User talk:Chowbok/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chowbok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Was getting Wikimedia Foundation error messages. I meant to add the unreferenced tag to the top.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep adding a link to your flame blog and I'll keep deleting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LUKEjaywalker (talk • contribs) 21:40, June 26, 2007

If anyone adds a flame blog, I'll delete them, so don't feel too special.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LUKEjaywalker (talk • contribs) 22:01, June 26, 2007

Too funny! Someone posting a flame blog tells me to be more civil. 65.54.155.41 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chowbok. I process a lot of "rfu" images, but there are some I shouldn't deal with, either because I was involved with the debate/discussion, or because the uploader is likely to distrust my impartiality. There are a few left at Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 26 June 2007 and Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 27 June 2007. Could you take care of these for me? (It goes without saying that I trust your judgment in these, and I won't contest your decisions whatever they are.) Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)

Chowbok, I appreciate all your hard work eliminating all of my images that I spent hours scanning for my article. Since I have no "Free" images to replace these with, now we can all become more educated with the lack of photos. Thanks for your tireless efforts!

Caprice 96 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me? See this and my talk page. Good night, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Quadell, please do not try to carry your wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I ask that you apologize immediately and try to undo your destructive actions. M.

Yeah, it is a Commonwealth of Kentucky publicity photo. I doubt that it is copyrighted, but I guess we'd better take it down to be sure. I don't have any way to verify the copyright or lack of same right now. Realkyhick 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning for removing the tag on OsamaK's page. Please feel free to add your comments there. Cheers. Abecedare 15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Your thinking was clear from your edit summaries. I left the note on your page only because you clearly understand the significance of the image, and I thought you may like to add to the comments on Osama's page. I don't think there is any risk of the image getting deleted though, especially given the previous deletion debate. Abecedare 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is felt that pictures taken by users are more appropriate than using loopholes in the law. Also, the picture that you insist on being used is older and not as, well...easy to associate with Angela Lansbury. The image taken at the Emmys is more appropriate as it is how Lansbury looked when she was, arguably, best known-while starring in Murder Shw Wrote. Also, would you put a picture of a 7-year-old Adam Sandler or another person if there was another one that was more up-to-date and accurate? Dalejenkins 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also post this on User:Dalejenkins's page as I have reverted the image, but Chowbok, I'd also be interested to know what you think.

To Dalejenkins: Firstly, it is not a loophole in the law. Images that were never copyrighted are free to use, and film trailers were not copyrighted prior to 1964. It would be a loophole if we were somehow twisting the law to suit our purpose, and that's not the case. "It is felt that pictures taken by users are more appropriate" is just plain incorrect. We choose free images over unfree images but there is nothing to say that one form of free image is preferable to another form of free image. As for the image itself and the article - firstly Angela Lansbury had been a notable actress for more than 40 years before doing Murder She Wrote. Looking at the images from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, the Dorian Gray image is a crisp, clear, in-focus image. It illustrates a key moment in her career, and is in a role for which she was nominated for an Academy Award. I could understand that if it was just some random shot, it would be jarring, but that's not the case. The article should represent her entire life/career not just the latter parts of it, regardless of your opinion of what constitutes her fame. If the earlier part of her career can be illustrated with a free image or images then not only can we do this, but we really should do this in order to be comprehensive and there is certainly enough room in the article for all the images that are currently there. The Emmy Award photo is not bad - but she's not looking at the camera, and she's clearly been cropped from a larger image. It's just an opportunistic image grabbed when she wasn't looking and it doesn't represent anything in particular except what she looked like on that particular occasion. It's a satisfactory image, and very useful to us, but it's not an excellent image. If she was looking at the camera etc, I would be more inclined to agree with you. An example of an excellent (IMO), candid, more recent image can be found at Betty White. Compare that to the rather inferior Angela Lansbury image. If we had as good a recent image of Lansbury, I'd be thrilled, but we don't. Also, we would never put an image of a seven year old Adam Sandler on his page as the lead image even if we had a really good free one. He wasn't famous when was seven, but Angela Lansbury was famous when she was twenty.

I notice your last edit said "shall we meet halfway" so I'm glad you are at least looking for a compromise instead of just shooting the Dorian Gray image on sight. That's good. Mind you, I thought I was already meeting you halfway, by not removing the older image in the same manner in which you, more than once, removed the Dorian Gray image. I prefer the Dorian Gray image - I think it's a better image - but I'm happy to discuss it with you further. Rossrs 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did get your email, however for current privacy concerns prefer to not reply. I may reply later though. I did get your message and am currently researching. Thank you for expressing your concerns! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the image of Bela Lugosi replaceable, I don't think a picture of his corpse will do the trick. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored and moved it to User:Chowbok/Bela Lugosi, so it won't get CSDed again before you're done with it. Natalie 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fischer arrest.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you uploaded a picture of Jack Kirby from Alan Light's flickr account, on which he gives permission to use the images pretty much anyway people see fit. I'd like to upload some more of his pictures. Is it assumed, by the way he worded the site, that everything there is under a CC attribution license? Should I seek permission to upload specific photos? Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks in advance. Stilgar135 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
User:Geno requested the mediation cabal to help resolve your slight dispute at Talk:Linda Hamilton. I will be taking the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton--Phoenix 15 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Erin Moran photo was taken at Comic-Con in July, 2007, regardless of what the photo's metadata says. Whatever the metadata says would be because we've never set the date in the camera. Wryspy (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is to explain why I have had to revert your edits. First of all the Songspiel is not an opera. Second the navbox, like all Opera Project ones, goes top right on the page so it's important to keep it as narrow as possible, otherwise it's obtrusive. Regards. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have reverted instead of replying. That's called edit warring, you know. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and thank you for your acknowledgement. I enjoy a good hunt on the net! SaundersW (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You voted for Mercury's recall to continue; please note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I got the image from ak.gov, which is under the authority of a federal agency, so I had the copyright license listed under the federal government, which is in the public domain. Thank you. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that too once, but I looked it up (.gov), and it says that anything under the domain name .gov is regulated by a federal agency. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carol Lay.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Powerhouse Pepper 3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign state, then tell me the difference between it and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and North Cyprus and the State of Palestine etc.. Why aren't they in the list?

And I don't see either Taiwan or the ROC in the list of sovereign states. In the list it's just a state claiming sovereignty. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

However, even if you think the ROC is a state, but Taiwan isn't a state, do you agree? Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the flags of the SADR, North Cyprus and Palestine etc. in the gallery article, and tell me why. What's the difference between them and Taiwan? Why should Taiwan be particular? Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that'll be better. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok, I strongly suggest that you leave Talk:Muhammad alone for a while, or at the very least refrain from commenting on the image issue and especially refrain from making any comments that might be interpreted as inflaming the dispute. Your comments thus far, several of which I have now removed as having no evident function in improving the encyclopaedia, are disrespectful to people of ardent religious faith; it really doesn't matter how misguided their requests are or how unlikely to be granted, that talk page is part of Wikipedia's public relations, due to the profile of the debate among Islamic forums, and it is important to be fair and to be seen to be fair, even while standing our ground. Please try to be onside here. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• This comment [1] is ignorant. I live in the GMT time zone, your original message was posted at 23:19 and you accused me of not considering it worth responding to at 02:12. In common with most people, my level of Wikipedia activity is generally low when I'm asleep. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Despite my request in an edit summary to provide references if re-adding the contentious material to this biography of a living person, you went and added it without doing so. The publicist has contacted Wikimedia (via VRTS ticket # 2008022110001593) and indicated that she considers this material to be incorrect. If you persist in restoring unsourced contentious material about this living person, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy for more information on this. - Mark 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to explain further until it was too late. Please accept my apologies. - Mark 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi- the section you put back in [2] gets a bit ragged at the end as User:Rtwise continues to attack me for having "censored" him and for having used inapprorpiate language ("damn"?, "hell"?). I've responded in his TP a couple of times to explain to him why I was justified to do what I did, but still he persists in the article's talk space. HS nuked it because the train has run so far off the rails as to not be helpful any longer. Perhaps and archive would be better?-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with archiving it, that would be a fine compromise. You can do it, or I'd be happy to as well, let me know.—Chowbok ☠ 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear it would cause rtw undue constrenation if I archived it, as I'm rather involved. It would probably be better if you did it. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi-Can you please put back the original photo of John Stamos on his page? I know you did it again today, but someone has vandalized his page again. Thanks! IndulgentReader (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While you did some AWB work, an error was accidently introduced. A ref was incorrectly converted. Please inform AWB developers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis does your bot remove the registered trademark symbols? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok, I completely agree with removing the registered trademark symbols. They have no place in Wikipedia and are a major eyesore and add no value to the article. Andrew73 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general too, but in the article Sunseed the sentence in question was noting the presence of the symbol, and I'd consider its removal a false positive. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the problem is...let's say an innocent reader clicks that citation's link...and then, well, look at the page you get. Since it's Playboy, there's a rather...let's say, controversial image, on that page. Not exactly an appropriate thing for an encyclopedia to be linking to? — Wackymacs (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have gone through and removed what you call trademark crap from several articles. Please don't, these are being used to show intellectual property rights for those products. If you read the articles, you would see that the ® and ™ symbols are only used to show how the company is seeking to project the product.

If you think trademarks are crap, try looking at Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. They are as much part of a business as the product itself.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can show me a valid WP policy based reason for your deletion of this information, stop. If you are thinking about the policy regarding the ™ and ® symbols, that is not pertinent as that only refers to usage within an article (WP uses Whopper not Whopper^®) and not the actual description of the status of corporate trademarks. Because I hate simple lists of extraneous facts, I chose not to create a Trademarks of Burger King article and include the data in the articles themselves, unlike McDonald's and the List of McDonald's trademarks article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The trademark is as much part of the product as the ingredients. I understand why we remove the ™ and ® symbols from text descriptions as stated before. Your edits constitute WP:Idontlikeit. Please stop. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My reason is in the first line, as bolded, and if this is not an explanation as to why not delete these sections, I do not know what is. All companies have trademarks and copyrights which are the backbone of intellectual property. Companies spend millions developing the products, the markets they target, and the name. It is as much as part of the product as the very ingredients that make it up. Companies also spend billions of dollars a year protecting their intellectual property and to claim the inclusion of this information is extraneous and does not apply is simply foolish.

I am including this information to show that the articles are more than a simple description of the products, but that they are describing a whole business concept that happens to be in the fast food restaurant industry. That is why they include the data on market demographics, advertising, financial and intellectual property information. Step back and do not look at them as menu items at a local fast food place, but as a product no different than a car, tv, clothing or any other product in the marketplace.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chowbok:

I'm puzzled byyour edit summary. It does not seem to belong with the edit.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by this diff on List of fictional books. Your edit summary gives a substantial list of changes, but they're not shown in the diff. Ma^t_chups 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think you should bug the AWB guys, as you mention. I'm in the software business, and every once in a while we hear "this has been a problem for years, why didn't you fix it?" because nobody had ever reported it as a problem.Ma^t_chups 12:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have been replacing hyphens with & ndash; in many articles. It's not such a big deal, but would it be possible for you to replace it with the unicode character – instead? Makes the edit window just a little less user-unfriendly (it's already all too often filled with all kinds of not particularly user-friendly coding). older ≠ wiser 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Before just recreating the page, you should probably review (and consider commenting in) the Deletion Review discussion currently going on at WP:DRV. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mad11.png. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping tweak my essay; yes, I think it's better your way. What do you think of the essay in general? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, can you fix them here as well? Can't get the keyboard to do it ;) — TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chowbok,

I noticed you edited the Intelligent Device Management article a little bit ago and thought I might be able to solicit your help with another article that I am drafting regarding a similar topic -- can I send it to you? Talk 17:46, 10 June 2008

Thanks for letting me know about the St. Patrick's photo on Slate... haven't been on here in a while! Good to see it's been used anyways :) - Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit you made to the "New Jersey State Fair" web site. You removed the trademark symbol that was placed after the word "Fair". This symbol needs to remain in the New Jersey State Fair name since 1) this is a trademarked name and 2) its part of the fair's official name, which is "New Jersey State Fair®/Sussex County Farm and Horse Show". If you visit the Fair's official web site, you will see this trademark wherever you see "New Jersey State Fair". --Randazz (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.

I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok, sorry about placing my previous note at the top of this page; I'm new at this. Also, thanks for educating me on the trademark; it will remain off. However, I'd like to have the "advertisement" note removed. The New Jersey Fair State and the Sussex County Horse Show are non-profit organizations who donate their proceeds to many local charities. The article is not intended to be an advertisement, but rather was placed of information purposes in response to carnival that was misleading wiki readers into believing that it was the New Jersey State Fair (hence, the sensitivity regarding the trademark). We would appreciate it if you could remove notation. Thanks in advance.--Randazz (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I made revisions that I believe will satisfy wikipedia's policies. All facts, no fluff. If you have other suggestions, drop me a note. Thanks for your help. --Randazz (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

205.234.128.0/17 belongs to a webhosting company (ServerCentral or HostForWeb). Open proxies frequently come from webhosting servers. After coming across an open proxy, I saw 32 other IPs in the range,[3] so I decided to do the /17 block. Nearly every proxy that edited anonymously in that range was used for vandalism. From my experience, when a webhosting company has dozens of open proxies, it's likely there will be more, so I'm inclined to keep the block. It's unfortunate your workplace doesn't run a normal ISP. Exactly what IP were you blocked under? Spellcast (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they're different companies - ServerCentral does indeed provide for HostForWeb (I should've said the former in the block log). Instead of blocking the IPs you gave, I think it's better if I unblocked 205.234.128.0/17 for the meantime and get a second opinion. Do you only have one IP at work? Because a softblock of that would override the rangeblock. Spellcast (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the range - the last thing I want to do is prevent productive users from editing. By the way, do you edit from work using this account or an IP (or both)? Spellcast (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

With respects, I used several different search parameters and found many more reviews on the web than just Variety. I added them to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and cleaned up the article per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, wikifying, sourcing, and adding several interviews and film reviews. Is there anything else you might be able to suggest? thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you removed a "TM" symbol from inside a ref tag (diff). I'm aware such symbols should not be in article text, and appreciate the work you are doing to clean that up. I think in this particular case the symbol was warranted (since it was representing the title of a cited source and was not part of the article text), and thought I'd drop you a note about it. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert it again [4], but I feel quite strange to alter a quote. Any authority, style guidelines or something else supporting this? Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chowbok,

Please review your requested changes for Eveline Charles and advise on any improvements (if necessary).

Thanks

Austin

Austin Culley (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

a criticism section was added to Kaohsiung American School, however, was removed for being "non-sourced." these are current criticisms that have been spread inside and outside of the school, not published. for it to not be like an ad, consider reverting the page to what it once was, criticizing the school for lack of well-maintained walls, equipment, buildings, etc.

Moafeminie (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was protected for a couple of weeks to prevent this and several other sockpuppets from repeatedly adding some quite nasty attacks, sourced to a forum called "KAS_SUCKS". Since the forum is not a reliable source, they can't add their attack material to the article sourced to it. If a scandal blew up and the newspapers reported the story, then fine. But it hasn't and Wikipedia's rules are for stuff to be verifiable, not "the truth" - without sources, we can't judge whether this school sucks or not. We were very right to decline the sock's speedy delete request - a most odd addition! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop auto removing the registration sign from this article without discussion on the talk page. Thank you. --KP Botany (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Post a comment in English on the article talk page explaining this to the editor, then. Not an edit summary, a comment, please. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say was, "not a link," rather than "a comment." To me, something that along these lines is politer than just pasting links to often verbose policy pages that are hard to find informationin:

We have a policy on Wikipedia about not using trademarks. It says:

"* Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)."

You can find the whole policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), and post to the talk page there is you have more questions. It's just easier, imo, for the other editor.

I think this type of exchange would be more helpful. --KP Botany (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And, I don't think pasting one sentence is such a burden to acknowledge that we all have the same goal in mind: a quality encyclopedia created in a group effort. If we're trying to create something as a group, treating people as if they are part of the group is reasonable. If, at work, I throw a book on the table, or even just a journal article, or a single page from an artilc, in a meeting, instead of just stating my point, no one would think I was trying to resolve an issue or contribute to the task at hand.

I guess we disagree. --KP Botany (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi chowbok,

Thanks for you feedback on the article about y touring theatre company. my intention is not to create an advert using wikipedia. But to write a useful reference article about a signifcant theatre company.

I have re edited the article to make the article as neutral as possible do you have any further comments or specific feedback to make it more neutral?

Thanks and best wishes

Ytouring (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)ytouringYtouring (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am wandering if "Signatures" as in "Sensor Signatures" (e.g. Almirante_Clemente_class_destroyer#Sensors_Signatures) should be linked to Signatures by adding a new section that expounds on the use of the word or expanding the including a note on the Signatures#Other_uses section? Perhaps a different article is needed? Thanks in advance for your help in this matter. I am a new user and still learning the ropes.

sidna (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The person is probably alive and thus the article about her must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Any individuals that are in the category of Possibly living people are tagged with living=yes by the Wikiproject Biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chowbok. This is not a very big issue, but does User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation still need full protection? I was just idly browsing through Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's somewhat silly, but I thought you might be interested to see what I've done with the article "List of fictional deer", which you helped to save from "nominated for deletion". Ironically, I had nothing to do with the article until then. I hope you enjoy it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Chowbok. I noticed you were policing the Mister X article against edits by Dean Motter and other edits removing discussion of the Hernandez Bros. leaving that comic over lack of payment that appear to have been made by Mister X's publisher, Bill Marks. (If you click on the history of the user who made those edits, they appear to all be edits to articles on Vortex Comics creators and comics.) I noticed the article makes no mention of Paul Rivoche's collaboration with Dean Motter in the creation of that character. (He's listed only in the sidebar as a penciler.) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of online sources that discuss this, but Rivoche's design sketches from the very beginning of Mister X have been reproduced in the Mister X book collections, and here's a link to a synopsis of a magazine article on Mister X which discusses his role in the creation of the character (the article listed just after the Dean Motter interview): http://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=56&products_id=531

("Paul Rivoche Interview: The renowned designer discusses his involvement in the creation of '80s icon Mister X")

I don't know what to do about this. I'm not very good at using Wikipedia, so I was hoping I could tell you about this and since you're already on the Mr. X patrol might know how best to add this info to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Tripod (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I don't think ® should be removed from quotes. [5] Rl (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Afternoon, Thanks very much for your feedback on the CRC article I have been working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Research_Centre_Canada. Upon further consultation, A) A lot of the material was not significant and B) the tone was, as suggested, not to Wikipedia standards I've spent the last day or so rewriting the article on my end and I put it up this afternoon. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind please taking a look at the article. I would love feedback and am happy to continue to improve the article. Thanks! Anandsrivastava2009 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chowbok. I made some modifications to the 29West page to make it less ad-like. Take a look at the diffs and leave feedback in the 29West talk page. Fordsfords (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit — why remove the trademark sign when it's part of the title of a page? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're properly citing a page, isn't it our responsibility to reproduce the titles accurately? Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, you edited Core i7 and Intel X58 to remove the trademark adn registerd trademark symbols, but you removed them from the titles of articles in the references. Thhose titles wree exact quotes of the actual titles of the references. I do not thinks they shoulod be removed. -Arch dude (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I created the John Crane, Inc. page and I was wondering if you could help me understand what I could do to fix it so it doesn't get deleted. I am still new to Wikipedia, so an advice or tips you could give would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbrown123 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are more times where it is not required as a part a company or organization name, but there are definitely times when it must be included, such as the Academy Awards, which you have been removing.

From the Legal Notices section o fthe Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Regulations: Any use of the marks “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” “OSCAR NIGHT®,” “A.M.P.A.S.®” and the “Oscar” design mark must include notice of trademark and service mark registration and credit the Academy as the owner of said marks (“®”), except as provided in section 20 below.

(Section 20 says: News and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions: 1. all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration, and 2. neither the marks “Academy Award®” nor “Oscar®” may be used to describe awards given by organizations other than the Academy. (An award may be described as “the Uruguayan equivalent of the Oscar Award,” but not as “the Uruguayan Oscar.”)

See http://www.oscars.org/legal/regulations.html Bsteph1 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

according to WP Criteria for Musicians:

WP: Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. -- Tico Zamora has been a member of the Maureen Tucker band, H.R., Jingo de Lunch (article and video here: [6] and played with Jasmin Tabatabai . He is noted under Band Members.

WP: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) -- [7]/ Film Music Tico Zamora -- Themes for German Television : Arabella Kiesbauer,Liebe Sünde, Nicole, Taff, and Bizz (as mentioned in article)

Criteria for Composers & Songwriters:

WP: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. -- Tico Zamora composing credits: Jan Josef Liefers Jasmin Tabatabai [http://www.discogs.com/Jasmin-Tabatabai-I-Ran/release/1136719 -- H.R.'s "Keep Out of Reach" Album under pseudonym Tiko [8]468 -- Other notable works can be found here: [http://www.discogs.com/search?type=all&q=tico+zamora&btn=Search ] image used with permission of photographer.(Koreatown (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)) Koreatown (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Koreatown (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreatown (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chowbox - If you could give me any tips on how to keep my entry from deletion as an ad I'd appreciate it. I thought that I had backed up all the "claims" with footnotes, publications, internal and external links. Since I have written a bunch of other articles for IDSA, ICSID, and several designers, I'd like to make sure that I didn't do this wrong. I did go back and qualify a few of the introductory statements. designerx (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chowbox - could you point out what you are objecting to? I looked at other firms that weren't tagged as promotional to use as my example. Is it mostly the introductory paragraph? Do you have any examples you may point me too? You seem annoyed with me but I really want to get this right and am new to this. A little Wiki 101 is deeply appreciated. I did read their articles on neutrality but noticed that articles are all over the place on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designerx (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it some more. I realized that somebody from TEAMS dinked with it when I looked a the first paragraph and the history. I'll email them about it. Please let me know if what I did helped and how much further you think I should go before we may remove the ad tag. They really have won all those awards. I started to document them all but it was a ridiculous list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designerx (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chowbok. I found the Vytex Natural Rubber Latex page, noticed the Wikify tag, and did a little work on it to bring it more in line with what seems to be the standard style and formatting for brand name materials. Anyway, I didn't want to remove the Wikify tag myself, and wondered if you wanted to take a look at it as the editor who originally placed the tag and advise me on ways to further Wikify it, or consider removing the tag. Leeatcookerly (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Johnny Johnson(1).gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Johnny Johnson(1).gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Johnny Johnson(1).gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for typing late at night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Elson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you had started AfDs for Plascore Incorporated and some other Michigan business articles. I have tried to improve each of the articles, and I think their references are now enough to demonstrate notability. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plascore Incorporated and the other AfDs and review my comments there and those of other editors. - Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chowbok! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Erik Kriek - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Roman Gribbs - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that you suggest that I discuss reverting your edits when, in fact, I clearly stated in the edit summary my issue with your edits: "no discussion or consensus to switch citation styles." What you did was not simply a minor organizational edit, you implemented a citation style change across the entire article without so much as a proposal, much less garner consensus to do so. In my opinion, this was a major style change to a style of citation that is not widely used on Wikipedia, and is one that with which most editors are unfamiliar. Your content addition included "33 counts of murder in the first degree" which was uncited and "Gacy was investigated and caught for all the murders apparently because of one simple case of his own carelesness: killing a youth who lived in his own neighborhood." which was also uncited. Major changes such as this requires consensus amidst editors on the page and not have it thrust upon them. Your revert of my opposition edit was inappropriate given the edit summary I left. Such changes must have consensus before instituting it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, this was taken to the talk page by another editor who agreed with me on this change in citation style. That makes two, at least, who feel that change was inappropriate. One thing that I never tire of is disagreeing with someone's edits and being accused of ownership issues. The fact is, you totally changed the citation style without garner consensus to do so. Using list anchors is not a common citation style here and it is therefore a controversial change and as I stated, most editors here do not use that or are familiar enough with it to use it from this point on. Your change of the citation style was so pervasive that separating out en dashes and I have no clue what OCLCs are. That is far too much work to undo only part of such a massive change. I believe this falls under WP:CITE, which clearly says consensus should be sought to make changes to citation style. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't go wandering about checking out old sock cases. She no longer lives here and it's not very persuasive to bring that up. What I find is that editors who are so consumed with their being right tend to cast ownership accusations. I'm not inclined to discuss this further. You've managed politely to accuse me of ownership and meatpuppetry and refuse to see that valid reasons have been given. I'm not impressed. Why would I be inclined to discuss this further? The point is that you did not obtain consensus from anyone before editing the citations. I've stated it over and over. This is a change to the style of citation being used, you failed to observe WP:CITE guidelines when you did so. Changing to anchors is changing the style of the citations. Other editors will weigh in on this, don't discount another editors opinion because I know that editor. Talk about bad faith statements. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For your edification, those diffs you posted at WP:AN/I were not rollbacks, please acquaint yourself with what that is before you jump on the "whine and complain" bandwagon and make unfounded accusations against someone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is having ® in the titles of reference pages against the MoS? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you think it's ugly and distracting doesn't mean you can remove it. I think^{[citation needed]} is ugly and distracting, and I dont remove it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just rolled back the page Reach Music Festival to the version that existed prior to July 2009. I suspect that copyrighted material was added to the page at that time.

As a result of the roll back, the dated {{prod}} tag that you placed on the page was removed. Since it was not my intention to object to the proposed deletion, I think you can ignore the prohibition on re-adding a prod tag. If you choose to do so, though, please give a rationale for the proposed deletion. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your comment. My change was based on what I guess is the original spelling of the Michigan's name when the theater operated as a movie palace. If the current spelling is different, I bow to your better information. Here's a link to a postcard of the Michigan with its roof sign which reads "Michigan Teatre": http://buildingsofdetroit.com/content/michigan-theatre-vintage-postcards Best wishes, Mark

Hi, thanks for suggesting changes to the LORD Corporation page. I have removed any advertising-like wording. Please review and send any additional suggestions. If there are no changes, please consider removing the flag on the page. Thanks! Smbrown123 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your note to me on my talk page about Dawn Wells. Canvassing says "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions.." Considering that I was the only editor notified, considering that I raised the same discussion in August 2009 at Talk:Dawn Wells and have discussed this point several times in the past, and considering that Wildhartlivie only asked me to look at the discussion and comment without attempting "to influence the outcome", there has been no wrong-doing. Please don't leave sarcastic messages like this on my talk page. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that emotion. Your comment on my talk page is unwarranted and unwelcome. I'm actually listed as a third opinion Wikipedian (fancy that!) so a variety of folks have asked me to comment on discussions. Unless you have substantial evidence to support your snarky comments, keep 'em to yourself. Pinkadelica^♣ 16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hoo-ray for canvassing" reads as sarcasm, rather than sincerity, unless you are genuinely celebrating the concept of canvassing. More neutral would be something like "Wildhartlivie, I consider your comment to be canvassing. Please do not do this." If you see a problem, you should post it on her talk page, not mine, because the issue is between you and her, if you choose to make it so, not between you and me. Obviously if I've commented on the topic before, my opinion is already known so to refer to the topic as "old" and "stale" isn't telling me anything I don't already know, and is not likely to "sway" my opinion. Surely there are more important things you could focus on. Rossrs (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware of it, core behavioral policies include no personal attacks and civility. It is clearly being violated with your posts attacking me on this talk page here and here. I am formally asking you to withdraw, strike out or delete your attacks upon me, both this time and the ones you made above. If not, I will have no choice except to take this directly to WP:WQA or WP:AN/I. This sort of ad hominem attack is not acceptable conduct and was unprovoked. It is not permissible for you to strike out, engage in personal attacks and make false accusations such as these because consensus was developing against your violation of WP:CITE. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would, help me out with what "PD-self" is and how the Dahlia booking photo is a violation of PD-self. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the explanation. Well...gee - why would someone want to say they own an image they don't (especially one that's so recognizable as Short's Santa Barbara PD booking photo from when she was arrested for underage drinking in 1943)? While it's a shame the photo can't be included, it should go as it *is* unlikely it's in the PD. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it would be better for the article that it stays, however, the "rules" are what they are and if it staying means the "rules" are broken, then it should go. Of course, if it can be tagged correctly and appropriately this time without any "fudging"... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not upload the original of this image, all I did was crop it differently. It was uploaded and licensed by Jennavecia, who is still active on Wikipedia and proper notice should be given to her. Please notify the proper uploader regarding this. I had nothing to do with the licensing or uploading of the image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of wikistalking your edits. All I did was ask you to please notify the original uploader. There's no need for debate here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not a debate, please do not make it one now. Posting a notification is one thing which is required, but if I haven't said it before, please desist in posting arguments on my talk page. They are not welcome. And desist in refactoring my comments left to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• If Wild keeps removing your posts from her talk page, maybe post your responses to her here instead. She clearly is watching your talk page. Try to accommodate other editors' wishes, as long as they're somewhat reasonable, rather than asserting your "rights" for no apparent reason other than that you feel you have the right to. Let's try not to inflame each other further, yes? Equazcion ^(talk) 07:11, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a terrible speller. I have tried all my life, and actually gotten a LOT better. But Spellcheck is a wonderful thing. Proxy User (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look. User:Wildhartlivie is attempting to force a vote on consensus without (in my opinion) adequate discussion. Proxy User (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about canvassing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly told you in the past to not post to my talk page. That remains. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I recommend you either {{db-user}} this page, or do something with the information that you collected there ASAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to this, I would strongly recommend you take some time to read through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive and/or talk to Lar. I'm probably not the best person to try to explain this as I've made a point of keeping out of it until now. If you want to preserve the page, might I suggest you do so elsewhere than Wikipedia because it seems to be harming the project and causing unneeded drama. You are, of course, welcome to file an SPI and/or RFC/U but if that is your intended purpose of the "evidence" on the subpage, I would suggest you do so without delay. Regards, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought I wasn't worth the time of day?—Chowbok ☠ 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As you are admitting that you're saving those links only so another editor will find them and get upset, I've nominated your page for deletion. I've tried to assume good faith for a while here, but I can't fathom any reason for this page to exist other than to start an argument on wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. If you can re-add it in prose form (i.e., text, not a list), then go ahead. Preferably with sources; I removed it because it was an unsourced, lengthy list, and those are bad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks. Hadn't noticed that. IMHO, it is an ethnic slur, not that I give a flying fuck, though. The whole controversy is laughable. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chowbock. Noticed your undo on one of the Miamiskull COI edits of the Gerald Posner article. He’s continuing to perform COI edits (you can see my latest addendum on the discussion page of the article). I'm a newbie Wikipedia editor, so I'm not sure if there are decent mechanisms for dealing with such a situation. Back in February, I inserted info about altered/fabricated quotes, but referenced a blog. Even though the info was verifiable, I was informed (by Gamaliel and THF) that blog citations were not allowed, and THF suggested that I bring it to media attention. I’ve since done so, and examples of undeniably altered/fabricated/misattributed quotes were written up by Miami New Times. But now Posner keeps removing this info from the article.Eurytemora (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Eurytemora

Hi again. Well, Posner's reaction is pretty much what I would have predicted. See the latest entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerald_Posner Eurytemora (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Moviefan. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not stop going about, wikistalking my edits and posting personal attacks against me to editors with whom I disagree, I'll take you directly to Arbcom. Your bad faith wikistalking and attacks have become intolerable. Either stop or prepare to be taken to arbitration. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is not a war zone. I'm not an admin. Please leave your disputes that don't involve me off my talk page. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Accepted. :-) --Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)