Please use the "+" tab at the top to start a new discussion topic, or if that's too far to reach, just click here instead :) Please sign your posts with four tildes, thus ~~~~. Talk page deletion/revision log is here. Cheers.Please also note that, although I will try to respond to your queries as soon as possible, if it looks like I'm not around, you may get a quicker response elsewhere (such as WP:AIV or WP:AN/I). Also, although I have e-mail enabled, I am only able to retrieve it at certain times of the day: so if you send me one and don't get an immediate response, I'm not ignoring you! Honest. :)
For tips on how to tackle the effects of being undead, you might be after this Bubba hotep instead.
Last cleared: 11:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
George Norman Barnard (December 23, 1819 – February 4, 1902) was an American photographer who was one of the first to use daguerreotype, the first commercially available form of photography, in the United States. A fire in 1853 destroyed the grain elevators in Oswego, New York, an event Barnard photographed. Historians consider these some of the first "news" photographs. Barnard also photographed Abraham Lincoln's 1861 inauguration. Barnard is best known for American Civil War era photos. He was the official army photographer for the Military Division of the Mississippi commanded by Union general William T. Sherman; his 1866 book, Photographic Views of Sherman's Campaign, showed the devastation of the war. This photograph, by Mathew Brady, shows Barnard c. 1865. Photograph credit: Mathew Brady; restored by Adam Cuerden
Nice of him to be so honest, although no surprise to see he already has an image warning on his talkpage. I would probably ask him about his intentions and what he thinks about image policy nowadays, anything less than an assertion that he will follow the letter of the law in his reply and he might have to stay blocked. Of course, there was no community ban, just an indef block to avoid copyright breaches, so if he cleaned up his act... Deiz talk 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I left a note and will be watching closely. Bubba hotep 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's an unexpected surprise to launch us into one of the areas we'd planned on developing :) --Alf melmac 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. I wasn't aware of those. Thought We're Not Motörhead were the most famous. Must get back on route with that. Maybe tonight. :) Bubba hotep 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd listed them for looking at along with the others, but I couldn't add that it'd been included (in my sandox number two) as spam bot has i.d.'d one of the urls there as spam :s --Alf melmac 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, who's been trying to promote them then? Naughty boys. :) Bubba hotep 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This morning's happy e-bayer - me! Record Collector edition number 245 bagged (Robbie Williams, Motorhead, Morrissey) now if the Virgin Media peeps would appear before the end of the 8-1 slot they reckon they'll appear in, all would be just dandy :) --Alf melmac 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So will you be working on the Robbie Williams article today then? Bubba hotep 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the postal service aren't quite that qui...hey Robbie!!??--Alf melmac 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) stomps off in a pseudo-huff [reply]
- Aaarrrggghhh. DON'T click include Chatzilla on this update to the little Firefox box, unless you wish to lose all the freakin' wikilinks.js stuff....--Alf melmac 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Is that FF2 playing up again? Stick with 1.5, I did. </smug> Bubba hotep 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well I found an old build that works from here - 9.75 is working at the mo' so I'll leave it with that.--Alf melmac 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd actually forgotten what IRC was, I haven't been on for a while. Is there still people chatting and stuff? :) Bubba hotep 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've swallowed the Barnstar key :) . Twenty years ago...in a bar in Halifax...I met Lemmy. He's not a very big man but his presence in the bar seemed to cast a veil of fear and trepidation over all the bikers and longshoremen in the establishment. With great anxiety I walked up to him and struck up a brief conversation about A) That I was a fan and B) That Motorhead's music really meant a lot to me.( I had tipped a few I expect I sounded like an idiot). Lemmy simply smiled/grunted/said thanks and clinked my glass. If I can stand up to him....Wikipedia vandals are easy. Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see Ol' "71" is back at it. The rudeness is outweighed only by the pompous attitude. He is Judge Dredd. He IS the law. Have fun. 156.34.142.110 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"71" returned to the article talk page and, as I expected, was logged in as Dume7. He spewed a long winded and foolish rant which included the following text:
- Common knowledge does not need a reference--take that peice of policy and eat it. Also, the vast majority of the sentences on this article have no references. Why waste time on me when you could be doing something constructive.
I fail to find the words needed to describe how that kind of attitude is so completely opposite to what Wikipedia is all about. I stifled my "Fooled Again" wail so as not to disturb the library population. Make mine a double. 156.34.142.110 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS On further reading into Dume7's rant it would appear as though he is altering(or completely removing) the wording of some of the other editors. Is it just me or is that a serious, and punishable, faux-pas? It has a very foul odour if you ask me. 156.34.142.110 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very foolish, and I have told them so. I think Alf's been busy picking through it to make more sense, but (what with their penchant for annotating everyone else's comments with their own) it is becoming very confusing. And they really need to calm down. Bubba hotep 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related issue. Since " Dume'71' " seems to have also set his sights on the Pink Floyd article. A terrific FA that needs few tweeks. I alerted a few of the regular editors of the "pending doom". One of them, in what can only be desperate good faith, placed a Semi-protect shield on it. I alerted the user to the "non-working" protection. I did not, however, remove the shield myself. Now that I have a Barnstar I don't want to come across as a bossy know-it-all. (too late?). Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh blimey. I've left a note with the editor who tagged the page as protected. Just remember, nothing is final or definite and will get there in the end. Don't go getting yourself into bother! :) Bubba hotep 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never do. An anon has no Wiki-emotions.suppresses primal scream 156.34.142.110 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. I'll join you with that scream. By the way, you can take the protection tag off if you want. :) Bubba hotep 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure....make me look anal. It's near the end of the here at work. What does a librarian do after a long QUIET day. This ones owns a 100W HiWatt half stack and a Gibson SG. And I am going to go home, tell my wife to put her earplugs in, and BOOM. Ahoy! 156.34.142.110 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one. Goes to retrieve the Epiphone LP from the top shelf, plugs it in, goes for a power chord and shreds three strings. Oh well, back to just listening to others' creations... 1, 2, 3, GO! Bubba hotep 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bubbs. I've been removing the "auto=yes" parameter from quite a few album articles as appropriate. Before I continue to wade through the next 13000 or so pages, am I doing the right thing? Thanks --Sparklism 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are assessing them yourself (i.e changing the
|class= | parameter to stub, start, etc.) then yes, you are definitely doing the right thing. All the auto thing does is checks whether the article has a stub on it, if it does it automatically assesses it as stub class whether it is or not. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hotep,
i need information concerning the TheInvisibleMachines 1-6, about it banned for blanking pages and vandalisim. WikiJudge 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. It was TheInvisibleMachine1 through 6 and they were blocked for blanking pages and vandalisim [sic]. Bubba hotep 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange indeed. Prolog 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey! I noticed you updated the page for My Lives. it's funny, when you did that, I was already working on it. I don't mean to have been rude, but I saved my changes over the top of your's. I've added quotes around the songs and stuff and put a bit more info into the infobox. No offence, man. --lincalinca 14:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I just happened to be checking Category:Needs album infobox for the first time today. Your version is much better than mine ever would be. Well done. :) Bubba hotep 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My page about my band Tainted faith was deleted. its just like every other band page on here, why was mine ran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taintedfaithvoxxx (talk • contribs)
- It appears that your band may have failed wikipedias notability requirements, as well as had no valid external sources. (myspace does not count). Without this, it is hard to assert notability. Wikipedia is not a place to promote bands, and articles that appears to be promoting non notable bands are often deleted. It appears as though this is why your article was deleted. Unless you can provide some really good sources showing that your band is really notable, i agree with the deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't done with it yet, but whatever. I understand, it's cool. Im not going to waste my time with this silly site anymore anyway, half the Info you have on bands is pretty bogus, keep an eye on the mad at gravity page. If that guy mentions that bullsh*t lie about my band again...Lets just say it will be bad for him, the site and the people who keep letting him post nonsence. Thanks for your reply though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taintedfaithvoxxx (talk • contribs)
- Actually, it wasn't so much the notability aspect of it. It was mainly the promotional nature of it. I thought long and hard about editing it to some sort of neutrality but, in the end, there would have not been much of the article left. I also perused the myspace site and fully appreciate there is some "background" between your band, the other band, and some other parties. However, Wikipedia is not the place to be rectifying these misconceptions and problems you are having. You have my sympathy, but unfortunately, we can't help you here. Thanks for answering on my behalf, Chris. Bubba hotep 08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Mad at Gravity has gone now as well. Bubba hotep 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar question. my page on black bear was deleted. i cited the page. its purpose was clear. Tenamautomatic 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above. A lot of failure to assert importance/significance, with a splash of advertorial. Bubba hotep 09:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bubba hotep, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and your kind comments and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your new admin tools; it was a pleasure to support you. See you around! Majorly (o rly?) 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, Majorly. Now it's all over, I must admit you must be crazy to want to take that job on in the first place, but I admire anyone who has the desire to do it and they deserve my full support. Good luck next time. :) Bubba hotep 08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i noticed you deleted the article based on copy taken from the band's myspace page. I wrote that copy, I am in that band and I authorize it to be there. Is there still a problem if I put it up?
Joshuah Hounshell 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially, yes. What you would write about your band on myspace is very different from what you would write in an encyclopedia. For a start, it needs to be written in a neutral tone, without a hint of self-promotion. And thereby lies the problem in this case – you also have a conflict of interest in that it is virtually impossible to write objectively about something which you, personally, are so close to. A view held widely by many editors is that if anything, including bands, is notable enough, someone will eventually come along and write an article about it. Key to this, however, is what I stated on your talk page: Wikipedia is not myspace. Bubba hotep 10:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article you deleted has been list on drv, here --pgk 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. I am a bit surprised it wasn't taken up with me first, it usually is (see above) Anyhow, not a problem. :) Bubba hotep 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you deleted an article talking about Brazil's greatest grunge band. True shinken 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hotep, I came by your talk page to see if you had responded to our talk session... only to find that it has now been deleted? So what's the situation man? -Christopher Vantress aka Guardiansofthebay1 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually responded on the Grandnoble talk page on April 1. However, both pages have gone to MfD, as I forewarned. Bubba hotep 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'd like you to explain why you erased the page I created for one of my favorite bands. I already created an entry here and you didn't reply. Degrada is the greatest grunge band of the contry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by True shinken (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Apologies for not answering before. The reason it was deleted... Same as above. A lot of failure to assert importance/significance, with a splash of advertorial.
Hi, I see you deleted the proposed article just before I was going to add the Hold On tag and add further references to justify the addition (it seemed to be deleted seconds after I saved the first draft). I am new to this but I really do believe that Bidorbuy is a note worthy addition to Wikipedia. A link to a Wikipedia page about Bidorbuy on the following page really is justified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_auction (there are references to other companies on this page that Bidorbuy really should be alongside). What proof do I need to give you to show you that it really is note worthy? Thank you. Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyHiggins (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The article that I decided to delete was just an infobox just before I hit the button. Seems you expanded the article out in the time it took me to do so. As notability is now asserted, it is not a speedy deletion candidate on that basis, so I have restored it. However, as the article pans out, make sure you don't make it a candidate for deletion on the basis of being advertising. Check out the guidelines in the welcome template on your talk page for further information. Bubba hotep 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am sure other people will contribute to the article as well. I am reading up on all the guidelines and will do my best to ensure that this article remains within them as best as possible
|
