User talk:Kingboyk/Archive 22

Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Buffy

Sorry, but please do not work against consensus. We had a page name discussion, consensus was that "TV series" follows the naming conventions guideline for television articles that share names. If you wish to reopen the discussion, that is fine, but please do not move pages against their agreed upon name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And the disambig page clearly says "see Naming conventions", which dictate that it should be "TV series". You're misreading that "primary usage" is refering to. Look at the examples, it's of words that have more than one spelling. The example they use is "Checks", and "Cheque". One is the US spelling, the other is the spelling used more around the world, hence why "Check" goes to a disambig page, and "US checks" fall under "Cheque". If this was a case of the show being called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in most countries, but "The Vampire Slayer Buffy" in a couple of others, then you would make the first one the real article, and redirect the second. That isn't the case. The show is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the movie is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", so are many of the games, and other media. Per naming conventions, when you share you disambiguate, because determine which one deserves to be "THE" "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is rather POV, considering you couldn't have had the show without the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the disambig page should be retitled to simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and let the reader choose where they want to go from there, given that at least 5 articles share the exact name, and the character herself is known by that name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please write to me about this issue on the article's talk page, not here. It's not a personal issue.

Consensus determined that the TV show is the primary usage, and I think that's right. Really, the vast majority of uses will be for the show. (Some will be for the character Buffy Summers, but readers ending up at the TV show article instead are not hugely inconvenienced I think).

The point is though that Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to be either the primary topic or a dab page, it shouldn't be a redirect to the primary topic! The guidelines are perfectly clear on this. Just about the only exception is when an article is primary topic for two or more phrases (The KLF, KLF); in such cases one of those has to be a redirect and the {{redirect}} dab template is used in the main article instead of something like {{otheruses}}. --kingboyk (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus for the name change, and naming conventions say otherwise. If you feel the name should be different then bring it up on the talk page. If you continue to move the article against the consensus found on the talk page, I will seek administrative action.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Did you actually read what I wrote? The naming conventions are on my side. The closing admin even said that the way he closed it went against the NCs! I've merely fixed that part of his closure since, frankly, he got that bit wrong.

I'm not going against consensus at all: consensus is that the TV show is the primary usage.

Again, please talk about this on the article's talk page, which I will check regularly. You're not going to get any consensus just talking to me about it. --kingboyk (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not sure how I've offended you exactly. When did I say you weren't willing to discuss it? I agree with both you and Bignole to a certain extent... I'd rather have either the TV show to be called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", or for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to direct to a disambig page and have the TV show article titled "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)". I think the problem is proving that the show is the most common usegage of the name... obviously it is, but we still need to prove it. I'd be happy with either outcome, but I don't like this funny compromise we have at the moment, where we have (TV series) even though BtVS links to that page.  Paul  730 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The other guy. He said on your talk page that I won't discuss it, he said on the page protection request that I won't discuss it etc etc. And, hopefully for the last time, I must ask: please discuss this issue on the article's talk page and not here! :)

If we're to follow the naming conventions, and I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't, we have a simple choice. The TV series is the primary topic and lives at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or there is no primary topic and the dab page lives there. I thought debate had already settled on the TV show as the primary topic - I certainly hope so! :) Guidelines also state that if there's continued debate on what is and what isn't the primary topic it's a good indicator that there isn't one. I'd like to avoid that if possible as I really think the TV show is primary.

Anyway, Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a redirect is not an acceptable compromise nor is it sensible. In addition to the naming conventions I already quoted, article titles should be as short as possible. --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

If you want to reply to the "other guy", do so on his talk page and don't send your aggressive comments my way please. I do not wish to be a part of this conversation, I sympathise with both sides and can't be bothered repeating myself constantly about a topic I don't feel strongly about. Also, why did you move the Faith page despite the fact their was a discussion on the talk page with consensus that Lehane wasn't her common name?  Paul  730 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it in the article and why is she listed as such in the list of Slayers? Revert if incorrect and please fix the article. Sigh. --kingboyk (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page to find out why. And fix what? Lehane is her name, just not her common name. It should be mentioned, it just shouldn't be the title of the article.  Paul  730 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)‎. --kingboyk (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Stubclass}}

I was using this template with my bot for a while, until I started getting complaints that it was putting "Category:Foo stub" on the talk page. I couldn't figure out how to turn this off, so I stopped using it. Any suggestions on how to turn this off? It would make things much easier! SkierRMH (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an example? Maybe somebody introduced a coding error? My bot has used the template 10s of thousands of times without incident. (User:Kingbotk). --kingboyk (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - D'Oh... Found the problem in the one that I did for TV project that was the problem. I'm going to revert to that when I get back to that computer tomorrow! Thanks for the reminder. SkierRMH (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd request

Hi Steve. It's been a wee while since we last spoke. I need your help. My account here has been nicked on me - it must have been a determined effort too, because my password was *reasonably* secure. I have changed the passwords on my other Wiki accounts, so they will hopefully be safe now. I wonder if it's possible for you to reset an account password and e-mail address, and obviously to find out who 'hacked' my account and ban them? Please advise - I will offer clues if you can't guess who I am already. Cheers. --90.203.247.193 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to guess here? I'm pretty sure I know who you are anyway :)

I don't think I have any tools available to me to do this, nor if anybody can. I will however ask around - keep an eye on this page. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. :) --90.203.247.193 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found this page: Wikipedia:Contact us/login problems. I've also been advised that you might want to make a request via the OTRS system: "report the account as stolen, then someone can look for password changes/email changes and allow the original user to reset it?" I've no idea if they'd agree to this but there's no harm in asking. Or, you could try IRC. Altering user accounts and passwords is beyond the capabilities of us mere admins, I'm afraid.

Hope that helps and sorry it's not really the answer you wanted. --kingboyk 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm on holiday at the minute, though I'm in the middle of recovering from a nasty fever! I'll probably get around to attempting something in the next few days, or after the hols. In the meantime, Happy Holidays, as they say. ;) --64.234.75.105 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd

Please come back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To where? --kingboyk (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sealand

I'm of the same opinion. Initially he appeared to be doing some good work with non-Sealand micronation articles - but that all seemed to stop very suddenly, to be replaced by what appears to me to be a rampantly evangelistic pro-Sealand campaign. Irrespective of whether he's associated with the Bates family in some way or not, he clearly lacks any sense of objectivity on the subject, and also has a profoundly flawed understanding of NPOV. I hesitate to make any further changes to the article at this stage, because on past experience he'll simply delete them. How best to deal with it? --Gene_poole (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. He clearly has an agenda but he's not entirely unreasonable so no need to escalate at the moment I think. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like he's quietened down since your intro para re-write - which incidentally returns things to a status quo that existed quite some time ago - before I decided that removing the redundant weasely bit was a good idea. I shall be bold with extreme delicacy on this subject in future. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to tinker further with the lead (or, rather, please do!). I've been trying to come up with something which is neutral but readable and which is self-explanatory to the casual reader. I can't say that I've fully succeeded and am certainly not in love with my last edit or anything like that :)

Indeed this would all be somewhat easier if the article was more substantial (and the topic not spread over a multitude of articles); as a summary of the article the lead would pretty much write itself. --kingboyk (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Halton FM

Hi Sir, You deleted a page regarding a local community radio station. The reasons given was because it was regarding "a local club". Fortunately, that is not the case. Halton FM is a radio station that is based in Runcorn and broadcasts to an audience of up to five hundred thousand people!

I am a volunteer for said community radio staton and I will gladly provide information regarding the activities of it.

I ask that you return the page to its original state. If you wish to further discuss this, feel free to e-mail me at snoopsy10 (at) gmail dot com.

Thanks

Matthew Hughes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoomin (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what a community radio station is, and "potential" audiences mean nothing. The article didn't offer any assertion of notability or evidence of independent reliable sources. Feel free to start again if you can make an article which demonstrates compliance with WP:N (especially the first section), and after reading WP:V and WP:RS. See also "what Wikipedia is not". --kingboyk (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please be careful

I know you didn't want a reply, but I would like to give you one anyway... I wasn't using an automated tool. Littleteddy (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. --kingboyk (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

This seems like a re-run of the McCartney article for me, but this time I'm being you, and someone else is being me (huh?) I think Lennon needs some advice from a wise sage like yourself about article sections and their placement in the scheme of things. They're all good people (no nastys) but they need someone to "move the goalposts" (copyright Vera, Chuck and Dave) and point them in the right direction. You're infinitely better at this than me (which means I'm still not you :) and it would be mucho appreciated, me old mucker. --andreasegde (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. Basic structure looks pretty good, but I think there's a few too many subsections. I'll try and have a proper look tommorow... send me a nasty message if I don't turn up. --kingboyk (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

West Hull Community Radio

Of course its important, every radio station is important. You arnt important or significant to me so maybe you should be deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.189.179 (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a Wikipedia article, smart arse. --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Casbah Coffee Club

Am I right that the Lead shouldn't be sourced if everything in it is in the article? (Thanks for tweaking it, BTW.) --andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally that's how it's done, yes. --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lennon page/Ono Section

Sorry I didn't write the summary of the change, I forgot. We've been working on knocking this article into shape for the past couple of weeks and when we fix somethings, other things need work. it's like a jigsaw puzzle. be patient, we'll have all the citations and everything after we get the facts down. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

List of the oldest people

Obviously you didn't read my note at Talk:List of oldest people, as you've completely ignored my concerns. It's about the fact that many many people claim to be the "oldest people," but the list only includes those cases that are verified. For example, Hryhoriy Nestor was mentioned as being 116 by the BBC (a very reliable source), but within the reliable source it was mentioned that his age had not been verified. Therefore, he was not included on that list. Only those cases that are verified are included (verified by the main sources for the article (at the bottom of the page). Please see the talk page for a fuller explanation. I am undoing your page move. Cheers, CP 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you didn't revert, you moved it to a page name which is at least an improvement on what went before ("verified oldest" rather than "verified people"). I'm of the opinion that "verified" shouldn't be in the article title (all articles should be based on reliable sources anyway, and who does the verifying?) however that's not a debate for my talk page :) Cheers --kingboyk (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, best wishes to you also. --kingboyk (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Badfinger

Hi, I reverted your change to Badfinger because album covers are generally only allowed on album pages - see Wikipedia:FU#Unacceptable images. Besides, the covers need rationales to be there anyway. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:The KLF - The Black Room.jpg

Can you please clarify, this revert with a source of the image, and attribute it to the actual copyright holder. Gnangarra 14:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of incorrect information, I didn't say I have the correct information. I've no idea who made it, sorry, I just know it's wasn't KLF Communications. --kingboyk (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some source that can be verified, where did you get the image from? Gnangarra 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bootleg fan production. I've forgotten what the exact origin is unfortunately. However, I've been thinking about this and I think that in a roundabout way you had it right. It's basically an altered version of the cover of The White Room and as such - a derivative work - the copyright almost certainly rests with KLF Communications. I'll update the description to reflect this. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Thanks Gnangarra 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects

I'll finish - only a couple left now. Thanks for moving the main article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and you're welcome. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

I apologize if I have given the impression of vandalism to the users of the page: Sealand. I intended no harm nor defacement to the page, I simply tried to add a better and more upgraded quality to the Infobox of Sealand. I added a notice at the bottom of the Infobox, trying to indicate that it wasn’t an official country and that it’s status was disputed. The Infobox was only meant to be temporary, until an improved micronation Infobox could be made. I also tried to give Sealand a better status since I have read about it’s popularity in the book, Guinness World Records 2008. Please understand that no harm was intended. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied at User_talk:Jughead.z(1)#Principality_of_Sealand. --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) PS What exactly does the Guinness book say about Sealand?

I see that you have written the following on another page:

"You overstate the case, Onecanadasquarebishopsgate. Sealand is not a recognised country, and most of the fields in that template do not apply to tiny micronations (GDP, population, ethnic groups, etc). It's ridiculous. The article has to reflect published opinion."

Firstly, did I say that because Sealand was a recognised country, it needs the country infobox? I didn't - what I mean is that the micronation infobox at that time was not as useful as the country infobox, so why use the micronation infobox? However, if I did change it to the country infobox, the above would have happened, so I thought that it would be better to change the micronation infobox instead to avoid another disagreement, and for NPOV.

And why does that information not apply to Sealand? I don't see why the information in an infobox should be limited if that information exists - Wikipedia should be improved not limited. And even if the article had to reflect published opinion, what about the opinion that Sealand is a sovereign nation?

However I agree that the edits in the infobox should be used in the micronation infobox to avoid the disagreement and to improve that infobox so that it is as useful as the country infobox.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the info does exist other than from self-published sources, and even if it does it's trivia... Sealand's GDP, for example, is just the Bates family income isn't it? Anyway, could we discuss this on the article talk page please, not here? --kingboyk (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About the world record. Sealand has the world record for the "Smallest area of land to claim nation status". It describes what Sealand is and has a short summary about its history and what the Sealanders have achieved.

And it dosen't mention the word "micronation" once.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. May I suggest making mention of this (with a citation) in the article? --kingboyk (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My old user page

I prefer to keep it blanked for privacy reasons. Anyone who needs to know my new user name can get it from the page history very easily. If you need more information, please feel free to email me or see the drama around User:H. --B (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to admins being renamed and retaining the sysop bit whilst leaving behind no trace of who their previous account was, and leaving behind lots of dead links from their old talk page postings. People shouldn't have it both ways: if you want to vanish, vanish. Furthermore, I was able to establish in a few minutes who you previously were so where's the privacy? --kingboyk (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were able to establish it in a few minutes, then I didn't leave no trace. The problem isn't you. The problem isn't any legitimate Wikipedian. Obviously, anyone familiar with the software can easily find my new username or my old one. --B (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lummee, you off orf again..?

Blanked your userpage, I notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean anything. It was blank before, I just added a template and then reverted back. --kingboyk (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help needed

I'm alright, but ruffling a few feathers on Wikipedia as ever. I hope you've been keeping well. Is the KLF Project going to be more active soon then? That'll be interesting.

I notice you wish to possibly use the Gwen Stefani discography, although I would opt for the 50 Cent discography. If I had seen the Stefani one at FLC, I would've objected due to the fact it doesn't list album chart positions. Newer discographies tend to have a neat infobox summarising things, such as the one that can be found at Nine Inch Nails discography. I'd take a look at all the discographies that are featured, and either opt for one or a mixture of things. I wouldn't include track listings. As concerns chart data, the best guy to ask I would say is 17Drew. Hope this helps. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying the relevant part to the discog talk page and will reply there.

I don't have any plans to be doing major work on KLF articles, but I felt that the discography ought to be featured and it was mainly formatting/organisation which was holding it back, so that's why I'm working on it... --kingboyk (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Move may affect list driving "User:Kingbotk/Logs/010507 20th century deaths 1"

I don't know enuf about User:Kingbotk/Logs/010507 20th century deaths 1 to tell if you care, but Adlai E. Stevenson is now a Rdr to Adlai Stevenson (disambiguation) instead of a bio, the bio having moved to Adlai E. Stevenson I.
--Jerzy•t 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't matter to me at all, but thanks for letting me know :) (if you find any others just ignore them, thanks). --kingboyk (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillsong Church London

Hi, on 26 Dec you proposed a POV-check for Hillsong Church London. You did not give any reason for this on the article's talk page, therefore I have removed the template. If you still feel a POV-check is needed, please re-add it but please support your request on the talk page. Thank you. Halsteadk (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape Tour

Even i had the confusion whether the articl should be FA or FLC. I posted the question here [1] and this is the reply i got:-

Frankly, I think all the examples I cited (as well as the Sweet Escape Tour article Indianescence mentioned) should all be featured lists, and that if FLC doesn't currently accomodate them, it should expand so that it does. Raul654 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore i nominated it for FLC. Indianescence (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You might like to post that at the FLC in case others ask or wonder the same thing. It's not an issue personal to me :) Thanks again --kingboyk (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)

Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I can't tell if you've been notified, but this guy listed a bunch of your images for deletion here. -- RG² 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd spotted his tagging and reverted but I hadn't spotted that listing. Looks like he keeps changing IP. Thanks for letting me know! --kingboyk (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Slusnik Luna

Thanks for deleting my page on the above topic. Took me a fair while to make it. And I am going to make it again. I would say that any band that has a professional music contract and a Top 40 UK hit (as well as others in their home country no doubt) makes them notable. So please don't randomly delete things for no reason. Cls14 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable to me (and other folks obviously think the same as it's an orphan). However, I've had another look at WP:Notability (music) and apparently a top 40 hit is enough to constitute notability so I've restored the old edits. --kingboyk (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

R.E.M.

Thanks for the compliment. I mainly meant by the comment that for the longest time The KLF has been cited as the best band article on Wikipedia by various editors (didn't it win a poll concerning the best "Culture" article last year)? Yeah, R.E.M. is definitely more notable, which is why I hope it becomes an exemplar for articles about top-flight bands. So if someone decided to fix up Queen (band), Cream (band), Led Zeppelin, The Police, or something else of that level, they have something to compare it to and draw ideas from. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's some stupid Wiki thing. Rock bands aren't necessarily concerned with the intricacies of grammar when titling songs. Regardless, every source available, be it American or British, capitalizes all the letters. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Odo

You say in your closing summary "It wouldn't be good if it's merely due to bias against Star Trek but I find no evidence of that." I think you should reread the "proposal" of the move, which states "I come on Wikipedia looking for information about the 10th century Archibishop of Canterbury and get some Star Trek nonsense. I certainly don't object to fictional characters having articles, but prioritising this drivel over the articles on dozens of historical figures named Odo makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I suppose this article is mainly attended by fans of Star Trek, but if any of Wikipedia's writers with a sense of perspective stop by this page, I hope they'll see sense." (Emphasis added.) The entire discussion was prompted by an anti-Star Trek tirade by an anonymous IP who assumes bad faith on the basis of disliking (or at least having a secondary concern for) fictional characters. Since your decision doesn't really fit naming conventions, whatever the consensus among administrators, I thought you should at least be aware that part of your assessment of the situation was incorrect. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but it was indeed from an anonymous IP and I automatically ignore such tirades from anon IPs. I know he started the debate, but that doesn't really matter. I'll perhaps alter that finding, but the fact remains that this was a difficult decision which was never going to please everybody.

I don't accept that the closure violates any guidelines - we disambiguate when it's deemed necessary, and here it was deemed necessary - but if you wish to challenge it please either debate it further on the article talk page or perhaps by adding to the thread on the admins' noticeboard. I'm just a janitor, and whilst I'm always open to review, I'm not going to change the decision now it's made so it's pointless discussing it further :) I hope you understand.

I have to pop out; I'll action this when I get back if it's not been overturned before I get back. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to challenge the decision, it's not that big a deal, I just wanted to make sure it was clear that your statement that there was no "bias against Star Trek" or other dubious motives/biases underlying these arguments was, in fact, mistaken, regardless of which opinions you may have tacitly discarded. But, for the record, "disambiguate when necessary" still includes conventions and general standards, and the consensus regarding that was clearly in favor of not moving, even if there is a differing consensus otherwise. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that bit. It would have been much easier for me to close it as no consensus, but as you know I put it to the admins' noticeboard and the advice was clear. Thanks for the dialogue; I'll go action it now. --kingboyk (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image rationales

Hi Kingboyk, thanks for pointing me to User talk:LuciferMorgan, I'll make a start on those images. I'll fix any images I come across that are fixable! His seem to be mostly album covers, which are easy to fix. All the best, Bláthnaid 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the all images on LuciferMorgan's talk page. There were some that I thought failed other parts of the non-free content criteria, but I've added rationales and sources to all of the others. If you see any other talk page full of image warnings, please point me towards them, I think they are the quickest way of finding fixable images. Bláthnaid 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Blathnaid. --kingboyk (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

? a bot to convert {{Somerset}} to {{WikiProject Somerset}}

Thanks for your kind offer. I've drafted the new Template:Somerset at User:Rodw/Sandboxsomersettemplate. NB this would need to go at the bottom of articles rather than on the talk pages as the current one is. Hope this makes sense?— Rod ^talk 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually planning to add the template to the articles, just fix the redirects for the talk page template. At the very least I'd need to get a new bot approval to do it. Wouldn't that task be better done by a human? Let me know what you think, in the meantime I'll have a look at your new template and have a think about how I'm going to do the talk page job (or who to delegate it to ;)) --kingboyk (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I will put the adding the template to the Somerset WikiProject team once the old one can be deleted. I don't really understand what you mean by "fix the redirects for the talk page template"— Rod ^talk 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the "redirect" comment, I meant migrate the old talk page template to the new name.

I think regarding the new template it probably would be best to discuss it with the WikiProject first, and then submit a new bot request if you think it is indeed a job for a bot. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Underway. For some reasons the edits say "using AWB" despite turning that off, may be a bug? :( --Kingbotk (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The transition is now complete. Happy‑melon 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this.— Rod ^talk 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My userpage edit

Thanks for your concern, but unless you can cite me a policy which prohibits users from sorting their usernames in whichever way they like, I have a strong preference for leaving the sortkey the way it is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What does your preference have to do it? Do you often look yourself up in categories? Your username is Ezhiki, so you sort under "E"... --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. It is my username, and I sort it whatever way I like to. If it's an inconvenience, I'm sorry. As soon as the practice is outlawed, I'll sort my username under "E". Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then get a username change. Ezhiki sorts under "E", period. --kingboyk (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category. Special characters should be ignored and lowercase converted to upper, to prevent them sorting after Z. --kingboyk (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion WikiProjects

So far as I've seen, there isn't that much templating period. There will be some overlap on articles like Karma and other articles that would be of importance to more than one subject. If you are asking, as it were, whether it might be possible to create a multiple-use "Religion" banner, or "Christianity" or "Eastern Religion" template which could function like the MILHIST banner does, I think in all honesty most would probably welcome it, at least regarding those articles which aren't very much specific to an individual religious group. I also think that if we could adjust the Bio banner to include the proposed Religious leaders group, that would probably help a lot as well, to ensure that we don't have subprojects of Catholicism for Catholic people, for instance. The Saints banner itself could probably be joined to the Bio banner, and if someone were to propose that I think it would probably be approved. Granted, Astrology, Parapsychology, Paranormal, etc., do to a degree fall outside the main "religion" topic, and I'm not sure if they'd welcome being bunched in with Christianity and Islam, etc. I'm fairly sure Atheism would object as well. My personal guess would probably be that the best field to focus on initially would be the Eastern religions, given the commonality of Karma and other subjects to all of them. And we have introduced some functions into the Christianity banner to make possible assessment for different groups there as well. I think the Religion project banner has such ability as well. Lastly, so far as I can tell, the two Jewish "branch" projects don't yet have assessments, and they'd probably be willing to use the Jewish banner if it permitted separate assessment. Factually, I think that they'd probably be happy to see it happen, so that the apparent "factionalism" displayed in a lot of Christianity could be avoided. I'm not sure if that's what you were possibly asking about, so, if it isn't, you have my apologies. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was asking about... Actually, I wasn't so much asking as giving you a gentle prod ;) - something to think about whilst you work in that area (which your user page says is a current activity).

I'm not offering to actually do all this template work mind you. My templating ability is quite rusty and I can't do everything... I am however happy to advise and help out (i.e. perhaps do some of it); perhaps more usefully should any large-scale migration of templates happen I could probably update my bot plugin code to handle it (it can already parse pretty much any WikiProject template, convert template X into a =yes parameter of template Y, and so on). I'd need to write some code to recognise the banner container templates and to remove any which now contain only one template but that shouldn't be too hard. And, if I'm not around, User:Reedy Boy has access to the code and permission to update it too. --kingboyk (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RtV

Courtesy blanked.

Thanks Pomte for heads up. --kingboyk (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Renamed admins

Well, if they're getting renamed, that doesn't really count as vanishing; the user renaming log is a fairly obvious connection to the old account. The question of whether the old user pages should be linked to the new ones, and so forth, is a minor one as far as I'm concerned; it's nice to make things more convenient for people looking for past history, but I wouldn't insist on it if the admin has good reasons to avoid doing so. Kirill 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gloucester

Do you happen to live in Gloucester? --Steerpike (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, but I know the city. Can I help at all? --kingboyk (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I was going to make a pretty bizarre request actually. I wrote an article on the Roman emperor Nerva a while back. Apparently a statue of him can be found in Gloucester. I've been trying to find free pictures of it for some time, but no luck so far. So I got the idea to ask Wikipedians who lived in the area whether they'd like to take some pictures of it for me. But it doesn't really matter. So, never mind :) --Steerpike (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bizarre at all, it's a smart idea. Unfortunately I rarely go there nor do I know offhand where the statue is. I can at least find out the latter for you and whether it's worth taking a picture of, but I can't be offering to take it just yet. Would getting that info at least be of any help? --kingboyk (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's ok. I know the location of the statue. Thanks for your help! --Steerpike (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: More help needed

Thanks for the compliment, which is very much appreciated. It's nice to know that I am appreciated here and there. :) You need to citate the "Composition" section before even entertaining the idea of taking it to FAC.

You asked the following question; "I was wondering if you could recommend somebody else who really knows their stuff who would look at it?" Yeah, of course. When it goes to FAC, there are a few people who are likely to comment (who, apart from Tony1, seem to show an interest in music articles). Two of them are the following;

1) Tony1 - Not really sure if I actually need to explain this one. As you know, Tony checks whether an article is well written or not. As concerns whether an article is well written, I deem him an authority. If he thinks your article isn't well written, he will object.

2) 17Drew - An authority on music FAs. If he says a music article is ready for FAC, I'd go with his opinion. If it isn't, he'll comment at FAC with what he feels needs to be addressed.

If you need me to suggest more names, feel free to message. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if I can cite that section. I'll think about it. --kingboyk (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TOC

Nice user page!

What's the matter with the TOC? If the issue is that it's too large, the best approach of course is to archive or delete a few messages ;) The technical way around it is to add __NOTOC__ at the top of your page, which will remove the TOC altogether. See Help:Magic_words#Table_of_contents. --kingboyk (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! On my screen, the userboxes are bullying the TOC around, and I don't seem to be able to stop it. I tried and failed :( ----Seans Potato Business 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine here, in Firefox... --kingboyk (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What resolution? I'm at 1024x768 and suspect a lower resolution would "fix" the problem. This is a screenshot ----Seans Potato Business 00:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hillsong

Hello. You tagged Category:Hillsong albums for renaming and Category:Hillsong worship albums for merging, but they don't seem to have been listed on the CfD log. Could you renominate them? I'd do it for you - the merge is obvious enough - but I'm not sure about the rename. TIA, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They were listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 26 and then somebody relisted them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 1 for further debate, so far as I can tell. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just figured that out, and now they've been relisted yet again. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand (again)

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate has now progressed to vandalising the article by blanking properly cited content. If you could keep an eye on this and revert his changes it would be appreciated. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This dispute resolution process has unfortunately failed. I have not resorted to vandalism, I clearly wrote several times about who controls Sealand News (not Roy Bates or Sealand) and that is the site he is using for his sources. I have placed his user on WP:RFAR ,the last step in dispute resolution, because Gene Poole will not cooperate with dispute resolution. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Other admins are onto it. Dispute resolution isn't really my thing, and I'm currently doing some work on my AWB plugin, but if there's anything specific that pops up I'll try to help. Also, as I've kind of taken sides to an extent it's probably best to have independent eyes on it anyway. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

I don't know if theres some special form I need in order to make an unprotect page request, but my sister's page was just protected. I understand that she was deleting the ban for 1 year thingy, but she didn't even realise at all that you weren't allowed to until I told her, but it was too late. So I am not requesting you to unban her although I disagree with the fact you banned her, all I ask is that could you please unprotect her page?

PinkXjellocreature (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

oh um an her usernames lollipop-3 incase u didnt remember 0.~

PinkXjellocreature (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The page doesn't seem to be protected at the moment, although that might be due to a mistake. I blocked your sister for using the site as a social space, and invited her to come back when she understood what this site is about. She then got indefinitely unblocked; I don't know anything about that. What I do know, however, is that she's blocked for the forseeable future and as such doesn't need a Wikipedia talk or user page. If the page was still protected (or is protected in the future) I don't see any reason to unprotect it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Stan Polley article

Hi Stephen. You said to let you know if I needed some administrative assistance. The article Stan Polley appears to be a target of someone bent on inserting their personal opinion of the man. Reverts have been going on since November, but with increasing frequency lately. If you find the time, can you take a look and make a suggestion? Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The page has been protected I see. Not sure how it got noticed but it did :) If you need the same thing done again, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

I also commented in the AfD. He looks notable to me, although you might want to consider starting the article afresh or merging it somewhere if it's kept. It was a bit below standard in 2006 and it's looking pretty poor by 2008 standards, especially now we have this policy. --kingboyk (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted my troubles with it at 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎.' It appears three admins came in and locked it and adjusted some things, but it also advertised it so it was nominated for deletion. Hopefully, I can start reworking the article sometime next week (if it isn't deleted before then). I agree it needs work, but it's difficult to find time to start over from scratch on articles. Anyway, thanks for your attention, sir. :) ZincOrbie (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Something for everyone. --andreasegde (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of entry

Hey there! I made the entry for A.J. Morton and was wondering if you could explain the reasons why it should be deleted and perhaps help me improve it. A.J used to live in my town (though I never met him) and him and his father were quite well known. His dad is quite famous having recently been seen in Monarch of the Glen. A.J is less well known but I thought his work with Robert Carlyle, Irvine Welsh, Tommy Flanagan, Gary Lewis and Iain Glen made him fairly notable. The tag states that there is not enough interlinking but if you look again you will see that the the article repeatedly links to others. His part in the multi-award winning Silent Scream (1990 film) was far from small. His entry in the IMDb I thought would be a good source. He is also recorded by the British Film Institute. Anyhoo, thanks for the pointer and I hope you can help rather than delete it. I am more familiar with local history article making. You can tell! All the best. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag; looking at what you wrote to me I might have been a bit hasty, sorry. Can you perhaps find any more articles which are about him and not the films he was in? Then try and work some of that info into the text and add citations. --kingboyk (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Thank you! Your own contributions look stunning. So many awards! thanks for your help and patience. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks :) Let me know if you get stuck, or ask at the help desk if I'm not about. --kingboyk (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just before I go...could you check the IMDb link. Plenty info there about him. Even a trivia. It isn't just a filmography but a biography too. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Is that written by journalists or is it user submitted? --kingboyk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...good question. I don't have a clue. I thought the IMDb was run by both public and private persons. Do directors and agents not fill in the entries? I think agents might be the submitters. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know to tell you the truth. Don't worry about it anyway, the article's not being deleted. I was probably a bit hasty nominating it but it just didn't seem to assert much notability to me. You have time to improve it since the deletion tag has gone; there's no rush. I'm off to bed soon, goodnight. --kingboyk (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

hey no probs! Thanks for the help and advice. Sleep well. Looking at your wiki page. Very impressive. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Banner sharing

Well if banner sharing is the way to go can you please activate the work groups displays on the central american template. See Talk:Dolores, El Petén it should be displying this is part of the Guatemala work group but it isn't. Can you blame people for wanting to have seperate templates when nobody will fix the regional ones? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the people who would fix the seperate template fix the regional one? Is it protected or is there some other problem?

An aside: Actually my comment was one of a general principle; whether I'd go as far as having a template for a whole continent is a seperate question. I'd like to see all the UK-related projects share a template, but I'm not sure that I'd be looking to have them share a Europe-wide template. That might just make the template a bit hard to manage. --kingboyk (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you...

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).

John Carter (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Migration

Yeah, actually, I am slowly moving these over manually. Bots are a part of Wikipedia I have no experience with at all. -- PEPSI2786^talk 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's all it is. If you could get your bot on it, that'd be great, and much appreciated. -- PEPSI2786^talk 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. -- PEPSI2786^talk 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- PEPSI2786^talk 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikidelete

What do you think is funny about the notion of WD? Wikipedia is awash with crap, undeserving articles, do you think that they should all be kept? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Lawrence

Hi Kingboyk, I noticed that you added a 'prod' notation to the Aaron Lawrence article, after fuzzyred asked about notability. FYI, I have removed this notation and added a response on Aaron's notability. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, up to you, but it's been tagged as problematic for long enough. No reply needed, I was only passing by that article. Thanks! --kingboyk (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag Category:Actor stubs

Hi. Your bot seems to be doing some really trivial/pointless changes in changing the order of fields on the talk page of actors. EG, moving the living=no tag up or down one line, or doing the same with priority or stub type. Look at Talk:Tom McGuire (actor) for an example. This is just clogging up watch-lists with insignificant editing, unless there's a real reason why this minor change needs to be done? Lugnuts (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's trivial, yes. Sorry about that, but these things happen. Any other examples to help me work out why it's doing it? I guess it's because it's been told to tag for a&e, but film-bio takes precedence; it therefore thinks it has a substantial edit to do but it turns out it hasn't. If that's what happening it'll just be a logic tweak which I'll look at later. I've finished a&e for now so it won't be doing any more. --kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've identified where it's happening; I can't fix and test at the moment as I'm in the middle of adding some major new code, but I'll work on it later. --kingboyk (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I pointed the new version at a page containing {{WPBiography |class= |priority= |filmbio-work-group=yes |listas=Gorn, Lev |living=yes }}

and told it to add an a&e tag. It didn't do any edit. I think that's  Fixed. Thanks very much for reporting it, if you see anything else questionable please let me know. --kingboyk (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Template shells

don't see too many of these yet. I add a few but don't stumble acroos many. However how do you load this regex to ignore it in AWB. Thanks. Looking out for the new version already . :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Kevin's talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You know you didn't have to use rollback to revert my edits;) I was performing a history merge and was waiting for the server to catch up. Woody (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was redirecting to itself. That was the easiest way to clean it up. I know what you were doing, that's cool :) --kingboyk (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I couldn't revert it when I tried because the servers hadn't updated the page history: the deleted edits were showing as deleted edits in the history, and as being restored in the log. I was getting around to it, honest ;) Thanks for watching it. 4 articles were started up on the same thing and 3 of them became copy and pastes and redirects and general mess. Exhausting! Woody (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry if I offended you by using the rollback button, it wasn't meant to imply you are a vandal or anything :) I could see what you were doing but was trapped in a redirect loop and figured it needed immediate fixing as the article is obviously popular (judging by the AFD). It's strange that folks come here for news but it seems they do ;) Thanks again and sorry abt that. --kingboyk (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was no problem and mostly in jest! ;) I think your closing summary is very accurate. The whole Gordon Brown link was tenuous at best. Yep, I knew it was popular which was why I was trying to catch all the history merges before there were too many revisions. When I tried to revert the redirect, the log was still transferring which meant it would have just been blank! By the time I had left a note on the talkpage, the problem had been fixed. No bother! I read an editorial somewhere that discussed the speed at which Wikipedia gets updated and how many people turn to it as a news source now. Not much we can do about it, except keep out the cruft. Right, back to the article I was editing before all of this. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Templates_in_project_space

I want to make sure you see my post at the above talk page entry, since it's in response to a post you made in December, just in case you aren't watching carefully anymore. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Isn't it time someone should block this user? --andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't really block an IP days after the last vandalism. If he pops up again report it to WP:AIV and ask for him to be blocked. He should of been already. --kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC) PS I didn't make this rule ;)

Requesting input

Your input on the ideas presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Single Banner? would be very much appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a good reason in your edit summary

Hello Kingboyk, SebastianHelm has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just noticed this edit summary and wanted to thank you! — Sebastian 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

2006 assault incident

If you read the article you know why the 2006 assault incident was classified as a 2007 DEATH.

Ritcheson survived the actual assault, but in summer 2007 he committed suicide. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this is big proof that you did NOT read the article: "wtf is an article on a 2006 shooting d" It was NOT a shooting - The perpetrators shoved a PVC pipe up Ritcheson's rectum. Ritcheson killed himself by jumping off of a cruise ship. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought rollback could be used for *any* type of reversion. If Rollback is *only* intended for vandalism, and policy states this, I apologize. I do not intend to say that you are a vandal.

Anyhow, the 2006 assault article is about the incident AND about the victim (who has some notoriety as he testified before Congress and later jumped off of a cruise ship) - Whether or not it is a biography depends on how significant the person or persons within the article are. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)