User talk:Deadbeef

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Deadbeef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)

Hi, I noticed you tagged the "Characteristics" section of the Stephen Colbert character as being of disputed neutrality. Would you perhaps be able to elaborate on your reasons for this in the article's talk page? I ask because to my knowledge the neutrality of the article has till this point never been debated, and if there is an issue with the section that needs addressing I'm really interested in resolving it. Thanks! Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I actually noticed this problem the day before you sent me this. I misunderstood the page, I thought it was talking about Steven Colbert, the actual person, not the character, so the article seemed a lot more like negative speculation than actual information. I've knocked off the neutrality flag. Just a misunderstanding! Zoke (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation

Thanks for looking at the Aviation article. I noticed that you added a verify tag — could you please go back and add details on the talk page, so that other people know what specific areas you think need more citations? I tend to remove tags after a week or so if the original tagger hasn't provided any additional information. David (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:AA ROAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AA ROAS.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Distinguished Warfare Medal

On 17 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Distinguished Warfare Medal, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Distinguished Warfare Medal is the first American combat-related award to be created since the Bronze Star Medal in 1944? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Distinguished Warfare Medal. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military Order of the Purple Heart

		The USA Barnstar of National Merit
		For your efforts in creating the article on the Military Order of the Purple Heart. The edit that created the article reflects highly upon yourself, and North Carolina State University. May it find its way to the Main Page through DYK. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding DWM article edit

Heya, I saw you revamped my recent edit to the Distinguished Warfare Medal article, I don't mind that at all but I wanted to just add a little comment regarding it. What I added it for was that those veterans groups were reported to be lobbying President Obama as of March 13 & 14. When you reworded it you left that out and added in the AUSN criticism of the precedence. Hope that makes sense. Cheers, — -dainomite 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you were going for there. I thought you were just trying to add 2 more veteran's groups challenging the precedence and didn't see the VFW bit at the front. I just altered it to make it more organized. In any case, I think the 3-paragraph against -> for -> administrative action dynamic works pretty nicely here, but feel free to tinker with it if you have a good idea or find something new. Like I said, I was just going for flow. Zoke (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coolbeans, no problemo. Would you mind if I added it back to the admin actions paragraph since lobbying the president is similar (at least in my mind :3) to a congressional and secdef review? — -dainomite 22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, just because every group listed lobbied against it in some way or another, but if you can distinguish them somehow or allude to how what they're doing is more notable, then go for it. Zoke (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean since no one else has lobbied the president directly. Or maybe I'm missing something. :3 — -dainomite 22:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that lobbying the president is too much different from lobbying Congress; they both try to do the same thing. However, you seem opinionated enough to strongly want the bit in there at the bottom, and my dispute is largely out of preference. So if you really want to have the bit in at the bottom, then go ahead and fill it back in. After all, it is just one sentence that we're talking about here. :) Happy editing, Zoke (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mossad

Hello, I saw you undid one of my previous edits. That edit is not a vandalism but a fact that can be proven. Please discuss on the talk page or at least add a section about controversies in the article. Thank you. 141.136.222.153 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blanking

As you say a user is entitled to blank his or her user page. But is it right to blank the page when you receive a warning? I mean that IP is blanking it's page every time it is receiving warning. I'm not here to contest your caution or warning to me. I have left it alone and accepted it. I am here to get an honest answer. You are free to disregard this message as I am not looking for a revenge or anything similar. Answer only if you feel like answering.--Vyom25 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, read WP:BLANKING. A user, IP or registered, is entitled to do whatever they want (within boundaries) to their own user and talk pages, which includes removing past warnings. It is accepted that a user removing warnings from their page is an indication that they have read the warnings and understood them, at which point keeping them there is unnecessary. They still appear in their page history, so the user isn't exactly scrubbing themselves clean by deleting them. But unless they're outright blocked from editing their own talk page, they can delete content there as they wish.

I appreciate that you're trying to do the right thing, and that you are able to detach yourself from the situation. Just make sure you know the policy, and don't lose your temper over a little revert war. Let me know if you have any more questions. Deadbeef (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.hi my friend

You have a problem? I am the author of the website is valid and the law is perfect, please do not sabotage.please.tnx Nasirir (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....

Please behave not children, I say to you I am a tourist site owner and author. Please note this is not a copy

....

Please behave not children, I say to you I am a tourist site owner and author. Please note this is not a copyNasirir (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

that was my 8 year old brother having a joke..