User talk:Patstuart/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

User:Kukini/Welcome

Copyrighted material

Do not post copyrighted material without explicit permission from the original author sent to the Wikimedia Foundation. In general, do not copy text from other websites, or from the back of books. It has been deleted. It will be deleted. If you continue, you will have to be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking Question

Ok I'm leaving info in my edits as to what I have added as far as a link, it pertains specifically to topic but for some reason it's not relevant and deemed spam? How is an artist interview deemed spam? Or an article on the artists 25th anniversary in the business? That doesn't make sense if it's on the topic being discussed. I mean in the Christianity section you have a magazine linked in but thats ok? For other artists you have fan sites which contribute nothing to the site. I'm adding actual press releases from the label or the publicity group. How is that spam exactly? -LordStryfe

Hey LordStryfe. OK, I hadn't meant to cause a big ruccous; I'm not out to be a jerk. Yet the problem is that every single change you have made is an addition of the same website to an external links section - albeit different sections of the same website. This appears to be self-promotion - which is termed vanity spam (see WP:SPAM and Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, especially #3) and specifically disallowed by Wikipedia. The problem isn't adding a relevant website; the problem is what appears to be adding your own website, and doing so quite often. The concept is perfectly illustrated in an older version of the Contemporary Christian Music page - there were like 50 different external links, not to mention categories under Online Stations, etc, most of which were probably added by spammers. If you look at pages like Heavy Metal, you will notice that there are few links.

I wouldn't have said anything to the admins (only to you), but there were several people that said something (including User:T-rex, who I believe is an admin), and you didn't post any response saying something like, "this is why I'm innocent."

Don't worry, you won't be banned quite yet. But there will be a warning.

Hope you can understand why I made the decision. --Patstuart 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So if I am posting relevant material its not acceptable. Regardless of where it's linked from its not acceptable since I'm getting many of the press releases. hmm its odd. I would have thought that if it's relevant it would be allowed. I mean if I'm going into a cooking section posting stuff about non cooking materials I would think that would be disallowed, but not actual relevant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordStryfe (talk • contribs) .

I'll review the topic but I'm shocked that wikipedia is not about relevant information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordStryfe (talk • contribs) .

User:Talib 72

I blanked it because criticism of religions sections send a bad message. By putting a contraversies section in a religion, except those who are in very small number and all members speak in unison (example:Westboro Baptists), you sent the message that the religion is not very good and should be criticised.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talib 72 (talk • contribs) .

I guess we just have to disagree on that. There are controversies about religion; in fact, sometimes it seems like religion has more controversies than many other things. As an encyclopedia, those should be mentioned. That being said, many other groups have left controversies out of their section that could certainly use them (e.g., homosexuality, an article which consistently paints it in a good light, with only a passing glance). But perhaps you take the view that most of these shouldn't have any such talk either. *Shrugs*.

BTW, your English is pretty good for a Palestinian. How did you come to learn it? --Patstuart 15:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have only originated from Palestine, but I moved to the United States. I went to Puerto Rico and then Texas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talib 72 (talk • contribs) .

Eat Football

Hi. I see that you incorrectly added this article to the AfD log of today. I deleted that addition not because I support the article but because you should follow [[WP:AFD|proper procedure to nominate an article. In fact the article is already the subject of a proposed deletion template and the AfD debate is so far unnecessary. Let me know if you need any help figuring all this out. It can be a bit confusing at first. Pascal.Tesson 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance; I am having trouble figuring this out. Thank you for your patience. Again, sorry. -Patstuart 02:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution (MMOG)

JMJimmy 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi - Changes to Evolution (MMOG) were intentional. Article is slated for deletion so major changes were made. I simply took the Chron X page and modified it for Evolution - there are probably errors as I have never used wiki before.

Deletion tag shouldn't have been removed - that was an error on my part. I will correct it.

MiCCAS - Need help?

Miccas 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Hi. Just wondering, I'm interested in helping out WikiPedia.. I cannot donate money, but is there something else I can help you guys with?

Hi, Miccas! Good to have you along. I'm hardly an expert on the matter, perhaps you could look at the list of |administrators for help. However, if you were to ask me, my opinion would be to contribute often and well. You could also do as I do, and check pages for vandalism. Perhaps an admin could help you more. *Shrugs*. Good luck, though! -Patstuart 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to do what you do, I just love WikiPedia.. It's great :) Now.. Admin page, there are sooo many, im confused :( Miccas 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot. Just pick one, I advise. They're all pretty qualified. It's what I've done before. -Patstuart 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will get into contact with them, thanks alot. Miccas 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the author that he was trying to help. The Admin just shut us out because I was not noteable enough. Which is a shame, but it's a fame game this encyclopedia. Christicehurst 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The warning you added to User talk:Crazybobson

Hi, couple of things -- you need to sign your posts to talk pages using ~~~~, and you need to subst the warning, like this: {{subst:test2-n|October 27}} ~~~~. Thanks! -- Jim Douglas 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I picked up on that, and was literally changing that as you edited, but got an edit warning. Occasionally I forget the sig, but not usually. -Patstuart 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I've actually had a robot come along behind me and add the 'subst' thing...it's humiliating being corrected by a robot. And I was about to note that Crazybobson had taken the hint, but he's going nuts now...so I reported him to WP:AIV. -- Jim Douglas 17:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I was about to report him, but I said, "no, I'll let Jim get him." -Patstuart 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning added to User talk:Vacationeer

I'm not sure why my addition was marked as spam. I found the reviews at TripAdvisor helpful for my stay at the hotel. How is a link to those reviews any different from the link to flickr photos on the page? Flickr is a commercial site as well. I don't see the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacationeer (talk • contribs)

Hi. Usually when a user posts the same website to multiple pages, he/she is usually a spammer. We don't usually look at other links on a page; just how many changes you have made, and what they were. In your case, it appears you're not a spammer, so feel free to put the links back in, and accept my apologies. To help out, I'll place this discussion on your talk page, so others don't warn you. -Patstuart 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'd added a couple links to pages I found helpful to my trip to NY on that site. I guess the threshold for spam is low here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacationeer (talk • contribs)

Again, accept my apology. -Patstuart 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Those tripadvisor.com links sure look like spam to me. They've been yanked in the past, and my popup blocker blocks a couple of popups when I follow one of those links. -- Jim Douglas 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's your call, what you choose to say to him. If they've been yanked in the past, then he should understand if you disallow it. Maybe the low threshhold is valid, then (I thought I'd been beat). -Patstuart 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I have no more authority here than you do; just offering a second opinion. I've followed up on User talk:Vacationeer. -- Jim Douglas 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd guessed as much. But a second opinion is helpful, becuase you knew more information than I did. -Patstuart 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Kantha

Slow up, there! He only got the test1 warning as he was clicking update on his second edit. Give him time to realize his mistake before hammering him again! (And even if another warning was warranted, he was only up to test2). -- Jim Douglas 19:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Pat...I'm not watching your edits. Kantha just happened to vandalize a day of the year page, and they're all on my watch list. -- Jim Douglas 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about. I didn't. -Patstuart 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RCP

You may have a point. I'm going to leave it as it is for now (although if you feel a need to revert, feel free) because I'm thinking of overhauling the page in general. I'll definitely keep your comment in mind before doing so though. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted for now, but do as you see fit with the page from here on out. Thanks! -Patstuart 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

avclub links

Thank you for keeping an eye on the avclub spam links. It's odd that an established site with plenty of legitimate links on Wikipedia would resort to spamming, but they were obviously being added for promotional purposes.... Wmahan. 01:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much too. I see you caught the warning I gave him. It would be a real shame to have to blacklist such an established website. Anyway, I caught the re-adds in my watchlist. That's the problem with persistent spammers: they don't know how vandal-watchers (like you and I work) work - by monitoring our watchlist. If they were smart, they'd add the links in to different webpages (i.e., that aren't on our watchlists), so we couldn't go back and catch them. :P Patstuart 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

You reverted my edit with the summary of "statement is unnecessary (it was complete before) - is only POV pushing" I'm not sure what you mean by that, as the LDS Church does describe itself as a restoration of the original church. Can you explain further? --Lethargy 02:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethargy. Thanks for writing back. First, I was worried about the removal of the statement: which are historically connected to the Protestant Reformation, which is an important statement. Second, I would think it OK to move up the Mormons, but the Jehovah's Witnesses were not moved up too, and they make the same claim. Though the statement from the paragraph below: differences in basic doctrines and origins, should probably be included too, because the paragraph would then be nearly defunct (this statement is an important, and NPOV way, of mentioning the controversy surrounding JW and LDS). Please don't misunderstand - I don't mean to bash Mormonism, but it seemed a bit POV to me. Thanks! -Patstuart 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. The reason I didn't move the Jehovah's Witnesses up is that I don't know anything about them. The statement: which are historically connected to the Protestant Reformation was unreferenced at the time and I wasn't entirely sure what it meant, so I figured if it were important it could be added again. I was also concerned that that statement would push the POV that restorationists are actually protestants. The differences in basic doctrines and origins statement was unreferenced and seemed POV because of that. The current version of the section seems better to me, although it could be argued that Mormons do not see themselves as restoring the original church, but rather that Christ is restoring it. That, however, is an argument for another day.

Sorry I took so long to respond, BTW. --Lethargy 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Robert Howorth

Please advise if my edit is now okay.

If not, could you please give me a clue as to what bits need correcting, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpy343 (talk • contribs)

The article is mostly fine, but it needs to be written in complete sentences- with both a noun and a verb. Sentences like "Served 23 years with the RAOC" should be rewritten to say "He served 23 years with the RAOC." I hope that could be helpful. Thanks! -Patstuart 10:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated it as requested. Can I remove the warning tags? Cheers.

There. I took out the wikify tag. I changed it a bit too; I hope you don't mind - I put the reason he was famous in the first sentence, and labeled the rest as his biography (and made sure everything was a full sentence). -Patstuart 10:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Stumpy343 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for informing me about the sandbox. Harry Kewell 14 11:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. -Patstuart 12:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Bekiaris

I would appriciate it if you would not delete my page on Nicholas Bekiaris because he's a personal friend of mine and he has been going through so much trouble as a child and still now. He and I would both really appricaite it if you did not delete it. The information will grow don't worry. Harry Kewell 14 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Could you please contact me on my talk page User talk:Harry Kewell 14. Harry Kewell 14 12:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying anyway. Harry Kewell #10 23:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong?

As I'm new to this, please tell me what's wrong ...Electrical CAD Thor 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ECT. It's not necessarily that you've done anything wrong, it's that Wikipedia only tries to accept articles on very notable pieces of software: see WP:CORP. This is normally done for a number of reasons, but I see that your title is pretty unique (not likely to be taken by another), so I'll remove the proposed deletion. But someone else may very well put it back up. -Patstuart 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bradford Smith Good Luck Tokens

I can't believe you feel my page is a hoax. If you don't believe it ask any of the people that have one that I have listed, or go to any of the following places. If Mr. Smith's website was still up and running I'd have put that on as a link. I'm going to call him up today to tell him what's going on, and to see if he himself will tell you how wrong you really are on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooGuy1991 (talk • contribs)

Well I'm not the only one, as other people have put it up for deletion. And it may not be a hoax, but it is certainly not under WP:NN. Try looking at WP:NFT. Sorry, chief. -Patstuart 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not just something made up in school one day, it was something that Mr. Smith had to go through all the trouble of trying to create, and then spending the money to make them turn out the way he felt was right. He had them on the tonight show with him, and takes them to every show he makes a guest appearance on. These tokens have been what brought him to where he is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooGuy1991 (talk • contribs)

While I certainly do doubt the truthfulness of your statement, the fact remains that it's WP:NN. Mr. Smith is not well known. Again, sorry, but it's not notable. -Patstuart 01:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You gotta wonder how long this vandalism took him. And all because I had the nerve to point out that the only google hit for "Bradford Smith" & "Good Luck Tokens" was here on Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Now that's just funny - must have been 10 minutes. No, it wasn't just you, he was mad at the whole process. But what a weird vandal. -Patstuart 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. "Patstuart", I am terribly sorry for any problems Franklin (ScoobyDooGuy1991) caused you, I just received his letter and he told me what happened. He's my sister's nephew, and for some reason is a huge fan of mine. The reason he caused all these problems was that he thought you were saying he was a liar, and knowing everything he said was true, it just hurt his feelings a little. I had a talk with him, and this shouldn't happen again. I am a little bit curious though, why there isn't anything on here about my coins, or me. I'm on tv.com and imdb.com, but it doesn't matter, I don't mind. Again, I'm really sorry for any trouble that was caused. -Bradford N. Smith, and I'm new at this thing, so hopefully what I typed will show up correctly.

Thank you for replying back. I'll send a letter back to Franklin to tell him what you've said. He hasn't been punished or anything, so don't feel bad about it. Be forewarned, I'm sure he will be back on as soon as he has heard from me, but hopefully he won't cause any more problems. Let me know if he does, though, because I will be coming onto this site every chance I get, to see what he's up to. -Bradford N. Smith

Also, in your reference to the coins, those aren't a game or anything, they are things I have made and distributed all over the US. I really credit them as what has gotten me my acting and writing jobs, as thier success got me on David Letterman, The Tonight Show, and The Today Show, and really got me into the world of entertainment. -Bradford N. Smith

Laura Angel edits

PartySan is the one who keeps reverting my edits after I change them back. I do not understand why you don't discipline him. What's more, his edits to the article are pure crap and he has no valid argument to support them. They are irrelevant and they make the page look ugly. This article is not about "what a multifaceted person" Laura Angel is; it is about why she is a person of public interest on Wikipedia. Nobody cares what Partysan thinks about Laura Angel as a private individual.

I have not removed anything from this article except for crappy and/or inappropriate pictures as well as the paragraph that some people compained about. Partysan does not have exclusive ownership and propriety over this article, pal. He is slandering me, vandalizing my perfectly valid contributions to this article, violating the 3RR and not respecting consensus. Stop him now! -User:Jaiwills

User:Jaiwills, I am not here to judge based on style, or to take sides in anything. I usually troll the pages in search of violations, and the only one I noticed was yours as a 3RR. I have looked back on the history, and PartSan never did a 3RR. It appears it's a war with you on one side, and User:Tabercil and PartySan on the other. I suggest you guys work on the changes on the talk page. Reverting each other's edits will just make people madder. Good luck, though. -Patstuart 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretoria michoacan

I just have gotten used to the naming conventions that are typically used for stub templates. It sometimes takes me a preview or two, but usually I can figgure out an appropriate stub pretty quickly. Best, Irongargoyle 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Walter Kidde Article

Why are you trying to delete my article about Walter Kidde? Its not even 30 minutes old! I don't understand what your problem is. It is directly related to the NYS&W railroad article, and was recommended as apart of its Good Article status!

I'd like an explination, this is my first Wikipedia article, so I'm a little new at this!

3D jonny

Sorry about that, but I did already remove the tags; if you reload the page, you'll see it's cleaned up. As someone else pointed out on the talk page, there are a lot of people who create vanity articles; we have to move fast to get them, and sometimes make mistakes. -Patstuart 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The second best fan page in the universe

Ok, I got a question though, how do i make pictures? Like iron lung you'll see iron lung with a pictuer of one and then a descriptoin? How owuld I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plustax (talk • contribs)

Click Upload file in the toolbox on the lefthand side of the screen. -Patstuart 23:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)