Jump to content

User talk:Madchester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Techwiz81 (talk | contribs) at 05:37, 9 September 2009 (→Coincidental). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archives:

Medals per capita

Thank you for your note.

I just want to make the encyclopedia better. It seems as though WP:SYNTH would allow division as well as multiplication. If you don't agree, please tell me why. If you do agree, I would really appreciate it if you were to withdraw the nomination, please.

Is there a position you think I am trying to advance? I assure you that my nation is not in the top-25, but I feel weird when private information is discussed, like I would have to prove to you where I live to defend against accusations of WP:SYNTH.

Since medals per capita is not an official statistic of the IOC, I don't see why we should prefer the IOC method of counting medals, but I would be happy to include both in separate sortable columns. It's just a lot of work and I'm not sure my table skills are up for it; or whether I have enough spare time to do it at the moment, or whether it would be a productive use of my time. It's discouraging to go through this. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind?

What point of view do you accuse me of trying to push with your as-yet unwithdrawn accusations of POV-pushing?

Why have you not withdrawn your WP:NOR and WP:RS accusations in light of the eight international news media sources Sad mouse added to 2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita?

Do you disagree with WP:CCC; if so, why?

Do you disagree with WP:OI; if so, why?

Thank you. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Wikipedian06

Can we whack this guy? Just look at his user discussion page... he needs a cooling period chill out or more education. His presence here wasted the time and efforts of many honest wikipedians. Look at the pile of people that had to clean up after his trail of posts. Hes been warned enuf times, he had his chances. Whack him plz. Shaoquan (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the AfD

Colin, I have commented on the AfD that you sent me. I believe that having multiple sources on something still does not necessarily establish notability as an encyclopedia article.

BTW, do you still use MSN or such? You disappeared for a long time. I have no other means of contecting you other than on Wiki. (Anyway? Do you use Facebook? Send me an e-mail on Wiki. I have that enabled.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shiver.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shiver.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb mentions on wikipedia

See [[1]]. So should they be removed from this article, as well as [[2]]?Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well?Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FWordDessert.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Leak

Ok, I will add a BBC One news source for the leak then. Then it is news regarding the album, which makes it valid. Thanks, but I'm a third year law student in Boston so I'm pretty sure I know what can be added. BTW, I'm from Canada too, I come here for school. Southern Ontario... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.12.182 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image source problem with Image:LSF.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:LSF.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom this may concern. I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. Not only do I take great offense to your view of the publication, one of which has been featured in a variety of publications, including New York Magazine, MTV.com, and The Chicago Tribune, but one that is well respected within the Internet community. As great as Wikipedia may be, I don't believe it should determine what should be read and not read, especially when the reasons for why it shouldn't are absurd. I posted the link not for spam, but to add another review for the album at question.

I hope you reconsider your decision. If not, it's a sad day when censorship overpowers well-written reviews. AxYoung (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

We are not "spamming" by any means. We are a licensed business, in which it is our job to review, critique, what have you, on music related businesses. Thus, our album reviews have just as much of a merit as other small publications.

Professional Review

Can you please explain your reasoning for removing watchingthewest's review for Jay-Z's The Blueprint 3, Watchingthewest is a small yet highly credible reviewer, it's writing is informative and unique and its editorial is of a high quality, It's not a blog and its jounalists are paid therefore it must fall in line with the "professional reviewer" criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J1mmyTam (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAR

Please provide the comment what kind of additional task should be listed in TAR in Talk:The Amazing Race Asia 3 for future standardize. Thanks you! --Aleenf1 14:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGoldRush.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy Ramsey

I'm sorry you misinterpret my comments on the Gordon Ramsey Talk page as some sort of "personal attack", but that is clearly not the case. A bit direct, perhaps undiplomatic, yes. But quite clearly not a personal attack and certainly directed at no specific fellow Wikipedian. I am firm in my views, do not expect them to change, nor am I flexible when I see what is clearly POV double standards. I am not inclined to hold my tongue in such cases, as those who are "offended" generally are pushing a view that is incompatible with well established Wikipedia policies, in this case trying to censor what is clearly allowed ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), in favor of a PR friendly but non accurate view of current events surounding Chef Ramsey. Good day. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:BuddyHollyVideo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:BuddyHollyVideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the tradition

Madchester, if you look at previous years' wiki entries of the EA Sports FIFA series (since FIFA Football 2004) , the flag icons are clearly displayed in the soundtracks. In the official FIFA 09 website, the nationality of the musicians are explicitly stated. I am just continuing the tradition. Leesjy2k (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAR names

Give me one legit reason why you're reverting my edits. wikipedia's pov on China is very clear that China "commonly" refers to the PRC. There's not the slightest confusion here. And the China redirects goes right to the PRC, along with the right flag. The guidelines you pointed me to deal with ROC and Taiwan, which clearly is not the case here at all. The article on TAR 12 uses "Taiwan" and notice I did not change them to the "republic of China".

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:ColdplayFixYouVideo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:ColdplayFixYouVideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:ColdplayTalkVideo.png

Thank you for uploading Image:ColdplayTalkVideo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAR names (contd.)

First, let me make it clear that threatening really makes no difference. I've tried make a lot of real contributions to this place but all I find out is dogmatic people who makes this place their little haven. And I've seen real vandals go jack free after a week leaving them to add expletives to articles again. The more you insult and threaten me, the less faith I have in this place at all.

I'm not proving a point, I'm just trying to make the TAR articles a lot more readable as a fellow TAR fan. Seriously, nobody goes around and say "look I just came back from a trip to Beijing, People's Republic of China. Did you even read how seriously strained some of the articles sounded like with the whole name everytime? In fact in the PRC article, the 1st line states "The People's Republic of China, **commonly known as China** [...].' If you really care about the guidelines, read them again. I've gone over the guidelines several times now and still there is nowhere it says to use the full name PRC where it is mentioned. The flag and the redirect link speak more than enough already. However, there is one section calling for using ROC's full name in official cases, but I agree with your pragmatism. But why the double standard on China?

Also if you care about what TAR refers to China as, and I just went over past episodes, in all legs if refers to it (at the finish map and by the greeter) as "China". The clue says go to "China." As on the Taiwan issue, Taiwan is an island, but the use of the word "capital" and again the greeting mat displays "Taipei, Taiwan" which clearly shows what TAR refers to it as. The most politically neutral and internationally accepted term for Taiwan is clearly Chinese Taipei that is not used. But that doesn't even matter anymore. Since this is an English encyclopedia, it is obviously the best to use the most colloquially accepted terms, and that is "China" in this case and "Taiwan" in the other case.

I don't really want to start lengthy discussions and put up neutrality disputes, espeically on an TAR page and not on some political page. It really seesms the only person opposing this is you. If my above points doesn't convince, then we can always grind the bureaucracy and put crazy tags everywhere and I really don't want to do that. 128.12.90.195 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why??

Why did you revert my edit to Chris Martin? The artice says he is also in a black metal band. That means his genre should also be black metal! Thedevilsvanndal122 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-Turn on TAR 13 leg 9

I have started a discussion at Talk:The Amazing Race 13 about leg 9's unaired U-Turn, as an anon editor has placed the U-Turn at the end of the Detour (instead of the start of the next task) twice, and it has been reverted twice. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Burnett

Hey I noticed you protected Raul Ibanez and was wondering if you could protect A.J. Burnett too because the same deal is going on there also.--Iamawesome800 00:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Krstic

Look I did not do word-for-word. I paraphrase it. I did not copy the information and just put it on the page. Julianster 21:53 20 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block

Hello madchester, have to ask, whats the deal with the block of this IP, 71.58.33.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? For starters you blocked it indef, assuming that was a mistake, and for a reason you said "Spamming links to external sites". Despite the fact that in this month at least, the IP hasn't added a single link to anything--Jac16888 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block

One of your recent blocks, the block you made to the IP address: 71.58.33.252 should not have been indefinite. Please do not block IP users as "vandalism-only accounts". That is only for a registered user who has opened up an account solely to vandalize Wikipedia. For more information, see the blocking policy. -- IRP ☎ 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva la Vida Tour

I'm not really sure what your problem you seem to be having but the Viva la Vida Tour is not your little pet project and you've constantly revert every edit made to this article within the last four weeks. All information provided in that article is sourced and if you disagree with it shrug your shoulders and move on. If you continue to do this I will personally asked for not your adminship to be revoked but also be permanently blocked from this site. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You have to follow the reproduce the information provided in the reliable source. In the case of the original Billboard source, there was no separation between the main set and encore. Thus your edit showing such separation is simply unsourced and also in vio of WP:NOR.
  2. Your alternative source (Suite 101) consists primarily of freelance writers and lacks the editorial screening/fact-checking found necessary in WP:RS. Specifically, the Coldplay review was written by a senior English major, with no actual journalistic credentials. Also note that Suite101 is actually on Wiki's global spam blacklist, so it's basically unacceptable as a reliable source. Hence, I went digging and found an article one from a published newspaper, which also included a proper setlist indicating both the main set and the encore. No need to insert personal commentary/research on where the main set ends and the encore begins.
  3. Please don't issue threats/ultimatums towards other editors per WP:HARASS. Thanks --Madchester (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities

Yes, please see my response on my talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead with this, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Alkclark. Feel free to chime in at the 'Comments' section there if you wish. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has been found guilty, three accounts and an IP address. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkclark. Keep an eye out, I imagine this person will be back in some guise or another. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on BLP noticeboard?

Hi, I see you made this edit [3], which looks like maybe a couple sets of signature tildas were added in the wrong spot. I'm loathe to revise anyone else's edits in a charged atmosphere like this, or else I'd clean it up myself. TJRC (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ode to Deodorant/Brothers + Sisters

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ode to Deodorant/Brothers + Sisters, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable demo tape. Fails WP:NALBUMS (and WP:NSONGS).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Vaughan Mills Sign.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status seems to have been deleted in a page-blank vandalism, leading Ricky81682 to tag it for having no copyright status. I've restored to the pre-vandalism version. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:OdeToDeodorant.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:OdeToDeodorant.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle

Why you undid my edits to Susan Boyle? Johannamo (talk)

76.172.125.52 violating mosflag

12 minutes after the most recent block expired, they continued to insert flags in inappropriate places; see [4] —LOL T/C 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Icon (Flag) Violation for Research in Motion

Which part of the MOS:Icon would be violated? JenniferHeartsU (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the heading on Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. There's no need for a flag to emphasize the "Canadianess" of the company when it has already been mentioned in both the lead sentence and infobox. --Madchester (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:SomethingStupidVideo.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:SomethingStupidVideo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Das Ansehnlisch

Hey Madchester. Listen, um User:Das Ansehnlisch is creating the articles of the songs "What If" and "White Shadows". Although, consensus was formed to have them redirected to the album's article, X&Y. Here are the discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. A couple of users and I have reverted the user's edits, but he/she continues to undo them. I was wondering if you can look into this. If you have some free time, of course. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedo_Türkoğlu

Hi, please see Hedo_Türkoğlu#Current dispute, I have asked all parties to discuss this matter and desist from the revert war. There has been zero engagement at talk. I am on the verge of increasing the semi to full protection of this article. I note that you are quoting WP:CRYSTAL to one party and "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative" but that needs to be balanced against reports from main stream reliable sources such as espn and nba.com. Just because something hasn't actually happened yet doesn't mean it cannot be included if it has been reliably confirmed or discussed. The reliable sources make this something of a content dispute, not a simple case of unsourced information being added. I don't think that this dispute will resolve itself by attempting to simply prevent the inclusion of information that is so clearly well reported, the solution would seem to be to have everyone work towards wording it correctly so that it does not make any claims or assumptions that are not backed by the facts. Mfield (Oi!) 18:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the reverted version is correct now. As I said on Broy7's talk page, we don't overhaul an entire article per WP:CRYSTAL - i.e., change the lead sentence/lede, team infobox, etc to reflect a transaction that is unofficial or speculative. If you look down the body of the article, there's already a mention of the current transaction in the works, which is appropriate per WP:DUE given its tentative nature. --Madchester (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not sure how I missed that that paragraph had been added since the semi protection. Agreed also that that paragraph more that suffieces to cover the facts of the situation and that the infobox etc. should not be changed until the deal is set in stone. I am going to clarify this on talk. Mfield (Oi!) 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race

I think interpersonal conflicts do need to be discussed, if not there, then in a completely separate section. I think all the seasons need to discuss things like this. Mike H. Fierce! 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing in regard to the Talk:North St. Paul, Minnesota discussion page to which you recently made an edit to reverse my edit made on July 5 under the username gandolf8787. I removed comments on the discussion page that were untrue and libelous in nature made by you, a Wikipedia administrator, and others. The comments are defamatory and not related to the article. For both of those reasons, they do not belong there and should be removed.

If you continue to place libelous comments on Wikipedia about me or my blog, I will pursue legal action against you and Wikipedia. I expect your cooperation in this matter. It will not be difficult to subpoena your IP address. Your Canadian residency will not shield you from legal action.

Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf8788 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No legal threats davumaya 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilie Iordache and AEK Athens F.C. season 2009–10 edit war

Hi. I have a problem with the user Darth21. On the two pages was a conflict between me and him. He says the player that came free and, I say that was transferred for 5 euro. I showed the official documents issued by the Romanian Football Federation and the Romanian Professional Football League. Ilie Iordache was sold for Pandurii to AEK Athens for only 5 euros![1] He says the documents are false. Please warn, and if does not stop, block him editing for a period. Sorry that I wrote and incorrectly, English is not my native language. 86.121.118.188 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing flags from Template:Records in swimming

Was there a reason you removed the flags from Template:Records in swimming? You sighted the MOS, but I'm not seeing anything that would justify/imply that they should not be there. And the template is easier to read with them present. Hooperswim (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:TheFWord.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:TheFWord.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gordon Ramsay Cookalong Live.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Gordon Ramsay Cookalong Live.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Down Man

Trust the trade is going to go through relax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theallknowingnbaexpert (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Kitchen Nightmares

Madchester, while you're enjoying your break, you might want to take a look in at the Kitchen Nightmares (US) article and talk page. We've removed the updates, in part on the strength of the arguments you made on the UK page, and aligned the two articles in style a bit more. This should in turn strengthen the case against the addition of updates to the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) page. Drmargi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out specifically what portion of WP:EL says that the 60 minutes interview with Coldplay not merit inclusion as an external link in the article? However whatever (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U locked The Blueprint 3

U locked The Blueprint 3. So now Im unable to edit it. Pls correct the article as the lead says "The CamelFace Adventure is the upcoming..." when it should say "The Blueprnt 3 is the upcoming". Thanks.

Also do tracklistings no longer have the songwriters listed? Bc the 'track listing' section (on this page & other album pages) now have the producers listed? When was that started? Thanks. 70.108.130.180 (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloor-Bryant-Sheppard.jpg

You should consider uploading the photo (along with other photos of yours) to Wikimedia Commons OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The End"

I see what you mean about it being "unconfirmed", but when people who have the game are posting the dreamscape for the song, it's confirmed. Not officially, but there's no question about its legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.107.190 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidental

What's your basis for accusing me of "sockpuppetry"?

Just because you've never heard of a certain band or event, doesn't make it non-notable. I would say a band that's released three moderately successful albums and has received national radio airplay is obviously notable, though maybe not as famous as a band like Coldplay.

````

  1. ^ Ilie Iordache a fost transferat de AEK Atena pentru doar 5 euro!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Madchester&oldid=312730019"