User talk:NMChico24

; Archives
	Archive 1: May 2006;

NOTE: Please begin new comments by clicking the "+" tab above. Thanks!

This is NMChico24's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Buttrock legit?

To my surprise, it looks like Buttrock is a legitimate term. Could you check my reasoning and let me know if I'm being too generous? Thanks, --William Pietri 16:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I would tend to suggest an AfD, and let the community at large decide. I still think it's undeserving of an entry, but maybe others actually find it useful.
- I just realized this already was AfD, so I posted a comment to the article's AfD page. Cheers! --Alan 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you dealt with MostWanted05 or the 86.xxxx user?

I have no choice, I will report this person to the Wikipedia commitee. He choose to continue the "think I own this site" excuse "over-and-over" again! Wikipedia:Requests for comment/user:MostWanted05 Any thoughts? Thanks. LILVOKA. 31 May 2006 04:33 (UTC)

Response: I seem to vaguely remember this user, but not enough to be able to comment on him. Wish I would be of more help.

Plentyoffish

Per comments already posted (I'm not sure how TALK works) this does read like an ad. It speaks about nothing but the good, and how much income the author makes. Any attempt to focus even the slightest bit of negativity, and the entries are deleted by an IP located in British Columbia. Sugest POF ad be deleted or allow both pro and con entires to stand. Ghosttowns 11:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)ghosttownsGhosttowns 11:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm not sure if you're approving or rejecting my Prod tag, but in any case, the article seems without merit. If you have any complaint with my prod tag, I would suggest you change it to an AfD and allow the community at large to discuss it. As far as I'm concerned, it's an extremely short article with little relevance to anything. Cheers! --Alan 11:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba disambiguation page

Hi, there's 1+ problem user on the Manitoba disambiguation page (I think you may be aware of this). I (and several others) repeatedly add an entry (for musician Dan Snaith's former recording moniker ("Manitoba")) but it is as frequently deleted. What's the appropriate way to deal with this? I posted a similr query on a 3-revert rule page a couple of days ago but haven;t seen a reply. Thanks Hu Gadarn 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I noticed that it is always an unregistered IP, and they were even deleting the hyperlink markup that I was adding to their OWN entries! The only suggestion I could make is to have it protected from non-registered users' edits, but I don't know if an admin will go for it. Here's the link to that policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Cheers! --Alan 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did this (request protection), which seems to work for the unregistered vandal. However, "Urbanshocker" is now vandalising the Caribou (musician) page in a similar vein as the previous vandalism on the two pages (Manitoba (disambiguation) and Caribou (musician). Perhaps this is the same person as the unregistered vandal.Hu Gadarn 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, NMChico24! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fahrenheit 9/11

Alan,

Please do not call the movie a documentary in the first line. Let's stick to comedy. Calling it a documentary is an insult to too many *serious* documentary makers, because a documentary must *first and foremost* be factual and truthful, and it is very clear that there are *way too many* issues with this work. But it is undeniably funny, and this is an effect that Moore has sought, and undeniably succeeded at. I insist on using something along the following lines:

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an award-winning comedy by American filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore, which had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 25, 2004 in the run up to that year's presidential election. Though sometimes classified as a documentary, the film steps away from the conventions of this genre and employs a heavy dose of satirical black humour, but there are also, arguably, misrepresentations and hyperbole in this work. Moore himself has called the film as an "op-ed piece" while vehemently defending its factual accuracy. "

Let's not try to have it both ways, first calling it a documentary, and then saying it steps away from the conventions of the genre!!

Thank you for your help. I think my proposal is very balanced and reasonable for "both sides", which is a requirement for a good encyclopedia.

Best regards,

Michael Ausems, Paris, France

Response: I reverted your first edit because it was entirely in French, in the English Wikipedia, which for obvious reasons is inappropriate. Second, if you wish to consider it a comedy, that's fine. But it is generally classified as a documentary, no matter what your political persuasion. We need to keep within the guidelines of wp:npov, and as such, calling something a comedy when it's classified otherwise strays from that guideline. Therefore, I stand by my decision, but I also abide by wp:3rr, so I will let someone else intervene if necessary. Thank you for your comment, and as always, I appreciate any feedback you have to offer. Cheers! --Alan 09:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous use of VandalProof

I was browsing through RC when I noticed that both you and Winhunter reverted edits by an anonymous poster to the page Analogman using that program. The problem is, that was a perfectly legitimate edit he/she was making, deleting a spurious refference to some troll on a Wilco messageboard that had no place in the article. I don't know just how much info the program gives you on the nature of the post you're reverting. If you really looked at it, and think that sort of thing belongs there, than that's one thing. Otherwise you're just replacing garbage left their by a different anonymous poster in a snowballing effect. Icelight 15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Oops... my bad. I should have read it more thoroughly. It looked like the IP was just blanking a section randomly. --Alan 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! --Mr. Trustegious 09:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sure thing! Feel free to ask me any questions you might have. Cheers! --Alan 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article deletion

Wait, you just added a tag, giving the reason for the deletion. Its a bit confusing. It say:

It is a talk page of a page which does not exist (CSD G8).

What were you refering to? The article? Zos 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The article no longer exists, so I requested speedy deletion of the talk page. That's standard procedure for an orphaned talk page. Hope this helps! --Alan 02:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had just recreated that article though. So it did exist. Zos 02:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I submitted the talk page for deletion, the main article was no longer there. Someone had already removed it. I deliberately checked for that before I submitted for the talk page to be removed. --Alan 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Will you edit my user page, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansaul (talk • contribs)

Response: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm going around welcoming newcomers, as I've done with you. Is this what you're referring to, or were you asking for assistance in creating a user page? --NMChico24 05:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, but you could do that too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansaul (talk • contribs)

Response: The links in the welcome message should help you out a lot with contributing. You can also see Wikipedia:User_page for some further info on user pages. It's also helpful to look at the source of others' user pages by clicking "edit this page" at the top. Just make sure not to save anything on someone else's page.

Also, as a side note, make sure to include 4 tildes ~~~~ after any comments you make to talk pages, which creates a signature for your comment.

Let me know if you have any other questions. --NMChico24 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

What did you edit on the bleed yellow page?

Leave a message on bleed yellow, kkk... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.195.198 (talk • contribs)

Response: I left a speedy delete tag on the page as the band does not appear to meet CSD:A7. --NMChico24 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the H. Ray Collver article was a big mistake. Keep your religious views out of your editing changes in Wikipedia, please. It is quite clear that you're not really religious, but that does not mean you are allowed to callously select articles for deletion. Please think again next time.

Religious view-tainted changes?...

Deleting the H. Ray Collver article was a big mistake. Keep your religious views out of your editing changes in Wikipedia, please. It is quite clear that you're not really religious, but that does not mean you are allowed to callously select articles for deletion. Please think again next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.161.138 (talk • contribs)

Response: My decision to nominate the article for deletion had nothing to do with my religious views. The article only made two main points regarding the subject: he was a pastor and a veteran. While this is admirable, it's not necessarily notable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more info. Thanks! --NMChico24 21:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Devenish

Hello. You tagged the above article for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, it does not qualify for speedy deletion, as it asserts a claim to notability, and is not a repost of deleted material. If you believe the article does not belong on Wikipedia, please consider going via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Regards, Proto///type 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Actually, according to the deletion log, this article was deleted with the following note: 15:37, 24 June 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "David Devenish" (A7). Therefore, it technically was reposted content, although it had been speedily deleted, which may or may not always count. I appreciate the follow-up! --NMChico24 23:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]