User talk:WookieInHeat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:PERM/R

I just wanted to clarify my decline. You're doing an excellent job reverting and that's very much appreciated. We need all the vandal fighters we can get. However, it's essential that vandals are warned. from an admin perspective, if someone reports a prolific vandal to AIV but they haven't been warned, I can't really block them. The optimistic point of view is that it informs misguided editors that what they're doing is wrong. Sometimes people stop when they realise that it's not going unnoticed. Anyway, once you've found your preferred method of warning and warned a few vandals (make sure you use the most relevant warning), ping me directly and I'll grant you rollback and you can look at some of the more powerful scripts. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

will do, thanks for your help. WookieInHeat (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--I'm sure you'll be fine with it, but take it easy, make sure you warn the vandals and let me know if you need anything at all. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks again mitchell WookieInHeat (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

United_States_presidential_election,_2012

It would be nice if you could actually do the research instead of blindly reverting. 130.64.152.152 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

i looked at the wikipedia article for the straw poll, it appeared to support the claim that the poll was used to gauge support for republican presidential nominees as it had poll statistics for the nominees from each year. your assertion that because ron paul "won or placed very high" in the poll makes that claim flase seemed to be personal or political POV. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to take a look at CPAC 2010? It is clear that Ron Paul won this year. Ron Paul is not representative of the vast majority of conservatives/Republicans. I am not either a conservative or a Republican, but any reasonable person should be able to see that. If you are not aware of that fact, then you shouldn't be blindly reverting like this. 130.64.152.152 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

your personal POV on who and who does not represent republican/conservative views is, like i said, irrelevant. the statement didn't claim to be deciding the next republican leader, merely that it could be used as a barometer. as an outside observer, i can see you are removing the information based on POV, regardless of your political association. any way, i have no personal interest in this subject, it only came to my attention because it was a change made by an unregistered IP address and was put up for review. i don't care enough to argue the point with you, nor get into a revert war. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be used as a barometer by a clueless observer, yes. By someone wanting to get useful information? Nope. Go google the subject if you want; I am sure there are plenty of newspapers that would back me up. The bottom line is, if you don't know what you are talking about and the other person asserts that they do, don't revert them simply because they are editing on an IP address. 130.64.152.152 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

again, i don't care enough to argue the issue with you, i am canadian, i really have no interest in american politics. and i didn't revert the change simply because it was an IP address, posting from an IP address brought your change up for review in an automated system. it appeared to be a POV removal so i reverted it. if the change was detrimental to the ariticle or myself i might debate it with you further, but it is not. now please drop the subject. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huggle warning logic

FYI - It is by design that Huggle does not issue repeated warnings if there are no intervening edits. This is why it only issued one warning to 75.131.227.129 (talk). This is accordance with accepted practice. From WP:WARN: "You should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given." Cheers. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

understood, thanks for the pointers. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipstep

Hi, would you care to comment? Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nebo School District page

According to your message, correcting information is considered "vandalism". While I may have a lot to learn about style and what constitutes verifiable documentaion (specifically in Wikipedia), I can back up any and all corrections I make. So either educate me on the technicalities of proper editing or advise me that Wikipedia is NOT in the business of providing accurate information, but do NOT accuse me of vandalism! 161.119.83.148 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Hi there. I'm well aware that 'labour' is the correct spelling in Australia. The name of the party, however, is the 'Australian Labor Party', see their website. I have reverted your reversion of my edit. Thank you for your personal message. 61.69.3.254 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė

I wrote it, it's mostly untrue, and I want it deleted. Understand ? Nefesf9 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

uh, sure. the db-g7 template you put on the page should take care of that nicely for you. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, that is indeed the correct chess term

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheSavior (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Murda Man Flocka Flocka

Please do not change any future alterations to Waka Flocka's album correct title "Flockaveli" as shown here. http://rapradar.com/2010/09/07/waka-flocka-flockaveli-cover-tracklist/. "Murda-Man Flocka Flocka" is completely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wguavachicab (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, appeared to be vandalism. the aritcle had been reverted for the same change before and no edit summary was given. i've reinstated the "flackaveli" edit. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically_modified_organism#Artificial_Mutant

It looks to me like you issued about four warnings before I got the message, so I think you are a bit trigger happy on the warnings. This is especially true since you do not seem to hav followed any of my links, which were on about ten articles.

Nice trick, huh? Putting a link to an article talk page into an edit summary. Steal it. That is how you address dissent on moving categories. Synonyms sometimes carry more weight. They do not carry bias. If you want to support your position that synonyms do carry bias, do it there, in the blue heading link, above.

Buy the weigh, uh, do not expect me to spend more than one hour a week on this. Follow the link. It looks to me like the system haz a lot of bias towards a status quo of uninformed vandal proofers. 68.148.103.90 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

see this talk page. the warnings are automatic when i revert your edits through huggle, if they are erroneous i will gladly remove them. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your messages

I don't understand what I did wrong? I was not committing vandalism, I was fixing broken links. If I did something wrong please explain but your comment does not help, it only confuses me more. What should I do instead? I don't understand. I have changed your edits again because I think you are wrong. Please look more closely or tell me what I did wrong because I do not see it. Thank you. Aurasium (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

about the changes i made

How then should I edit the article? I can provide many sources if you want.Is there is a moderator or someone I should contact to discuss the article because its obviously biased and does not provide info from a neutral point of view, instead it takes sides and selectively quote some people. It also focus on certain events and neglect very important events. --Omarello2 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You know

I'm failing to see where I have removed any content. You might care to do some research on the actual health effects of concentrated perfumes. 111.69.233.25 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WookieInHeat. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgotten Tales

Your deletion rationale here misrepresents my actions. I declined the speedy deletion of the band article because they have had, according to Allmusic, two albums released on Pony Canyon records (which would pass criterion 5 of WP:BAND), not because two Wikipedia articles existed. The speedy deletion via db-album of the articles was simply not valid while the article on the band existed. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, didn't mean to misrepresent your reasoning or question your knowledge of the policies; i'm sure you have more experience at wiki-ing then i do. i will remove the deletion templates if you find them offensive, that was not my intention. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

edit: i've gone ahead and removed the deletion templates and notices from the creators talk page. i was unaware of the allmusic.com reference before, the notability of the band seemed to be based purely on their wikipedia articles. i'm still fairly new to vandal-patrolling, proposing deletions, etc., forgive me for not being fully familiar with all the policies. thanks for your time. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look like both albums were reissued on Pony Canyon, which would be enough for some editors to establish notability, but not enough for others. Significant coverage of the band seems hard to find, so please feel free to take it to AFD if you wish. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering why you reverted my edit? It was small, but appropriately sourced, and logged in the discussion tab. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was on the John Parascandola page. It was a small edit about his personal life, but I had just added a source, so perhaps you did not see it. Thanks. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A source no one could independently varify. You are jerking us around. Stop now or else you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wookie, thanks for supporting my edit. Please ignore the poster below. I am in the process of reporting him for attacks. Thanks again. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)\

The source is verifiable. If you read the book I am referencing, it is dedicated to the author's wife. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

you seem to be having a dispute with another editor, i would rather not get in the middle of it. if the dispute is resolved and the other editor relents, please feel free to undo my revert of your addition to the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK

Please note that you shouldn't attempt to restore warning templates to users' talk pages. Per WP:OWNTALK, users may remove any content from their own talk page for any reason, with the exception of an active block template. Removal of content from their user talk page simply indicates that they have read the message(s). Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, wasn't aware. i realized now the warnings i restored were from an editor the user is having a dispute with and would like to absolve myself of any participation. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

N.W.A

Excuse me? Another user removes repeatedly correct information *and* its accompanying sources WITHOUT substantiating why or valid of ating said changes with sources, and when i revert to the previous state I am accused of vandalism? Please check the history of the article and the facts before you go and threaten other users, thanks. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i reverted your edits as they appeared to be vandalism, i however realized you were having a content dispute with another user and restored your edit as well as removed the warning from your talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Declining speedy deletion of Ramón Ayala

I have declined your speedy deletion template on Ramón Ayala. A7 is for an article that "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." This article does. Although it needs a lot of work and fact-checking (and some serious referencing), the article meets at least one of the criteria for WP:BAND: Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. It says this in the article, and that is backed up by one of the external links. If you want to prod it or take it to AfD, be my guest, but it's not speediable. The article, at least at a quick glance, seems to have potential, though, so I would suggest improving it over prodding or submitting to AfD. You also might consider reviewing the speedy deletion criteria. Cheers! — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Sources

Whoa there. I know all about citing sources and whatnot, I have an account here that I'm just not logged into. I don't mean to sound like a jerk in saying that, but all I'm trying to say is, do I REALLY need to cite a source in order to state that a fictional character is deceased, two days after the episode in which they die is aired? 99.239.176.33 (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Travis Bean for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Travis Bean, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bean until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

about the editions

Thank you, I have an article by Pierre Tristam who is a famous columinst that describe in details the first and second disengagements which made resulted in a loss of previously held territory.In addition I have an article by William Burr an editor in the National security archieve that describes the disengagement and the weight of the losses and comparisons .I have a BBC documentary that provide the end result as a stalemate Where should I provide the links?--Omarello2 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you, please check my messages--Omarello2 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am sorry for taking a lot of your time but please check my last message. I provided another link for disengagements treaties. I don't why you don't consider the BBC documentary a neutral source it is supposed to be the largest broadcasting organisation in the world They said and I quote" There is no sign of a clear victor" why should we provide contradicting info, I mean obviously they are not biased.--Omarello2 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem take your time I provided the links again (now they are working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarello2 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check my posts and sorry for taking a lot of your time. --Omarello2 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the lengthy discussion that took a lot of your time. Anyway, as you said to make it more biased I suggest we remove the word victory and replace with "Tactical gains". We can add also territorial gains for Egypt like you suggested.--Omarello2 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

should i make these editions? --Omarello2 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

if you want i could delete this section for space--Omarello2 (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake Lloyd.

I have spoken to the actor himself and he has stated that his name being "Jacob Christopher" Lloyd is a misconception. He isn't sure how that happened but it's causing him and his mom a lot of distress... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfinatic (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I let Jake know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfinatic (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bells Theorem

I'm pretty new here, so if you have a moment, tell me what's wrong with my edit. All I thought I did was this: I removed references to unreliable sources. The current article on Bell's theorem gives the impression that it is in some way controversial. I was intrigued by this, so I chased up the sources and references. Neither of them were published in any kind of peer-reviewed journal. In fact they both appeared on self-published websites. I gave an explanation of this when doing the edit, but I got some message saying my changes had been reverted because I hadn't given a reason. I really think my edit was fine. If you get a chance to respond to this, can you clarify what I've done wrong? Many Thanks! Steady unit (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring removed PROD tags

I see that you restored a PROD tag to Billz after it had been removed. A PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. If a PROD is contested by removing the tag, then it is not uncontroversial, and the tag may not be restored. In this situation if you still wish to have the article deleted you must use either speedy deletion or an article for deletion discussion. On this occasion the article clearly satisfies speedy deletion criterion A7, but if it did not satisfy one of the speedy criteria then an AfD would have been the only possible means of deletion once the PROD had been contested. I am telling you this so you can avoid the mistake of restoring a removed PROD another time. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

125.164.5.125

Most of what you reverted was good faith edits, only two cases of vandalism and several instances of adding a redlinked category. I reverted your rollback. Thanks Secret ^account 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Free Dominguez

I have restored this speedily deleted article upon request. You are free to nominate it for deletion through AFD, if you wish. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth rate

Thanks for the catch on Birth rate. Stickee (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Association for Tertiary Education Management

The article Association for Tertiary Education Management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Organization claiming notability, but needs reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
I removed your speedy deletion tag, and placed a ProD tag instead. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The electronic anthology project

Hello WookieInHeat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The electronic anthology project, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having members who are or were members of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Player

Final warning by who? Who sez? You an admin? Don't spread your filth on my page. All articles MUST have a lede, it's the rules. Don't like them? Find yourself a forum to cry there. Neutral Player (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

hi, although i understand there was a genocide in kosovo, your edits are quite biased and completely unsourced. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Rajesh(Kannada Actor)

Hello WookieInHeat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Rajesh(Kannada Actor)) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

not a problem, i've just reread the pertinent part of WP:CSD. just so i'm clear, what specifically made the article not qualify for the A7 tag, was it because the actor was apparently in a movie? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. Being in several films with blue-linked actors, may, upon closer examination turn out to be enough (or not) to pass the relevant notability guidelines (depending on whether the roles are significant), but to pass A7 it's enough that the article contains a credible claim to importance or significance, a lower standard than notability. WP:PROD is excellent for those corner cases. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

rawabi

whats wrong with my edits?

the statement that u deleted was referenced in the BBC articles!

it was there, and i believe that it must be added.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

it is sourced and it is out there. i am not sure why "ElComandanteChe" and "LibiBamizrach" keep on deleting it, it seems they r motivated by a hidden agenda, and they even resulted in getting me blocked!. please take an action against them, as i am still new here, and do not know what to do to stop them vandalizing wikipedia and promoting bias. thanks--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry for using ur page again, but i just want to let you know that someone has reverted your edits!!!--213.6.11.49 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say: THANK YOU :)--213.6.11.49 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For Gods Sake

Please explain your disagreements with my edits on Lock. I have discussed this several times, this was the consensus outcome statements. 68.226.125.73 (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

you really expect me to believe "Today, locks are typically used on valuable property to keep out ethnic minorities (Who are typically more likely to steal it)." is a consensus addition to the lock article? WookieInHeat (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well which parts are: untrue, disputable, arguably not true? Initially I had written "blacks and mexicans", because in my experience...most people are trying to keep niggers and wetbacks out of their house. This is typically true all throughout the US, especially in the southern states. To be more FAIR, I simply said "ethnic minorities"...because minorities in Canada or Russia are likely different than in the US. It's a commonly accepted fact which is statistically provable that ethnic minorities are more likely to steal. 68.226.125.73 (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

your addition is completely unsourced. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html Exact cited findings can be found within the contents of these reports. Are you actually saying you believe ethnic minorities DON'T commit more crimes?! Are you crazy?!?! 68.226.125.73 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

you are putting words in my mouth. also, pseudoscience from a white supremacist organization doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, have you gotten the benefit of the doubt 68.226.125.73. The responses you've received have bent over backwards to assume good faith, but I think they're misplaced and have resulted in mollycoddling what are racist, bad faith edits. We can only "assume" good faith when bad faith is not manifest. This is patently racist (and inappropriate, unsourced, original research), and since you've already been warned, I will block you if you add back this material. By the way, this is an international encyclopedia. I wonder what ethnicities you'd like to single out as the common people that are kept out by locks in China, India, Mali, Iran, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just read your second post to this page (which I should have done first) and have accordingly blocked you for a week.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

thanks Fuhghettaboutit, but i wasn't trying to "mollycoddle" his racism. i came to the help desk because i wasn't sure how to handle enforcing such rules, as my post said. i replied in a concise, clear manner dispensing with any pleasantries, and went to get assitance. what should i have done differently? WookieInHeat (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey WookieInHeat. Note the language the "responses you've received", i.e., I was talking about the global response to this poison that should have started with a third level warning, then a fourth level and then straight to WP:AIV for a block. The response includes this edit (ugg--seeing this is what brought "mollycoddling" to mind), and a reversion to the article without a warning given. But I also think your continued discussion with this user after his second post was just feeding. This person has no interest in a real discussion and everything he's saying to you is baiting. I think after his second post above, a note at WP:ANI with that diff, plus explaining what's been going on at the article would have resulted in users fighting each other to block first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Lehi High School page

Everything in that article was factual, as shown in the citations. You need to get your facts straight and let me publish my work and stop silencing me. We live in America. I demand my free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.13.118 (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the contribution or look at the "reference" before you did this? LOL. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 06:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, no i didn't scroll down far enough before, my mistake. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seren Gibson

But she does have a boyfriend. 109.255.11.155 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

???

No apology then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.20.128 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong revert ?

Regarding this is it possible you reverted here by mistake? Slightsmile (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, the revert of the blocked user was a mistake, the other editor was correct and i removed the warning from his talk page for this edit. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Abhisit Vejjajiva

Thanks for keeping the obviously NPOV content out of Abhisit Vejjajiva, although it's unfortunate that it turned into an edit war. I've put up a suggested addition in the Discussion page for when the temperatures come down a bit. Patiwat (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

not a problem, only trying to help. i wasn't trying to get into an edit war over the article, i have no personal relation to the topic and am uninvolved in the article; i was merely trying to keep out what appeared to be POV/biased edits. i have left a message for the admin who protected the page asking for clarification on how i should of handled the situation in light of people seeming to think i was edit warring. like i said, i really have no personal interest in the article topic, so i am not too concerned about the content of the article. but if i can be of any assitance in resolving content disputes or disagreements, let me know. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you know. The editor who seems to be the root of this problem seems to be a new user. Patiwat (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NA History

Wondering why you object to the part of NA History involving the lawsuit filed against Grateful Dave and the Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust (FIPT) that was created as a result ?

There is no question the lawsuit happened. There is a full court record. Those of us that were members at the time remember it only too well. Members that still have them cherish the "Cease and Desist" letters they were sent - certified - by WSO. The FIPT itself is embedded in the official NA web site.

Yes, it was a dark time for NA. But it happened. Should it not be included in the Wikipedia entry for Narcotics Anonymous ?

TJBeekman (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

i'm in agreeance with what coffeepusher said on your talk page in his last warning, your edit "appears to be Original research lacking reliable sources and a neutral point of view". cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the changed text in question is not only common knowledge to all those that were actually around back when it happened, but easily and simply verifiable by looking at a fifth edition next to an earlier (2nd or 3rd or 3rd revised), the "fact" of the deletion of the one line and the deletion of the second half of the other line - well, that isn't really "commentary".

As a member that was involved at the time, I can also assure you that any comment stating that the changes were controversial, are also accurate. There was great controversy over the changes at the time, a controversy which continues to this day, with many members in the "25 Years Plus" clean time range continuing to print the earlier, fellowship approved version of the Basic Text.

The references to the "Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust" (FIPT) were not only factual, but cut straight from the "official" NA web site at www.na.org. Direct links were included. Verification was as simple as clicking on the link. Yet that section was also removed, and referred to as "vandalism". How on earth can a link to the official NA web site be possibly considered vandalism ?

And since the lawsuit filed by WSO was, in the eyes of many, many long time members of NA, the single most important piece of our history, why is there not an independent section on that lawsuit ? A history of NA without mention of that is much like a history of the US with no mention of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars. I have a document that recaps the lawsuit, one that was co-written by more than two dozen members of NA, all with more than 20 years clean at the time it was written. That lawsuit is also discussed in the book "The Story of the Basic Text". There is also a court record of the case. I have a document which is a written transcript of Judge Pollock's remarks during that trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJBeekman (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

seeing as this is a repost of a comment left here, i will leave my reply there. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tessa McKay

What type of source are you looking for in the article on Tessa McKay? I've already listed official website, author page on book catalog site, and review of book. What other source is needed to remove deletion? Pendragyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hi pendragyn, thanks for contacting me on my talk page. i have nominated this article for deletion as per WP:BLPPROD because the article doesn't appear to have any reliable third party references that indicate notabilityof the subject. goodreads is a user generated index of books, not an independent catalog, and the book review is someones personal blog; neither qualify as a WP:RS. i am going to copy this conversation to the article's talk page for the sake of any reviewing users, lets continue the discussion there. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Jon Salisbury

please read final results on discussion with Brett Jon Salisbury The wikipedia team near bottom of page on discussion page says this person is notable. Do not remove from Orange Glen High School notable people. You need to immediately put back, as this is not spam. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not considered spam. Do not remove from Orange Glen High School. Please put entry Brett Jon Salisbury back up on page. To verify this please read Articles Entry on the top of page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article entry where you submitted delete? You need to read what was written after that. Also go to amazon or barnes and noble. Type in the book the transform diet. You also need to drop the Jon and type just Brett Salisbury in news archives starting back in 1979 to now. There are over 7000 on Mr. Salisbury. Again go to your entry and read after. All 3 major wikipedia contributors went from delete to keep after what they read. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

please see the deletion discussion, thanks. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

You think that English grammar is vandalism. I refer to Badminton School.

hi, this edit appeared to be inserting weasel words in the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

respond to your message by DarklyCute

With all due respect, are you sane? that article was most obviously pro-Israel, giving much space to israel reaction and almost no space to the claims of racism. Have you ever been to Israel? Claiming that there is no racism toward Arbs in Israel is like claiming there is no racism toward blacks by the KKK.

i didn't say that, i said please avoid weasel words. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's no reason to delete everything I wrote.

you're right, i will work on readding your non-POV content, one moment. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

really all i see that you added that wasn't POV or weasel words were the wikilinks. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

and even the wikilinks were repetitive, racism and ethnic discrimination both link to the same article. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're calling me a weasel.

no i didn't, weasel words and weasel people are not the same thing. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. http://paradoxdgn.com/junk/avatars/trollface.jpg

unsigned comments by User:DarklyCute. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WookieInHeat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.
Message added 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Salisbury on wikipedia

Salisbury was not 3rd in total offense. He was 3rd in total passing offense. The team as you will read on the reference is 1st in total offense with 581.6 yards per game. Please re read that. Total passing offense is different that total offense. make the correction or I will correct it again. Here is the beginning of the paragraph...

The 1993 football team set a school record for most wins in a season with nine, finishing the season with a 9-1 record with the only loss coming to Minnesota-Duluth 29-28 in the final game of the season at the Metrodome Classic. The Wildcats had a high-powered offense, ranking first in NCAA Division II in total offense (581.5 yards per game), second in passing offense (379.9 ypg) and scoring offense (44.8 ppg). Defensively, the 'Cats ranked 16th in total defense, allowing just 256.0 yards per game. Here is the source: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

that is the figure for the entire team, the biography is about brett salisbury, not the wildcats. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

the first sentence of the next paragraph in that reference says "Individually, quarterback Brett Salisbury ranked second in passing efficiency (166.3) and third in total offense (373.2 ypg)." cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WookieInHeat. There is no statistic called "total passing offense." There is passing efficiency (aka the quarterback rating) and total offense which is a combination of the total number of yards passing and rushing by a player (usually a quarterback, since he is the only one who usually throws the ball). --Esprqii (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Junge Generation

I added several referenes to the article Junge Generation (SVP). Please check the side please delete the bars. Thanks Fraste (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

hi frastest, please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

Wookie, The edits I made removed inaccurate POV statements. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was not a grassroots movement. It was a reactionary movement of the "moderates" who had been shoved away from the SBC teat by the conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.34.62 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

looking into it, one moment. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm not really knowledgeable about the topic, but you appear to be editing in good faith. sorry for the warning, feel free to undo my revision. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WookieHeat I apologize and at the same time you need to correct mistakes on Brett Salisbury

I continue to see that you want to write the least postive writing from some unknown source which again is just another opinion. Why not use 4 other opinions about the book? Why is one opinion better than another. Every notable person on wikipedia gets to use his or her website when they are establsihed notable.

1. First off, Salisbury was not finished playing football or retired in 1995. Here is the proof.[2] Salisbury went back to play for the prague panthers as the article states in 2006 and signed a 3 year contract. He did not retire in 1995 as is stated.

2. The website, the transform diet clearly states he played 3 years from 1994 to 1996 and it was his "break out year" here is the proof: Salisbury's breakout year would be 1996 starting in Helsinki, where he would become the MVP of league and would be a 1st Team All-Europe selection quarterback, as well as doing daily modeling gigs as a "special bookings model" with the agency Paparazzi Model Management and was named the country of Finland's sexiest male.Following his third year in Finland, he decided to leave the league because of a rule change that would allow more Americans on the field which would have cut his football salary in half. He opted back to Los Angeles to live. To this day, Salisbury is still ridiculed for leaving Finland too soon, as he was becoming a national celebrity. please read under professional career tab: [http://transformdiet.com/about.html} 1996 he retired the first time around before going back to play for the prague panthers in 2006 as offensive coordinator and quaterback. There are plenty more articles where that came from too. I think this one should justify it though.

3. He is also a male model. Why do you continue to comment that he is not: The Condé Nast Publications and its licensors is for Vogue Magazine. Clearly they just wrote the top male models ever. This is sourced and linked to vogue. You need to go here for proof, this is a not a 3rd party but in style.com/vogue. I am not sure why you are up against this person and so against anything that is nice? Stating the authors website clearly states more than the article written by forward magazine by which YOU chose as a "fair" writing of the book? Forward magazine? notorious for unreliable reviews. I will prove that.

Again, here is a model, a top model in the world. If you are to denote Salisbury from having his website, then YOU MUST denote this person as well as every notable person including athletes and models: The external link is his website which is a glorified bunch of B.S. and someone like you is doing nothig about it? There is no grey area. If one person is allowed to glorify his or herself with the website addition you can't pick and choose. Here is that website: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Schenkenberg] to be fair you need to look at his website. Why does he get to promote his and not a guy like salisbury? Also the brother Sean salisbury [3] it claims he hit over .320 his senior year amongst other bogus self induldged writings. I say PROVE IT. The Sean Salisbury article on Wikipedia doesn't back facts. Where is the proof?

4. I again am not here to be unfair or unjust but to say if you allow it to go on with one site you must make a choice to allow it to another. Here is vogues website. Look at the bottom again directly linked to Vogue. The editors are from vogue. Brett Salisbury's name also is not mentioned as the younger brother of sean yet sean is the older brother of Brett on his wikipedia page? How fair is that? Again, no grey areas here. Here is vogues site. Nobody says you have to hype or use puffery like the person you write about, but if they are what they are then you must say so. Please, go here, again I only want to be fair.[4] read that list. Salisbury is 15th. No agenda. No reason to list the guy unless he EARNED it. Read each person's story on that list. Each person also is on wikipedia and they each list their OWN website. Either you remove all of their stuff or this violates wikipedia rules of allowing one and not another for verifiable records. Again, Wookie, I respect how you pursue everything. But make a note that you must also be fair. ESPRQII and you were right about the mistake I made about Salisbury's total offense. However you didn't mention how the team led the nation in total offense? Is that really fair? In fact it promotes the team and not Salisbury. Why not look again at the glass half full? The team finished first in total offense with 581.6 yards per game. However, I am not here to push or argue. I just want the facts to be straight. I am an oregon duck fan. My grandparents are too as you well know. I am involved as is many duck fans on this particular guy now. We will make sure justice is done. I hope you can appreciate that and again look at the mistakes made already like the retirement of Salisbury. Please I am not harassing nor am I calling anyone out. I am simply making points that need to be addressed. I hope you can forward this to who initiated the post. I think I make great points...please correct me if I am wrong, but do it in a manner that is polite, that's all I or anyone would ask.

Finally, as I mentioned, I have other people now who I am in contact with that are finding mistakes on Brett Salisbury's website as I proved above. And the claim that the book is not notable is not true. You have read from Ebooks to the PR release from iUniverse the top books listed. They have no agenda only stating the facts. a top 10 ebook thats been downloaded worldwide, that is notable. The book is a top 100 book out of 350,000 titles. This has to be notable. [ http://www.ebookmall.com/best-sellers/new-releases-ebooks.htm] We both know ebookmall.com is a reputable company. They give daily statistics and are connected with the publishing companies to each book. They have no agenda. You have to consider this. And why if you say at the top of the page that salisbury is a sports nutritonist is he not labeled as a health and wellness writer? Or a nutritionist? This makes no sense. The guy is a member of American Mensa. Again you make no mention of this either? He was also a member of the Brigham Young University football team, again no mention of this either.

Again, I am not being difficult, please do not think I am, but I would like you to address the mistakes and also address that website being used as the author on his website gives the facts. Also the facts are everywhere as i show above. I would ask that you be friends with us as we will not stop until this thing is done right. Remember you mentioned that you were even putting REMOVE on Brett Jon Salisbury until you simply removed the JON out of Brett Jon Salisbury. Then you found literally thousands of articles in the archives.

I appreciate your time and effort and ask that you please look into these and again no puffery is on the page now. I am only pointing out a few errors and that the authors website should be allowed as every other notable person on wikipeida is allowed.

Thank you 65.160.210.32 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Jeff Moore

hi, thanks for your more cordial tone this time, it is much appreciated. i admit this article has gotten my back up a bit, you must understand we deal with literally thousands of users who come here seeking to use wikipedia for promotional purposes and it is easy to lose your patience occasionally; for that i also apologize. with that said, i do agree/disagree with some points you've raised.
1. the section which talks about his 1995 retirement isn't supported directly by the ref given, think it may have just been a mistake by esprqii when he rewrote the article. the existing ref states he played football after 1995, so i removed that last part.
2. not sure exactly what your point is here; unless you were just providing further information to support point 1.
3. i don't even recall making a single comment about his status as a model, let alone "continuing to comment that he is not". but i will say that your comments such as he "is a top model in the world" are not directly supported by any references, this is your opinion based on his resume and as such constitutes WP:OR and is probably the reason such POV information was removed by other editors. secondly, the fore word reviews page is a reference that you provided in the previous article, i didn't find it on my own; why you are all of a sudden opposed to its use is beyond me. i didn't switch to this ref simply because it contained negative information about the book. i changed the ref from the transform diet website to the fore word reviews website because it is a third party opinion which establishes the same information that is in the wikipedia article. the fact that it contains negative talk about his book is not only irrelevant, but also shows that it is a more legitimate source (despite not necessarily meeting WP:RS) as it was not written with the intrests of brett in mind (i.e. not self-serving) where as his personal website is. finally, i am not editing this article based on the content in other articles, i am merely judging the information in this article based on its own merits as they pertain to wikipedia policies. i will make a point of reviewing the other article you mentioned, but this has little relevance to our discussion. there are many poorly written articles and articles which violate wikipedia policy, individual editors can only fight so many battles at a time if you get what i mean (not implying any polarization of this discussion).
4. the vogue reference is definetly not a WP:RS. the website makes no verifiable claim of association with vogue magazine and its whois information lists the registration to "Don Clayton 4400 Mossy Rock Court, Las Vegas, NV 89108, US, Phone: +1.7023080632, Email: donclayton82@yahoo.com". also i noticed that website is registered with the same registrar as the transform diet website, i somehow doubt this is just a coincidence. next, the ebooks list of best sellers does not imply notability of the book. a list of books that are selling well on their website is not the same thing as a reliable third party source noting its sales as significant (i.e. establishing notability). and the pr.com reference is a reposted email from iuniverse.com, this is by no means a reliable source suggesting notability either; it is just a reposted email on a user generated website. i did however update the article to mention brett's status as a self-published author as the fore word reviews page used to reference "sports nutritionist" is about the book. as for the rest of the claims you make, i have no doubt they are true, yet they are not suitable for inclusion as notable if you cannot find a reliable source discussing them. finally, the transform diet website is generally just trying to sell brett's book and seeing as the book doesn't meet notability standards for its own article, i don't believe it should be included in a biographical aritcle primarily about a college football athlete. all the information in the aritcle is supported by other sources and there is no need for this link other than for promotional purposes; a stance i will take in any other article with a similar situation. again, thank you for your more cooperative and less adversarial approach with this comment, i will try my best to do the same. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

as per the changes made during the course of this discussion; if we are going to include the info about brett's status as an author, i'm afraid i must insist it is made clear his book is self-published. as such i've reverted this edit. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

also, as to your assertion that i am trying to create the most negative biography possible; i don't believe that is true, my main focus has been on the promotional aspect of the transform diet website. i think you merely get this impression because i oppose the inclusion of the numerous dubiously or completely unsourced additions and POV claims (such as "one of the top male models in the world"). i don't have any personal grudge against brett; in contrast, it does appear you have a conflict of interest with the subject. ultimately, if i had it my way we would not have a brett salisbury article, mostly because i believe the article doesn't meet criteria for inclusion or notability, but this article is the compromise that a number of editors, including you and myself, have come to. so i may very well be preserving the negative aspects of this article, but you only view that as a problem because you want to focus primarily on the positives; i am more like your counterweight. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WookieInHeat

The rules on using self-published sources as references are pretty clear: don't!. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk)

i saw that on the article talk page, not sure what you're trying to imply with your partial quote though. regardless, for the sake of transparency lets discuss it there if you like. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The only person continuing to change the article to allow it to go south is you. You have used no sources as mentioned before that YOU would accept from credible sources? So the Marcus Schenkenberg article? He get's to keep his website on wikipedia? Pure Puffery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

i addressed this in the main discussion above, please read it. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

also i have been very carefully referencing the sources for any changes i've made, and conversing with other editors on the aritcles talk page about my changes. you are the only person who has made any objection so far, and only directly to me on my talk page. if you object to my edits why not query the other people involved in the conversation for their opinion? WookieInHeat (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Final word on edits with Salisbury

Mr. Esprqii, we will no longer participate on wikipedia. WookieInHeat as you will see has made changes to fit her or his agenda. I would kindly asked you to look at them. We were wrong about total offense and told Wookie that. Now the issues are getting absured but the administration is planning on banning or removing brett salisbury. No more. We are out. Please help and look at page. We would ask you to use your good judgement and to keep in mind Wookie In Heat has been on a mission to prove salisbury unnotable. Thank you. We again appreciate you making his name where it belongs but will no longer be involved in any more discussions. Wookie heat you can write whatever you wish. Obviously you can and will because you are an administrator. But your facts are not always correct. We find that unjust but then again you never wanted salisbury on the site. However we ARE DONE. DO as you wish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

i am not an administrator nor has any administrator threatened to ban you, you were given a warning by another user. i nominated you for a topic ban on the brett salisbury article as you clearly have a conflict of interest with the subject and consistently insert pormotional and dubious material into it and other articles without discussion. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I side with WookieInHeat on this one. The anon appears to have a single-minded agenda to promote Salisbury's book on Wikipedia--and elsewhere--as much as possible. WookieInHeat has asked you at every step to provide reliable sources to establish his fame and you have mostly failed to do so. Nearly every reliable source in the article now are ones that I found. The websites you have dug up, such as the top25modelsever, do not meet that standard. Sure, they mention Vogue and link to it, but why doesn't the Vogue site mention that site? Why is it so hard to find images of Salisbury, when every other model listed on that top25 site has dozens of images that pop up with a simple Google search? Maybe Salisbury was a model, but he doesn't appear to have been particularly famous for it. And while I'm pretty sure the "Literary Las Vegas" piece was published based on info given by Salisbury to promote his book and thus is likely more fluff, it does appear to meet the minimum standards for inclusion in the article as establishing the model career. I suggest that you read up on the dispute resolution process if you wish to pursue further changes to the article. --Esprqii (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)