User talk:Cookiehead

Censoring Wikipedia

Hi...I reverted your delete of the drawing due to wikipedia policy regarding censorship. Please see the policy here: Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED -Kukini ^{háblame aquí}

That wasn't about censorship. Someone's doodling isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. See WP:YOURDOODLESUCKS.Cookiehead (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute response. But it was censoring with no explanation nor discussion. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was removing a doodle that has no place on a wikipedia. You call it censorship, I call it doodle removing. Put up a good pictoral, not something you scratched out on your notebook. I don't care if you post a film clip of "Linda Lovelace Takes It From Behind" just as long as its not your home movie.

Bears

I'm surprised the Bears article is still FA - then again, I am also surprised at the number of NFL-related articles that are still possess GA-status. If you want a field day, read through Chicago Cubs :p. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Caan

Hello. We don't call James Caan award-winning in the article on him, and there is even less reason to do so in the article on his son. Terms like that are discouraged by WP:PEACOCK, which is a style guideline.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tanks for the BS, Gary Weiss. Cookiehead (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naked short selling

I see you've followed me into naked short selling. Try to avoid inflammatory edit summaries such as this[1]. We can do without the personalizing. Please observe WP:CIVIL.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed you anywhere. I've edited the article before. You're a real piece of work, pal....you are not editing in good faith at all. Any reason why you have no problem with leaving a long quote from Barron's that makes statements that favor your POV but not Taibbi's? The section is supposed to document how NSS is being reported in magazines/media/etc. You are confusing that aspect with what is "correct" per the SEC, etc....that is not what the section is about. It's about how NSS is being reported in the media, not whether the media itself is right or wrong. Your POV is showing in this section by leaving Barron's long quote and removing Taibbi/Rolling Stone's. And if your response is that Barron's is a better source, then you are again missing the point of that section - it is to report how it's being reported in media, not the "accuracy" of those reports. And moving the Taibbi quote into a footnote is quite a feat. Never seen that before on Wikipedia, lol. You have a quite a history of inflammatory edit summaries yourself. And the WP:EL cite is lovely. Now all External Links have to have their contents verified for accuracy against "regulatory" cites? Are you serious? Been owning this article long, Johnny?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs)

I stand corrected on your not "following" me to naked short selling. It seemed that way, but I see that actually you did edit the article back in May. I apologize for suggesting that you followed me to the NSS article, and I'd hope that in the same spirit you'll refactor your personal attacks and observe WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Also you should sign your comments.

I edited down the quote that you added from the article because it was duplicates what is quoted in the very same sentence. I didn't "move" the Taibbi quote into a footnote; the quote was already in the footnote and place there by the editor who had originally placed it in the other section. You really need to ratchet back on the tone, the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. I do admit that I've contributed to the situation, for which I've apologized.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue: This was one of Gary Weiss's many sock puppets fucking with me. WP:ASSHOLE Cookiehead (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lay

Sorry, I meant to say that the connection was "not significant enough to warrant" the Eli Lilly category being included. If there is some interest in including all current or former directors of that company, it should probably be done through a subcategory. That being said, I think the finance fraud category undeniably applies. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. So why again did the undo occur? No problems if that was a glitch, so I undid the undo. How did Lilly get in there in the first place? DId Lay work there before Enron or something?

~~The undo occurred because you removed Category:Finance fraud, which undeniably applies to his biography, and added Category:Eli Lilly and Company, which only tenuously applies to his biography.~~ As to your second question, he was probably recruited to serve on the board due to his being the (as far as we knew at that time, successful) chief executive officer of Enron. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed Lilly and added the finance fraud. Please read the diff's.

Wow. I really am in serious need of more sleep, coffee, or both. Sorry, again. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Major League Baseball All-Star Game Uniform Errors

I have nominated Major League Baseball All-Star Game Uniform Errors, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball All-Star Game Uniform Errors. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. elektrik SHOOS 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long list inside of the main MLB All-star article. Someone else wrote the material. I often see large articles with separate "list of" or sub-articles that break out such trivia from them. I don't care if you delete it, but Mr Flicker Happy with the uniform photos will probably be pissed. I am not going to be involved in your campaign, good luck. Cookiehead (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting references

The way you are deleting references might be consider vandalism. You are leaving content without references (even the BOTs are automatically repairing what you are doing). Green Car Congress is considered a reliable source.-Mariordo (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS noticeboard. Consensus is that link spam is occuring from a personal blog. Does not meet WP:RS guidelines. Virtually every reference is inline as a duplicate with a actual RS. No editorial oversight. Purported publisher is blogger's wife. I find link to RS discussion in a minute. Cookiehead (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Greencarcongress.com

For example, Autoblog.com has an editorial oversight in place, group of editor(s), writing staff (as per RS guidelines). Green Car Congress is a personal blog. It's 'About' page tries to give impression of a separate publisher. That contact is co-habiting wife. LLC listed is bogus. It's a news aggregator. Instead the primary sources that he is copying should be used (and often are already in the WP article). OK to use Green Car Congress for WP:EL though. It's helpful for people to find the primary sources, which is what EL is there for. See the link on the RS board, others agree. Cookiehead (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally did some of the edits from Green Car Congress. So you rather left a lot of content without reference? and a lot of orphans in the reference section? Please single out the problem, you can not be indiscriminate with all GCC appeareances in Wikipedia. GCC is a source linked in many academic sites, widely recognized as a source of information regarding alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technologies, and it is a newsfeed website so no editorial is needed. Read the GCC article.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relayer of other RS news feeds. It's hi-jacking them for one thing. And it doesn't meet WP:RS. Most ref deletions have been redundancies. The one's that aren't will be very easy to replace with the primary source that Mr Mililken links to on his blog. I did that twice yesterday already. I'll help with the few that lines in articles that have been "orphaned" (these are not controversial claims, not a ref emergency). 02:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Mario, looks like all of the other commentors, new and old, are having a hard time with GCC being used as WP:RS. I'm not really interested in re-do my edits, so I leave it up to your watchful eyes to ensure that WP:RS is being followed on all of thos green car tech articles that you are so wonderfully shepherding. Have a great one! Cookiehead (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cookiehead. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ScottyBerg RfC

You have been mentioned on this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

I vaguely remember you from the old days. I see you're back at it :). I'm certainly not going to get in your way. Sorry you're being hassled for supposedly being me. Best of luck. Word to the Bomb (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just irritated at lousily written articles. I improve copy, and it gets reverted back to laughably written crap. Often by cretins on power trips. Some things never change, just the names of their socks. Cookiehead (talk)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jim Cramer into Short and distort. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I restored my own edits to this same article from 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_and_distort&type=revision&diff=118197316&oldid=118196823 Cookiehead (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Christopher Faille

The article Christopher Faille has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any biographical coverage, nor can I find much in the way of reviews or recognition for his books. Seems like a minor author/journalist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GretLomborg (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded under WP:LOSER Cookiehead (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DeVito

Hello! Just wanted you to know that I WP:DEPRODed the PROD you placed on the article. I have added few sources in. If you aren't content with that, you are free to nominate the article at WP:AFD. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christopher Faille for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Faille is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Faille until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Renaissance (restaurant)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Renaissance (restaurant) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 16 § Renaissance (restaurant) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ilovewikipedia" listed at Redirects for Discussion

The redirect Ilovewikipedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5#Ilovewikipedia until a consensus is reached. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]