User talk:Dennis Brown

hey you idiot

"They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." that is from your own link.

Look at the video before you delete it retard its a third party publication that was previously published. (was unsigned by User:Oniazuma)

• Thank you for your thoughtful and well expressed opinions. Since the link is broken, it was removed. Being a blog is also a cosiderating for any link being deleted and the talk page for the article in question is the proper place to discuss it. I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICK as I am sure you will find it useful. Pharmboy 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Jack Adam

Can you please review this. As you will see if you check the links this person meets the notability guidelines and is on the honour role for the University of Ballarat due to his influence on the Australian Mining industry.

Gervo1865 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my speedy request. It may be handy to have a little more material to a layman as to what makes him notable. Pharmboy 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PERMISSION TO USE CONTENT FROM strategic-air-command.com AND OTHER SITES

The following is the content of an email from the owner of the above (and other) websites granting permission to use the images and text from his websites on military history. The message id for the email is: <001a01c6e75a$883f98e0$6801a8c0@TOPDOG> I had written previously asking permission to use text and photos, and tried to talk him into writting a few articles on SAC. Pharmboy 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for you kind email.

I am very familiar with Wikipedia. I am CEO of Feenixx Publishing
http://www.feenixx.com
We publish content intensive poster and we constantly use
Wikipedia for research.

My own schedule is far too full for me to take on the task of
writing articles for Wikipedia. I am also CEO of Web-Shops.Net
and we have 14 Internet sites. In addition to the SAC site,
I also have family history website. Plus, in whatever free time
I have, I write other things.

However, you may feel free to use our material in whatever manner
you wish. If you want to just "cut and paste" that's fine. But
please give us credit, and if possible, a link.

Warmest Regards
Marv Broyhill

---

Blocking spam

Hi. Regarding your request at WP:AIV to block external links, what you are looking for is m:Talk:Spam blacklist. They are usually quite accommodating and take only a few days to block domains. Let me know if you need assistance. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award. I do not think that Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because WP:NOT is simply not on the list of speedy deletion criteria. You might well have a case at WP:AFD, or even via Proposed deletion. But this simply isn't a speedy, IMO. I request that you consider not re-tagging Winners of the 2007 Golden Reel Award for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Edit Summary, I gave the particular reason for WP:NOT, which was "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". My reasoning is that the article was just a simple list. I will defer judgement on inclusion or not to you, but I just wanted you to know there was more reason than the generic NOT. Pharmboy 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New Dying Fetus Drummer

Trey Williams has just joined Dying Fetus, and when I say just, I mean it: he joined on July 20th, 2007. Let's talk about why the article shouldn't be deleted:

• 1. It's a major announcement.
• 2. Fans might want to know about it.

I'm also confused on how the article "doesn't assert itself." What does that mean? I just created the article; I've been a Wikipedia editor for quite some time now, and I've never seen that posted after one of my edits. If we could just clear things up, I'd be more than happy to discuss Trey Williams in a mature manner. Thanks. Dark Executioner 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

it is a template, so take up that issue with the crew who makes the templates. Second, this dicussion should be in the TALK section of the article, NOT on my talk page, since it is about the edit to the article, not about me. Pharmboy 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... but you're the one who brought this whole thing up! The other members of Dying Fetus have similar lengths. Here, I'll even put the links here for you:

• John Gallagher.
• Sean Beasley.
• Mike Kimball.

Now, can we focus on putting more info on the article, instead of trying to get it deleted? You know, JUST a suggestion. Cowboy From Hell 666 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Cowboy From Hell 666

• You don't get the point. The other articles are problems too, I just haven't gotten to them yet. One sentence isn't an article. What it needs is to roll them into the main article. Now, you can keep complaining to me, or work on the article. That is what the policies and procedures are. I am trying apply the policy here, you seem to be just trying to say "everyone else is making short articles, so I can too" which isn't a valid arguement. Since it went AFD, you need to argue there anyway. Pharmboy 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Got your message. Yeah, that looks pretty good, it basically states what is already stated in each member's respective pages. As longas it stays like this, I don't see any further need for the individual pages. As for your past tone towards me, I'd have to say that I forgive you. That just seems to be a symptom of Wikipedians. Wherever you found that extra bit of info on Trey Williams, I appreciate it, cuz I spent an hour trying to look up stuff for him. Dark Executioner 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Someone put that on the talk page, so I included it. Wikipedians like me, that try to spend some time cleaning up the place, sometimes may get a bit less than couth (by accident) because we face so much hostility from people on proposed changes on stuff that is totally insane. I'm talking about people who are just clearly advertising their business or their local band, or website. And they will just argue without looking at policy because they really don't give a shit about wikipedia, just promoting their pet cause. Sometimes it bleeds into stuff like this, where there is an honest difference of opinion and pretty hard resistance, too. The main thing is improving wikipedia.

As to the article, my opinion would be to remove the pages for all the members except John Gallagher, which is lean but he is really the one who is notable. (There may be another, but there would need to be some content to justify it). Then someone needs to fix the redirect for him and find more content. My 2c worth anyway. Pharmboy 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your nomination of List of Folk-blues musicians for deletion

I've completed your AFD nomination by creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was it that this article was nominated for deletion? It clearly falls under the structured lists exception of rule #2 that you say it violates. Lists are everywhere on Wikipedia. This is no mere "collection of links". It clearly is a list of folk-blues musicians, a musicial genre. Please see List of jazz musicians, List of heavy metal musicians, List of hip hop musicians, List of Piedmont blues musicians, List of country musicians, List of bluegrass musicians, List of soul musicians, List of bebop musicians, and on and on. Need I say more, or shall we rest this case? (Mind meal 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Folk-blues_musicians where everyone can comment. I don't think the list is a bad idea (and said that). It just should be a category, NOT an article. Hell dude, I am a musician, but that doesn't stop the fact that the list is a great idea, in the wrong place. Pharmboy 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sangwara

Hi Pharmboy, please see my question on the talk page. Best regards and keep up the great work! gidonb 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarlem

BTW, this article was already deleted once. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlem. Skeezix1000 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accion USA

I wrote an article and you deleted it, well I really dont know much about wikipedia, I was wiritn g thearticla but then I had to go so I saved it and well it wasnt quite done. Now its done, its under accion usa. I hope its good, I mean Im trying not to publicize that organization but I dot know if its ok or not. Can you please help me? I just dont want it to be deleted again. It would be awesome if you could read ove rit, if you cant its fine.

Thanks--Businessowner 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

Can you please do your AfD's properly? Use this form please: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still working on it. Going from editing, to writting full, to finding spam, to speedys, to afds. Takes a bit to learn part time. I probably fudged a couple more. Pharmboy 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

for not leaving me alone to battle it out alone. 15 supporting deletion and 4 or 5 in favor of keep that can't refer to policy in their arguments is certainly a reasonable consensus. I just hope the closing admin doesn't think a vocal fringe is a reasonable keep argument. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

no prob, just felt more arguing wouldn't help. Arguements tend to get weaker as you use them more and more. Pharmboy 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't responded to baiting anymore. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Neo Messiah

You tagged this article as a speedy deletion candidate due to lack of context, but the context is actually clear: it's a religious essay and original research. I nominated it for deletion at AfD, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Also, your comments to the article's creator could be construed as a bit impolite. While the article is very deletable, it is still necessary to use the correct process, and helpful to do it in as friendly a way as possible (this can keep the creator from feeling defensive and thus keep the discussion much neater). Cheers! --Ginkgo100^talk 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

check history and see it when I nominated it. afd was the next step, per the talk page admitting it was "lots of work" and OR. Pharmboy 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template HRM

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template HRM. I do not think that Template HRM fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because lack of context is not a speedy deletion reason for templates -- many valid templates lack context on their own. Use WP:TFD if you think this should go, please. I request that you consider not re-tagging Template HRM for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is in the template namespace it is a template for purposes of the WP:CSD. DES ^(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Angus Young Signature SG

Thanks for helping keep WP clean. I'm going to speedy this one as soon as I leave this note. It would help if you left whatever content (as long as it's not really harmful) when you tag; if it's garbage, I'll be able to see that otherwise I have to delve through the prior versions to see what the article was at its "best". Unfortunately, on occasion some otherwise savable articles get vandalised and in their vandalised state are tagged speedy. We're supposed to revert to the savable version rather than delete. The fewer versions to plough through the faster I can do that. Don't take what I say as anything negative: it's just a request to help us out a little better. Keep up the good work! Carlossuarez46 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Humber Valley Resort

Please review your recommendation to speed delete this article. While I referenced the proprietor's website, it was not meant as advertising. The resort is a real entity and has an economic and cultural impact in its region. Verne Equinox 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dry Ice Bomb

No rewording necessary, Pharmboy, but your suggestion is noted. Just sound legal advice. Mandsford 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WHP site

I was addressing the issue as I deleted the tag... and there are more references to come. Only I'm not incredibly familiar with wikipedia and it was taking me some time. I appreciate your concern for the entry's integrity, but give me some time to actually edit before accusing me of vandalism! Yikes! And by the way, I only deleted the references tag ONCE and I don't really see how you can construe that as malign intent given that I started the entry about half an hour beforehand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxhs (talk • contribs)

I am not questioning the how legit the organization is. Quite the opposite. If I thought it was not legit, I would have tagged it for delete. You are talking this personal, but it isn't. A tag is not an insult. It isn't saying the article sucks. It isn't insulting your mother. Tags simply say "Hey, I'm an article, here is what I need to be correct". And yes, people actually DO go research and fix other peoples articles. If you wouldn't have made such a big deal of it, I might have googled it and make the citations myself. Oh, and when I tagged it, it automatically was added to my "watch" list, so I could go back later and add references. If you check the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_HIV_Program_%28WHP%29&action=history you see you changed the tag twice (every article here has the full history of every change ever made.) And yes, I tend to get a bit testy when someone changes a tag without cause TWICE and doesn't add a valid summary. That is why the edit makes you press Save twice if you don't add an edit summary, because you should always add one, PARTICULARLY when doing something like deleting a tag, of all things. Pharmboy 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HwGuy / HwGay discussion

Please see this talk page regarding this matter. JohnCub 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spam

Thanks for your work on fighting spam.

If you haven't already, check out:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

You might enjoy some of the stuff we do. Also, there are some interesting tools and templates we use that can dig up more domains and spam. You can look at some of the stuff I added to your suntanning.com spammer's talk pages at:

• User talk:64.21.145.82
• User talk:64.21.145.77
• User talk:71.172.18.74

Anyway give it some thought and thanks again for what you're doing.
--A. B. ^(talk) 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS That's a big carp!

Thanks, yea I let him go back into the lake. I have a lot to learn about the templates and such, the input is appreciated! Another note: I have been looking for a way to participate and help, beyond writing in my fields of expertise. I will take a closer look at the spam links and see if this is something that will fit. Pharmboy 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

Hi. As a seasoned wikipedian who has already weighed in on the debate, could you please help me out and explain to Moonbeam28 in the AfD that yes, if someone else had put in the article it might not be a COI (unless the editor personally knew the author), but it would still fall foul of notability? I know what needs to be said, but I'm not familiar enough with all the policies and the pages they are on in order to direct her. Thanks so much! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, I found some pages that seem suitable, but if you know of others, please add! Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Legend

I do not see how EGM is not a reliable source.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

I would think that EGM has fact-checking, huh? All I need is one reliable source, right? If so, then this is flawed, and the nominator's argument is flawed.

Phamboy, EGM did not create the game - That means EGM is a third party. All I need is one third party source. WhisperToMe 02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the conversation in the proper article rather than here, but to answer your question, the references must both be 3rd party and "reliable". Reliable doesn't mean reliable in the traditional sense to start with. Next the amount of coverage in this article is relevent as to wp:v, "verification". No one is saying the game doesn't exist. They are saying the game isn't particularly notable. Not every game ever made on every platform "deserves" an article. It isn't about worth, it is about what makes an encyclopedia. Its ok if we disagree. Personally, I think that over half of the articles on wikipedia shouldn't be here and are not encyclopedia material. Interesting, useful, perhaps, but that isn't the criteria for an encyclopedia. Pharmboy 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Corpse

Have you ever heard about CC being banned from Atlanta? Bob Dole and a few other senators forbid them from playing in certain cities, and unfortunately for me, Atlanta was one of them. However, the ban seems to be revoked now, because they're coming to the Masquerade on October 10th, 2007. Do you know anything about when the ban got revoked? Dark Executioner 15:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Bob Dole can't "ban" them per se. I'm an old fart, but there was this same controversy with Wendy O Williams and the Plasmatics back in the 80s. In her case, the cops beat the living fuck out of her to "convince" her to not perform. Something about her doing obscene things with a sledgehammer on stage, and they tried to ban her, but in the end, all they can do is arrest after the fact. "banning" is basically illegal censorship, although if no club owner wants to bring them in (and face the wrath of the cops) it may as well be banning. The deal with Cannibal Corpse may have gotten started with the speech he gave years ago, you can read it at http://www.tombofthemutilated.net/Bob-Dole-Cannibal-Corpse.html Pharmboy 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Life Recordings

When was Dying Fetus signed to this label??? Dark Executioner 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I have no idea. You are the Dying Fetus expert. I'm the old dude with writing skills :D I have no idea who added that. Pharmboy 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Herb Tyler

I replied on the AFD on Herb Tyler the issue is that the league is semi-proffesional, which indicates WP:BIO failure right there, nothing like an AAA minor league baseball team, which is fully-proffesional. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Time

It's time to merge the Dying Fetus musicians with the main article. We've already done that in a way, you and I. There's no progress on making those tiny articles larger. I edited John, Mike and Sean's pages with the template that says "merge." I'm just waiting to do so. Dark Executioner 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

The best way would be to just PROD them, and as long as no one protested, they would be auto deleted by the system in 5 days. I think it is just a { { subst: prod | reason } } type template. I fudged up my ankle the other day, they thought it was broken again but it is just a really bad sprain, so they have me on mind altering drugs, so I haven't been doing much the last week.... Pharmboy 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qite sure how to PROD, so I just went ahead and merged the pages/deleted the links. "Mind altering drugs," huh? I was wondering where ya been! Well, get well soon, man. If you want to PROD the articles for me, they're still there, but they've just been changed to a redirect (kind of like what I did with Burn the Priest). Dark Executioner 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Also, I'm interested in joining Wikipedia's Wikiproject: Metal. Do you know how to go about with this? Dark Executioner 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Hmmm, good question. I haven't joined any groups at wikipedia, so I am not sure. I would try to find someone that is already in the group to start. And the mind altering drugs are not nearly as fun as they sound, considering the foot is swollen up like a toad. Would rather be out fishing or working or something else. I think the redirects you did are fine for now. If someone with the same name as the members needs an article (different person) then they can create a disambiguious page at that time. Pharmboy 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steal This Film (2nd nomination)

Greetings, Steal This Film has been nominated for deletion. I have flagged the article for for rescue Please read the nomination, improve the article and comment on the Afd if you have time. Fosnez 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

an accurate photo taken by myself hardly seems like spam

Please do not post blogs as sources or external links as it is clear violation of wp:rs and wp:links. Pharmboy 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the wiki experience that you do and I feel like you're less than welcoming of me for that reason. You implied on my page that I made attempts to log on "anonymously" to accomplish things that I wouldn't do under my user name. I feel insulted by that accusation.

I could understand however how a commentary on James Watson might be inappropriate (though I'm not yet CERTAIN of that being the case) but I can not agree with you that a photograph of Rulon Jeff's tomb is somehow spam. Yes, I took the picture when I was in Colorado City but I don't agree that it's spam and I feel as though you're "We Are Watching You" messages are unkind notes of intimidation toward others who simply don't yet have the wikipedia experience that you have. They seem hardly welcoming and, at least with regards to the Jeffs article, terribly inappropriate. A photo is a photo regardless of who added it. And again, you're many "tools" for watching people you intimidate make you seem quite elitist and contrary to the democratic spirit of wikipedia. - mnuez

• to reply, first know the edit in question is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rulon_Jeffs&diff=prev&oldid=166207092 and is not a photo. I don't mean to seem 'less than welcoming', but you seem to have a habit of adding the blog after being asked to NOT include blog links, and haven't started a conversation about it until now. I am not the only one who has made a comment to this effect.

A commentary IS inappropriate on wikipedia. It is fine that you don't understand that, and if you ask, people can show you why and where the policies are that say so. That is what wp:rs and wp:links are all about: what are Reliable Sources and what is appropriate for linking and what isn't. And yes, we are watching, but it is the articles, and then other articles if someone seems to be spamming them. Keep in mind, spamming (in reference to wikipedia) isn't about making money, it is about adding inappropriate links for any reason, to multiple articles.

I watch over 100 articles. This means I check them all almost daily. I am not an admin, I am not paid. I am just some schmuck who believes in what wikipedia is doing, so I donate my time. Some of these articles, I am considered an expert. On others, I am just knowlegable. Others, I know little of, I just watch because they are candidates for spam. If you look, you will see I have several edits on the articles in question.

When I see someone making a change, then being asked to NOT make that change, and given links to the policy that says why, and then they make the SAME EDIT under a different account or IP address, this is called a sockpuppet and is against the policy at wp:sockpuppet. Adding the link was against the other policies. It isn't personal, but what you did IS against the rules and you were given links to why.

I write lots of articles, make edits, correct spelling (even my own) and deal with lots of issues on a regular basis. If I seem less than welcoming, it may be that when someone breaks policies and after the 1st or 2nd time say "sorry, what is it that I am doing wrong, and where is the policy?" and they instead just insist on publishing links to their blog, well, damn, then they don't seem to want to be welcomed, and it seems that they just want to link their blog.

There are methods here to easily get someone blocked, or get their domain/blog blocked (and this DOES hurt your Google ranking) but I didn't do that. I just asked you to stop spamming. Time I have to spend removing spam from you and hundreds of others is time I COULD HAVE spent adding new material, correcting articles, or adding photography. You can check my contributions or anyone elses if you want to see how they spend their time.

So, to end this long reply, it isn't personal. I didn't think you had some evil plan to spam Wikipedia, but you STILL were doing something against policy, several times. It takes a little time to learn what is acceptible and what is not here. Personal opinions and editorials are NOT allowed as this is an encyclopedia, not a news or other site.

So go read the rules a bit, start with editing mistakes and less controversial edits and you will learn the rules and can be a contributing part of Wikipedia. This is my goal, if it is yours, then humbly and politely ask around. Most experienced users are happy to help when they have time. Pharmboy 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

on "tanorexia"

I opened the discussion on the discussion page for tanorexia for the notion the word is slang on the same day I made changes. Instead of starting an edit war, please use the discussion pages for the very purpose for which they were created: to read the postings and offer your own opinions and/or make your case before simply changing important aspects of the article.

I would be very interested to hear what you have to say. --JohnDoe0007 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that I love the word, but there is no other word that can OBJECTIVELY be used instead, and a new, made up word would be clearly violating Wikipedia policy as Original Research. As I understand Wikipedia policy, it is a proper article that describes a term that may not be "official", but doesn't meet the criteria to be called slang either. The article also does more than a dictionary definition, and clearly states that the term is unofficial, not understood well, but is used by many outlets (including doctors) and is in at least the American vocabulary, which is enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. Pharmboy 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to the discussion page for tanorexia for continuance of the discussion... --JohnDoe0007 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)