User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 11

2793:

default the 2009 film would be canon, without a statement to the contrary. Pointing out that as of 2009 it is not is malicious, especially if something as silly as statement confirming it is canon is required, since no statement should be required by the article's own assertion. This whole subject is subjective from the start, since unlike the Star Wars franchise it's not rigidly controlled, so no black and white article is going to be able to cover it without bias, since the issue will never be black and white. Personally, I don't care much if wikipedia is wrong in this regard, as it will be far from the first or last time, but this article's wording is creating more work for me over at Memory Alpha, so I'm going to keep pushing the issue over here. -

2372:

speed of their twisted impulse coasters is at 62 MPH. Then rcdb.com, noted it as 65, but I remember 9 years ago since this ride's opening, Six Flags mistakenly put 65 along with the wrong description of colors that time until they corrected over to it's representing colors and 70 MPH. I think rcdb.com took Six Flag's miscalculations and left it as is because it has the same case for other rides as well. Every sources shows different numbers for the same roller coaster, so I don't know what to put down now, so I'll leave the choice to you. Put down what ever number you think it's best. Also, I'll remove the reference section I added because I don't think it's necessary as all the description are included on the rcdb.com link in the detail. (

3047:

issue was resolved and is a separate issue from the one that is falsely posted at this time. "As time wore on Ben Cannon, GunPal's CEO was forced to reveal that his previous statements were inaccurate and acknowledge that GPal was unable to process bank transfers to its customer's banks as described on the GPal website." As this statement has no citation, and I am unable to find any, I believe it should be a candidate for deletion. I apologize about breaching protocol, I am new to editing Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for explaining it to me in depth. I will provide sources as possible. It appears to me as if someone slapped something together to fit your protocol for references without actually providing real source material.

1757:

started about me wanting to burn the school down. I have to serve my suspension at the Alternative school, with other people who had been suspended for (mostly) drugs, rape(court ordered), fights, cell phone use, and tardies. Also, 7/10 people at Alt. School are from Bolton. This has ALL been kept quiet from the public because of parents threatening to go to the news about the charges, and Administration reducing the time served. I know all of this first-hand, its not "deconstructive", or false. It is all true, and I would appriciate it greatly if you would please re-post what I wrote before, or let me re-post it myself.

1646:

articles) but it seems that you aren't interested in abiding policy or engaging in reasonable discussion. I cited your comment above, you then claimed the additional links I posted came after your comment. You were mistaken as the timeline demonstrates, you were also wrong about the count in the UEFA discussion unless you want to include an argument that was solely about process and didn't address any aspect of the subject's notability or the AfD close itself. You owe me an apology on both counts, but you seem to be too arrogant to realize when you fouled up, so I can only hope that you will wise up going forward.

4138:. The reason code given is A9 (Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance). This seems to have been a mistake, as Del Amitri is (or was) a popular band, whose career is covered by a detailed WP article. They produced many singles, and several albums, all represented by WP articles. Only the WP article describing this album has been deleted. Can you please restore it, I am researching the composers of those songs? I don't know how to locate and restore a deleted page or I would do that myself. Thanks, 4356:, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Knowledge (XXG) administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community 4616: 31: 828:. I don't agree with this action, but I am not going to unilaterally reverse that decision to move from long-term semi-protection to long-term pending changes protection—a decision that was made by other administrators. I implemented temporary semi-protection because of a great increase in vandalism (presumably world-cup related). If you would like to have permanent semi-protection re-added to the Germany article, please make a request at 4025:, as you suggested over a year ago. Hopefully it will be a smooth transition. I think most of the controversy over this page has died down. Anyway, since there were two existing pages and talk pages, I simply pasted the content from the one site to the other and then manually combined and then archived the talk pages. You might take a look and make sure I did everything right if you have the time. Best regards. -- 3344: 2397: 2148: 1867: 1326: 898: 279: 110: 3136: 2668: 478: 2055: 3784: 4177:, for example), but I can probably add some details. Others can then enhance that content further, in the normal way. Is that approach OK, since you now do know who the band is? (And why didn't you find out originally from Google?!) So please either restore the deleted article content, or copy what you have to my talk page and I'll restore and link it. 2476: 4084:

have to do with its phrasing? If something is worded improperly, the right thing to do is re-word it, not censor it. Not liking the material doesn't have anything to do with its phrasing. As for the source, it isn't a tabloid, it's a TV critic. Please do not remove material without a valid reason other than personal aesthetics. Thanks.

3488:

What do I want to achieve? Well, I would be happiest if (a) your closing statement on the DRV made some mention of how the DRV participants felt the AfD should have been conducted; and (b) anyone who's receiving the benefit of Hanlon's Razor might have that fact gently pointed out to them, because I

2009:

Thank you for helping me reverse all the vandalism on the BMF article. For a very long time I was the only one who was reverting the pointless edits and sometimes I would get behind since I don't get on necessarily every day anymore. I wrote the majority of the article and thankfully the vandalism is

1018:

I have made tried to make constructive edits to the Henry Waxman article regarding his freakishly large nostrils. It is a fact that his nostrils are abnormally large. This fact should be included in the article. However, these keen insights have been reverted. I think it is important for children

3685:

before you go running off with a pedantic lecture to an experienced user. You clearly know something about Maine politics—not everyone else in the world does—and that knowledge is biasing your reaction to my good faith nomination. I'm glad you found a reference for the article. Next time just fix it

2371:

I agree to use a more reliable information. However, the same roller coasters such as the one at Six Flags Great America, Possessed at Cedar Fair's Dorney Park all noted the top speed at 70 MPH, Steel Venom at Cedar Fair's Valleyfair at 68 MPH. Intamin AG, the manufacturer of this ride noted the top

1592:

I posted at least four links as of July 24. Your comments came on July 25, as the time stamps clearly show. Please cease lying and making false accusations against me. That is unacceptable behavior and improper for an admin. My count for the UEFA was entirely accurate. The nom and two keep arguments

4535:

Hey, IronGargoyle, I noticed that you reverted two edits by IP 12 on my talk page that have been stricken from from the record so as to be unviewable. First, thank you. I can only imagine how bad they were that they needed to be stricken. I was hoping, though, that you could give me some idea as

4099:

That's nonsense. It is not an important component of the the review. Badly written material that is tangential and tabloidish should absolutely be removed instead of being rephrased. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most of good writing is removing and paring down

3722:

This isn't fair. Every edit I have ever made has been in good faith and this instance I was trying to tidy up something someone else had written for further review rather than just arrogantly deleting it without further explanation as so many had. How are new users going to learn how to use wiki if

2792:

flat out says that TAS is canon according to StarTrek.com, and that is only supported by the previous links. At the very least, all these links show that the issue isn't black and white, even at the official source. As for the malicious wording, if all live action films are canon as a rule, then by

1720:

Hola friend, We see that you and your little "Wiki-friends" keep deleting our works of art on this website. Well that doesn't make the J-Foundation happy. We think people appreciate our little phrases, more than your boring drawn out biographies. We think you people should dawn a sense of humor and

1402:

aboutlochaber.com is a community portal and tourism services tool. Local people use it to advertise their businesses and share images in the gallery. It's quite a valued tool locally and many people outwith th area depend on its directory to make contact with local businesses. Other links in the

801:

Please introduce a discreet (non-visible) tag for the protection at the Germany article. It would be also appreciated to see a permanent protection. It was already in place for years and only recently was downgraded. The result was ongoing spamdalism. A permanent protection, like in the past would

4699:

by default. I might ask one of the developers of the software. The general amount of time—a day or so—is a good amount of time because it prevents abuse while minimizing collateral damage to other legitimate users of that particular IP address. If I was going to guess the answer to "why 31 hours?"

4153:

There is no substantive article in the history, there's just a track listing. This is why I couldn't identify the band it was associated with. If you need the track listing for some reason, I can move it into your userspace, but it's not suitable for an article on its own. Feel free to construct a

3557:

remains deleted. As this page has over 34,000 revisions my understanding is that it might require a steward to restore (I'm getting a server error message when I try to look at the deleted revisions) - do you know if this is the case? If it is, please could you request the assistance of one please

3201:

Hi IronGargoyle! I'm not a regular editor of Knowledge (XXG) - I was, though, editing a page that I guess you created (but didn't remember doing so!). Now that I read the delete discussion, I realize that editing a page about me was definitely a conflict of interest - but I didn't create the page,

2351:

I like the new public domain picture that you added. It has the advantage of not being an unfree image like the last one you added, and being a picture of the coaster and not just the coaster model. Nice work. For your other point, I would rely on the rcdb.com link, as opposed to the link from the

1510:

strange after seeing you close a DRV as endorse despite the points made about repeated AfDs being attempted to delete the article subject until one finally had a rough consensus. It is difficult to restore something once deleted, and you don't seem to apply your standards for multiple bites at the

1278:

I realize you're just using the Huggle auto summaries but I'd suggest using ones that are a little more accurate regarding what you're doing. For example, you're using the exact same edit summary when you revert blatant vandalism as when you revert otherwise good-faith edits that you just disagree

464:

I guess that's not "substantial" enough, but a few seconds on google will tell you that the band's called Scandinavian Cock. (not to bring personal experiences into this, but Andy was at the merch booth after a combichrist show and he was the one who sold me the scandinavian cock tshirt, the one I

4083:

Hi. In what way is the phrasing of April McIntyre's criticisms of the show improper? She stated a number of criticisms with the show, including laughs at th expense of Corey Harrison's weight. In what way is the phrasing improper? If the phrasing is bad, why not rephrase it? What does removing it

1526:

Could you point me to the DRV that I closed which you are referring to? Debrahlee Lorenzana was only at AfD once and was deleted as a result of that AfD. There weren't multiple AfDs involved, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there. I really don't have any problem with new DRVs; I

872:

I didn't place the tag on the article. I don't usually place protection templates on the articles when I protect them. I agree with you that it is distracting. If the user who placed the tag thought it was important though, I'm not going to argue with that editor and you should ask that editor to

3988:

in 2009, unfortunately I can't find out why - I intend to recreate it - based on the Swedish page - I use newsmill extensively for commentary on Swedish politics and social issues, and use it in references in Swedish articles here - ot is becoming increasinlgy a place where Swedish intelligentia

3046:

Thank you for explaining it to me, however the first reference in the information that was previously there says nothing except that the name was changed back in February from Gunpal.com to Gunpal.net, if you read the content. The second reference, in the comments section, it appears as if that

2617:

is a professional writer who is being paid by a company called "Master of Malt" to write articles in Knowledge (XXG), he has been very clever in convincing senior moderators. I request you and other senior moderators to to use the common sense and view his history and see what he is trying to do

3484:

The consensus is that we did what's right for the encyclopaedia at the DRV, and I accept the consensus. So much for the finding of fact. But what don't think we achieved was to show the DRV requester FairProcess. I think he has a legitimate grievance in that his "side" was penalised for some

1756:

I attended the school for a month, in March and some of April, before I was harassed, threatened, had food thrown at me and people boo me, had a teacher try to kick me out because I am gay, and then in early April I actually was suspended from the school for 180 days because of a rumor that was

1645:

Your closes go against consensus and your arguments misrepresent the facts (as do your false accusations). I would be interested on your opinion of why an entire article in a German periodical about the subject doesn't assist in establishing notability (along with the dozens and dozens of other

4172:

Since WP articles evolve as a result of many contributions, they have to start from some core of information. For an article about a music album, once it is linked to the band, a track listing is the most essential information (IMO). I certainly can't expand that into a complete article (like

1531:

and change the status quo. If you look at the Google News coverage graphs, you will see that coverage has dramatically dropped off since June. DRV is taken very much on a case-by-case basis, but I will tell you that DRV generally has a tendency to defer to good faith closures in the case of a

1511:

apple evenly. Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me. But if I am remembering right, than I would remind you that if a deletion decision is wrong it should be reviewed and the article should be restored. Period. Consensus at DRV should be respected just as consensus elsewhere is respected.

1213:

Fair enough. I didn't warn the editor because I supposed there was indeed a chance it was valid. My judgment was that it was much more likely to be a test edit than a legitimate spelling ("St." being a very common element of a place name, "s'" not so much), but I guess I was wrong. Thanks for

1593:

against one delete argument and an argument against the process of the DRV (based on a notion that has been rejected). I hope you'll use better judgment and cease disrupting the encyclopedia building process going forward with dishonest misrespresentations and personal attacks. Thanks.

3459:). Has this been a systematic occurrence at AfD lately, or is it just localized to the AfD that was reviewed? If the latter, I'm not really sure why you're asking. I obviously agree there was not a consensus in the DRV that it irretrievably contaminated the process or outcome. Best, 748:

because you restored blatantly incorrect, uncited information. Judging by your contributions, I am going to assume good faith that the edit was not vandalism and you are just getting a little bit overzealous and less-than-cautious in your vandal fighting. Be careful out there.

2745:

was "not a sufficient reference"? There were more changes there then just the TAS and 2009 film. I also fail to see how three citations for TAS, all of which are dated after the current ones, are not enough. The article currently is black and white on TAS, while the reality,

4360:, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students. 1458:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Previous reviews stated that this artist was not notable. Here is the link to his iMDB page - 2983:

And by the way, nice to see so many friends (such as you) still here. I thought maybe I'd come back and hidings comment atop my talk page would turn out ineffably true. But (with a few, albeit big, exceptions), it's mostly general upkeep with a fresh coat of paint : ) -

997:

Haha... you're welcome. I briefly contemplated the irony of that vandalism placement too, but I also appreciated the converse irony of blocking the vandal on the edit right placed right above "until you get banned". Thanks for getting the vandalism on my page too. Best,

2877: 4100:

unimportant material and poor phrasings. I just happened by the article and made a bold contribution to improve the article (which I still firmly believe the edit did). Looking into the contribution history, I would strongly suggest that you reflect on your possible

201:

Greetings! I'm providing you sources that show Elvis practicing karate as well as his own daughter talking about her father (Elvis) practicing Karate. If you would read thoroughly the following sites and watch the videos you will learn something new about the "King"

385:

I've also tried to include this link, but every time it is reverted. Why is it suddenly alright to have the wrong information on a page, even though I'm providing evidence in the external links that the name of the band, in fact, has "Cock" not "Rock" as the second

422:

I'm not expecting Myspace to be taken as credible, but if you look down the page you'll see a picture that's clearly Andy LaPlegua, but for this band he's going under the surname "Anders panther". Also on Andy's myspace(since it's public and his facebook isn't)

3003:

GunPal edit was due to the substantial amount of untrue information there. Did not see fit to try to address everything point by point. I am a GunPal user and have received funds without issues. Please explain how you'd like for me to edit it in the future.

3623:

This is the moment that later is a flashback scene from that moment when the salesman tells you over the radio the joys, hearts, and flowers of your new plane, but not informing you that it didn't come with a parachute - if only you had never gotten into that

3481:

for, oh, probably over a year now. I think one of DRV's functions is to demonstrate FairProcess to the complainant. They may not achieve the result they want, but complainants should go away feeling that they've had a fair hearing and a chance to make their

3700:

I apologize if it seems that I am trying to lecture. It is not my intention, it just seemed obvious to me that you didn't really look for sources; A search for "Donald Esty Maine" returned the source I placed in the article. Anyway, sorry if I seemed like a

3520:

I definitely see your points, but I don't think it's the role of DRV to extensively comment on user conduct issues in most cases (i.e. when it doesn't affect the substantive process or outcome of a close). These issues (which were possible violations of

2322:

According to the website that explains this roller coaster ride, it clearly described as 70MPH and the picture used in the article is not the exact same ride. I did a minor adjustment to correct it until you reverted it. Please reconsider. Thanks

1554:

I provided at least four links in the discussion, so you are mistaken on that count. Your close of the UEFA 2020 DRV is a good example of your ignoring consensus in favor of your personal whims. The policy based arguments ran 3 to 1 for restoration.

3959: 2352:

park. Secondary sources are generally preferred to primary and self-published sources. It is in the interest of Six Flags to inflate the speed value of their coasters—it makes the coasters seem more exciting, but it also makes the information

4380:

The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and

2228:

Please could you give it a quick once over to check it meets notability guidelines and reinstate it completely? If you believe it doesn't meet the guidelines please let me know and I'll continue to improve it until such time that it does.

1787:

for relevant policy on this point. Encyclopedia articles are not an appropriate location to have a chat with your friends. I also removed a large amount of negative unsourced material from the page as well. Knowledge (XXG) has a policy of

4714:

Sound good to me :), I though it may have had something to do the process behind dynaminc IPs (but you're probably right). If you do end up asking (and no pressure from me - completely up to you) would you mind letting me know? Thanks,

1577:

closure, I don't count heads in DRV discussions, nor do I close based on personal whims; if you are going to use that argument, though, at least count the heads correctly please and don't misrepresent the facts of the discussion. Best,

3663:, which you nominated for deletion a few hours ago. A simple google search reveals a newspaper article establishing the basic facts of the article. Moreover, as a former member of the Maine State Senate, he is inherently notable per 2564: 2484: 3793:

Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday

1462:

He is listed with the soundtrack credit, composter credit, and part of the cast for a new documentary/film coming out starring the likes of Kanye West and Mekhi Phifer, titled Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop.

537:

to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding

975:

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I have to admit, for a moment I considered leaving it up for a while, as I am fairly sure the vandal did not fully contemplate that particular edit LOL.

4700:(as opposed to 24) I would propose that it's a less predictable amount of time. If it was 24 hours, a vandal would be able to know exactly what time to show up tomorrow. That's just a guess though. Best, 3895: 4536:

to what they said, if you don't mind. Not the actual posts word for word of course, but, for example, if they included a home address or death threats or both, I would love to know that. Thanks. ^_^

1615:. In addition, the extra links are just a rehash of the unconvincing Google News link. If you are convinced that I'm behaving disruptively and making personal attacks, please take this discussion to 1931:

Apologies, it's easy to get a little carried away with Huggle and not perhaps evaluate a situation fully. Thank you for catching me, and I am very sorry to the poor editor I obviously disheartened.

3150:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

2682:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

3558:(if you haven't already, I'm not sure where htey hang out these days)? As the initiator of the DRV it's probably best that I not use my admin tools/make the request regarding this page. Cheers, 1104:

Hi, Why did you undo my edits on the Beguiled without any explanation or input in the discussion section? After watching the movie again recently I strongly feel those were good contributions.

4509:

Oh, sorry. For one thing, there's been some confusion about how one discusses at DRV. (Discuss the process/close, not rehash.), so some suggestions on cleaning up the language would be helpful.

4374:

All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

1527:

have a problem when there are multiple DRVs without new evidence. The single link you provided was not sufficient evidence (in my mind) for significant continuing coverage that would overcome

3485:

unacceptable debating tactics, but the other "side" got away with it, achieving their desired result without so much as an admonishment. You'll see some relevant discussion on my talk page.

3084:

Obviously edit summaries can be added where you're editing as you've used them. Perhaps if you'd use them on your initial edit we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, you should read

1672:(I notice that you haven't yet done so). I have said before that I'm tired of responding to your misrepresentations on my talk page, so please knock it off. Thanks. On a side note, I found 2940:

Given the message posted here, and the content involved, would it be worth posting a note on the IP's talk page? I tend to like to inform and discuss (as you know), but in this case... -

3202:

and they seem to encourage updating pages at Knowledge (XXG) to keep them current,so I thought it was ok to do so. I guess the final reason for deletion was a statement w/ no reference.

1688:

that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I find most administrators to be quite polite when approached in a civil manner without tossing out accusations of bad faith and bias. Regards,

2769:. The links you provided (and I did inspect them) don't provide any detailed information or discussion. Although I'm sure they were well intentioned, this makes the material you added 2095:

article, so that I may move my userspace draft, to a main article, as I have already taken it up at the DRv and we came to the conclusion, that the userspace draft should be restored

1399:

I've been trying to add www.aboutlochaber.com to the Fort William wiki page. I just recieved your message saying it's not allowed, but I'm new to this so I'd appreciate your help.

2558: 3636:

That said, I think you have the wherewithall, the attitude, and strength of character to do it, and also, I think you would succeed in the election, hence why I was asking : ) -

1493:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 1293:

That's not true. I never use the "dubious outsourced" edit summary with blatant vandalism. I realize you may be upset that a number of editors have disagreed with your edits to

1537: 1019:

to learn about their representatives in Congress. Congressman Waxman has the largest nostrils in Congress, and it's important for children to recognize this important fact.

2905: 1536:

DRV discussion (or re-listing if pertinent discussion was underdeveloped). BLP deletions have always slanted towards endorsement if there is not consensus for undeletion.

2250:

You don't need my permission to move it into mainspace. It does look like there are substantive improvements, but I might suggest getting a second opinion as well. Best,

3417: 4357: 4208: 3902: 3550: 3426:

Now that you've (correctly) closed that DRV as "endorse" and the content issue is settled, I wonder whether you had any thoughts about the way the AfD was conducted?—

2123:

Oops, sorry about that. I completely forgot to unprotect the article when I closed the DRV. It is unprotected and you should be able to move the article now. Best,

2814:

I'm sorry, I disagree. Someone appears to be making political postings. I am attempting to correct them. Sorry for the confusion. Please keep an eye on Peter C.

2646:

Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations about other editors. The article can be nominated at AfD if you feel as though it is not worthy of inclusion. Best,

1198:

but rather a spelling correction of the name of the city (although it was still not 100% correct). I have changed the name and linked to the right page. Regards,

3940:

Because disambiguation pages need to have at least two active links to other articles. If they don't, the disambiguation page isn't disambiguating anything (see

4377:

All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

1264:

and removing what I thought was not the best information to have on the page. If you disagree, feel free to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Best,

4450: 3667:. It is good that I stumbled upon the article while categorizing other Maine articles or your actions could have led to a bad deletion of relevant content.-- 3477:

To the best of my knowledge, IronGargoyle, it's just localised. The reason why I asked is that, as I think you'll recall, I've been banging on at DRV about

2492: 4386:

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at

847:

In any case, please introduce a discreet (non-visible) tag for the protection at the article. The current situation distracts the reader. Many Thanks.

4668:

This may seem like a stange question but I was wondering why 31 hours is the usual (by that I mean a number of admins use it) blocking time for IPs?

4213:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

1779:

To be clear, I removed three different pieces of inappropriate material from the page in question. Two edits were chatroom-like comments on the page

3205:

I am being inducted into the City of Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame, and thought that was worthy of adding to Knowledge (XXG) (sources are

3022:

A large amount of the information that you removed was referenced. Whenever you remove a large portion of information, you should always provide an

3906: 4371:

Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

1627:

and leave my talk page until you're ready to actually engage in a discussion with me that is more substantial than just vague complaints about my

1069:

and the other reverts, I blocked User:Stänkerer on de.WP for vandalism and the ex-user seems to have taken it quite personally... ;-) Greetings --

458:, which is superfecta entertaiment, the company that will be promoting them once they've released some stuff, they currently promote combichrist 431:

The reason there are no technically 'credible' links is because they haven't yet put out an EP or an LP. It's due in September, as far as I know.

115: 2789: 2068: 4390: 3749: 2765:

I restored the formatting. I don't understand what you mean when you say that it is "maliciously" out of date regarding the last film. Please

2634: 3554: 3069:

Source cannot be added where I'm editing. I'm just listing a fact that the character's name has changed due to the fact that she's married.

2963:(edit conflicted) And you're too quick for me to reply to your first message. BTW, it's nice to see you around and active here again. Best, 1743: 3913:) ? The US one seems to me at least quite smaller than the Polish one. Is it because the US-version has an outstanding encyclopedic text: 377:, I've tried to change the name of one of his side-projects from "Scandinavian Rock" to "Scandinavian Cock," as that is what it's named. 4232: 3843: 2579: 1764: 1120: 1026: 635: 235: 4495:

Thanks for the heads up, but I don't see any current discussion in the link you gave me. Can you provide me a more direct link? Best,

4313: 3070: 2821: 2546: 442: 424: 4389:(to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name 1623:

and you are just angry and want to vent at me because I disagree with you, I suggest you step back from Knowledge (XXG), have a nice

3051: 3008: 809: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 164: 161: 158: 152: 97: 89: 84: 72: 1165:

Sorry about that! What a silly and useless thing to do to a page. I guess I just don't get why people spend their energy on that?!

3502: 3439: 3217:

I don't know if that's worthy of reviving the page, and I tried putting in a request to revive it, but not sure if it went thru.

863: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 128: 125: 67: 59: 3681:, and I didn't find anything relevant in a Google search, or a Google News search that you seem to think was so magically easy. 3026:. You should also not use your own experiences with a company as the basis for editing an article. Instead, you should reply on 4726: 4679: 579:

Thank you for the barnstar! :) *blushes* Keep up the good work yourself. You beat me a few times tonight also. :) Cheers! :) --

4204: 3367:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2420:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2171:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1890:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1349:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 921:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 302:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 4432: 4018: 3383: