Jump to content

User talk:Closedmouth/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Cristelec

Hello -- let's have this debate, shall we? Let's grant that a hamlet of 700 souls has notability. But given that at no point in the near future is that "article" likely to expand beyond a line or two (certainly neither you nor I will be doing any meaningful expansion), why on earth not simply have a redirect to the parent commune article (Măerişte), which, for all its faults, does at least have some content, at least pertains to a commune with a mayor, a school, etc., and says exactly what the Cristelec "article" says? What do we lose that way? - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to debate here. Our current consensus says that human settlements are inherently notable and they each get an article. I happen to agree with that consensus. If you disagree, take it up on a noticeboard somewhere. I don't really care enough to argue the point. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Refusing to talk isn't very constructive in this case, because presumably if I redirect you'll undo again, leading to a revert war, which is to be avoided. Now, regarding consensus, I know there's a page on that which never became policy. Still, it would be useful if we could step away from mantras (settlements=inherent notability=separate article) and think outside the box a little. WP:PRESERVE enjoins us to "preserve information". I don't propose to violate that, merely to fold the information into another article. Moreover, let me point out that Romanian villages have no legal status: unlike French communes, which can have even a dozen people but are notable due to their separate legal personality, in Romania, it is at the commune level that local authority rests, and beneath that, the villages have no administrative capacity. So I think it makes perfect sense, at least in Romania's case, to have 2,700 articles for communes rather than 13,000+ for villages, and have the information on the latter, informal units contained in the former, with proper redirects and all so people can find them.
Plus, there's a logistical problem you may not have thought of. Măerişte commune, which contains Cristelec, has six villages. One of these is also called Măerişte. Does it not make more sense to have one Măerişte article with six subsections, including one for Măerişte village, than to have a separate Măerişte (village) article? Replicated thousands of times, the potential for confusion deriving from this problem is quite substantial.
I do hope I've brought you around with this further information, but if not, shall we try a dispute resolution mechanism? - Biruitorul Talk 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried really, really hard to care, but I just couldn't manage it. Do what you want. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you took that approach; this isn't about me trying to force my opinion on you. Problems small and great are best resolved through dialogue. In any case, have a nice day. Best, Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

Thanks for cleaning my talk page! WereSpielChequers 09:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, happy to do it. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

The recent edit you made to the page South Pasadena High School constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you CarltonBanks666 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OH SHIYT --Closedmouth (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Metroid (series)/to do

I've removed your speedy G6 request for the above article. I would suggest that it is controversial to suggest that to do lists shouldn't be in the main namespace when WP:TODO and {{todo}} suggests that they should be. --JD554 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, "Normally, the "/to do" subpage should only be created under the article's Talk page, unless it is a notice board or project page." --Closedmouth (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest noticed it wasn't in the Talk namespace, my mistake. --JD554 (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

reverting "vandalism"

Hi.

I'm aware of the fact that you put time and effort into fighting vandalism on wikipedia. However, my edit on Pityriasis rosea was NOT vandalism. I happen to know some things about this disease, and it is NOT contagious. Any source about the disease will confirm this information. Apparently other editors also rectified this information after your vandalism. Please be aware of the fact that some anonymous editors are NOT vandals, thank you! And please also remove the message from my talk page, as I do not deserve that kind of treatment.

157.193.203.65 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember doing that. You're allowed to remove the warning from your talk page if you want to. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Old move reviewed - The Bridge

You moved the article The Bridge (documentary film) to the ambiguous title The Bridge (2006 film) back in January 2008. There were 2 films titled The Bridge, both released in 2006 - thus the current title is ambiguous. Given that the documentary film is likely the primary topic (a quick google search would agree with that), WP:Primary topic applies here. Shouldn't there be a hatnote link at the top of the article of both The Bridge (2006 film) and The Bridge (2006 drama)? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource - delete "how-to"

Thanks for your help on my Talk page about how to nominate something for deletion on Wikisource. I really did try to find it, but Help wasn't helpful. If you're an Admin, do you think you could let them know how tough it was, and maybe put a "Help" article someplace where it can be found? Also would be nice if there was a "Afd" template, for those of us who are more familiar with *pedia than *source, even if it's only a redirect to the one you directed me to. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexy new design! --Closedmouth (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1864 Presidential Election

Thanks, how'd you do it? Spinach Monster (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks Spinach Monster (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Improper Use of AWB

Hello, Closedmouth. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yo, MiszaBot, archive this. Yo. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Header added

Please stop editing my Martha Shaw page. She is important! She is a world-renowned musician, and she has recorded many CD's and won many awards. Do not keep tagging it. It's embarrassing and annoying! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matterhorn3 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the tag. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see this link: http://www.shorter.edu/academics/arts/music_choral.htm

Please read the article on Martha Shaw and click on the links.

Dr. Martha Shaw has recorded CD's, has sung in the Vatican, and is world-renowned. This is amazingly unbelievable. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Matterhorn3 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Another header added

just let me talk to you!! At least friend me on facebook and maybe send me some full body shots?! -Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.251.236 (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a very strong gag reflex I would recommend against that. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pawan Kalyan

Vandalism by 76.251.241.150 was made 'permanent' by User:Thehelpfulbot, so I've reverted to previous to that. HalfShadow 03:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool. On close inspection you probably could have just reverted as Helpfulbot's edit was caused by the vandalism. Oh well, it's fixed now. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

moving organics

thanks for your reply, you mean it will be moved by the powers that be, i did bring it up on the discussion page a few months ago, someone else did a while back, but there was no feedback, i think it is straight forward and noncontroversial... i don't know how to make the discussion more alarmist, to really push people to reply if they have problems with the move.. whoa is that you on the left, excuse me that's kinda creepy, big bro is watching me. Truetom (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Jimbo, silly! --Closedmouth (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Help requested from Prof.rick

Sorry, I didn't realize I was spamming! I didn't know if my cry for help would be most effective at the top or bottom of the Talk page, or with the word(s) "help" or "help me". I also didn't realize that I should state the nature of the problem. Again, apologies!

Here it is:

I have called for for a Speedy Deletion of the Article, "Richard Kastle". Please check the talk page there! I have evidence that Richard Kastle himself created the Article, and that he is NOT noteworthy.

I've included a reference to YouTube. It is important that an Administrator SEE the posting to which I've referred, before Richard Kastle (aka mikecaffey) deletes his own comment, in self-defence! (He is NOTORIOUS for deleting any comments which might challenge his supremacy!)

Obviously, Kastle himself began and wrote the Wikipedia article.

It is also obvious that he is NOT noteworthy...any Google Search results which bring up his name lead to his own self-reference (YouTube, MySpace, and sadly, Wikipedia).

Therefore, I am asking that an Administrator VIEW his own comments on YouTube:

1. Search "Hungarian Rhapsody no 2 Richard Kastle Liszt with the Horowitz cadenza" 2. Read the comments! You'll soon discover that Richard Kastle IS mikecaffey!

Thank you for your help, and dedication to Wikipedia!

Best, Prof.rick (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I'll try it out! Prof.rick (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not constructive contributions

How is a statement of fact rather than opinion not constructive? I said "It has been suggested that Boll is deliberately making bad movies to take advantage of a German tax loophole <etc>" not that he "IS doing this", if you type 'Uwe Boll tax loophole' into google it returns over four hundred hits, I think that is fair evidence of it being suggested. Mex5150 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"This however is only a popular theory and has never been proven one way or the other." Please read WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, WP:Biographies of living people and various other Wikipedia policies and guidelines that expressly forbid the type of content you're adding to the article. You're lucky you haven't been blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying if I link to somebody else saying 'if you type 'Uwe Boll tax loophole' into google it returns over four hundred hits' I can add it, but the fact that this is still true regardless of another page saying it is irrelevant? Hell go ahead and block me, I'm not going to waste my time trying to improve articles if the system is that anal LOL Mex5150 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thanks for the help with the collapisble sections :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wee! A non-vandalism barnstar, that doesn't happen very often. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reason for your action ?

Sorry, that was a mistake. It looked like you were removing a large chunk of text. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Images that won't upload via Commons Helper

These need to be flagged for rename on the enwiki side. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agh, of course, I didn't even think of that. Glad I asked, thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note- I found the cause of the en0 glitch - Images on the enwiki side need a complete {{Information}} record. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually try to keep my nose out of disputes like that. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean Boru

You have deleted the tag proposing deletion of the article Sean Boru. You give as edit summary "prod is contested, please take it to afd instead if you wish to have it deleted (per WP:PROD)". However, you have not stated, either in your edit summary or in the article's talk page, why you think the article should not be deleted: perhaps you would like to do so. Note that the Proposed deletion policy says: "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page", and in any case it seems to make sense to give a reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PROD#Conflicts: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." --Closedmouth (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The tag was removed in the course of an edit for which the edit summary referred to rewriting and adding references, not to the proposal for deletion. At the time I thought the removal of the tag was indeed "not an objection to deletion", but had been removed accidentally as a side effect of the other editing. Having thought about it I think I may well have been mistaken, and restoring the tag was an error, so that you were right to remove it again. Nevertheless, none of this alters my feeling that simply removing a deletion tag without indicating why is unhelpful. Also no doubt as to whether the tag had been removed intentionally would have occurred had the person who removed the tag even said that he was doing so, let alone given a reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but PRODs must be uncontroversial, and anyone removing a PROD makes it controversial. I have nothing more to say on the matter. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine: there probably is no more to be said. You are quite right, and I made a mistake. However, I thought it worth pointing out how such mistakes could have been made less likely, that's all. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the simple fix to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment, makes me feel a bit stupid. I was using a find function but it missed the entry due to the underlines. Thanks again for fixing the problem. Dbiel (Talk) 03:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it

Nowaywhatyousay talk I was just putting up the first warning. Like the head. Cool and spooky at the same time. --Artypants, Babble 12:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (child actor)‎

The deletion of this article wasn't exactly "contested". You saw an edit by a anon vandal who's been going around adding misinformation to little-watched articles and reverting attempts to remove it. 11:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They look like legit edits to me. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

fakecharity.org

This is an organisation that has been attracting attention from the charities themselves ([1]) It is surely relevant to the charities and the public information on them that this is mentioned. Why do you keep deleting my edit even if you disagree with the aims of www.fakecharities.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.64.121 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a charity "fake" and then citing some obscure website called "fakecharities" doesn't exactly gel with our policies on neutrality and verifiability. A reliable source printing a story on this website accusing charities of being "fake", now that would be something worth keeping. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:62.190.38.50&redirect=no

Someone at marketing at my company thought it was a great idea to spam Wikipedia with links to us. Will have a chat with them to stop doing it right away. Not cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.38.50 (talk)

Quite alright, sir, as long as it doesn't happen again :) --Closedmouth (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx for help with {{helpme}}

Hi. Thx for changing {{helpme}} to {{helpme}}. I can use that tip next time. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

Cheers for the backup =)

—Reedy 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Michele Renouf? No problem. Quite a few people seem to have difficulty with the concept of super and subcats. Ah well. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And again. Saves me having to reply ;). Watching my talk page by any chance? Thanks again!! 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I started stalking yours primarily to keep up with any interesting AWB issues, but it turns out people tend to ask you easy to answer questions...and I just can't resist :P --Closedmouth (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Saito Nagasaki article reverts

I must object to the reverts placed upon my fair and justified edits to the above-mentioned article. The man himself still owes various sums of money to many people involved in the 'successful' West Australian events he mentions, including myself and a large number of other former employees. The article itself is, to those familiar with him, greatly reminiscent of his florid self-promotion. I ask that you either delete it due to its total lack of objectivity or at least allow some degree of editing to it, as it is far from the truth in any context.

203.206.34.174 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to make quick judgement calls when recent changes patrolling, and it appears you were adding your own opinion to the article. I would suggest removing any objectionable content you find within the article, explaining what you're doing in the edit summary, rather than adding your own opinionated comments, whichj violates our fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Boats of Cherbourg

Please kindly look on the value discussions, I provided a link to the whole story on Wiki Israel domain. Worth to translate and use photos and documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.104.198 (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What? --Closedmouth (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

TXTR

Your edit was mistaken: There should have either been a Hat note added at the target of the Rdr, or TXTR become a Dab. Please join a discussion at Talk:TXTR about whether there is a primary topic.
--Jerzy•t 10:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time I made the revert, the second target was a red link. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah! That's a a bit effortful to spot after the fact, of course; thanks for letting me know. I suppose i was predisposed to expect you to be as clueless as the other recent editor of the page [slaps own hand].
    Entirely different topic, and i feel a bit rude, but i hate the Monty-Pythonesque graphic intrusion (even tho it was amusing to see it slide behind the WP logo!), and even for my short note, it was worth the effort of sacrificing the std WP L sidebar and making the edit pane touch the edge of the visible area to suppress it. I've never seen the likes of it here, & IMO if the practice is not explicitly deprecated, it's bcz everyone else who's done it has heeded the contrary advice of visiting colleagues. (IMO, however, it would be appropriate -- and cool -- on your user page, which almost no one has to look at.)
    --Jerzy•t 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't make that very clear when I did the revert, but you get these cases a lot when cleaning up short pages: some random editor searching for his or her product, being redirected to some other unrelated article, and editing the redirect to point to a page that doesn't exist but that they think should. I've come to the point where I just revert, they very rarely bother to check up on their handiwork.
Regarding the head, I find it as irritating as you do, but I've had so many "so anyway, I was just wondering if...OH JESUS FUCK THAT HEAD SCARED THE SHIT OUT OF ME" reactions that I just couldn't resist keeping it and making it as annoying as possible. Thanks for the feedback ;p --Closedmouth (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • L LOL. That's "literally LOL", and i'm gonna have to stop using "LOL" in other senses. (I'm already careful not to use "literally" in its most figurative sense.) My first impulse was "I'm non-plussed", but that's always figurative, isn't it, unless said to a third party?
    Re the editing, IMO many eyes implies a lot of editing like what you describe, and a lot of critiquing like what i did. Thanks for the dialog, & the laffs.
    --Jerzy•t 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against Philbox17

1) Philbox17 has made personal attacks on me.

Here, Philbox17 accuses me of making propaganda.

And here he calls me a propaganda machine.


2) Philbox17 is editing an article about an organization after being asked to do so by leaders of this organization. There is a rule against a person editing their own article. What is the consensus on organizations doing so?


3) Philbox17 has called me "peureux" (a coward) on French wiki and has also taken to threatening me in a veiled manner: "I counsel you to stop the vandalism and the federalist propaganda right away Vincent...". (My translation.)

Also, please note Philbox17 has just been blocked for 3 days from French Wikipedia.

Would an admin kindly look into these matters, please? Vincent (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the report, but ANI is over there------------->WP:ANI. There. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know where to go, so sorry for the trouble and thanks for the info!Vincent (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Learning space design

Thanks for fixing that Learning Environments edit after I messed it up. I wasn't sure exactly how to deal with it and was researching the policies and then I lost my wi-fi signal and yeah... I messed it up. I'll try to edit more like you did from now on. Bubblesort (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, probably still want to delete it. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

supported

Hola estoy borrando todo eso porque es irrelevante y llena todo el articulo con los supported. gracias. Kal-El Smallville (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I...see... --Closedmouth (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Disculpe. No le entiendo. Quisiera saber porque me revierte las ediciones. Kal-El Smallville (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RRQ

Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= . Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

Can you take a look at the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois page if you have time, thank you. I am neutral, I think you are not.Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

I reverted you here because you added "The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment", which is not neutral no matter how you spin it, and I couldn't trust any of the rest of what you added because of that. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec, this is what the source said the Gazette read the source please. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

I did.... your mum!

Fuck off from Wikipedia. The recent edit i made to your mums pussy was considerd taped Use any page for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary about me doing your mum. You may also wish to read up on the fact that I did your mum's pussy. 92.236.192.4 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL I GOT SERVED SO BAD!!!!! --Closedmouth (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the Cliché but so did your mum last night.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.192.4 (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I CANNOT STOP LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!! --Closedmouth (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That sound like a pretty fuckin' bad problem... I'd see a doctor if i were you... 92.236.192.4 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You should be a comedian!!! --Closedmouth (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
So should your real pearants, they were MUCH funnier than your adopted perants.... 92.236.192.4 (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
How do you come up with this stuff, it's genius???????? --Closedmouth (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Closedmouth.... I.... Am.... Your........... Nah i'm not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.192.4 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rohingya Jihad

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rohingya Jihad, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohingya Jihad. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found more evidence of Wikipedia being misused for PR purposes

Hi there

I have found an article about a musician called Dale Olivier which you have correctly tagged for deletion as it is improperly using Wikipedia to promote an non-notable musician. I have also found an article which is created by this musician to illegally promote his music company on wikipedia. The article in question is for "Matchbox Recordings". This article is under the listing of "UK Record Labels". However this company is not a bona fide record label.

It is actually a music promotions company who charge unsigned bands for money to distribute their music to digital download sites like "Itunes", etc. This does not fit the proper description of a record label which is a company the produces, records & distributes from its own funds and not the artists who are signed to them. Matchbox recordings are a music promotions company that are improperly using Wikipedia to promote their services in which they will charge unsigned bands up front. Also any of the artists who "release" music through Matchbox Recordings have not charted in the UK, so therefore this company does not merit having a Wikipedia article written about them.

Please visit their website to view these services which they charge their "artists" :

http://www.matchboxrecordings.co.uk/

Thank you for reading this

Regards

MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicspecialist (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it. Olivier's obviously not notable, so his article will probably be deleted. If any more pop up I'll take it more seriously. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PROD removal at ± Junkie

Can you please tell me why you removed the PROD template from ± Junkie? The PROD was seconded by KrebMarkt (talk · contribs) and I thought my PROD was sufficiently clear in why the page should be deleted. I won't nominate this for AfD until I've heard your opinion on this matter. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 12:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's a matter of policy, which incidentally you should probably read before you implement. From WP:PROD#Conflicts: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Thank you and good night. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have created a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/± Junkie. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the help. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Atheist / Antitheist boxes

Hello !

I just had a peek at your page and noticed the aforesaid boxes, which rejoiced me in a way that gives a pretty good idea of the infinite.

I tried to copy them to put them on my own page (it's just across the English French Channel), but they just wouldn't appear.

Any idea how to do it ? (bearing in mind that I work on the French version of Wikepedia, and that I'm fairly new (9 days !) on the block). All the best, --Dominique Fournier (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you'd have to copy the code from here and here (just the stuff in the <div> tags), translate the English to French, then create a subpage of your userpage (like fr:Utilisateur:Dominique Fournier/atheist or fr:Utilisateur:Dominique Fournier/antitheist) put the code in there and transclude it like a normal template. I hope that's understandable and not just gibberish. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll try and make some sense of that gibberish (the good old trial-and-error system) and hope for the best. Thanks again, --Dominique Fournier (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Closedmouth/Archive_9&oldid=1140233947"