User talk:Hatch68/Archive 1

User Talk Archive 1

My talk page

Hi there. I saw the recent mesage you left me on my talk page. I thank you for your concern about it and to answer your question, I'm using it as a "sandbox". i'm testing the display of certain characters that are there, but that aren't shown nor seemingly existant. Since they aren't shown, I cannot delete them , so I select all using ctrl+a, and paste a random letter, to be sure that they're deleted. Again, thanks for your concern Dread Specter 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism- personal attacks?

The disambiguation link is great and I appriciate it. It is as long as info posted for Mark Henderson, lighting director. His entry also should be changed to a disambiguation link to the play he recieved the tony award for, his notoriety/significance is questionable at best. I edited the archived AfD becuase when I inserted a new AfD link, it linked back to the old AfD, that seems to be an issue with Wiki. I read what I could on AfD, and there was no info I could find on creating a new Afd. If this was truely a new article, and not a reuse of the existing Mark Henderson page, I assume it would open a new AfD, but Im not sure. And I don't have a wiki log in so I am not sure on how to sign things.

I have submitted the current Mark Henderson article for deletion. There is sparse information there, barely 2 lines. It serves no purpose and should just be removed. edit: this just links to the old deletion review. If you can modify this to create a new discussion, as this is a new topic, that would be great

The article was obviously created about Mark Henderson of Snow Plow fame. I actually tried to create a new Mark Henderson article and was directed to this page. The change to the Mark Henderson, lighting director was recent, and can be considered a vandilism itself. The original topic was cleared and the article hijacked for a stage craft project. In this instance, the AfD process was clearly used to hijack this article for this Stagecraft process. Mark Henderson is a significant figure in Patriot and NFL history. An alternate page should have been created Mark Henderson, lighting director

So it is ok for you to label me a vandal, which I find a personal insult, but I can't comment on you? The information I placed in the article is factual and cited. For you to call me a vandal and threaten me with banning from wiki was uncalled for. Perhaps you could have made a helpful suggestion as to how it may be possible to create a seperate article for Mark Henderson of the Snow Plow Game rather than throw accusations around. Especially since his significance was cited, or did you not bother to check the citations? Would it be too difficult to be helpful and informative as opposed to accusatory and demeaning?

Vandalism? re: Mark Henderson

WTF mate? Mark Henderson is a signifficant figure in New England Patriot history. I provided a proper write up of the actions that made him famous, and even cited other Wiki articles. I find it outragous and presumtous of you to label it as vandalilsm. I have never been accused of vandalism before and do not expect to be again in the future. You sir, should check your facts more thoughly before making such accusations. I certainly do. For instance, I have read this discussion page thoughly and can easily conclude that you are a pompous ass.

Just a suggestion

Hatch,

Sorry i wrote that thing on your user page, I meant to do it here. I really wish you would flag an article and wait a bit before jumping to conclusions and then intimating that legitimate users are 'vandals'. Labeling is damning and I am highly offended by you doing that by the way. I have a feeling that you have no life beyond wikipedia since you jumped on my case so quickly on a Saturday night. I was casually looking around and noticed an omission for which i logged in to correct, just like adding zambala to wikipedia. But you tried to stop me mid-edit, not even giving me 10 minutes to finish the article before you flagged it for deletion because you made a quick assumption about the nature of the article. I wish I knew of a way to complain against you without the fear of being banned by you. My contribution was fair and real and does in fact conform to wikipedia guidelines and you and another tried to censor it without letting me finish my edits.

-mchrisneglia

I think you have deep lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, just as I did when I began to edit. I am NOT an admin. I am just a common user, just like you. You are making accusations and personal attacks like the "no life" comment above that indicate you are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Your 8bitpeoples article fails WP:Verifiability. YOU have to prove it's a "notable" website. The burden of proof is on you. You've also engaged in personal attacks, but I could really care less.--Hatch68 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly August Argument

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Executive car, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. jgp ^T_C 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending to be an admin again jgp? I admit I was wrong to change it, but it was not vandalism, simply a mistake.--Hatch68 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make false accusations against other users. I didn't pretend to be anything else. jgp ^T_C 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you made the false accusation of vandalism. You making a statement of "you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" is assuming powers you don't have. --Hatch68 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Costa Article

Hatch,

Well, if you think it's better to erase her article than do so, but our agency wont allow you to post a page ones she is the youngest screenwriter to sell her work to Paramount Pictures. Go ahead and erase it, and the faster the better.

Hatch,

Go ahead and block me, my job is to promote clients, I guess you wont let me promote the other ten I was assigned to. It'd be better if you did block me, and I did not erase anything but the Costa article which you still have to delete. Are you all talk Hatch my redneck friend?

Question about my posting

Hello, I am brand new to Wikipedia and wanted to make my first post about majon I thought I did everything correct & I even got permission from the owner of the content, but you set it as spam. This is not an ad, could you please email me or send me advise on how to do this correctly without it being viewed as an ad. Thanks much, James

WP:Spam is not the only reason it should be deleted. It also fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability.--Hatch68 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I have a lot to learn. Thanks for the help & I will do more research on the guidelines before I make any new posts... Chalk it up as beginner error. LOL - Thanks again, James

No problem. Have fun. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.--Hatch68 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may take you up on the offer.

Vandalism?

All I'm doing is: 1) calling an article a stub, 2) writing it, and 3) editing MY talk page. How is that vandalism? Please refrain from sending me to Wiki links - I want an explanation from YOU.

Removing deletion templates and vandalism warnings is itself vandalism. Please see WP:Vandalism--Hatch68 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read in the above policy: The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. --Drummer120 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I had been told otherwise several months ago. I guess it doesn't really matter since the warnings are still in the history.--Hatch68 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newpage patrolling

Great work! I see you're tagging a lot of pages - well, I keep getting edit-conflicted, at least :) - and I am greatful for your help in removing nonsense and other rubbish from Wikipedia. Keep it up, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taylor Sloan

You'd think the system would warn you and give you an edit conflict or something if you edit an article while it's being moved, but no it doesn't. So there you go, adding a db-bio tag to some obvious vanity piece, and after you click "Save" you discover you just tagged a User page, because I moved it in the meantime. Happens all the time. Fan-1967 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuccalive and Cecciac

you where quick to deleite the Yuccalive and Cecciac pages I created. Maybe you should have atleast look them up on google. They scientificly prooved to help cure cancer. Funny articles like advil and tylenol arent deleited. Are they not advertizing aswell?

I was quick to delete them because they were ads for a website, plain and simple. Personally, I think they're "woo woo" drugs and anyone that recommends them is evil, but that's not what influenced me to put a speedy delete on them.--Hatch68 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Outlyers

C'mon man, they have released two albums, both of which are availible on iTunes. Did you delete my first "Outlyers" page as well?Wikipediarocks17 03:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site deletion

I see you marked the actual article (MobileRated) for speedy-deletion, but I based the article on the format used by an accepted page Gameloft. Rather than rapid deletion, it would be helpful to have more detailed information as to while the page was considered unacceptable, and perhaps an example article on a similar subject (business company) that would guide the crafting of a better article. For that matter, should the Gameloft article go, or can you articulate to me the differences so I can correct them?

Re-tagging for speedy deletion

Please do not re-tag an article for speedy deletion because you don't like the decision made by the admin who evaluated the article. That would appear, to me, to be gaming the system. -- SCZenz 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct response, if you think I made an error or failed to take something into account, would be to talk to me. -- SCZenz 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I see what happened.. You thought the creator removed the tag! What actually happened was I removed it and prodded, and then he (within his rights) removed the prod tag. Sorry for the undeserved harsh words above; this is all just a big mess. -- SCZenz 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to look at the history of the article a little closer before you make snide comments about gaming the system. The author removed your deletion template but still didn't make any notability references. Also, if you agree it doesn't meet the notability requirements, why not just speedy it?--Hatch68 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you made a mistake about the article's history; he didn't remove the template, as I said above. But I think we can start over now...? -- SCZenz 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed your template, not the speedy. I know you removed the last speedy, but I put a drmspeedy on his page for previous removals. As I said on the article talk page, why don't we just put an AfD on it and let others decide it's fate.--Hatch68 06:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I think we should do. If he removed previous speedy notices, then I shouldn't have "corrected" your notice; I just guessed from the context that there had been a misunderstanding. But listen, if you know I removed the speedy, it really wasn't appropriate for you to try to get me overruled without talking to me first. -- SCZenz 06:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that there's a big difference between the lack of an assertion of notability (per CSD A7), which allows speedy deletion, and an article being non-notable. I am empowered, as an admin, to delete articles without an assertion; but if it's merely my opinion that an article with an assertion of notability is non-notable, then I (like any other user) should seek a second opinion. -- SCZenz 06:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my note on the article's talk page; I had indeed missed a fact (i.e. that another admin already deleted the same content). I apologize for my error; I probably would've reversed myself if you had come to me and told me the missing information, but by the time I found out (i.e. just now) it was already on AfD. -- SCZenz 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can both agree that we should have put an AfD on it a lot sooner and avoided this mess. I also wasn't aware that it had been previously speedily deleted earlier. Also, I never intended to get you overruled, I just wasn't aware of you being an admin at the time. Both of us should have dug a little deeper before acting I guess. Hatch68 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; we can indeed agree on that. For future reference, though, if any uninvolved user in good standing takes the time to evaluate that an article doesn't fit the CSD, removes the tags, and clearly states their reasoning... that is probably a good indication that the article is more borderline than you thought and should have more eyes look at it. -- SCZenz 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi

Hey, can you revert the last 2 edits at Nancy Pelosi. I'm near 3RR. Cheers, Jpe ob 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone just reverted the first one. You need to revert the second last one. CHeers, Jpe ob 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

My edit was in honor of weird al yankovic.

Tweaker4000 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pure vandalism and you're very close to having a block requested on your account. It wasn't even creative vandalism either.--Hatch68 04:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just made a funny entry to my school page - as soon as I had done it I went back to remove it but you had beaten me to it. That is amazing - how did you manage to make the deletion so quickly? Anyway my apologies for fooling around - won't do it again !

I monitor recent changes and especially look for articles about schools that have been changed by people who are not logged in. I promise you that it is much more fun and rewarding to add useful material to Wikipedia than it is to add jokes. Hatch68 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for catching that link on history of science. I meant to link to humboldtian science.--ragesoss 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrik, Inc.

Hi there. I created the Fabrik, Inc. article to separate company spam from the (proper) Fabrik article (about a computer language), in the hope that the user that keeps re-adding the spam text will either write a decent article about the company or just stop doing it.

Don't know if it's the proper way to deal with this, tho. Please check Fabrik's history page. thanks, and sorry to bother.

I was thinking about using the db-spam template, but thought advert would be better.

Should both templates be kept?

thanks,

Yaco 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the spam from the proper Fabrik article then leave a message on the talk page of the contributor, asking them to cease. If they persist, report them for admin intervention. Hatch68 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done it. thanks! Yaco 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Was Jagged Edge Software Deleted?

I found the compiony, it is real, it was not sopsed to be deleted! Pleese tell me why it was deleted after i did the hagon thing and posted a resnable thing telling you that it should not be deleted becouse I found it. E-119 --E-119 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Hatch68, thank you for explaing this to me in a colm mannor, i bet other people would be on my *** if i asked them about why it was deleted. Thanks again --E-119 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Byrd

Idiot, I'm not vandalizing the page. Walter Gorlitz continues to delete legitimate information from the page, although I continue to prove him incorrect. I thought Wikipedia was cool but it's really starting to suck.Hizzyhutch 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Leysen

Hi, you marked the page in Thomas Leysen for speedy deletion. I already put a hangon mark on the page. Thomas Leysen is a European Captian of Industry, and a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists. So I thought it was appropriate to create at least a basic article? We'll see what happens with the article. Pvosta 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem removing the DB template if you will change the article to assert his notability and provide a reference or two to get started. Hatch68 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag removed

I removed your vandalism tag at Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. It seems like a valid soft-redirect to a meta essay/commentary on vandalism, so I think it should stand. It's definitely not vandalism though. Metros232 21:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Altea

Will you review your tag at the Rosemary Altea article? FGT2 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack?

Hello there. You recently warned me for creating a personal attack article. I'm just here to inform you that it wasn't a personal attack, and in fact, everything within the article was actually quite factual and did happen. I suppose I did call him a tool, and for that I apologize.

Just wanting to clear this up. Chattim3 21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marija Pavlović

I have added to the article a bit, fixed some linguistic POV problems, fixed & added to the links, and will work on the redlinks therein in the next couple of days. So, I think we have reached much more than the required WP:BIO for this article. Please reconsider your vote on this AfD. SkierRMH 06:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Speedy Deletion template

Hatch,

I recently recieved a message from you claiming that I had removed a speedy deletion tag ? I'm not sure which article you were refering to however, assuming you were refering to Brian Charrington, I had previously replaced the tag with {{hangon}} while revising the article's introduction (see [1]). Although as the issue has since been resolved, I suppose it seems a moot point. MadMax 06:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Maine Guerilla Drive-in

I added the reasons why I believe the article is justifiable. In short, that the drive-in has substantial regional importance and is known about much more widely as the only drive-in of its kind in the Southern Maine region.

For a demonstration of just how widely known it is, just punch "Southern Maine Guerilla Drive-in" into Google. You'll get loads of stuff. Blogs from all over the country. References from similar operations in several other states. And on and on.

I may have gone a bit far in adding a section called "Spelling," but the spelling is completely correct; just look at the guerilla warfare page here on Wikipedia. Alex Peppe 08:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeos AfD

Thanks for your comment on my personal page. I have one suggestion: when retracting a statement, use <del>del tags</del> which clearly mark ~~strikethrough~~ content. Tarinth 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]