remain.

User:Stevejackswan[edit]

Didn't realise that the books he's released were "paid for". The first time i heard of him (and the fact that The Men They Couldn't Hang were included as characters in his latest book) was when I received an e-mail from Swill (singer from The Men They Couldn't Hang) telling me about the book. I therefore felt that the information of the band being in the book would be of interest. I accept your decision and thank you for the correspondence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevejackswan (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also I don't chiefly use imdb as a source. I use the British film institute too.

Notability tags[edit]

Seems that there is an annoying effort to tag corporate articles this way now. Someone tagged Hughes Helicopters in the same manner. The misguided person apparently has never heard of Howard Hughes or the AH-64 Apache. This is getting old, fast. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the {{references}} tag that bothers me. It's the {{notability}} tag that does. People seem to slap this onto any article that is on a subject outside of their own little world. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 211.115.107.148 lifted with sparkles. Bishonen | talk 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Request handled by: Bishonen | talk 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

WikiThanks

Thank you for removing that vandalism from my talk page. I appreciate it. Nihiltres 02:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charlies sandwich shoppe[edit]

The fact that this restaurant was one of the only, if not the only, restuarant to serve black musicians during the period of segragation makes in noteworthy, IMHO. Keep. Postcard Cathy 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am taking off the reference tag. There are basically two sentences and both are referenced. I don't know how many more references you want!

Cheese Board Collective[edit]

Reading Comprehension time again. It includes a pizzeria. According to every US Dept. of Health branch I know of, that constitutes a restaurant. Postcard Cathy 06:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Heck[edit]

I am attempting to fix the information in accordance with your suggestions. Regarding your 'self-published' thread; I owned DarkTales Publications which has been out of business since 2002. DarkTales published the first and second Asylum editions I was editor for, and also published the first edition of my novel...but that original edition of my first novel has been out of print for almost five years now, then the book was re-released by Prime Books in 2003, then was put into a third edition by another publisher still in 2006. I do not own Prime Books/House of Dominion, Midnight Library, and Chanting Monks Press(s).

May I please ask that you provide me aid in the form of sources you would accept in lieu of Amazon links to prove publication imprint authenticity, and I will happily provide them. Any help from you in this regard will be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ungoliant13 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about the proper use of signature etiquette. I will be sure to sign entries in the future. I'm learning. Ungoliant13 18:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calton, per your comment on the page regarding tags remaining until addressed, if I may, I offer you the following information in hopes of addressing the notability issue so that the tag may be considered for removal:

The notability guidelines page offers two criteria for which Victor Heck qualifies under the biography rules/restrictions:

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries." - and - "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of, or awards for, their work."

Victor Heck's work(s), both pseudonymously and under his real name David Nordhaus, have been reviewed in at least 50 independent horror genre venues, and were the primary subject of horror-specific genre market papers and magazine articles, including but not limited to the October 2001 GC Magazine 'Books and Authors' article "The Double Life" by Michael Watt, Wicked Magazine #3 article "Writers To Watch", Cemetery Dance #36 article "Spotlight on Publishing: DarkTales" by Robert Morrish, Year's Best Fantasy and Horror 13th edition review by Ellen Datlow, Haunted Computer article "DarkTales: An Interview With David Nordhaus/Victor Heck" by Scott Nicholson, SFSite.com's review by Lisa DuMond, TopSite Reviews by D. Naibert, The Chiaroscuro review by William Gagliani, The Creature Corner by Johnny Butane, MEreviews by Lisa DuMond, Masters of Terror Online review by Paul Legerski, Ciao! UK review by Richard Wright, two separate Fangoria Magazine reviews by Michael Rowe and Thomas Deja, Cemetery Dance Magazine review by Wayne Edwards, Rue Morgue Magazine's review by Mary Beth Hollyer, Booklover's Magazine by William Gagliani, Midwest Book Reviews by Leann Arndt, Dark Realms Magazine's review by Jalone Haessig, Locus Magazine, Science Fiction Chronicle, FeoAmante.com, Cinescape.com, Hellnotes review by Garrett Peck, Gorezone, and HorrorWatch. Victor Heck's works have also been referenced in The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror Vol 16, and The Mammoth Book of New Horror Vol(s) 13 and 15.

In addition, a search for the name "Victor Heck" on search engines produces a large number of distinguishable hits. Thank you for your consideration. Ungoliant13 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sarfatti[edit]

Hi, when you amend Sarfatti's remarks to redact your name, can you be careful that it doesn't look like a signature? You made this edit before I looked at my talk page, so it looked like Sarfatti was forging your signature on the message.

I had to go back and change the block reason after I noticed your edit. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL[edit]

User:Calton/Userfied pages to watch - you have two section breaks numbered 18. That said, I will concede that in all likelihood, nobody else cares about that fact. :o)

If ever a co-ordinated deletion campaign was warranted, expunging shameless promotion would be it. Kudos, Chris cheese whine 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Folkways[edit]

From the message you left on my talk page: "PLEASE check variant names and spellings (including capitalization) before creating new articles." Given that I did not start any of these articles, I feel a bit inclined to reply "PLEASE check article histories before lecturing the wrong person." Yes, I have contributed to two of these articles. I presumed that distinguishing Smithsonian Folkways from Asch's original Folkways was the usual Wikipedian hairsplitting run amok. I myself am more of a "lumper", but I rarely win, so I've more or less stopped arguing about it. I presume that you are not telling me to check variant names and spellings before each time I edit an article.

I completely support merging at either of the two well-formed titles, and have no preference between them. The recent addition today was presumably newbie error. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promise the following question is not intended in a hostile manner: if you weren't intending to single me out, couldn't you have made your remarks on the article talk page? Presumably everyone actively involved in an article has it watchlisted. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[copied]There are THREE different talk pages now: which is the one that you are suggesting everyone interested has watchlisted? One message to everyone, pointing to one talk page, targeted to those who've shown an interest: this is a problem? --Calton | Talk 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [end copied][reply]

All three, pointing to one place for the discussion. I presume there are more than three editors involved, so it would actually have been fewer messages. Also, it would have reached any "lurkers". Again, I say this as a suggestion for the future, not to chew you out. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musings over warnings[edit]

Before popupping a day old edit to my userpage and leaving a {{blatantvandal}} tag on the talk page of a contributor with over a hundred good-faith edits, you might want to check to see if there's a reason for the "vandalism". I allow others to edit my userpage at their leisure, provided I don't revert them myself. Although I normally prefer people to keep their jokes in the commented out section, the false category and ASCII picture were funny enough that I kept them there. Thanks for looking out for my userpage and all, but tone it down, especially with the vandalism-only account warning. Milto LOL pia 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice![edit]

Duly noted. Thanks for the warning!-K37 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD on User:Sean Canavi[edit]

Doug is probably assuming Sean Canavi is 87.127.74.230. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating what Doug probably meant. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note you still remind me of a BOFH. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sweetly That's because I'm the only person more sharp and uncivil than you. I'll irritate you later, Calton. I have to space our little talks out. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco extra[edit]

Concerning your edit to - Tesco Extra, Banbury. In normal circumstances i would completely agree with you, BUT as this store is the second largest in the United Kingdom I believed it merited a page!

The Georgia Fruitcake Company[edit]

Calton,

I saw where you added the tags concerning notability and advertisement on the GFC article. I completely agree, it did sound like an advertisement. I tried to edit it and put in a couple extra external links for notability purposes. If you would, would you please check out the article and let me know what you think? Thanks for checking it out in the first place and thanks in advance for looking at it, if you do. If so, please leave a message on my talkpage. Reb 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M. Silverstein[edit]

Since you prodded it previously, I thought you might like to know that Jack M. Silverstein is at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack M. Silverstein. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Request for comment[edit]

As someone who has commented or worked on articles affected by this, you may be interested to know that there is a Request for Comment on Starwood links and a Starwood_Festival/mediation page. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on userpages[edit]

Please don't add prod tags to userpages. It's against PROD policy. Please take objectionable userpages to MfD or tag them for G11. - crz crztalk 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there! This was only done not three weeks ago [1]. There should really be broader discussion than that... but at least it should be publicized somehow. How many out of the 1078 sysops know about this change? Prob. very few. - crz crztalk 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En guarde! Vii mast fajt to ze deth! - crz crztalk 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, it appears Nietzsche is alive and editing well. Calton, give it a break, it was an honest mistake. Yanksox 07:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

smiles brightly Hearing your kind words of wisdom always makes me feel better about myself. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in the Rosenbomb AfD[edit]

I had to click the link to get the Biff Tannen reference. And now I'm still laughing. Perfect! -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Friendly Question[edit]

I'm sorry that people are so rude to you that you have to publish those guidelines on your talk page. I will behave myself :)

I guess I agree with you that my article that you tagged, Jack in the Box (Baker), is hardly notable enough for its own article. The trouble is that it would be difficult to merge into another article. The information is necessary; Baker is a stop on the way to Las Vegas, and removing the information all together would ruin the succession boxes for this route. It is also important as Wikipedia normally tells how to get to cities.

Do you have any suggestions? Until you, me, or someone finds a way to cleanly merge the information into another article, I propose that the deletion be cancelled. To this end, I will remove the tag. I will also move the page to a better title, and add an infobox. In case you decide to delete it anyway, I will also copy the page to my sandbox so that I can resume work on it when my wikibreak is over.

Please do not take offense at these actions. I am really trying to conform to Wiki standards, and to help the world by giving it information, and not "cruft." If what I'm doing really is out of line, destroy it without hesitation.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Shirt School of Photography[edit]

Check the references I have added on the Red Shirt School of Photography. I was thinking if it might be okay to remove the non-notability tag ? Pradiptaray 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for catching my mistake at Befouling. Looks like I was working off a diff that was a couple hours old, and accidentally deleted an AfD tag (blush). My fault for having too many tabs open! Thanks for fixing it though. --El on ka 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam tag[edit]

Calton, I removed the G11/spam tag from Incredible hulk (drink) because it's not the kind of blatant advertising that G11 means to prevent. In fact, it was added by an established editor, which is usually a pretty good sign something is not spam; and also usually good cause to take it through a slower deletion process, as established editors usually have some clue about the inclusion guidelines (though not always). Just a few words of advice. btw, your list of rules gave me a chuckle. Thanks.--Kchase T 09:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhanc[edit]

No, I meant to delete the user page, not the MFD. Fixed now. (Radiant) 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a thought[edit]

hello! about the now deleted artice Pickled Dick. I believe you may have thought that this article was vandalisum due to its somewhat unusual name and the fact that I do not have a user page and so it appears in red giving the impression of a new user causing trouble. However this is not so. As for the reason for why is was deleted (This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia) I also believe this to be wrong. The band, although maybe not world famous, has achieve noatbility in the UK and been featured on several national radio stations like X FM and also feature in the top 100 bands. An advanced google search will retreave 36,600 hits (although admitadly not all about this band) and there is also their website [2] (did you check that out before you nomanated for deletion?). As for the quite correct claim that the article was lacking in content, this is wikipedia where people add the the pages over time. The stub catagory was correctly placed. Think outside the box 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

thanks much man for fixing up my page =) also i wanted to know if you can tell me what kind of pictures are allowed for uploads can they be personal images?Maverick423 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napa Chic[edit]

I apologize if I used the wrong tag. My mistake. I do not have an alter ego by the way. Thanks Marylandwizard 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

2 questions for ya. what policy in regarding fictional characters characters led you put back Harold Crick? Not that you weren't right to put it back, I find out about the most gem-like poilcies this way. it's kind of a beautiful way to do research. Travis Kzzl 07:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films and actors[edit]

HI. I appreciate your concerns about the notability of actor Gerardo Romano but seriously I will not start an article unless it is of notabiltiy or can be written into a detailed article. I have removed hundreds of films and actors from the missing part f wikipedia because they are not notable enough. I do not see the point in aan article e.g about an actor or cinema person who has only ever appeared in one or two small films or an indepedent one off film with no clear notabliltiy. Beleive it or not I don't want wikipedia to be imdb. Clearly wikipedia is far better than this and contray to your beleifs I do not always use imdb as a prime resource when researching articles. Imdb is useful for being able to root out the notable films snd cinema characters from a great number of films which are listed on there with no informational purpose. The idea is to convey information that is of worth to the reader and I apologise that Gerardo Romano was initally a poor stub. The same is with the Finnish films I'll probably remove about half of them which are on imdb if they have zero available infomration ON OTHER SITES THAN IMDB or are of obvious unworthiness. My article William Garwood wa sinitally found on imdb but look at this article now compared to imdb. I totally agree with you about imdb being a useful not a fully reliable source so please have faith with me mate. It is very useful for finding initial info about filoms and actors but not when they will be researched using othe rmajor film websites.

That actor you tagged is actually one of Argentina's leading actors internationally acclaimed in European countries too. Any article I start from now on I promise I WILL USE OTHER SITES AS A SOURCE TOO to assess the notabliilty of films and their characters. You seem to beleive that I have this love affair with imdb but please beleive me I don't. In fact when researhcing some of my articles I foulnd some minor details of imdb to be incorrect anyway. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want world film and actors covered evenly on wikipedia in detail on wikipedia but I certainly don't think many many films and actors are worthy of an entry on wikipedia whther they are Finnish, argentine or even American because of the criteria I described. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a way I also beleive that one persons idea of notablility may differ from another depending on the interest of that person. I mean I persoanlly cannot beleive that an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously has an article on Pokemon as a featured article on the main page today!!! I personally don't think this or any of the other 45000 + characters and cartoons and manga and manga artists or whatever are particularly notable, but that doesn'ytgive me the right to state they are not notable when other epople may thik differently as wikipedia attempts to accomate millions of diifferent interests at once.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with you about some of the lists I created. Films will naturally be categorised in an A-Z anyway so there is no point in comilin A-Z lists unneccessarily. However as other users agreed to keep them I think The List of films by country should be in chronological of the major films of that country -clearly encylkcopedic and of use to the reader. In due course I will delete the List of Finnish films from whateve rI listed as many of the films I listed there are not notable anyway and alter the pages of the others to a cinema timeline format.which is part of the Cinema of pages. This way it conveys information rel;ated to the cinema of that country Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panaca, Nevada[edit]

You don't have to cry about it. No one cares about the town, anyway. Don't you know anything notable that you can write about?--Justin322 04:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The town can be covered along with Lincoln County. Besides, it's unsourced. Unsourced material can be removed at any time.--Justin322 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned this user and declined his request for your block on WP:AN3. alphachimp 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of iTunes 2006[edit]

Once the list of top selling singles from iTunes leaves the client it is unavailable anywhere on the net. I have be trying in vein to find the top sellers for 2003 and 2005. This is not a list based on opinion. It is based on fact. As a fact it cannot be copyrighted. Why did you delete it?

Blocked the new sock[edit]

I blocked 'em.[3] Bishonen | talk 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: The Bazura Project[edit]

I've removed your nonsense tag from The Bazura Project, as it is (apparently) a real television program. However, I don't believe it meets the notability criteria, so I've flagged it as PROD. Jackk 13:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show's website claims to broadcast on that network at that time, and a cursory look at the TV Guide verified this... When I removed your speedy tag, I removed the nonsense. I still think it is non-notable, hence PROD.

Jackk 14:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford[edit]

Hi there. FYI, I noticed you added the merge tag to the page, and I feel the same way. Please see the discussion on the talk page here. → JARED ^(t) 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Unite[edit]

'Deserves seperate article' - [4]. Why? Proto::► 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think, then, of a better way to explain that it's a separate organization, as it currently states it's the "charitable arm of Richard Branson's Virgin Group." Proto::► 00:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I upset you. Proto::► 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry if I annoyed you, bothered you, flustered you, irritated you or perturbed you. Proto::► 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the link. Proto::► 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page[edit]

Okay, okay. I tagged it as a deleted page. Bebop n' Rocksteady 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being There Magazine[edit]

Concur with what you said on the talk page. As a result a new AfD is born. Kimchi.sg 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert work at BPD[edit]

Thank you SO much. I have flagged the two subtopic areas where she had made the inline "targeted for deletion" stuff. I hate to see this happen when (to my way of thinking about it) it should first be discussed on the talk page. I am heartened to see that you feel the same way. Zeraeph was hoping that everyone on BPD would start doing the same thing - which made me shudder. So unworkable. Again, thank you for your incredible good sense -- I had at least 10 admins weigh in on "the problem" and while one called her actions RUDE, not a single one of them suggested that editors should wait for changes in SOP to come down from the top and not simply be adopted, hither and yon, as the moment should move you.. :o) Thanks again. --Kiwi 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Sheenfanficker Fanfic Page=It's not an experiment!! >:([edit]

Part 1: I never wanted to have my fanfic page deleted! I'm kinda new at this, and now look what happened! You just let a great story be deleted! I want the Wikipedians of Wikipedia to understand my full potential! And, that's why my name is Sheenfanficker, duh! Don't do that ever again, please! Do you know how many Sheen fans that can't type well have been waiting for a true fanfic author like me? I never wanted this to happen (sobbing). You never have writers have a chance(smashing computer off and sobbing to bedroom)! Part 2: So, if Wikipedia isn't a place to write great literature, then where is besides my own website(abandoned) or blogging sites(not allowed to)? Part 3: I have tried a website before this discussion, and I have abandonded it for good. So, in the meantime, can you find someone who can let me write Fanfic on Wikipedia? Part 4: So, if no dang person can let me write my own Fanfic on Wikipedia, is there a Wiki that can? And if you don't know, then do you know where I can find someone that can tell me where I can write my fanfics on?

Capitol Steps albums[edit]

There are already SCORES of artists who have entire discographies broken down into individual articles, and MANY MANY artists I've never heard of. But if I went and started flagging Finnish bands, I'm sure I'd get flamed to death by the Finns. The Capitol Steps themselves cannot be ignored, if only for a) their twenty-five year history b) their twenty-seven+ albums, and c) their participating in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. decision, which went in their favor. Also, you point at WP:INN which itself says is only an essay. Sales figures for the albums aren't available (though I suppose I could ask), as they're self-published and largely self-distributed (though some of their CDs have appeared in stores like Borders in the past, I haven't seen any in a couple of years, and I generally get copies from the group). Would you prefer a list over individual articles? --JohnDBuell 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dic Ann's[edit]

Just do a search for Dic Ann's on Google and you will find far too many references to believe that it's a just figment of my imagination. It is odd that they are not listed, that's actually the reason I put the article up because when I tried to go there a few weeks ago I couldn't track down the address. They seem to do business through word of mouth. If you still don't believe me I can email you a scan of a placemant I have with all the branch addresses (but no phone numbers).

Here are all the locations for your interest:

10910 Pie IX, Montreal-Nord 1345 Cure-Labelle, Laval 6110 Louis H Lafontaine, Ville d'Anjou 1417 Chemin Gascon, Terrebonne 235 De Martigny, St-Jerome 355 Notre-Dame, Repentigny 4680 Des Laurentides, Laval 280 Harwood, Vaudreuil 1640 Chemin du Tremblay, Longeuil 6224 St-Jacques, Notre-Dame-de-Grace

By the way, you don't have to be rude about the fact that you doubt the legitimacy of my article. You may not realize it but writing things like "You ARE going to have to do better than that" and "The clock is ticking" to a stranger who owes you nothing is pretty insulting. You're not my boss.--JSLR 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems I am not the only one that has problems with how you say things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.109.114 (talk • contribs) -- actually User:Postcard Cathy -- at 23:29, December 30, 2006

Minneapolis Theater AFDs[edit]

Hey there. Could you please explain to me why you are putting all of these articles on the AFD watch list? I am attempting to document the professional theater companies in the Twin Cities, and tring to do it as legitimately as possible. Instead of immediately nominating them for the junkpile, could you help me understand the logic a little better?Oddred1 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GO TIGER GO[edit]

WIKI IS NOT A DINING GUIDE! Q's Chinese Restaurant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.109.114 (talk • contribs) -- actually User:Postcard Cathy -- at 02:36, December 30, 2006

WIKI is a way to record the notable history. In a sense we should record the smallest thing even if it is mushroom growing out someone's basement noted by CNN and published on a legit paper. Who are we to argue the validity of someone's curiosity. Think Calton, did Q's jump at your face with a dinner review? If and when someone wondered who Calton has edited, should we say, "well, he is in significant because he isn't published"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob.d.Schneider (talk • contribs) 01:48, December 31, 2006