User talk:Chunky Rice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game

If you can provide details of your sources (paper sources work fine) I'm going to ask fort that deletion to be overthrown, as IMHO it was IDONTLIKEIT bullshit, and was rushed through before a serious attempt to see if the article could meet WP:N could be made. Artw 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TBH I would have waited until you had the sources in hand, but even if it does take longer and the deletion is upheld theres no reason the article can't be listed for review again. Artw 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that worked better than I thought it would - good on you! Artw 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added one ref, which will help a lot, though if we could gert those print refs in it would be rock solid. TBH if the afd runs properly I don;t really see deletion being a very likely outcome. Artw 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary?

I don't understand how that is nessercy. Anyway, you seem like a positive editor so I am inviting you to join my wiki, the Alien research Wiki a research project on alien theories, life, allegations and so on. Opinions and original research is welcome. The sunder king 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for your warning anyway, but a "blockable offense"? that makes blocking sound like somekind of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The sunder king (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed comment

You told him to go away and cool off right after he got blocked for 24 hours. Seemed like pouring gas on the fire...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd spot it yourself, after I called attention to it. I was trying to keep it as quiet as possible, so as not to aggravate things further.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

Thanks for chiming in on the VB talk page. I'm concerned about EscalenteXP posting personal information about one of the other editors (WikiWikiMoore's real name, presumably) but I'm not sure about the protocol for dealing with it. What do I do? Can I delete it from their comment? Can an admin? Thanks, KathrynA 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA

I've left a comment there. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability templates discussion

Thanks for contributing to my discussion with Gavin.collins regarding the importance and notability tags. Feel free to butt into my discussions anytime, especially if I'm wrong about something and need to be corrected. :) Rray (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

...for taking out my frustration at the edit-warring on only you. Though you were culpable, pointing fingers rarely helps when hands on keyboard are more needed to fix the problem. Again, my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Erection

An editor has nominated Erection, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Send some discussion to me!!! i just got here and am bored ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21mandy21 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Factions deletion nomination

Could you perhaps also provide alternatives as to which deletion tags are more appropriate then? I've summarized my rationale on the article's talk page. 84.192.112.199 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading up on the help files pending your response, and added a "prod" tag, which should be the correct tag this time around. The issue with this article seems to be that it consists entirely out of already existing content from other articles, mixed in with the page creator's personal interpretations on the subject, rather than the sourced analysis the parent articles provide. Seems both a bit redundant and unnessary. 84.192.112.199 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eufeeds notability

Thanks Chunky Rice for your reply. I examined minutely the 'Non-Critiria' and particularly the notion of 'Notability'. In my opinion Eufeeds.eu has more than one sources to prove the objective evidence of notability. There are a lot of articles on internet and the European Journalism Centre, creator of this website, is already mentioned on Wikipedia. Please note also how similar websites like Imooty are included on Wikipidia with the same kind of references of Eufeeds. Of course Eufeeds doesn't have "fame" or "importance" because is a new website but is notabily concerns the fact that it is the first rss aggregator that cover all EU countries with more than 300 newpapers feeds. Please let me know your opinion (and yor critiria of notability), because I would like to rewrite the Eufeeds page in the best way is possible. 1:02 31 January 2008 (UTC) Kugno

vandalizm

i'm not sure what you are referring to, but dont ever send me a message like that again tool. if you are talking about the clemson page, that wasn't me.. so you can go fuck yourself Enjoisktboarding (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rampage Darts

(Blue alert82 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)) I would like to know why one of my country's largest sports organisations wikipedia article has been removed. Hopefully you can explain this to me and the rest of the darts community in my country, as we are very disturbed that someone who obviously knows little about our country has removed this notable organisations page.

No Use For Nickels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of No Use For Nickels. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of No Use For Nickels

Thanks for the information. Would an entry on thefreedictionary.com be at all sufficient as a secondary source? Thanks for your time. Juliancaza (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Miniatures Page

Sorry to bother you, but as an admin (and maybe as a lawyer, I don't know) could I get your opinion on this page? A new, so-far SPA, editor has been adding content to this page which I thought appropriate to remove (and have removed twice three times now). Obviously, an article about a website is not a BLP, but this is all uncited material and does have some reference to the Editor of the site (presumeably referring to Armintrout) in the added text. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I guess that I'll try to keep an eye on the page and revert if/when that stuff is re-inserted. Would it be appropriate to report it to AIV if it gets re-inserted (several times)? (I ask because sometimes I'm not sure what might qualify as "vandalism" aside from the obvious things.) I can do that if/when it comes to it, I just want to know if that's the right place to report it. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother warning

If you see a page getting edited in such a manner as was seen here, don't warn the IP behind it - hardblock it. These IPs are essentially one-off VOAs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Last names

Last names are major pieces of biographical information. You can't make claims about last names without citing a reliable source. There's no disputing this. We can get an admin in here to tell you the same thing. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Analogy

Kudos for this excellent analogy. Hope that Malleus can see the logic. Unschool (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica‎

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I re-closed the listing as "speedy keep" because the page creator's deletion consent was based upon an inaccurate explanation of a guideline. I began typing the closure while the discussion was open, and in no way is this intended to imply any incorrect action on your part. —David Levy 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

No, no hard feelings at all. I still remember you as the guy who helps keep Controversies about the word niggardly from falling off a cliff! I respect your opinions. Best, Noroton (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Top Chef citations

I just found a citation for Dan Talde. It's not hard. Let's collaborate like Wikipedians and do this together. It'll only make the site and the article stronger. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally say it's uncontroversial. If it's uncontroversial, then why doesn't the network give out their names, the way American Idol, Hell's Kitchen and others do? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Invoking your admin status as a way to try to trump another editor is frowned upon by other admins. An admin should uphold the highest tenets of Wikipedia. And there's no mystery involved -- I'd simply post at the Admin incidents noticeboard. Is all this worth it to not give citations? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast numbers of people who will read this global encyclopedia, now and in the future, can't simply tune in. Or take your or anyone's word for it. Being able to independently confirm what an editor adds is one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We write for people in Australia, England, South Africa, wherever. Wikipedia has a global perspective. Citations need to be something people can look up, whether it's a screengrab or a quote from a DVD commentary or whatever else, and not everyone can just tune in to see the show to see if a particular editor got the information right. Having uncited claims is dangerous and sets a bad precedent. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is that an edit be verifiable to someone wanting to look it up independently.

Look, then, how about this: Put a line at the top of the names saying: "Last names are not supplied by the network but are given on air during episodes." At least that way people know where the alleged last names came from. I think this is far below the standard we should be upholding, but I offer it in the spirit of collaboration and compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Availability is at the heart of verifiability. Something is available in a library, in a bookstore, online, on DVD. How can someone verify anything without having access to it? In any event, if you've found pages on Bravo.com that list the last names, then that's a verifiable source, and I thank you for going to trouble to provide it. I'm being serious, not sarcastic — tone of voice obviously gets lost in plain print, and I want to convey my sincere appreciation. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I've tried being collegial and collaborative, and specifically looked for the good. I'm saddened you seem to have turned this personal. I say this because you've asked what happens if the Bravo site goes down. An admin knows: It's the same as with any other online source that goes down. An admin knows this, so what am I to conclude about your singling out a point already covered under Wikipedia policies and guidelines?

I've never encountered an admin who actively campaigns against fuller, verifiable citations. I'll simply trust that you won't go out of your way to remove citations that other editors put in.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, really, there was no need for the snide comments and to make assumptions about me. That's very disappointing. I made an assumption myself, but it was one of good faith: That an admin would know WP:DEADREF.

I also find it troubling that you rationalize low-bar research techniques as "common sense."

Perhaps we can figuratively shake hands, walk away, and leave things be. Fair enough? Shake? No hard feelings? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're an OK guy, CR. I mean that. Whatever our differing policy interpretations, I'm glad to see someone taking this encyclopedic endeavor seriously, taking time to discuss the big picture, and caring, ultimately, about digging out facts. With regards to a colleague, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

KathrynA and Violet Blue

Replied in my talk section. --BenBurch (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Butserfest

Sorry if this isn't where i am supposed to ask this but I am new to all this and I am finding it all a bit complicated. How could I strengthen my article butserfest to make it more "notable". Thanks for your time—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoppy (talk • contribs)

use of db-*

I got a message from you that said I should always put something in the comment field. I would think that using the appropriate tag, like db-bio, would be enough. BobBagwill (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for helping me clear the poor CSDs

i.e. here. I'm working on them as well. Something's ducky. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whittard of Chelsea

Thanks for rejecting this speedy delete. The article was originally deleted by another admin a while back, just as I was removing the tags to decline!! I rewrote and referenced it as, frankly, any company established in 1886 with 160 stores and part of the English tea trade history seems inherently notable. Again, thank you. Pedro :  Chat  17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I put some sources on the talk page if someone wants to work on it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sports bio flagging

So the most I should have done was to flag them as a rugbyleague-bio-stub? Should I create a SouthAfrica-rugbyleague-bio-stub? --BobBagwill (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue Author

Hello So I am asking you as you have helped before and I don't know the correct venue to bring this up. (Feel free to point me to where I should be talking about this. Over at the Violet article there is more edit waring and one player BenBurch is attacking me directly for not reason I can see. He also went on to my talk page and added a CIO warning and then in the Violet Blue talk page suggested that I should ignored because "a admin" warned me. This seems like manipulation of wikipidea and personal attacks on me. It would be great if you could respond on my talk page. ThankWikiwikimoore (talk)

Is there a way to talk to you privately or semi privately? I need to ask if it is appropriate to post something publicly but don't know how to ask the question with out making the information public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikimoore (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:7_of_hearts_-_metastasis.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:7_of_hearts_-_metastasis.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The additional info is not enough. The source is simply the answer of "Where did you find this image?" or "If a reader (or researcher) wants to verify the trust of this image, Where should he go?". We're all here to make Wikipedia (That anyone can edit) better, let's make it more trust! Banner was removed, Everyone is welcome to talk with me :), I have added it (if I didn't forget) when I was running an image bot.--OsamaK 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New funny business about card games/sports

Greetings! As you have likely seen on your user page, there is a new account active (User:Alexandra Georgiana Eremia) that is starting up with the card game/card sport business as well as vandalizing some other user accounts. (See, in particular, the "contributions" to the user pages/archinves of User:Barneca). I would start reverting all of this stuff, but some of it would be easier for someone with rollback and/or admin powers, such as the redirect of Barneca's talk page. As I think I have pointed to before, this kind of activity has been documented at User:Barneca/watch/bvr. Thanks in advance! --Craw-daddy | T | 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, never mind, Oxymoron83 was quick onto the scene.  :) Thanks anyway! --Craw-daddy | T | 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:7_of_hearts_-_metastasis.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:7_of_hearts_-_metastasis.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I think it still lacks a source. I tag it twice because I forgot removing it from my list.. Please review it again, and comment in Image talk, An admin will say his view of policy.--OsamaK 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most images, that uploaded to Wikipedia, includes: "Scanned from", "Taken from", or "Found on" a website, book, or self-work. That's it.--OsamaK 07:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is not who scanned it. It's: Where is it existing.. I think you did it well. Thank you.--OsamaK 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

Can you take a look at this thread at AN regarding Violet Blue (author) and offer any insight or knowledge on the situation? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Respect Thread Conversions

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) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumbth

I'm sorry, but I don't see any context here. It's just, "Dumbth is a term coined by American commedian Steve Allen". It tells you nothing. Heck, I think, "He is a funny man with a red car" tells you more. I ask you to reconsider speedying this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User is being bullied

I have been monitoring the telescope article talkpage and clearly user: InternetHero feels distressed by the continuous edit warring that is happening in the article. The issue is the invention of the telescope and its history. Other articles state that Arab scientists created the telescope. I have looked and discussed and researched the issue and I too feel insulted when the debate is discussed. However I have seen that some users have reverted many of the above users edit even when he provided citations. I think this is the most important issue. Relevant information is not being added and clearly violates WP:POV. I have sources to support that above users statements with citations. user:DigitalC and user:Deamon138 are the ones doing so.

Furthermore there is no mention on the History of the telescope within the article, just a consensus on European involvement only whereas the Timeline of the Telescope clearly states Egyption, Islamic and Italian scienctists involvement among a few others. I will the raising the issue with another admin also. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero, and comments may be added there. FYI. --Hordaland (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Thanks for the heads up! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia voting question

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you've helped me out in the past and I don't really know who to turn to regarding certain Wikipedia questions. An article I worked on (Samwell) is up for deletion. It's been up for about a year and has been added to and modified, mostly for the better, so I'd really like the article to stay put. My question is this: who usually ends up voting when an article is up for deletion? How do people know there's a vote taking place? I love that Wikipedia is a huge democracy, but I don't understand how users know what to vote for or when. Thanks for your time, I know you're busy. Shatner1 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer this, if you do not mind, Chunky. People know the article is up for deletion through both an AfD notice at the top of the page and (usually) an AfD notification on the talk page (if they've been involved in editing it). Also, please note that AfD is not a vote; the main factor administrators look at is the persuasiveness of the arguments for keeping or deleting. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 05:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

13th Child AFD (Group horror AFD)

You need to add the AfD notice to each of the nominated articles for proper notification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Several of us have recommended speedy closure of your AFD due to improper use of the bulk nomination process. You can't nominate a group of unconnected motion pictures because it creates a real mess. I recommend you request closure of the current AFD and renominate each one separately. I know it's a lot of work, but every motion picture has different issues when it comes to establishing notability. Cheers. 23skidoo (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information you two. Normally i never need to nominate articles in a group wise fashion though i have seen it happen before. I fully agree that the only connection between these articles is that they were all contested by one and the same user. The nomination of all of those together was more to keep things organized by allowing one place to discuss all of them; But i agree that the group AFD makes it rather hard to comment on them as the issues with the articles is not the same.

It seems the articles have already been nominated for AFD separately so i closed this AFD as a procedural keep. But seeing this entire situation i think the PROD template needs a haul over; Either removal of it should be limited to valid reasons, or we should just stick with AFD templates. Watching each and every page to see if a prod remains in place is simply not a time saver. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How am I attacking you???

I just asked you a question! How is that attacking you??? miniluv (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As you may notice, I've asked Ministry of Love to disengage from this conflict on his talk page, and I suggest that you do the same. I don't see this line of discussion going anywhere productive. I think that someone who he doesn't feel directly in conflict with may have an easier time explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that rice. I think that it is indeed better that someone else takes over this, as i assume Mililuv's opinions about me are set in stone by now. And in all honesty i cannot blame him for that; while i have the feeling i'm only trying to help by explaining whats wrong (and at the same time following the prod policy) it could easily be misconceived for trying to point out errors while trying to delete the previously prodded articles no matter what. Its likewise the other way around: By now i already outed that my opinion about incivility and seeking confrontation, but that is at the same time just an opinion which can just as well be untrue. I guess there is to much prejudice on both sides by now to allow for a friendly discussion.

For the matter i left a note at User talk:Barton Foley, the editor who originally placed the prods asking him if he would want to look into the matter of tagging the articles if necessarily. As said before i would normally just check them for notability myself, but at this time i think that any new AFD (No matter if its correct) from me on one these articles would (Rightfully) fall under WP:COI or Harassment. I don't feel i have a special bias against these articles, but seeing the situation as is, its better for me to disengage from both the discussion and involvement with these articles as a whole. Thanks again for offering to take over. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 06:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation around User:Ministry of Love.

Hi rice!

Just to inform you, User:Barton Foley decided to start an AFD for the 13th child. As this is a second nomination (The previous one was procedurally kept) he asked me to help him with the technicalities of the nomination itself. However it seems that Ministry of Love interpreted that assistance as another attempts of mine to remove the article, and is currently arguing with baron (on his talk page) and Kafziel (on ANI) over what baron has done. (I expected that might happen, but i am not going to ignore a question on how things must be done simply because of an interpretation. Though i find it rather annoying that this is dragging another editor in who has completely no involvement with or blame regarding this situation).

As the situation around the horror related articles is growing rather large and complex (Its still discussed at ANI, the AFD, and several talk pages) Ministry of Love is starting to ask questions about my motivations and why i am trying to "bully" him. At the same time he seems rather lost in a forest of rules. I don't think he understands the notability guideline as he tried to improve a few articles with, well, nothing that falls under that guideline whatsoever. At the same time he seems to misunderstand the procedural keep from the previous AFD was not a keep for the individual articles, but rather a means of closing the AFD due to no inter-relationships between the articles. While i kind of wanted to give him a breakdown of what happened so far to explain why certain steps have been taken (So he might get some idea what is doing on), i think that me doing that would do more harm then good.

However as he is likely to ask you next, feel free to send me a message if you need to know my reasoning for what has been done so far. By now i guess we are at a level that could warrant a mediation or dispute resolution request, but then again it would add another layer of complexity to a situation that is more based on misunderstanding and misintrepretation then anything else. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's like that, is it?? I'm not going to argue with Excircial here on Sticky Rice's page but I do wish someone would take a good long look at how I've been treated here. I'm just a girl who likes horror movies. I saw that someone was trying to delete 7eventy 5ive which is one of the few afrocentric horror movies ever made. I did what it said on the notice and removed it. No sooner did I do that than people started trying bamboozle me with all kinds of false information and thinly veiled threats!!! Take a look at my page!!! You'll see why I feel like I'm being bullied!! Now my actions are being unnecessarily characterised as "attacks" and "arguing"!! I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not arguing with anyone!! I'm just trying to improve horror movie articles but that seems to be causing everyone a huge problem. miniluv (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long section on miniluv's talk page which tries to explain what happened here. I hope that this time we are a bit more on the same wavelengths when trying to communicate, and i hope that this response clears the cloudy sky between us a little bit. I have no problems whatsoever if a clear vandal is angry at me, but i rather don't like disagreements with someone of who is clearly trying to be a constructive editor. Even more so when the entire disagreement is nothing more then misunderstanding and quite likely caused by lack of good faith from my side. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Michael Vayda

Hi Chunky!! Can you please take a look at the history of Brandon Michael Vayda??? I think the process got a little messed up in the frenzy to undo anything I had touched. Thank you!!! miniluv (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalking me?

Certainly not! You're doing your best for the project, same as I. (And frankly, compared to some folks here, you're not all that much of an inclusionist; some folks here have no more judgement than my buddy Forry Ackerman!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent name change of article to Controversies concerning the word "niggardly"

I'm not sure how much this matters to you now, but back in '07 you commented on the name of this article from Controversies about the word niggardly (previous discussion here and two sections down as well). Someone just unilaterally changed the name, and I'm objecting, for now, at that person's talk page.[1] It's not a bigggie, but if you have an opinion and think it's worth it, please chime in at Talk:Controversies concerning the word "niggardly"#Recent name change and maybe we can settle it easily. I expect it'll be amicable. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Acquire board game

I'm looking for the version of acquire that is in one of your pictures. Which version is it? It's the version with raised tiles. Thanks, Dorothy - duffy@byulaw.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.219.132 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

Spammy?! Dont ya think thats a bit much? It needs a redo. But first it needs to be deleted so we can start from scratch. Still... Spammy? What kinda name is that? I started that page lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.224.176 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chunky Rice?

It's good you explained it. I was about to ask if Condoleezza Rice had that nickname when she was a bit pudgy in her younger years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)