This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cbrown1023. 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.
Hi, is there a way to get copies of the deleted film lists? (we were all too busy in the massive afd discussions and info-boxing, and I'm not sure if anybody kept copies, but I will ask) HoverfishTalk19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!
School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C.03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I need to thank you (a "special thanks") for your kind assistance and support. The article would not come to FA status without your helps. Thanks and All the best. SangakTalk11:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oflegend page getting deleted.
Why was it deleted? I just posted some info about him. I wasen't attacking him.
User talk:Rattlesnake316
Cbrown1023, would you mind semi-protecting my user page for a week? I've been getting daily vandalism for the last 5-6 days. I know this isn't the place to request this, but I would like semi-protection, just for a week, in order to let the vandalism settle down. Please check my user page's history for the last few days if you want. Acalamari02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you very much. I wouldn't normally ask for it, but since due to the amount of vandalism I've had, I thought it was necessary. Acalamari02:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Essjay
I've seen a lot of talk about the recent leave of Essjay and was wondering if you could tell me exactly what happened in a nutshell that caused him to leave. I saw your comments on his page a few weeks back and then now again today and was curious as to why such a good editor was leaving. --Nehrams202009:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Given how widely that particular page has been cited as evidence in the current debate over Essjay's conduct, both on Wikipedia and outside it, are you sure it was a smart move to delete it just now? The deletion policy does permit it, as far as I can tell (and even the "evidence in an ongoing dispute" clause I thought was there doesn't seem to be anymore, if it ever was), but it does seem pretty obvious that a lot of people now stumbling across a link to it are going to be really puzzled, and, if they realize it has been deleted, may come to perceive it, however mistakenly, as an attempt at covering things up.
I'm not sure exactly how Essjay intended his request to delete his userspace to be understood, but I'd rather like to assume he didn't mean "make it seem to any suspicous outsiders like I'm trying to cover my tracks". It's not like the text of the page is going to go away anyway: it's been quoted on numerous pages on and off Wikipedia, and I'm sure a copy of the whole text will soon turn up somewhere if if hasn't already. (Yes, I grabbed a copy. No, I'm sure I'm not the only one who did. No, I won't publish mine. Yes, I'm sure someone will.)
At this point, it would seem to me the reasonable thing to do would be to restore the page for now and to contact Essjay and ask whether, given the context, he really meant his request to apply to that page also. I suppose, if it stays deleted, someone is just going to put it on WP:DRV sooner or later, resulting in even more public screaming and shouting and finger-pointing. Whatever we end up doing with the page, I'd rather like to avoid that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Administrator's may still view it. I just followed out his request word-for-word, it is the least we can do for him. If he ever comes back and wants all his pages undeleted, we will do that too. Cbrown1023talk14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know you and me and all the other eleven hundred admins can still see it; I was more concerned with the folks coming to that page from, say, Digg, Slashdot, The Chronicle, a number of blogs or any of the other various sites linking to it. Those people are going to wonder what the heck happened to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You say many people have copies of it, I think the blogs probably do too. Let them post that. Or do what you think is best. Cbrown1023talk15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not about the information - yes, they can post copies - it's about the impression people will get when they hit the dead link. It'll scream "cover-up". Rklawton15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As it seems you've put the ball firmly in my court, I've gone ahead and restored the page for now, and left a note on WP:AN to that effect. Having thought about this a bit further, I wouldn't really object to replacing the page, with or without deleting it first, with a protected notice pointing to Essjay's request. Such a note would eliminate the "hey, what the heck happened to this page?" effect, and would assure visitors of our openness in this matter. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone else deleted the page and I placed a note about the user's right to vanish and a link to his retirement note. That should be enough to keep the slashdotters/diggers happy while still respecting Essjay's privacy and rights. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this anon [3] has violated 3RR at Islamophobia, and Islam and children with 5 reverts. His latest edits at those pages came after I warned him about 3RR. In fact all of his edits have been undiscussed reverts, and he appears to have been wikistalking User:Karl Meier. He's been disrupting 5 articles with his edit warring. I'm posting this here because it looks like you've started to take action. Arrow74001:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
re: Are you okay? (9 December 2006)
I'm fine, thanks. At least, I'm not dead yet. I took a Wikibreak, which turned into Christmas holidays, then found myself working too hard and getting caught up in other hobbies.... it has always been my habit to edit Wikipedia obsessively for months on end, and then stop, for months on end. I might get back into it soon. Then again, I've got Cubase now.... TheMadBaron07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick note to say thanks for your support and confidence at my RfA. Great level of support, and a humbling result. Will be sure to follow that up with some good solid admin work. Thanks again. Bubbahotep21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noted that you deleted the article Dancing Puppets Trick. I think this is the totally wrong decision. No matter what you think of the content / lack of documentation, clearly the phenomenon exists. Then why delete the article? Why not insert tags indicating that references should be added or why not just stubify it? In the discussion for the deletion several people pointed to links documenting the phenomenon exists (even blogs mentioning the phenomenon and linking to the article). Yet, in your comment you wrote "probable use of sock puppets". What is that supposed to mean? Do you dispute that the phenomenon exists? If so, what about the links that were posted? If not, why did you erase the article instead of stupifying it? Did you read any of the debate at all? Didn't seem like a rough consensus to me. Where can I complain about this decision?
Not that it should affect anything but to express my surprise I will note that I've been on Wikipedia since the beginning and have contributed _many_ high-quality articles over the years (most without using my profile). Now I'm thinking that something is going haywire on Wikipedia when an article like that can be deleted. This marks the end of my Wikipedia contributions.Para8204:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Posts go at the bottom.
I do not respond to threats of leaving, nor do I care how many articles you have contributed to (if either of them are true).
I thought I'd add this here, since it's kinda about the same topic. I've noticed that you recently added two more reasons to the deletion discussion, "probable use of sock puppets, SPAs". As far as I can see, that should be in the singular, as all of the members who voted "keep" except one have fairly long histories of contributing - it's possible that one of them was another account of the anonymous user. Even if that is counted, however, the votes for keep vs. delete were tied, and three of the delete votes were "weak delete". In addition, there was a paywalled article that seemed to count as a legitimate source. I'm not sure of the policy on paywalled articles - does one exist? Esn01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi. Thanks for your intervention in the Corey Clark article matter. In your opinion, what should we do now? (And if you coming in lately to this matter, and wish to see where everyone stands, you can get a hint of by checking the Talk Page of User talk:69.180.238.139, the person who insists on inserting material I feel is clearly non-NPOV, and sources that do not support the material, and the Talk Pageof Geniac, the admin who intervened some time ago. I believe that if you read these two pages, and perhaps compare them to the article's History, you may get a feel for our respective positions. If you have any other suggestions, let me know. Thanks again. Nightscream04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
hi, i no longer have an editing issue, geniac the administrator and a few other people fixed the article the way it should properly read. thanks for your time. 69.180.238.13906:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But the protection tag is still there, and he and I are still "discussing" several points on its Talk Page, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere. It's gotten to the point where I have to explain to him what the word "allegedly" means (he thinks it paints the attributed source as a "liar" and a "manipulator"), what the word "fact" means (he insists that calling Soul Train a "legendary" show is a "fact"), and so forth. He's functionally illiterate, intellectually dissonant, and incorrigible. He has consistently lied about my edits, does not understand or care about putting proper sources in the article, thinks it's the role of the article to arrive at a judgment concerning Clark's assertions, that we should put "positive" material about him and his career, that we should "look out for him", and has even accused me of working for Fox or American Idol simply because I state on my User Page that I happen to work for a market research company (which is on the East Coast, not West, and concerning upcoming movies, not the tv industry). You really have to check out his Talk Page, the article's Talk Page and User:Geniac's Talk Page to see the depths to which communicating with him has descended. His behavior with respect to WP policies is so preposterous, that it is reasonable to conclude that he is not interested in contributing according to proper guidelines. I would ask that you weigh in on the several points being discussed there (and that you check out Geniac's and his Talk Pages as well to get a good picture of what I'm dealing with here), and/or allow me to re-edit the article to a version more in line with WP policies before protecting it. Thanks. Nightscream05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
cbrown i have sourced numerous times my references which are Clarks book, and ABC news' investigative special which devoted an hour of time to clark and showed the special world wide, i think if no one else ABC has their ducks in a row. they fact checked and rechecked again before airing clarks evidence and eyewitness accounts of his affair. I've told that several times to mr. nightscream whom seems to not be able to read my responses correctly, or maybe it's because he already went to one administrator whom fixed the page, and it's still not to his liking because it doesn't read vilely enough or negatively enough about clark, i may not be as good at slobbin on the knob like daytalker but i can sure tell when someone is out to just be evil, and highnoonmoans' edits are never positive, you can have negative fact all day long, but there is positive fact out there about corey, and it's not eveningmurmurs job to type anything positively if he never wants to in his life, but he wants to stop people like me, from doing so. And that you can't do. It would be a travesty to the facts if you let this guy re-edit the article, because in his mind although he says he doesn't care about this subject, but keeps coming back here whining i mean complaining about edits, what idol paid for to be said is fact, and what abc and clark and other people backing him up proved with evidence and eyewitnesses on a world wide journalistic news special shown on a major television network he keeps citing as allegeded. when he mentions abduls comments or idols comments and press releases ( because they have no evidence to discredit all of clarks evidence and facts) he doesn't say allegedly then, he just says Abdul dismissed clarks claims as lies as did other show people, but everything about clark, whether it's him getting beaten by the police, which is his factual acoount of getting his ass whooped not an opinion or an allegation, or having an affair, it's all cited as alleged. Clark has Facts, and evidence on his side to support his claims of a relationship with ms. abdul during his time on idol, and his phone bills alone prove some type of relationship while he was on the show, because it's in black and white for one, and two abdul publicly admitted to it. The ball is in clarks court on this one, this is evidence and fact verses opinion, a very paid for opinion at that to make people lose sight of the facts and evidence which support the facts, that don't have a 900 million dollar company pushing the marketing cart to save their cash cows ass. by the way, idol is world wide, so what does it matter if his marketing firm is on the east coast as if he's in another country that can't be reached by the west coast. Please half of american idols publicity team is based out of new york. And i NEVER ACCUSED AFTERNOONWHIMPER OF WORKING FOR FOX OR AMERICAN IDOL, I SAID THAT THEY PAY MARKETING RESEARCH FIRMS LIKE THE ONE HE WORKS AT, TO GO ONLINE AND POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY BOOST AND BASH THE CONTESTANTS THEY WANT BOLSTERED OR TORN DOWN, NOW WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK THEY'D LIKE TO HAPPEN TO MR CLARK. HE DOESN'T NEED TO EDIT, AN ADMIN HAS ALREADY STEPPED IN AND DONE SO. What is he going to do go around to a bunch of different admins until he finds one who sees things his way and will only allow negative "facts" as he puts it, about clark to be portrayed. it reads good now, take care thanks for your time, talk to you later morningcry. thanks cbrown 69.180.238.13910:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Cbrown1023. The major issue between User 69.180.238.139 and other editors was the tone of the article that has now escalated to various insults and a lack of general user etiquette, evident in the various individuals' discussion pages. User 69.180.238.139 has stated that the much of the information was from Clark's E-book, which is generally oriented towards a pro-Clark slant. The tone of the article presented by that user appears to be more consistent with what a publicist would write for a media article, and not necessarily appropriate for a NPOV information reference entry.
The article as it stands right now seems satisfactory, although it could use some editing for improving general grammar, writing style, and semantics, and will most likely require semi-protection due to the frequent vandalism. User:Ptah3773
You're now the 314th highest contributor to Wikipedia. Just wanted to let you know so you can change it on your user page. It's not according to the list you have on the current link but at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Now, you only have more than 138090 edits more until you're higher than Rich Farmbrough (not including bots or if he keeps editing). Don't want to brag or anything, but I finally surpassed you. Look where fixing a whole bunch of my own mistakes gets me or adding films to a whole bunch of film lists! It is definitely true that these need to be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it's fun to see how we're progressing. --Nehrams202008:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Argh, you beat me! :) But I really have been doing that many "gnomish" type edits (more gnomish = more count), unfortunately. :) I've also been on some other wikis lately and dang schoolwork! :) You've been doing tons of edits (mix of gnomish and quality) with your infoboxes, good job! Nice to catch up with you, feel free to drop a line any time again in the future, and don't ever be scared to brag! :-P Cbrown1023talk00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi it seems like we dealt with this one at the same time but got opposite decisions. I think that 5 vandalism edits yesterday did not justify semi-protection. Still, borderline of semi-protection need I guess. Regards, Húsönd00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I protected it and put the tag and then my IE closed (dang IE... I should be using Firefox), then saw your decision. :( I took all the recent days into account, and I think 5 is quite a bit. :) Cbrown1023talk00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
small=yes
Hi,
I noticed that adding "|small=yes" to some templates may mess up format of the corresponding page. I tried to fix it at Talk:The Holocaust and it looks like it did the trick. This is just FYI, - I still don't know the exact reason. Cheers. ←Humus sapiensну?01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
hey, i saw the AfD discussion for merging Laxmi Road into Pune. But the Pune article looks really odd now, just have a look at it! Maybe we should try and move it to Laxmi Road again, or delete it altogether. --ti14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as usual I bring you unpleasant stuff :( I was checking Slasher which has a redirect to a mower machine, but had 20 links to the film sub-genre and none to the agricultural machine. I redirected almost all to Slasher film and then wanted to see who created the useless redirect. So I found an IP that creates all kinds of subtle changes [4]. He has moved twice the redirect to the agricultural machine. I tracked some of his other edits without reverting. Some just are confusing [5], some are just funny [6] and some look OK, like in music, Australian bridges and what not. I don't know what is best to do and wouldn't like to start any unnecessary trouble. I will attempt to redirect Slasher to the film genre and see what happens. HoverfishTalk18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to create a series of icons, starting with Image:Nuvola apps aktion.png and adding flags for each country. Image:Finnishfilm.png has it correct, with transparent background and all, but there are some that have been uploaded wrong, like Image:Italyfilm.png. I worked it out right, but don't find the "Upload a new version of this file", maybe because its original is in Commons. Should I upload it with another name (like Image:Italianfilm.png) and swap it in the template(s)? And is it better to upload the new icon series in Commons? HoverfishTalk21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cbrown1023. Wonder no more, I'm an admin now! Rest assured that I read every comment on offer, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. I will continue to assist new users and contribute content to the encyclopedia. Thank you for your support. Please don't hesitate to let me know how I am doing anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you were the closing admin for this deletion debate. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that simply putting a Copy to Wiktionary tag on an article is not an appropriate conclusion to a deletion debate in which people obviously expected the article to be redirected or deleted afterwards. While this will result in the article being copied to Wiktionary (eventually... sometimes it takes months, lately it has been happening almost daily, but this can't be counted on), this does not result in the article getting deleted or redirected or anything afterwards. A Wiktionary admin merely imports(copies) everything with the Copy to Wiktionary/Move to Wiktionary tags over to Wiktionary, and then makes a note in our Transwiki log saying that this has been done. The backlog in the transwiki log is often 6 months or longer, so it will be a long time until anyone here notices that the transwikiing is complete and decides what to do with the transwikied article here. So, you as the closing admin need to do more than just put a Transwiki tag on an article - I'm not sure what the official procedure is for handling transwiki+redirect or transwiki+delete decisions on AfD's, but it needs to include finishing the process.
If you already knew all that and merely forgot to finish the process off then... never mind! --Xyzzyplugh14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, another note from me. I've figured out the policy on what to do regarding closing AfD debates where the result is to transwiki, and I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki. There are two problems here: first, people are removing items from this list without completing what was decided to be done in the AfD debate, that is, they're removing the items without redirecting or deleting the articles at times. This is what happened with the Sacagawean article above. Second problem, there are articles sitting in that Old/Transwiki list which have been there since October. When people participate in an AfD debate and vote to Transwiki an article, obviously they mean for it to happen in the near future, and not 5 or 6 months later. It seems to me that the transwiki procedure for admins closing these debates is not working, and these problems need to be fixed or the procedure needs to be changed. Perhaps closing admins should do the transwikiing themselves, or something else along those lines which would result in the proper actions being done, and done reasonably quickly. --Xyzzyplugh14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, I now of the list and did what is needed to do. If you look, you will notice the the Transwiki list has an editor-backlog, rather than an administrative one. If you transwiki a page, you may request speedy deletion using {{db|REASON}}. Cbrown1023talk18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting the the Kevin Thompson article. It's odd that such an obscure article should attract so much vandalism! In any case, thank goodness for administrators like you. You're a champ. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put the Delrev tab on Mark Bellinghaus page because it is obvious that a) this person has done even less of note than a person whose only claim to fame is to be related to a person of note, b) worse, he is using Wiki to promote himself and his agenda. This is abuse of the worse sort, and needs to be stopped! I'm surprised that the move to initially delete this page didn't reach a consensus! Worc63 04:16 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
re: Are you okay? (9 December 2006)
I'm fine, thanks. At least, I'm not dead yet. I took a Wikibreak, which turned into Christmas holidays, then found myself working too hard and getting caught up in other hobbies.... it has always been my habit to edit Wikipedia obsessively for months on end, and then stop, for months on end. I might get back into it soon. Then again, I've got Cubase now.... TheMadBaron07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick note to say thanks for your support and confidence at my RfA. Great level of support, and a humbling result. Will be sure to follow that up with some good solid admin work. Thanks again. Bubbahotep21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noted that you deleted the article Dancing Puppets Trick. I think this is the totally wrong decision. No matter what you think of the content / lack of documentation, clearly the phenomenon exists. Then why delete the article? Why not insert tags indicating that references should be added or why not just stubify it? In the discussion for the deletion several people pointed to links documenting the phenomenon exists (even blogs mentioning the phenomenon and linking to the article). Yet, in your comment you wrote "probable use of sock puppets". What is that supposed to mean? Do you dispute that the phenomenon exists? If so, what about the links that were posted? If not, why did you erase the article instead of stupifying it? Did you read any of the debate at all? Didn't seem like a rough consensus to me. Where can I complain about this decision?
Not that it should affect anything but to express my surprise I will note that I've been on Wikipedia since the beginning and have contributed _many_ high-quality articles over the years (most without using my profile). Now I'm thinking that something is going haywire on Wikipedia when an article like that can be deleted. This marks the end of my Wikipedia contributions.Para8204:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Posts go at the bottom.
I do not respond to threats of leaving, nor do I care how many articles you have contributed to (if either of them are true).
I thought I'd add this here, since it's kinda about the same topic. I've noticed that you recently added two more reasons to the deletion discussion, "probable use of sock puppets, SPAs". As far as I can see, that should be in the singular, as all of the members who voted "keep" except one have fairly long histories of contributing - it's possible that one of them was another account of the anonymous user. Even if that is counted, however, the votes for keep vs. delete were tied, and three of the delete votes were "weak delete". In addition, there was a paywalled article that seemed to count as a legitimate source. I'm not sure of the policy on paywalled articles - does one exist? Esn01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi. Thanks for your intervention in the Corey Clark article matter. In your opinion, what should we do now? (And if you coming in lately to this matter, and wish to see where everyone stands, you can get a hint of by checking the Talk Page of User talk:69.180.238.139, the person who insists on inserting material I feel is clearly non-NPOV, and sources that do not support the material, and the Talk Pageof Geniac, the admin who intervened some time ago. I believe that if you read these two pages, and perhaps compare them to the article's History, you may get a feel for our respective positions. If you have any other suggestions, let me know. Thanks again. Nightscream04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
hi, i no longer have an editing issue, geniac the administrator and a few other people fixed the article the way it should properly read. thanks for your time. 69.180.238.13906:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But the protection tag is still there, and he and I are still "discussing" several points on its Talk Page, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere. It's gotten to the point where I have to explain to him what the word "allegedly" means (he thinks it paints the attributed source as a "liar" and a "manipulator"), what the word "fact" means (he insists that calling Soul Train a "legendary" show is a "fact"), and so forth. He's functionally illiterate, intellectually dissonant, and incorrigible. He has consistently lied about my edits, does not understand or care about putting proper sources in the article, thinks it's the role of the article to arrive at a judgment concerning Clark's assertions, that we should put "positive" material about him and his career, that we should "look out for him", and has even accused me of working for Fox or American Idol simply because I state on my User Page that I happen to work for a market research company (which is on the East Coast, not West, and concerning upcoming movies, not the tv industry). You really have to check out his Talk Page, the article's Talk Page and User:Geniac's Talk Page to see the depths to which communicating with him has descended. His behavior with respect to WP policies is so preposterous, that it is reasonable to conclude that he is not interested in contributing according to proper guidelines. I would ask that you weigh in on the several points being discussed there (and that you check out Geniac's and his Talk Pages as well to get a good picture of what I'm dealing with here), and/or allow me to re-edit the article to a version more in line with WP policies before protecting it. Thanks. Nightscream05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
cbrown i have sourced numerous times my references which are Clarks book, and ABC news' investigative special which devoted an hour of time to clark and showed the special world wide, i think if no one else ABC has their ducks in a row. they fact checked and rechecked again before airing clarks evidence and eyewitness accounts of his affair. I've told that several times to mr. nightscream whom seems to not be able to read my responses correctly, or maybe it's because he already went to one administrator whom fixed the page, and it's still not to his liking because it doesn't read vilely enough or negatively enough about clark, i may not be as good at slobbin on the knob like daytalker but i can sure tell when someone is out to just be evil, and highnoonmoans' edits are never positive, you can have negative fact all day long, but there is positive fact out there about corey, and it's not eveningmurmurs job to type anything positively if he never wants to in his life, but he wants to stop people like me, from doing so. And that you can't do. It would be a travesty to the facts if you let this guy re-edit the article, because in his mind although he says he doesn't care about this subject, but keeps coming back here whining i mean complaining about edits, what idol paid for to be said is fact, and what abc and clark and other people backing him up proved with evidence and eyewitnesses on a world wide journalistic news special shown on a major television network he keeps citing as allegeded. when he mentions abduls comments or idols comments and press releases ( because they have no evidence to discredit all of clarks evidence and facts) he doesn't say allegedly then, he just says Abdul dismissed clarks claims as lies as did other show people, but everything about clark, whether it's him getting beaten by the police, which is his factual acoount of getting his ass whooped not an opinion or an allegation, or having an affair, it's all cited as alleged. Clark has Facts, and evidence on his side to support his claims of a relationship with ms. abdul during his time on idol, and his phone bills alone prove some type of relationship while he was on the show, because it's in black and white for one, and two abdul publicly admitted to it. The ball is in clarks court on this one, this is evidence and fact verses opinion, a very paid for opinion at that to make people lose sight of the facts and evidence which support the facts, that don't have a 900 million dollar company pushing the marketing cart to save their cash cows ass. by the way, idol is world wide, so what does it matter if his marketing firm is on the east coast as if he's in another country that can't be reached by the west coast. Please half of american idols publicity team is based out of new york. And i NEVER ACCUSED AFTERNOONWHIMPER OF WORKING FOR FOX OR AMERICAN IDOL, I SAID THAT THEY PAY MARKETING RESEARCH FIRMS LIKE THE ONE HE WORKS AT, TO GO ONLINE AND POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY BOOST AND BASH THE CONTESTANTS THEY WANT BOLSTERED OR TORN DOWN, NOW WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK THEY'D LIKE TO HAPPEN TO MR CLARK. HE DOESN'T NEED TO EDIT, AN ADMIN HAS ALREADY STEPPED IN AND DONE SO. What is he going to do go around to a bunch of different admins until he finds one who sees things his way and will only allow negative "facts" as he puts it, about clark to be portrayed. it reads good now, take care thanks for your time, talk to you later morningcry. thanks cbrown 69.180.238.13910:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Cbrown1023. The major issue between User 69.180.238.139 and other editors was the tone of the article that has now escalated to various insults and a lack of general user etiquette, evident in the various individuals' discussion pages. User 69.180.238.139 has stated that the much of the information was from Clark's E-book, which is generally oriented towards a pro-Clark slant. The tone of the article presented by that user appears to be more consistent with what a publicist would write for a media article, and not necessarily appropriate for a NPOV information reference entry.
The article as it stands right now seems satisfactory, although it could use some editing for improving general grammar, writing style, and semantics, and will most likely require semi-protection due to the frequent vandalism. User:Ptah3773
You're now the 314th highest contributor to Wikipedia. Just wanted to let you know so you can change it on your user page. It's not according to the list you have on the current link but at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Now, you only have more than 138090 edits more until you're higher than Rich Farmbrough (not including bots or if he keeps editing). Don't want to brag or anything, but I finally surpassed you. Look where fixing a whole bunch of my own mistakes gets me or adding films to a whole bunch of film lists! It is definitely true that these need to be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it's fun to see how we're progressing. --Nehrams202008:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Argh, you beat me! :) But I really have been doing that many "gnomish" type edits (more gnomish = more count), unfortunately. :) I've also been on some other wikis lately and dang schoolwork! :) You've been doing tons of edits (mix of gnomish and quality) with your infoboxes, good job! Nice to catch up with you, feel free to drop a line any time again in the future, and don't ever be scared to brag! :-P Cbrown1023talk00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi it seems like we dealt with this one at the same time but got opposite decisions. I think that 5 vandalism edits yesterday did not justify semi-protection. Still, borderline of semi-protection need I guess. Regards, Húsönd00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I protected it and put the tag and then my IE closed (dang IE... I should be using Firefox), then saw your decision. :( I took all the recent days into account, and I think 5 is quite a bit. :) Cbrown1023talk00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
small=yes
Hi,
I noticed that adding "|small=yes" to some templates may mess up format of the corresponding page. I tried to fix it at Talk:The Holocaust and it looks like it did the trick. This is just FYI, - I still don't know the exact reason. Cheers. ←Humus sapiensну?01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
hey, i saw the AfD discussion for merging Laxmi Road into Pune. But the Pune article looks really odd now, just have a look at it! Maybe we should try and move it to Laxmi Road again, or delete it altogether. --ti14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as usual I bring you unpleasant stuff :( I was checking Slasher which has a redirect to a mower machine, but had 20 links to the film sub-genre and none to the agricultural machine. I redirected almost all to Slasher film and then wanted to see who created the useless redirect. So I found an IP that creates all kinds of subtle changes [7]. He has moved twice the redirect to the agricultural machine. I tracked some of his other edits without reverting. Some just are confusing [8], some are just funny [9] and some look OK, like in music, Australian bridges and what not. I don't know what is best to do and wouldn't like to start any unnecessary trouble. I will attempt to redirect Slasher to the film genre and see what happens. HoverfishTalk18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Cbrown1023, as you semi-protected my user page, I'd like you to unprotect it. You see, there were a couple of people who commented on Alison's semi-protected user page during her RfA. To avoid adding more problems in my own one; can you please remove it now? Users' probably won't mention it, but I don't want to add to my plate of problems; just in case. Thank you for adding in the first place; it was very much appreciated. Acalamari03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Cbrown1023; Ryanpostlethwaite saw my message here and unprotected my user page. A vandal showed up about half an hour ago, but it's only one incident. Thank you. Acalamari20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Help Resolving a conflict
I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Still
I'm still not satisfied with your unblock on Adil, the guy uses socks check his block log 3 times on his record, yet he still harasses me and denies and involvement he has called users "fags" and still does not apologize or makes up another excuse to dismiss his attacks, yet he accuses me of a sock which is totally absurd. Artaxiad04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I never heard that you were dissatisfied in the first place and the block was only for 5 days so it would have expired by now anyway. Cbrown1023talk21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you pruned the collaboration nominations, and I have a question about that. One of the films removed was Wonder Boys (film), which I had only nominated yesterday. I did notice that it had to receive three votes in one day, and thought that odd; I thought, however, that the date would be moved up. Perhaps I should have waited to nominate it, so as to give it a chance, but it had already garnered a vote aside from mine. Would it be possible to relist it, giving that it has been less than 24 hours since it was put up? I didn't see any guidelines for when to post a nom, but certainly it's unfair to not even give it a chance to receive its three votes. Thanks! María: (habla conmigo) 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When you deleted "Latin Rapper Angel" per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Rapper Angel I notice you neglected to delete the article's images and the redirect page, specifically mentioned on the Afd. I took care of them. In the future please keep an eye out for such details when taking care of deletions. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
HEY! What is your deal?
Someones vandalism on Todd Manning is being kept current and yet it is protected? Who do I go for this, it says you are the one your is supporting this vandalism--Migospia23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys were edit warring, so I protected the page. Discuss it on the article talk page and then request unprotection. Cbrown1023talk23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but are you aware that you protected a page that has vandalism? You should have protcted it after my edit not the vandals edit that makes not since and who are you to approve such nonsense?--Migospia00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to an agreement with who? The racist? Are you hacking into wikipedia and doing this? Wikipedia should be a source of factual information NOT vandalism and falsified information.--Migospia00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is there so much hate on Wikpedia?
Hi Cbrown1023, you deleted a page that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that says that Newtonian gravitational attraction is a myth, an urban legend if you will. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an interested in physics high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity. And so to understand without the necessity of studying physics for 15 years why the Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real, and why since Einsein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.
The reality of gravitational attraction is still very popular among non physicists (and even some physicists) and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV trying to shield readers from learning Einsteinian physics, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases". This is what they did in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to "Gravitation" that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" while according to general relativity they don't, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.
The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page "Gravitation" itself since there are so many people who believe in the legend of "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). And you deleted this page so there is now no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple explanation for the legend of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead. While the role of Wikipedia is rather to support the existing science than to support old prejudices.
So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus, since as Wikipedia's policy says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."Jim00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz]20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you delete the original file on Image:Abandoned ver2.jpg please? It was way too large to qualify for fair use. Thanks in advance! By the way, the newsletter will need a few more stories and updates before Saturday, so I'll try to add what I can. We've had a lot of GAs this week, with two of them from the assistance of the COTW. --Nehrams202020:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Was already Done, but I forgot to reply: oops! :) Thanks for reminding me about the newsletter, I completely forgot! I think I am going to let my bot do part of the delivery this time. This will be its trial and it will hopefully be flagged by the next month's time. Cbrown1023talk22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.
Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
Yes, the result can stay, but I was having trouble with something and could not finish all the necessary steps at that moment in time. So, instead of leaving it there to wait for me (and I may have forgotten), I left it for someone else to do. If no one had come along and I had the spare moment, I would have gone and closed it again. Cbrown1023talk00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by BrownBot23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Link
How often is that page archived? It was just so that if Sango123 omes back they can see what was being referenced. Change it if you want, I'm not really that attached to it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. I note your wikibreak, but if I don't thank you now I shall forget to.--Anthony.bradbury18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
