User talk:Fordmadoxfraud

Archives
November 2006-February 2007

Orphaned fair use image (Image:New_Mutants_v2_no10_Chris_Bachalo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:New_Mutants_v2_no10_Chris_Bachalo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of talkpage comments

Do not remove the talk page comments of others. There isn't even community consensus that attacking comments should be removed, let alone gentle reminders of policy. Jimbo is to be treated as any other editor, and I would remind any other editor of the same policies. I should remind you, also, that you are certainly not supposed to go around biting newbies, and removing text without a real reason is considered, by some, to be vandalism. I understand your sentiment, but I think it was wrongly placed. 65.60.208.212 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Resistance (2nd nomination)

Can you be more specific about what exactly you think establishes the notability of this blog in your comment? It would make your opinion a lot stronger since now it's just two votes of people who make opposite assertions with nothing to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bryson says notability is not asserted, you say it is. Without any sort of additional statements, I can't make an informed decision. It doesn't look all that notable to me, but I admit I know nothing about the subject at all, so if you shared your train of thought that would help me a lot. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Taqwa Bank

Surprisingly, you "reverted" your edits, AND used the word "controversial", which was what I had in mind when I was about to type a User talk message from before. Weird. Anyway, do you exactly know what's going on with the page, because at the current, the page has been spell-fixed by myself, and I am astounded as I haven't a single clue about the page; what exactly does it amount to, and what is its purpose? Any help is appreciated. --Qwerty (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, Fordmadoxfraud. My bad. Thanks. :) --Qwerty (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

“ 3) Anyway, do you exactly know what's going on with the page, because at the current, the page has been spell-fixed by myself, and I am astounded as I haven't a single clue about the page; what exactly does it amount to, and what is its purpose? Er, wot? What's the purpose of any page on wikipedia, other than to be informative? ”

Okay, my bad. --Qwerty (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

“ No worries. And sorry if I came off a bit of a prick here. The uncited edits to the article just irritated me. (Also you're right, the anon user can't spell for beans.) Cheers. Ford MF 05:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) ”

Nah, it's alright; you didn't come off a bit of a prick. Anyway, thanks for getting this resolved so quickly. Yep, uncited edits irritate me, too, and the anon editors can't spell... gah. --Qwerty (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

St Finbar's Cathedral

No problem. It's easy to miss sometimes. Realkyhick 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Suburbia

Sorry for the edit, didn't realize what I've done. Moebiusuibeom-en 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

about the punisher article

I understand the loosed similarities between mack bolan and the punisher, but during the Punisher's first inception in 1973, there's no direct/actual plan to imitate him from the executioner character, but i would still say its notable having cited the interview of don pendleton. I would greatly appreciate your contribution under the "trivia" section of the article. thanks and happy wikiying †Bloodpack† 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rob Liefeld

I've reverted your removal of the original article lead-in for the Rob Liefeld page. The original lead-in is not vandalism and has always been universally agreed upon. "A backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism" are well substantiated, referenced and discussed.

We've undergone a great deal of trolling in the past that has essentially destroyed most of the original article in an attempt to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light. I'd like to believe that isn't you. If your removal of the lead-in continues, I will be forced to contact admin. B.Soto 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto, the first, best thing to do is to assume good faith when it comes to other users. If you have a concern about a users edits being "bad faith," a good way to at least get a feel for them as an editor is to check their contributions. Hope this helps. --mordicai. 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Orichalcum

Before User:Eyrian stops by to justify his removal of the massive and massively irrelevant "Orichalcum in _______" (fiction, film, music, video games, whatever) section, which had overwhelmed the article like a cancer, I just wanted to pop in and say I think his edits are entirely justified. Really all of that stuff fell far, far below any kind of notability. Trivia too trivial. Ford MF 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So can you advice me where and how can I publish my contribution that relate to the intended artical? d@@b 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss

Several of your points on your primary discussion seem to be controversial. And don't you dare get racism involved, as you were trying to. I kind heartedly, tell you nicely to keep off the article and go care about something else elsewhere. As per several admins I have come upon - they all say the same, a definite A or GA with potential of FA after its release. So please don't come in late, talk some nonsense, hope to get away with it and change things into your wishes. Good heartedly, Universal Hero 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my discussion page

Hello Fordmadoxfraud. You are right that I made a mistake in my edit summary in regards to comparing the two films. Now as to your edit all I can say is that over the last two years Wikipedia has gotten fairly strict as to its standards for verifiability and sourcing for edits made on its pages. Speculation is to be avoided and similarities of information does not mean that they are connected. In your case it is informed speculation and your learning is to be valued. There are places like IMDb and blogs that you could share this thought but I just don't think that it can go here. However, this is just one editors opinion and I have a couple of suggestions. If you can find a source where this is mentioned - like Christopher Frayling's book on Sergio Leone - then you could give your entry a citation. Also you might make a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films stating your case and if they agree to it then I will too. I think that your username is quite clever. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AC6

Until Namco and/or Sony officially announce that Ace combat 6 will be on both consoles, the page will only say it's on the 360. One magazine's word isn't good enough. Zaku^Talk 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, then. Zaku^Talk 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dog

Can you revert vandalism on Dog by Mcan2, please? The page is semi-protected, and being an anon, I cannot edit it. --24.136.230.38 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. Just out of curiosity, since you seem a conscientious enough guy/gal, why don't you sign up for an account so you can take care of vandalism like this on your own? It takes like thirty seconds. Ford MF 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just create an account by following the link, if you want. --mordicai. 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black Swan

A new participant has decided to put this to arbitration. Somehow, he neglected to list you as an involved party. So, if you're not totally frustrated by this tempest in a teapot, jump right in. Clarityfiend 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed lurker

I have rv'ed your blanking/redirecting of the page. Please discuss major article changes on the talkpage first, particularly if what is essentially happening is article deletion by a non-admin (without a nom or deliberative process). You're probably right in thinking it doesn't deserve a distinct article, however, so I've placed a merge tag on it (with cybersquatting).

Also please assume good faith on the part of your fellow wiki editors, a sentiment which doesn't exactly ring out in your summary OR/Neologism thrown together by one person with no real explanation. Lapsed lurker isn't the greatest article, but there are reasonable refs and information that I'm not convinced is 100% worthless or duplicated elsewhere. Ford MF 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So we put a merge tag and then in a week or so we end up redirecting it anyway. Oh well.

Did you look at the history of that article? The whole thing was written by one guy. "OR/Neologism thrown together by one person with no real explanation" is 100% accurate and not assuming bad faith. I am sure he had good faith intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an incoherent ramble saying nothing different from other pages and using a term NOBODY in the field uses. "Lapsed lurker" has only 600 some Google hits, mostly of mirrors of the Wikipedia article and some guy who happened to pick it as a user name. DreamGuy 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills

Good catch. Thanks for spotting it. -Will Beback · † · 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion

did not create article. only edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenniecbu2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Bronze rule

Why did you place a speedy deletion notice for Bronze rule on my user talk page? I never even touched that article, let alone created it. I see above that another editor has experienced something similar. Please be more mindful in the future. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an explanation: I changed my username from "Kyd" to "Severa" in March 2006. User talk:Kyd redirects to User talk:Severa for that reason. Someone opened a new account under my old username and this "Kyd" is the person who made the problematic edits in question. -Severa (!!!) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to User talk:Majorly. I saw the post you had made on this editor's page. Majorly replied explaining that the editor who created the "Bronze rule" article had the username Kyd, and, when I read that, it all made sense. -Severa (!!!) 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also saw that that new-Kyd has a total of zero contribs to his or her name now that the "Bronze rule" article has been speedied. I'm hoping this is just one of those one-off accounts some problematic editors register for making a couple of hit-and-run edits — I really want to keep my dang redirect. :-) -Severa (!!!) 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia should have a better mechanism for dealing with this. Ford MF 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

masz wpierdol

o kurwa masz chuju taki wpierdol, że się kurwa postarsz ty zasrany matkojebco! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.182.44 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

You tell him! --mordicai. 16:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to listen to you again?

can u ban me if I give you the finger and ignore you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Please remember that a vandal has to receive a final warning and continue to vandalize before they can be blocked. Your request for blocking the above editor was made before that final warning. I've added a final warning to their talk page. If they continue to vandalize, please report them again. Thanks for helping Wikipedia! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

may 19th

i made a legit change, it was not a test edit?

Talbe 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

oops

im sorry! im here to build, not break down. No more love notes. thanks for the heads up, im sure you dont have a problem forgiving my mistake.

side note: there is no real guidline to how important something must be that happened on may 19th to be displayed on the wiki page. any grey area there?

Talbe 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ahhhh. my ignorance shows clear as the sun. thanks for being patiento with me. And i appreciate the care you use in taking care of this site, because god knows i use it almost everyday. dont hesitate to call me out on other mistakes.

Talbe 04:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-editing

FYI: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." "Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page." --Minutae 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IfD

I noticed that you recently nominated some images for deletion. If an image is missing license information, please mark it with {{subst:nld}} (or use {{subst:nsd}} for missing source). These put it into dated categories for deletion without the need for listing it at IfD. In fact, if the image qualifies for any of the speedy deletion criteria for images, tagging it as such is generally preferable to listing at IfD. ~ BigrTex 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Emmett Till

See also Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

William Luther Pierce

what exactly makes my change POVed and the one prior to mine non POVed? white nationalism is an euphemism for racism, and to promote a certain point of view in that form is propaganda. i just cleaned the euphemism racists use to promote their point of view. if you are willing to help wikipedias formatting, you should also clear that phrase, which romanticises racist propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.225.121 (talk • contribs)

Renfrew Museum Edits

I apologize for my earlier remarks, I was merely expressing my heartfelt passion regarding the Renfrew Museum. If the article is being considered for deletion due to a lack of sources, I obtained all of the information from the book, "The History of Renfrew County" by one L.R. Perry. The specific chapter which I obtained my information from was "The Town of Renfrew; From 1851-2001". Would this matter be settled if I cited my sources? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.221.229 (talk • contribs)

Andretti curse

• I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Art of Rhyme Spamming Question

What are the rules around "Professional Reviews" for albums? If we have professional reviews that apply to an album, do we have to rely on a third-party to find them and place them up? For example, if I read a review for another site and posted it, would that be okay, but it's not okay for Art of Rhyme?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtOfRhyme (talk • contribs)

The main site reviewer is definitely an reliable source, but I understand we may fall beneath some level of trust. My question becomes, how does the website artofrhyme.com get "nominated" to be a reliable source? I will continue to read through, but that is something I haven't seen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtOfRhyme (talk • contribs)