User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Requests

Point out any problems on my page[[1]]if you could find any,alrigth?MKguy42192 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)MKguy42192

Hey,I,uh,need some help upload an image onto my Constantine page.Help me out or give me some advice,will ya?MKguy42192 (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)MKguy42192

Wikipedia's image policy can be pretty confusing. First off, you'll want to familiarize yourself with WP:IUP. Make sure that the image is allowable. Next thing you'll probably want to do is to create an account at Wikimedia Commons. After you do that, it's pretty easy to upload images; this page explains the process pretty well. I'll try my best to answer any specific questions you have, though to be honest I'm probably not the best person to ask for help with images. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great help on how to do this stuff,faithless.This is really going to help my Constantine page[[2]].MKguy42192 (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)MKguy42192

Happy to help. But like I said, image policy is quite tricky; it's important to make sure you have permission to use any images you upload, otherwise they'll be deleted. I don't know much about video games, so I can't really help you with writing that article. But good luck. faithless (^speak) 06:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah,it really is tricky if you've never done it before.Like I said,though,thanks.I heard from Lankiveil and he said my article was good for a new one!MKguy42192 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MKguy42192

Hey,you want to know something?On the Constantine video game box,it says,"CONSTANTINE Software @2005SCI Games Ltd. and Bits Studios Ltd".But if you check the SCI games page on Wikipedia,there is no "Constantine"!If you know why this is,than tell me.P.S.:I put "@" because the box says "copyright" and the computer keyboard doesn't have the symbol for it.MKguy42192 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)MKguy42192

Peyton Hillis

I saw you booted the speedy - WP:Bio seems to say that professional status (or equiv where there is no such level) is required; I read that as saying a starter in the NFL is notable, but not D-1. I guess you could say it's the highest level of amateur sport, but then there are no refs cited. All that said, what am I missing? You surely know the regs better than I. Happy new year, --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Howse, as you guessed, a starter for a D-I football is team is considered notable, as it is the highest amateur level of the sport. Just take a look at Category:College football players; articles for college athletes are nothing unusual. While the article isn't great, and doesn't cite any sources, it does contain external links which verify he is who the article says he is. Also, a Google search further proves the assertions the article makes. Hope this clears things up. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Economy and Society

Hi Faithlessthewonderboy,

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for the edits you made to Economy and Society--good work! Secondly, I was just wondering why you removed the link to the Google Books page for the book. I find that page helpful as it lets you search the entire text of the book. Is there a specific wikipedia policy against such links?

Thanks!! --Dave (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dave, happy to help. As far as removing the link to the full text, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if there is a specific policy or guideline prohibiting such links. However, they very often are removed; I suspect that there's a copyright issue, and we are very sensitive to copyright violations. This is the sort of thing I should know - I'll look into it and get back to you. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this for me faithless, I appreciate it, and I'm interested to hear the results of your research! --Dave (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Joseph.downey9211

I'm fine with an indefinite block. FYI, to decrease a block length, you need to unblock the user and then immediately apply a new block with the desired term. See you around! Brianga (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!

That barnstar means a lot to me. Thank you very much :) --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you deserve it! faithless (^speak) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on

I happened to see this post by you and was happy to see you wisely saying "Just because someone is rude to you is no reason to stoop to their level." Maybe I shouldn't have strongly opposed your adminship. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Thanks for reverting back my changes in the article. Rock on...Anoopkn (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Hi I saw your comment with the neutral vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeepday. In this edit Diff (before the questions had been consecutively numbered, when 3 and 4 referenced Avruch's 3rd and 4th questions) I stated that I felt those short statements were accurate and concise. I still do. What is now question 4 is accurate describes the difference between the two and provides links to the relevant policy for reference. What is now question 5 also provides links to the relevant policy and says (in my mind) "in this situation the key point is are there solid references to support the content". I am not one to add to the content just to make the response longer then one sentence. Can you point to some point you feel I am failing to respond to in the questions? Thanks for your comment about question 1 :)Jeepday (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hey. Thanks for the welcome! Do you work for Wikipedia?

--Rithschap (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor HP characters images

Hi Faithless, I notice that the minor characters article has been protected, allowing edits only by administrators. However, the last edit was from Hammersoft, and the images disappeared. I agree with the protection, but I suggest that the images should be added while we are developing consensus. Lord Opeth (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that, and am trying to decide which action to take. After his removal of the images, Hammersoft's very next edit was to request protection of the page - it's pretty darn hard to assume good faith after that. I'm also pretty surprised that the page was protected just two minutes after the request was made, certainly not long enough to review the situation. Still, no reason not to AGF here, it's possible that s/he was following the discussion. Of course, that's unlikely, but possible.

The funny thing here is that I don't even really care if the images are removed, if that's what the consensus says should happen. But I haven't seen any policy or guideline which says that the images should be removed; Hammersoft keeps pointing us to irrelevant discussions and policies, and making constant baseless threats. I'll probably reinsert the images, since Hammersoft has not shown any policy or guideline that supports his actions, yet continues to edit war over it. If he's proven right, fine by me. But his actions have been totally unacceptable. Making a change and immediately requesting page protection is shady at best. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

...there is a thread about you on WP:ANI that can be found here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And it was posted in good faith to avoid Faithlesswonderboy coming under sanction. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As Hammersoft says there, it would be poor form to revert a protected article to your preferred version, or to block someone you're in a content dispute with. Get another admin to do it. Gimmetrow 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I will heed your advice. faithless (^speak) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you were not offended, it looked like you knew this anyway.[3] Good luck with everything. Gimmetrow 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Volcano, we're still broken up

Hey, I haven't found a citation yet for this, but through emails with Mark Duplass, I know that Volcano I'm still Excited has been broken up for some time. Its a shame, they were a great band. Mark Duplass is an actor and director now living in Austin, and he stared in the film The Puffy Couch. Just thought I'd be polite and not personal masacre/reedit your article. AtlantaMusic (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Luna Lovegood

Why did you remove the "she's hot" on the talk page. yes it was absolutly pointless but i don't think your supposed to remove stuff from article talkpages without archiving. -munkee_madness talk 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it had nothing to do with improving the article, was just someone's personal opinion and didn't belong on a talk page per this guideline. Talk pages are not forums, and irrelevant posts can be removed. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening the confuséd one, o Reader of Policy. -munkee_madness talk 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New section

why u delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebthepeteb (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason Pete B was deleted was explained here. faithless (^speak) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

tender

Hey, since you are an admin, you could make a request to have "tender" banned from The Streets with ClueBot. By the way, "Tender" is getting a bit angry.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that that could be done. I'll certainly look into it. Even though, honestly, I rather enjoyed reading the diff you provided. :-) faithless (^speak) 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He's tenderly tenacious, we should keep the word if it gets add 100 times, although he might be getting a stroke before that. See if you can make that admin request. Congrats on becoming an admin by the way!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I am not sure why you still insist on removing the word tender from the article. It is clear that all those anon IPs have gained concensus that the word tender is appropriate. Why keep removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEAT. You getting all of your friends to vandalize Wikipedia is not exactly consensus. That's assuming that you aren't just doing it all yourself. faithless (^speak) 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What is the burden of proof for wiki to assume "meat puppetry"? And how do any of the edits conflict with wiki policy? I think you should get arb-com involved if you don't like the edits. As it happens, I have mentioned this disagreement to a couple of my friends, but have not instructed any of them to make said edit - maybe people just think it is right? Maybe we have "consensus"? Couldn't you be banned for 3RR by now? Like wot happened to me? I wouldn't know how to do it all myself, fyi. These are obviously serious accusations. You should get an independant admin to come and investigate. But seriously, why is it consensus when you agree and something else when you don't? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Every user who has weighed in has said it's inappropriate. You have yet to give any reason why it should be included. You and your friends have been reverted by several editors, including a bot, so blatant was the vandalism. These continued antics aren't helping your case any. I have not violated 3RR as I have been reverting blatant vandalism. This is really getting tiring. You have admitted that you went and got your friends to help you vandalize Wikipedia; i.e. meatpuppetry. I'd say that's all the proof needed. I implore you to cease immediately. Your vandalism will be reverted immediately and you may be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. faithless (^speak) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have given several reasons why it should be included. You refused to carry on the discussion. I have not canvassed anyone, and you would be hard pressed (ie unable) to prove that I have. The bot was clearly set up by you or one of your friends (who, incidentally, canvasses you in this very subject). I don't need my case helped, I have consensus on my side. You need to be active in a discussion before proving that any edit being discussed is "blatant vandalism". I have explicitly stated that I have not got my friends to make any edits to wikipedia, let alone encouraged them to vandalise through "meat puppetry". You have no proof whatsoever, and I shall soon be reporting you for violation of 3rr. I don't know what you are imploring me to do. I have not made any edits to this article for some time, I think. You presumably need "proof" before having me blocked. In any case, I advise you to get an independant admin to come and assess the situation. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Okay, first, you admitted to canvassing already. Too late to take that back. Second, thank you for giving me credit for User:ClueBot, though I must admit I have nothing whatsoever to do with the bot or its owner, nor do I have any understanding of the script used to create bots. ClueBot has made something like half a million edits since it's been up and running; yet somehow I am responsible for it, and created it only to spite you? Right, that makes sense. Stop making idle threats; look over the last fifty or so edits. You, or at least your friends, have been blatantly vandalizing Wikipedia. Seriously, I'm getting tired of this. Do not threaten me for reverting blatant vandalism. Consensus is against you. You are welcome, as always, to seek dispute resolution if you want. faithless (^speak) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot state that telling my friends about a wiki dispute is tantamount to meat-puppetry. You certainly cannot prove it. I give you or your friends from the streets article some credit for setting up this bot. Why on earth would it concentrate so hard on the article. Consensus, which as I remember is a concept you dont understand, is with me by your skewed definition, in that more people are saying we should have this edit than don't. By the correct definition (or the wiki one) consensus has been blocked by you, because you do not wish to engage in any more discussion on the subject. I was not threatening - I have reported you. YOU are the one who is welcome to seek dispute resolution. In the mean time, stop reverting edits you don't like. As your front page says, remember NPOV. Good night. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Once again, I have nothing to do with CluBot! Thank you for assuming I do, it's a great compliment. Nor do I have any relationship with the editor who runs the block. You're really making yourself look foolish. I have nothing else to say. faithless (^speak) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Offerdahl

Hi - I'm not sure why you consider Mark Offerdahl notable whether or not he is a "professional athlete". He hasn't played one first-grade game in the NRL which is the usual minimum requirement for notability with Australian rugby league players. I'd ask you to re-consider a speedy, please. Cheers. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit to knowing nothing about either Aussie sports or rugby. However, the article says that he plays for a team which (apparently) is a member of the country's top rugby league. For all I know, you could very well be right in your assertion that he isn't notable, but this is a case for AfD rather than speedy. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Each club has its own minor leagues - under 20's, Jersey Flegg, etc etc. A player can be contracted to Manly or the Roosters or any other NRL club but not play, ever, first-grade, or NRL. I know notability varies from sport to sport and even country to country within the one sport, but this fellow is definitely not notable. I've had other lower league players speedied without problem, but if you'd rather not, you'd rather not. Cheers. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You certainly know more about the subject than I do; still, speedy deletion should really be reserved for the most obvious, cut-and-dry cases, so I've nominated this one at AfD instead of deleting it outright. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope it succeeds. I don't want to be patrolling/editing/referencing all the one-line Jersey Flegg/Toyota Cup player articles that will flood in otherwise. Thanks for putting up the notice. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :-) faithless (^speak) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ballard High School article now has errors in grammar and spelling

Also, if someone has a 500 seat performing arts center named after them at a school, and that person has trained many professional actors and is generally well known as an acting coach in the drama world, it just makes sense that a minor reference can be made in an article about that school regarding the death of that person. That is not a "memorial" to Aunt Tilly or your cat. It is documented, footnoted by news articles - and marks a moment in history. In that way a researcher can use Wikipedia to learn the context of facts.

Additionally, you have no right to take out the content associating the video production program with an award-winning, feature motion picture made at the school by a student from the school. That goes to the prestige of the program and is documented for other young filmmakers - so that that they can be better informed and inspired to do likewise. This material must be restored, or you will be directly affecting the documentable perception of the school and its place in the film and dramatic arts community. In affect, to prevent the statement of facts is a disparagement of the school when viewed in the context of other programs (and all the many accomplishments they state long and loud on Wikipedia).

Wikipedia would be sparse indeed if you went after it with the "letter of the law" that is cited by you. I am wondering if there is a conflict of interest by the editors who have communicated with me or other questionable/malicious intent afoot here. I have concerns and intend to uphold my First Amendment rights and privileges - again, particularly when making comparison between the content I posted and MANY other listings on Wikipedia. This is an issue of fundamental fairness.

P. Scott Cummins Ballard High School Foundation Seattle, WA

What an odd message. I have never edited the article for the school mentioned. You might find the welcome page useful. Feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was meant for me for the edits I made at Ballard High School (Seattle, Washington). I apologize for any confusion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a fluke, really.

Someone else did an RFA on my behalf. HalfShadow (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

question

hello,

If I want to put my band page up on wiki how can I do it without it being deleted? The band is something thats currently developing and I want it to be known that we are the only Space Project out there. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanportera (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Allanportera,

To put it bluntly, you should not create an article where you have a conflict of interest. We have notability guidelines to determine whether or not a band is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a webspace provider with which to promote your band.

I hope this doesn't turn you off to editing Wikipedia, but we have to have strict criteria for inclusion to retain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Don't worry, if your band is notable then someone else is sure to create the article. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions about contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My userboxes

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your dilegence in fixing my userboxes. Now, if you'd like, I'll work on any task you choose for an hour. Thanks again! Bardofcornish (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Anyway, happy to help. The first one's free. :) faithless (^speak) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ODU!

Lol, I used to go to ODU myself! :) Jmlk17 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Cool, I was pretty disappointed by the very small number of Wikipedians in the ODU alumni cat. Are you from the area? faithless (^speak) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, further out West, but I attended from 2001-2003. How about you? Jmlk17 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally from California, but I've been in Virginia for quite a while. I started in 2001 also. Small world, huh? faithless (^speak) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Small world indeed... did you happens to live on campus? Jmlk17 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Adams

He's already recreated the page Michael Adams (Scottish Comedian) again. I think this is at least the 4th or 5th time that he's created it or the earlier one "Mike Adams (Scottish Comedian)". Mh29255 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I think I'll leave it for another admin, since I've already deleted it twice, just so it doesn't look like I'm acting unilaterally. I left the user one last message on his talk page trying to explain what he's doing wrong. Hopefully he'll heed the advice. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting goof

I assume you didn't mean to say that Jamaica and its allies comprised the Axis powers during World War II.[4] :) Doczilla (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops! :P I didn't realize the IP I was reverting had made more than one edit. I guess that's my cue to turn off the computer and get to bed, huh? haha faithless (^speak) 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

lol. Believe me, I know how things like this can happen. Doczilla (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Candace Carey

An editor has nominated Candace Carey, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Carey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons

I was wondering if you would like to help WP:SIMPSONS improve some character articles, since you're still listed as a member. Right now there is a season 4 FT drive and an unofficial improvement drive for the five main members of the Simpson family (with most of the work being done on Homer's page). We also have our own IRC channel at #wpsimpsons if you're interested. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it and see what I can do. Since you say that most of the work is being done on Homer, I think I'll concentrate on another one, probably Marge or Lisa. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

barnstar award

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to Thug Murder. CM (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! faithless (^speak) 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You deserve it. BTW, I just changed the wording because you did more than just add citations. CM (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow - nice work! If I may make one minor critique, when referencing stuff, remember to place the <ref> after some punctuation - it doesn't look good otherwise. I'll fix it up - great work again! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Tiptoety ^talk 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) faithless (^speak) 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for blocking as well. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the revert on the music scene edit?

The Hampton Roads music scene consists primarily of those bands that play in Hampton Roads, which is what was listed. A list of nationally recognized artists can be found elsewhere linked to the Hampton Roads Wiki page....

Because we can't list every single band in Hampton Roads. The rule of thumb generally employed in such situations are only people with Wikipedia articles are listed. Similar situations would be List of people from Hampton Roads or January 24. Both are lists of people/bands/etc. Obviously they are not exhaustive, nor should they be. Only those that are notable are included. I hope this answered your question. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

However.. the category in question is describing the music scene of Hampton Roads. I'm not sure if you are from there or not.. but a large majority of the listed artists do not play in Hampton Roads on a regular basis. When bringing up the music scene, the artists listed should be those who make up the actual music scene in Hampton Roads. In listing the bands, I generally listed artists and bands that perform on a steady basis in the region, and I can provide reference links to prove as such.

I do live in Hampton Roads. In fact, I attended middle school with one of the artists you listed. I see what you're saying, but the fact is that we're only concerned with those bands that Wikipedia considers notable according to the guideline I noted above. There are plenty of local groups not listed there because, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not important. The purpose of the section is to let those people not from Hampton Roads learn which important musicians came from the area. Therefore, only those who pass WP:BAND are included. Oh, and when discussing things on talk pages, you should sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) : ) faithless (^speak) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the etiquette, I am a bit new to this! I would think that number seven on the criteria that you listed should qualify the bands and artists in question. The artists I listed are representative of the style of music that is performed most regularly in this area, and thus creates the local music scene of this city. The artists and bands listed have all either opened for more well known artists, gotten radio play both in and out of Hampton Roads, or performed steadily in the Hampton Roads area, and I can find resources to quote if need be for most of them. The topic has been changed (from when I originally created it) from "Artists and bands that perform regularly in the area" to "Music Scene", and quite frankly, it's not at all an apt description of Hampton Roads' music scene, barring one or two of the mentioned artists. Also, looking at the previous edits log, I see that you have edited around the list in the past. The intention was to eventually create Wikipedia pages for most of the artists mentioned, as most have done things of note both in Hampton Roads, and out of Hampton Roads that would seem to warrant inclusion. Many people outside of the Hampton Roads area don't realize what a thriving music scene the area has, and my addition of the bands and artists listed is an attempt to inform the public of the artists and bands that make it up. Blackbird13 (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm always happy to help out a newbie. I think you're misunderstanding the guideline though (upon taking a close read I admit that it is pretty poorly worded). In this case, I think that what the guideline is really getting at is that a band ought to be representative in the fashion that Nirvana represented Seattle, the Grateful Dead represented San Francisco, Bruce Springsteen represents New Jersey, etc. Those artists are all very closely identified with where they are from. And as far as the other part of number seven (representing a genre), it's not quite enough that the artist is a good representation of it; rather the artist should be one of the first to come to mind when you think of the genre. Examples would be Hank Williams Sr. and country, Chuck Berry and rock 'n' roll, the Dead Kennedys and punk rock, Bach and Baroque, Belle & Sebastian and twee, etc. None of the bands you listed can fit that criteria, I believe, because just by definition you have to be rather well known to fit it. Now, I'm not saying that none of the artists you listed are notable; heck, they might all be. But the big picture here is that artists without pages can't be listed there. If you create articles for them and it turns out they are notable then by all means add them to the list! But again, the general rule of thumb is no article, no mention. I'll leave a message on your talk page with some helpful links to get you started here. And feel free to contact me here if you have any questions! faithless (^speak) 10:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the help! I agree with you on your interpretation of number seven in the link.. I'm simply of the opinion that the music scene in this area was best represented by the artists listed (along with a few others, I was browsing a few resources and records to determine which to list, based on the guidelines I described above). I was referring more to the representing a music scene part as opposed to the representing a genre part, however. I do understand what you've expressed though, and as such, I plan on rewording the music scene page to indicate that while the artists listed are from Hampton Roads, they don't represent the Hampton Roads music scene, so to speak. Feel free to check it and make sure I've got it up to Wiki's standards! One last thing, out of curiousity.. why did you originally pass over the list before removing the local and regional artists? Like I said, I had originally created it to inform people of the music scene WITHIN Hampton Roads, although I may have not worded it correctly. Not an attack or anything, just wondering! :) Thanks for your help! Blackbird13 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'm not quite sure what you mean though...are you asking what brought me to the article? If so, you might know, but you can watch articles which you are interested in by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of a page. Then if you click "my watchlist" in the upper-right hand corner, you will be shown all the recent changes to those articles you watch. If that wasn't what you meant, I'm afraid I don't understand what you were asking. :) faithless (^speak) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad, filling your page up here! Sorry! :) Anyway, I was referring to an edit you made on Sept. 15 2007. You removed a band from the category. On Sept. 20 2007, you removed the local and regional artists and retitled the category. Wondering what made you decide to remove the entire category after previously having edited it? Again, not at all an attack, just curious! :) Thanks! Blackbird13 (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) Basically, I just thought better of it. That was a while back, so I can't tell you exactly what was going through my head, but I must have revisited the article, realized that most of the bands listed ought not be listed, and removed them. You might not realize it yet (you will!), but Wikipedia has a huge problem with people adding themselves, their band, their friend's band, etc. to the encyclopedia. I'm not at all suggesting that's what you were doing (I know you were making a good-faith contribution), but because of this problem we have to take a tough stance on these things, and be pretty strict about what's added. faithless (^speak) 11:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Got warned? Me??

I cannot believe I got template-warned by User:Snowolf for archiving the discussion per consensus at Talk:Albus Dumbledore - see Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 7#In denial?. I feel like such a Rouge Vandal. lmao. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Serves you right! haha I see Snowolf a lot doing Recent Changes patrol, probably just got carried away. I wouldn't take it too personally :) faithless (^speak) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Life After People

I have restored the {{in-universe}} tag that you removed. The tag is appropriate. --Elliskev 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just posting to say thanks for catching the inappropriate post on my User Page. McBeardo (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Oil

My recent edits to Oil were intended to correct the article's factually inaccurate assertion that tar occurred in tar pits. Indeed, as Wikipedia's own articles clearly state, and as I reflected in my edits, tar is a product of the destructive distillation of organic substances, while tar pits contain asphalt. I strongly suggest that the next time you revert a user's edits and leave a message noting this action on such a user's talk page, you should get more deeply acquainted with the facts in question. This will not only help you to be a more productive and effective administrator, but it will also help you gain the respect of those thousands of contributors who tirelessly edit Wikipedia in the name of scientific accuracy. Thank you, and good luck.

Your intentions may have been good, but your edit was nonsensical. It simply made no sense whatsoever. faithless (^speak) 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If one understands the simple fact that tar and asphalt are distinct and unrelated chemical complexes, then my edits are perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.69.31 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. This is what your edit looked like:

sphalt pits). Other oily substances can also be found in the environment, the most well-known being tar(asphalt), occurring naturally underground or, where there are leaks, in tar pits (properly .

Regardless of what you were going for, that is just grammatically incorrect nonsense. Your second edit may well be correct; I don't know. I don't doubt that you know more about the subject than I do. But that first edit didn't make any sense. faithless (^speak) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, in the posting process somhow the text of my first edit got scrambled, it should have read like this

Other oily substances can also be found in the environment, the most well-known being tar(asphalt), occurring naturally underground or, where there are leaks, in tar pits (or more properly, asphalt pits).

. However It would have benifitted Wikipedia more to read it carefully and fix it by rearrangement of the text rather then telling me to "play in the sandbox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.69.31 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have known where to begin fixing it. Regardless, you seem to have made the change which you originally intended to make, so it's not a big deal. The message I left on your talk page was a standard template, and no offense should be taken at it. Indeed, now that you realize your error, I'm sure you can understand why I left that message. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 6, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

This is my first new article cut me some slack. If you dont like it then help me create a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhalenjump (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

personals

why is it that someone else should write about the things that i may be involved in, when i happen to know more and everything about it, and i can give good resources? i'm not just writing about myself and my involvements, i'm writing about everything and everyone involved in the process.--SLICKFINGERS (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core policies. This is an encyclopedia, and as such must be written neutrally. No one can write an article about themselves and remain neutral. Besides, if you are notable enough to deserve an article, one will be written about you by another editor. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i understand, but in my article, i was also writing about other people and separate articles for the individuals. does that not count? i believe they are notable... who is to decide if they are worth anything or not? not to sound angry, but that is only a fair question. talk --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline for bands can be found here. Even if you believe that your band is notable, you are strongly recommended not to write about yourself, your band, your friends, your company, etc. Neutrality is very important to Wikipedia. And regardless of your intentions (personally, I'm sure you are acting in good faith and not just trying to advertise your band), there is a definite confllict of interest. faithless (^speak) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

but how is it that others can write about me if what they write probably will be false notes? i would be writing truth. but on the other hand, if you can please check this out for me, and let me know if it helps.

Christy hemme is a member of the band, on her page it mentions music career, and it says the band name and what she will be doing. now maybe you have never heard of us, but thousands of people have, and at least 50,000 are her fans alone, she is "famous", and i know that passes for notability. so is it wrong to make an article about her band whether i am in it or not, i would be typing the same thing any other person would by the sources. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) talk

Again, WP:BAND is the notability guideline. Yes, Christy Hemme is notable; that doesn't mean anything. Whether or not thousands of people have heard of you or not is irrelevant. You band hasn't even released an album yet! If you want to write about the band in the relevant section of Christy Hemme's article, that's fine (so long as you don't write it like an advertisement and source it. But the band just doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. faithless (^speak) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

but i was writing about an album that is yet to be released and as i have seen on wikipedia, many artists have pages for albums that are yet to be released so how would i be different? check metallica.... they have a yet to be released album, so did linkin park at one point, and slipknot does now. keep in mind i'm not trying to argue, but fairness if the key, if others can do it, then so should everyone with the same type of article, i have never tried to promote, i have only given the facts and information on the subject written. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC) talk

The difference is that Metallica, Linkin Park and Slipknot are all very famous bands. faithless (^speak) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i do understand that, but you do have bands on here that are not very famous at all, and actually they are not even as famous as we are... in your own opinion don't you think that if i wait and someone else makes our page that it could get frustrating because they can write anything that they want and i just have to sit here and read it??? i even saw on christy hemme's page that it said "she dyes her hair red in memory of her mother's death" christy said that wasn't even true at all. so i went in and edited the page and got rid of it. sources are full of tons of lies. we just found a couple websites that said our band is signing a deal with Universal records and a sister label to playboy music. now this is not entirely true, we have not confirmed anything, but something like that can easily be put on our page... but if we wrote our page, if would be nothing but the truth as the news comes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as other non-notable bands having pages, yes, you're absolutely right. And they should be deleted. If someone else wrote an article about your band, no one would have a problem with you fixing inaccuracies that the article might contain. But if you write the article yourself, even with good intentions, there is a conflict of interest which is just inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. However, again, if an article is written about your band, the author would still have to prove notability. That's really the main issue here. If you haven't already, please read WP:BAND. If you still feel your band is notable after reading it, feel free to contact me and explain what your reasoning is. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm a little confused on how to prove we are worth being on wikipedia, i mean do you want awards or something, many bands have nothing, we do have a lot of praise, should i source the praise or what?

are you saying that if someone else did our page with sources it would be posted and continue to exist on wikipedia? --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND will tell you what the criteria is. And whether or not the page would be deleted depends upon whether or not it establishes notability. faithless (^speak) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

well christy hemme does pass a lot of the criteria but no as a musician, she is notable for many other works and being on t.v. for a show last 30 minutes or more. does this not count? she is famous in other areas and her band happens to represent a huge part of her career. i understand i can post a little sentence on her page but i thought wikipedia was all about information, which is why i spent 2 days creating pages that would all co-exist with each other, had i known i would have to deal with what administrators would fine "notable" i would have not have wasted anytime so i figured i'm going to spend a lot of time on making these pages super accurate and with al the links possible to all other existing articles in wikipedia. i mean you said you agree that there are bands on here with no notability whatsoever. "As far as other non-notable bands having pages, yes, you're absolutely right." if that is true, how did their pages even get passed being submitted. i wish i could just get a free chance since there are so many other non-notable articles and mine makes perfect sense and is full of true facts that you can find on sources on the internet. did you even see my pages and how well thought out they were? especially for my first try?

if you think i'm wasting my time by having these pages exist.. let me know now so that i won't even bother and i'll just watch as joe schmo writes his own lame views on something "I" am apart of or "my personal self and life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as those other articles existing, yes, they do, and they should be deleted. You might not realize how busy Wikipedia is; on average, about five to ten new pages are created every minute. Sometimes more, sometimes less. During the busier times, some articles get past without anyone noticing. As far as the articles you wrote, for a first time editor they were pretty well written. But that doesn't mean anything. Yes, Christy Hemme is notable, but (as you said) it isn't for her musical career, but rather for wrestling and appearing in Playboy. To be honest, you're probably fighting a losing battle here. If you can provide links from reliable sources (I'm talking Rolling Stone, Spin, newspapers, Pitchfork, MTV, etc. and not Myspace, blogs, etc.), then show them to me. I'll be happy to look over them and let you know if we can make an article. faithless (^speak) 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

oh i'm not fighting a losing battle i'm just dealing with someone else's opinion who happens to be an administrator and has WIKI power. sorry to sound cheesy but it's the truth, if you want me to respect and follow the rules of wikipedia, maybe you all should follow them too and get rid of "non-notable" articles so i can better feel not so discriminated against, because although pages get uploaded every 10 minutes every day, mine just happened to be the one that didn't pass... however that happened... --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to be picking up some attitude here. I didn't delete the articles you created, I simply let you know that writing articles about yourself is frowned upon and then offered to help you. And are you suggesting that somehow you were singled out? That's just ridiculous. No one is 'discriminating' against you. No one here even knows you, how could they possibly be discriminating against you? If someone is an administrator, they probably have a pretty good grasp of Wikipedia's policies, and better understand how things work than newcomers do. We work constantly on getting rid of articles that don't belong; however, there are over six million registered users and fewer than 1500 administrators. Occasionally something will slip by. Anyway, if there are all these bands that don't belong on Wikipedia, point them out. Tell me about them or place {{db-band}} at the top of the page. If they're not notable, they'll be deleted. faithless (^speak) 02:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

you see that's a going point i'm awesome at running internet sites, i should work for wikipedia, i'd get rid of pages all day long, i will point out tons of things that do not matter, and i band's don't have sources from Rolling Stone, Spin, newspapers, Pitchfork, MTV, etc... maybe i should point that out too right? i'm being serious, if i can not get a page up i should tell you what pages to get rid of because of conflict of interest.

PLEASE understand something, i have never been here to promote but i saw an opportunity to put our page on here because we were finally mentioned on christy's page and a lot of people have been asking me why we were not in wikipedia... i guess my only answer is to say that we are not important enough for them, because that is the truth according to the guidelines. i wouldn't be doing it if i was just in some lame local unsigned band, i'm doing it because it further adds to the article for christy hemme and the page would be boring if it had nothing more to say which is why i added separate artist pages and and an album page to finish. i figure wikipedia seems to be the best resource on the internet by itself which is why i put all of the information i could on these pages because there are actually many people out there who do want to know INFORMATION and they would have a page to go to if they happened to type our name in a search engine. i only tried wikipedia because it can best be explained in a perfect format.

i guess i don't really know what else to say other than i was trying to contribute in the best way possible, but if that is wrong because other think it is a "conflict of interest" then so be it. i would just hate to see worthless lies about my projects in the future, when on january 25th it could have all been set up on a great foundation and from here on out people can debate whatever they feel, but they would have to debate from truth in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC) --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

there you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luchagors

and their album page has nothing to say either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

so who deleted my legitimate code by them using myspace and blog references??? because my page used mostly myspace and blog reference...

so far it is being proven that i'm discriminated... they have no references at least no important references: spin, rolling stone. mtv.

i can give you small time references but i feel that's not enough, i will continue to debate this issue until it is fair, because right now it is absolutely not. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

don't put words in my mouth, i never said that you said the luchagors were not notable i said you said pages useing myspace and blogs as a reference are not notable... i quoted you. i do not want to see them deleted, i was to see fairness and YOU know that. i can provide my pages with sources and if I do so, with verifiable sources... will you allow the page to exist??? --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What you said was

according to faihlessthewonderboy, these are non-notable.

Considering I never said anything about Luchagors, you were misrepresenting what I said. Look, this is very simple: first, look at WP:BAND. Does your band meet any of the criteria? If so, which? Finally, prove it using reliable sources. Stop complaining about other articles. The fact that they exist does not mean another should. If your band is notable AND THE INFORMATION verifiable, the article can be written. If not, then it can't. faithless (^speak) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, you are losing your comprehension skills not to be mean. "according to faihlessthewonderboy, these are non-notable" doesn't mean the luchagors are not notable, it means the references are not notable, you told me yourself. please don't lie, anyone can see what you said. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the insult. I'm through discussing this; your band is not notable, and you are either unwilling or unable to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please study the links provided on your talk page, and learn how to contribute instead of just insisting that you know better than us administrators (three of us, so far). Good luck. faithless (^speak) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. i did not insult you, but you read what i said wrong, you did not say to delete the luchagors site, but you did say that sites with references such as myspace, or blogs are not notable and probably should be deleted.

2. i never said i know more than the admins, but i did read the band rules, and so far that band has not acquired any of them, especially since they referring to myspace sources. i'm going by proof and reference and not my own common knowledge.

3. this is my question, please answer i'm trying to be cool about and just want to know what's going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Einziger this is the personal page for the guitar player of incubus. yes i know he's famous so he gets away with having a page.. but, at the top of the page it notes that "This article does not cite any references or sources." so i'm just wondering does the page exist on his "fame" alone? because i thought the reference was important.

please answer this. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In a word, yes. As good as I believe Wikipedia is, there is still a ton of work to be done, and one of the big jobs is making sure that articles are properly sourced. The one you mentioned is one of them. It needs work, but he is certainly notable. faithless (^speak) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

not sure why my question was deleted but did you get it? --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Slickfingers

Yes, I'm done reasoning with him. I think I've been more than patient with him. He keeps twisting my words as well, so it's pointless to continue.

Oh, and thanks for the congrats. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. FYI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hey, I saw you have welcome templates. They look pretty nice. Could you show me the subpage (or page) where it's at? It's really, really nice, and I think I'm going to welcome some users that way. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 09:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here is a pretty comprehensive list, while you can see what some of the most commonly used ones look like here. :) faithless (^speak) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There we go. Thanks! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 09:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. faithless (^speak) 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism changes in the Agares article. It is good to know that people like you are around wikipedia. Thanks a lot --Legion fi (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) faithless (^speak) 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WebHamster retired

well i'm really glad to see that, i thought i was the only one he treated poorly. i hope you know i was never trying to be an ass on here, i just wanted to be assured of everything that i did, and thank you for your help. i hope i can get these pages right, i'm collecting many sources as we speak. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an alert...

On User talk:66.152.246.50, you gave a level 3 warning. However, just as a notice, that is the 3rd IP that that school uses. In it's other IP (which I can't find at the moment), it has gotten a final warning and an only warning. Just notifying you about an abusive school IP. Thanks! Soxred93 | talk count bot 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. :) faithless (^speak) 13:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that iP is User talk:66.152.246.54. Soxred93 | talk count bot 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

why have you deleted Matt Peacock page, i dont see what is wrong with it and i am getting really annoyed with it being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng lishbulldogpaddy07 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted (four times) because the person does not pass Wikipedia's notability guideline. faithless (^speak) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ignoring

if you are ignoring me it's ok just let me know so i stop buggin, i just see you writing other people back so i'm concerned. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered the last question you asked. faithless (^speak) 01:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

no i asked a question but it got deleted by someone, you must not have seen it before it was deleted --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Bar Shots' article

Thank you for deleting it. -- Harish - 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All in a day's work. faithless (^speak) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A potential chat session with Bill Oakley

We at the Simpsons WikiProject have managed to get into contact with the one and only Bill Oakley (who showran The Simpsons from season 7 to 8) and he has agreed to send us some images and to do an IRC chat in the future with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NoHomers.net, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Every member is more than welcome to take part, which will be held at our #wpsimpsons channel. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat, a page has been made where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. If you have any questions, ask myself, Xihix (who is the one in contact with him) or post it at WT:DOH, which is where any future updates will be posted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Parag Khanna

Please advise as to recreating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parag_Khanna within copyright fair use policy.

Thanks,

MacD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdonwald (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, this person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. faithless (^speak) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Please -yes its a new guy again...

Faithlessthewonderboy,

I am very new to your world, so I have tried not to step into the water in such a way as to send ripples through everyone’s day, but it has happened nevertheless. I have a small company only locally “note worthy” but we have changed the way people are interacting in a really positive way, and its pushes the envelope for the giants in our industry. Giants that have been self posting in a very “advertising” way.

I think I understand your note worthy expectation but it doesn’t really work fairly when you’re talking about corporations. Essentially, a giant company gets to populate its wiki pages with their websites url’s and colored logos because their name is familiar to someone. While at the same time wiki reject other –for self-imbelishment or advertising when their name is less familiar. I don’t expect wiki will remove these giant corporate advertisements, but is there any possibility that you could help me write an acceptable passage that would allow GamesXchange to be “wiki-able”.

Thank you very! Treynia 71.43.231.36 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Do people sometimes edit articles where there is a conflict of interest? Unfortunately, yes. However, there are over six million registered Wikipedians who monitor all changes made to every article in the encyclopedia, so rarely does a bad edit go unnoticed. What this really comes down to, though, is notability. Coca-Cola, for example, is undoubtedly a notable company,; everyone that comes across that article is familiar with it. A company such as yours does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, so your writing an article about it amounts to advertising. And of course, you are strongly urged not to write an article about a subject with which you are involved. Feel free to contact me with any other questions you might have. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Drishyam TV

We provide legal TV programs - short films, documentaries, music albums etc - through internet. Flash is the common medium used by most streaming sites.

What you called "ONE CLIP", is actually a full program - not a short clip. If you wait for the full file to play, you will see the following program, and so on - just like regular tv.

On the other hand, if you want to browse the file list for one day, please go to malayalaminternettv.com - where you will be able to choose and play what you like —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagathkris (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "one clip." I didn't make any comment at all. Wikipedia is not here for you to advertise your business. faithless (^speak) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10