User talk:Butseriouslyfolks

The best way to reach me is by leaving a note at the bottom of this page.
I stop by here much more often than I check my WP email.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Beale Piano- unreasonable deletion of factual material

I object to your unreasonable and unfounded deletion of material fromn the article which I have created.

It appears you misunderstand the meaning of copyright! There is no copyright in facts! Also, you have alleged that I copied material from another copyright article. Some of the information you deleted did not appear in that article, and hence I refute the allegation.

Kindly refrain from this type of ativity in the future- it is apparent that this is not the first time you have engaged in this type of thing.

Fitzpatrickjm 06:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that I have read your response. You acted capriciously in deleting sectionsd of the article. Your conduct was not and continues not to be "civil". I find it incredible that you now complain that my conduct was not "civil" in responding to your own hostile conduct! I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such accusations against other people.

Your proposed solution is not acceptable, in that you continue to allege infringement of copyright. I require that allegation to be retracted, and that you apologise for making an unfounded and improper allegation which could be regarded as being defamatory.

Fitzpatrickjm 07:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that you have not given any response to my previous message.

Fitzpatrickjm 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, about a half hour later. [1] --Butseriouslyfolks 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ignorant are you? I have withdrawn the article you complained about, made inquiries with the person whose copyright you have alleged I have infringed and confirmed that they do not consider there is any breach of copyright.

All of these facts are lost on you. Why? Theonly logical explanatin is utter ignorance and pigheadedness.

Kindly withdraw the allegation of infringement of copyright.

Fitzpatrickjm 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is inappropriate and in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. It could also be regarded as being mean. If you want to conduct yourself in that way, peple are going to describe you in the manner that you act. Look in the mirror, and your conduct is clearly meanm, and you are unrepentant in your ignorance.

If you can't take it then don't dish it out!

Fitzpatrickjm 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article was reinstated after the allegation of infringement of copyright was made.

Fitzpatrickjm 12:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And after it was rewritten. -- But|seriously|folks 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orville W. Hagen

Please stop copying text from websites and adding it to articles as you did with Orville W. Hagen; it really doesn't help anything and in this case led to the deletion of the article. Now I'm having to track down the text before it was deleted so I can re-create it as it used to be. Weatherman90 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I simply tagged this article as a copyvio. I didn't add any text. -- But|seriously|folks 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that, I assume weatherman simply wants to recreate the thing. SGGH ^speak! 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion; I must have been in a hurry and I mis-read SGGH's posting.Weatherman90 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy now?

You familiar with pipe organs? And where do you think you'd stick a Tuba Magna? Actually, on second thoughts, better not! ;-) --Vox Humana 8' 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who built it? How many speaking stops does it have? You may be interested to se Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell#The "Father Willis" organ. My mother is Director of Music there atm.--Vox Humana 8' 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

Wow, I'm so happy. Now what do I do with it? I've never had one before. :) Wikidemo 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA note

Hi. Thanks, I saw that, but don't think it's worth hashing out on the RFA page, since this only will attract more attention to something that is probably minor. My problem is that you've done so little work on articles, and the one where you've done the most is a bit problematic. Now, the subject is weird enough that it's probably not possible to write a decent article about him. In any case, I wish you well and it looks to me like you'll be given the mop in a few days. Bucketsofg 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll do fine as an editor I'm sure, and if you get the admin over objections, I'm sure you'll do just fine with that as well. I'm one of those that still believe that being an admin should be no big deal, just a few tools, and lots of editors should be admins without the monkey dance at RfA. The monkey dance is why I rarely vote at RfA, though I watch it. On the chances when I vote oppose, it is because, unfortunately, the monkey dance is the way RfA works. If other people have decided to make adminship a big deal that is the way I have to treat candidates until a better RfA system comes out.

To my oppose, you hashed out a rationale in response and not just an excuse. That shows you think. That's an important thing - I'm sure you'll do whichever way RfA goes. If it fails - write some more articles, research a few "citation neededs" in old articles and participate on talk pages so people can see you think. That'll get people to the next RfA like a magnet. SchmuckyTheCat

Thanks for creating those stubs!

Thanks for creating those stubs and adding the material into various articles. This is a worthy series of edits. Do you think you could add the information at Great Lakes as well? Carcharoth 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi Butseriouslyfolks,

I appreciated your response to my questions at the nomination page and it's helped me to think about the issue. As a direct result, I've posted a new comment at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I think the article as I've redone it meets your objections, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look and reconsider, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! I've appreciated your being open-minded in the past.Noroton 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm confused. Do you disagree that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus indicates that consensus trumps WP:N? My position is that well-sourced articles, which may not meet WP:N because the sources, while reliable, may not be multiple, independent, could still meet consensus in a deletion debate and therefore survive. I see no justification anywhere for overturning consensus simply based on notability concerns. Have I missed some rule or common practice? Please tell me, what do you disagree with in that? Noroton 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm confused. Perhaps we're just stating the same thing differently, but I think my way of stating it is clearer. I think it helps to simply consider WP:N and WP:V separately. You said:

I agree that WP:N does not trump consensus. I agree that if an article is sourced, "article shows subject is notable" !votes are perfectly valid and, if they constitute consensus, they prevail. This is so regardless of the quality or nature of the sources. If, however, there are no sources whatsoever, WP:N cannot be satisfied, no matter how many editors believe it is, because of the requirements of WP:V. Therefore, such a consensus could be overridden by WP:V. Do you understand my reasoning? If so, does it make any sense? -- But|seriously|folks 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noroton"

Notability requires multiple independent sources. WP:V doesn't, so an article can meet WP:V and not meet WP:N. Consensus in a deletion debate could keep such an article. (I think it might be possible to argue against this by quoting other Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc., but the one I'm relying on, WP:DGFA, seems to be the best, most direct source. You might say it's only implied that WP:N doesn't trump consensus, but I think the implication is very strong.)

If by "notability" we're only referring to the Wikipedia guideline, then the question isn't so much what people think about the sourcing as what the guideline thinks about the sourcing.

I agree with you that consensus can't save no-source articles (and this is something of an evolution of my thinking, bringing it a bit closer to yours).

Incidentally, here's another interesting case where a majority was overturned. I voted neither for nor against, and I'm not interested in commenting on it (and I've always got some sympathy in these cases) but just passing on the news. Noroton 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at your note "just to clarify" at the bottom of my last comment at the deletion review. I see what you mean. I removed anything that I couldn't footnote because, in this case, I thought it would make my case stronger. If someone added some of that information back, I'd just add a fact tag to it. My referring to your arguments only meant you had prompted me to clarify my own by referring to WP:V. Noroton 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

Thank you, Butseriouslyfolks, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado, Butseriouslyfolks, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões.
Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Double !vote at R's RFA

I have struck your second/double support !vote at R's RFA. You are not permitted to !vote more than once. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Sorry, unintentional. -- But|seriously|folks 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey - no worries. Memory must have momentarily stalled there. Happens to the best of people. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles which lack sources

I have spent more than an hour reading past discussions on the topic of deleting articles solely because they lack sources. While there are clearly some strong proponents of your position, I cannot find anywhere your position has obtained consensus of the community. For example, there is much discussion in this rejected policy proposal (including the related talk page and talk page archive) and other places. If you have a particular source that supports your interpretation of policy, I would appreciate it if you would specifically point it out to me.

I agree that we collectively need to do a much better job citing sources in articles and I might even support a policy (to be implemented gradually) that would make lack of reliable sources (or at least external links to reliable sources) a deletion criteria. However, I do not believe that the community today interprets the deletion policy in that manner. You may be right and I may be wrong as to the interpretation of the policy, but until it is more clearly resolved, I strongly urge you to check with other more experienced admins before you start applying your policy to delete unsourced articles despite consensus that the article should be kept. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a soon-to-be-admin, "my brain hurts". Now I have to do all the real work I should have been doing. Good luck with the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin, Butseriouslyfolks! Cheers! Dekkappai 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations on becoming an admin! -- **Jreferee** ^(Talk) 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your nomation was successful and you are now a sysop! (I can't believe someone beat me to congratulating you) --Deskana (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! --Iamunknown 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, congrats. You not only passed RfA, you broke the record for most support votes by one of my nominations. Wizardman 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations! Acalamari 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks Congratulations! You will make an outstanding admin! Did you see that Stillstudying voted for you? I was proud of him, he is developing into a good editor, more civil, and he has always been willing to work. ANYWAY, congratulations again!old windy bear 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, congrats. You will do well as an admin! Politics rule 01:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; you're welcome for the support! You're welcome for the {{administrator}} tag too! :) Acalamari 01:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Pedro | Chat 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from me - congratulations :) ck lostsword•T•C 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Now get to work on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, we have a backlog. :) Garion96 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Now get to work!. Pascal.Tesson 09:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Now take a break! -- Hoary 10:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, dude. —Anas ^talk? 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, be thoughtful and you'll be fine! Modernist 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Jmlk 1 7 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about it and thought about it and thought about it and then, just now, finally went over to the page to actually vote for you because, while we disagree most of the time we interact with each other, I've always found you pretty open-minded and your disagreements have been courteous (even better than civil) and you've helped me to refine my thinking more than once. And then I noticed I was too late. Well, I woulda supported you. Now that that's over with, would you please block all users from Connecticut except me? No need to rush: If you could do it by 6 p.m. Eastern time that would be more than sufficient. Thanks! Noroton 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wow, you're an aspie? I had no clue! (I just saw your userbox.) Thanks for all your recent work with images, and congrats on your shiny new admin-flag. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done...

That's wonderful news, friend. I will hopefully begin seeing your wonderful work around wikipedia :-) Take care. Scarian ^Talk 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on Image:Guy Goma.jpg. I've added more complete fair use rationale to the image page. And congratulations on becoming an admin, I think you'll do a great job. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA??

Oh god, I can't believe I missed your application. You'd have my vote, obviously. Anyway, welcome aboard and go delete copyvios, slacker! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on your successful RfA. Here's your mop and bucket. Use them wisely. :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Good job. :) ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your recent promotion. Regards, Peacent 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I echo my comrades, and congratulations on your promotion, which was well deserved! I followed you this morning, and would be honored to work with you - hollar if you need a second voice on something! old windy bear 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh!

Actually, I'm pretty sure I wrote that note before I went through the Fairfield County article hell. I believe at the time I was going through List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut hell. "Connecticut" was what came to mind. Carpetbombing the entire Northeastern U.S. would be another option. I find people can get my goat too easily (something to work on) but at least I calm down within about 12 hours.

Right now I'm causing trouble with one of my overlong (but not, I think, overheated) crusades, this one on overturning the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. Appropriately enough, it's listed on July 14. You might not want to read the essay I turned my comment into, but I think there are some interesting points there about Wikipedia policy regarding closing admins. Again, I couldn't blame you or anybody for not wanting to delve into what amounts to an essay. Cheers! Noroton 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [2] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Cargill

How can I plagarize myself? If I am Robert R. Cargill (email me at [email protected] and I'll prove it), how can I be in violation of infringing on something I wrote? And why are you deleting and not waiting for the 'dispute' to register?

And who are you? Seriously.

-bob cargill

Understood, but seriously...

I believe your intentions are good, but I am now spending my time talking to you and not doing other things. (Granted, I'm sure you're a pleasure to speak with, but my page is gone and I'm talking to you instead of sleeping.

Again, read the pages. How can I plagerize myself. I followed the dispute guidelines, and you blanked me anyways. I mean, some little wiki patrol dude suggested I was a candidate for copyright infringement, I put the dispute tag, sent the email, and instead of waiting for the procedeure to run it's course, you got delete happy and nuked me. Seriously.

I'm following all of the procedeures that wiki has in place, and you deleted me (or wtf you call it - blanked?) anyways. Please put it back and let the administrator that got my email do his/her job instead of taking this into your own hands? Please?

As for notability, 'strongly discourage' does not equal copyright violation. You listed that as another reason, which is totally off topic.

Please?

-bobcargill IsraelXKV8R 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanx

wonderful. thanx. i sent the following email to: [email protected]

- I am Bob Cargill. I authored both pages. I give permission to myself (and to you) to display the www.bobcargill.com material on Wikipedia. -

Thanx. -bc

seriously, when should i expect a response from an admin. and then, what's to keep another one of you wikicops from doing this all over again? IsraelXKV8R 07:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the copyright on Robert Cargill

Thanx for your help. I posted the copyright. I even put an email if there are any questions.

Now what happens? Do you unblank the page or does an admin post something telling you not to blank anymore?

-bc

OK, now I'm pissed!

you deleted my USER PAGE??? STOP IT!

I jumped through your flippin hoops on my page, but don't mess with my USER PAGE!

You didn't delete it last night, you did so this morning.

GET A LIFE. Go study for your wikipediaholic exam or something!!

IsraelXKV8R 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is...

you didn't touch my page last night. Did you just miss it? Or are you just being an ars? seriously, i don't want to get into a confrontation, but good grief! first you delete my page. you can obviiously see that i'm the same dude as on my own website. but that's not good enough. you then have to kill my user page. and why? because you are a wiki-cop and you have awards?

look, email me - [email protected] or [email protected]. please do. because you're making a hell of a lot of work for me, and it's not fun.

why can't YOU wait until it's resolved. why didn't YOU put the warning on my user page instead of just deleting it? huh? you blanked my page, but then DELETED my user page. did you miss it last night, or are you just being difficult?

IsraelXKV8R 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave my award

It's meant to be funny, not vandalism. It's a badge of honor. I know you're just trying to do your job. I know that I am frustrated. I thought I'd use some humor to make the situation a little lighter. Delete it if you want, but i thought it was cool for both of us. IsraelXKV8R 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But in the mean time...

Glad you saw the humor in it. After a while, you'll want to repost it, (even if only for the Talladega Nights quote in it.) In fact, if you leave it, you can refer to it whenever someone else gets into a disagreement with you.

In the mean time, I'M going to write something to put back on MY USERPAGE. (Fear not, not the Robert R. Cargill page.) I do want to write something that I PERSONALLY wrote, - in the first person - to let others know who is actually making edits on Wiki. (I despise the anonymity of wiki. In my letter to Wiki this morning, complaining about this whole little disagreement, I mentioned that the anonymity of the internet is why more academics don't use Wiki or take it seriously. As a young(er) scholar, I'm trying to promote Wikipedia to the older generation. But this whole delete my page thing just makes me want to become an anti-wiki advocate. Look, I hate POV articles, especially ones that attack people. This is why I wanted to take my OWN info and put it on my OWN page. That way, with any edit I make, EVERYONE knows who made it. I'm not going to hide my objective scholarship from anyone. Ironically, by deleting my USERPAGE, you get rid of my personal resume, which does away with (some) my credibility when making changes.

So unless this gets resolved soon, I'm going to repost MY resume on MY page. Please don't mess with my USERPAGE (unless, of course, you're going to give me a cool award).

Regarding Robert R. Cargill and OTRS

I can now confirm that the user is in a position to use the content of the website in question. Thanks for helping resolve this issue. Adambro 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

May I please put it back? Or will you do that?

Thanx for the COI tag btw. That was sweet of you.

Good ness. Just promise me you won't hassle me as I try to sing the praises of Wikipedia to the academic world.

(I still think you should post the award...)

-bc

by the way, I left the COI tag there, as a badge of honor ;-)

Hikari Hayashibara

Thanks for your help with my mistaken template. An IP making a first edit changed her name to Kikari today and linked to some of her drawings. I misread the caption as Kiki and thought the IP was right (it was momo, curved line instead of straight--I've been away too long). Then I followed the Hikari Wikilink and found it redirected to lolicon, and thought the IP had created the entry and redirected it, and was just generally being trollish. I should have looked at the history of the article first, but didn't. After you deleted my speedy tag I was in the process of requesting a name change, but luckily I googled first and found that the name was Hikari after all. Then I really looked at the history and saw the article had been up for deletion, etc., etc. Too bad no one has added a word to the Hikari Hayashibara since. Anyway, thanks for the save. -Jmh123 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 Contestant

Hi. I see you have deleted the majority of the articles of the contestants. I was wondering why you deleted them since there was clearly no conclusion reached to whether the articles should be deleted or not on one of the talk pages: [3]. You didn't even provide a final argument/reason for deleting the article on the discussion page or in the summary box. I just want to request to please restore the articles until a final verdict is reached. Thank You - Bhavesh.Chauhan 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for your quick feeback. I'd be very happy if you could put all of them in subpages of my user page. I'm the only one who's working on all Top 14 contestants so it's all very hard to manage all of them at once, but I'll be sure to continue working on them to hopefully prove the significane for most, if not all of them. Thanks for your support Butseriouslyfolks =D - Bhavesh.Chauhan 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright. Thanks for all the help. It's really a relief to at least be able to continue working on the articles while they are in my subpages. Thanks again for your efforts and I wish you a merry week ahead. - Bhavesh.Chauhan 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Image:April two and a half men.jpg

Thanks for cleaning up the missing-source tag on that image. I made a complete mess of that (I misunderstood the CSD text). Mark Chovain 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied images

yes, i uploaded them as mine, he took them but i figured he wouldnt object if i uploaded as if i took them. he is threatening all sorts of outlandish legal action against everyone, i removed tthe corresponding images off commons too. Fethroesforia 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]