User talk:WookieInHeat

respond to your message by DarklyCute

With all due respect, are you sane? that article was most obviously pro-Israel, giving much space to israel reaction and almost no space to the claims of racism. Have you ever been to Israel? Claiming that there is no racism toward Arbs in Israel is like claiming there is no racism toward blacks by the KKK.

i didn't say that, i said please avoid weasel words. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's no reason to delete everything I wrote.

you're right, i will work on readding your non-POV content, one moment. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

really all i see that you added that wasn't POV or weasel words were the wikilinks. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

and even the wikilinks were repetitive, racism and ethnic discrimination both link to the same article. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're calling me a weasel.

no i didn't, weasel words and weasel people are not the same thing. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. http://paradoxdgn.com/junk/avatars/trollface.jpg

unsigned comments by User:DarklyCute. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Re Melliangee Pérez

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

Talkback

Hello, WookieInHeat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.
Message added 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Salisbury on wikipedia

Salisbury was not 3rd in total offense. He was 3rd in total passing offense. The team as you will read on the reference is 1st in total offense with 581.6 yards per game. Please re read that. Total passing offense is different that total offense. make the correction or I will correct it again. Here is the beginning of the paragraph...

The 1993 football team set a school record for most wins in a season with nine, finishing the season with a 9-1 record with the only loss coming to Minnesota-Duluth 29-28 in the final game of the season at the Metrodome Classic. The Wildcats had a high-powered offense, ranking first in NCAA Division II in total offense (581.5 yards per game), second in passing offense (379.9 ypg) and scoring offense (44.8 ppg). Defensively, the 'Cats ranked 16th in total defense, allowing just 256.0 yards per game. Here is the source: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

that is the figure for the entire team, the biography is about brett salisbury, not the wildcats. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

the first sentence of the next paragraph in that reference says "Individually, quarterback Brett Salisbury ranked second in passing efficiency (166.3) and third in total offense (373.2 ypg)." cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WookieInHeat. There is no statistic called "total passing offense." There is passing efficiency (aka the quarterback rating) and total offense which is a combination of the total number of yards passing and rushing by a player (usually a quarterback, since he is the only one who usually throws the ball). --Esprqii (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Junge Generation

I added several referenes to the article Junge Generation (SVP). Please check the side please delete the bars. Thanks Fraste (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

hi frastest, please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

Wookie, The edits I made removed inaccurate POV statements. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was not a grassroots movement. It was a reactionary movement of the "moderates" who had been shoved away from the SBC teat by the conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.34.62 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

looking into it, one moment. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm not really knowledgeable about the topic, but you appear to be editing in good faith. sorry for the warning, feel free to undo my revision. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WookieHeat I apologize and at the same time you need to correct mistakes on Brett Salisbury

I continue to see that you want to write the least postive writing from some unknown source which again is just another opinion. Why not use 4 other opinions about the book? Why is one opinion better than another. Every notable person on wikipedia gets to use his or her website when they are establsihed notable.

1. First off, Salisbury was not finished playing football or retired in 1995. Here is the proof.[2] Salisbury went back to play for the prague panthers as the article states in 2006 and signed a 3 year contract. He did not retire in 1995 as is stated.

2. The website, the transform diet clearly states he played 3 years from 1994 to 1996 and it was his "break out year" here is the proof: Salisbury's breakout year would be 1996 starting in Helsinki, where he would become the MVP of league and would be a 1st Team All-Europe selection quarterback, as well as doing daily modeling gigs as a "special bookings model" with the agency Paparazzi Model Management and was named the country of Finland's sexiest male.Following his third year in Finland, he decided to leave the league because of a rule change that would allow more Americans on the field which would have cut his football salary in half. He opted back to Los Angeles to live. To this day, Salisbury is still ridiculed for leaving Finland too soon, as he was becoming a national celebrity. please read under professional career tab: [http://transformdiet.com/about.html} 1996 he retired the first time around before going back to play for the prague panthers in 2006 as offensive coordinator and quaterback. There are plenty more articles where that came from too. I think this one should justify it though.

3. He is also a male model. Why do you continue to comment that he is not: The Condé Nast Publications and its licensors is for Vogue Magazine. Clearly they just wrote the top male models ever. This is sourced and linked to vogue. You need to go here for proof, this is a not a 3rd party but in style.com/vogue. I am not sure why you are up against this person and so against anything that is nice? Stating the authors website clearly states more than the article written by forward magazine by which YOU chose as a "fair" writing of the book? Forward magazine? notorious for unreliable reviews. I will prove that.

Again, here is a model, a top model in the world. If you are to denote Salisbury from having his website, then YOU MUST denote this person as well as every notable person including athletes and models: The external link is his website which is a glorified bunch of B.S. and someone like you is doing nothig about it? There is no grey area. If one person is allowed to glorify his or herself with the website addition you can't pick and choose. Here is that website: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Schenkenberg] to be fair you need to look at his website. Why does he get to promote his and not a guy like salisbury? Also the brother Sean salisbury [3] it claims he hit over .320 his senior year amongst other bogus self induldged writings. I say PROVE IT. The Sean Salisbury article on Wikipedia doesn't back facts. Where is the proof?

4. I again am not here to be unfair or unjust but to say if you allow it to go on with one site you must make a choice to allow it to another. Here is vogues website. Look at the bottom again directly linked to Vogue. The editors are from vogue. Brett Salisbury's name also is not mentioned as the younger brother of sean yet sean is the older brother of Brett on his wikipedia page? How fair is that? Again, no grey areas here. Here is vogues site. Nobody says you have to hype or use puffery like the person you write about, but if they are what they are then you must say so. Please, go here, again I only want to be fair.[4] read that list. Salisbury is 15th. No agenda. No reason to list the guy unless he EARNED it. Read each person's story on that list. Each person also is on wikipedia and they each list their OWN website. Either you remove all of their stuff or this violates wikipedia rules of allowing one and not another for verifiable records. Again, Wookie, I respect how you pursue everything. But make a note that you must also be fair. ESPRQII and you were right about the mistake I made about Salisbury's total offense. However you didn't mention how the team led the nation in total offense? Is that really fair? In fact it promotes the team and not Salisbury. Why not look again at the glass half full? The team finished first in total offense with 581.6 yards per game. However, I am not here to push or argue. I just want the facts to be straight. I am an oregon duck fan. My grandparents are too as you well know. I am involved as is many duck fans on this particular guy now. We will make sure justice is done. I hope you can appreciate that and again look at the mistakes made already like the retirement of Salisbury. Please I am not harassing nor am I calling anyone out. I am simply making points that need to be addressed. I hope you can forward this to who initiated the post. I think I make great points...please correct me if I am wrong, but do it in a manner that is polite, that's all I or anyone would ask.

Finally, as I mentioned, I have other people now who I am in contact with that are finding mistakes on Brett Salisbury's website as I proved above. And the claim that the book is not notable is not true. You have read from Ebooks to the PR release from iUniverse the top books listed. They have no agenda only stating the facts. a top 10 ebook thats been downloaded worldwide, that is notable. The book is a top 100 book out of 350,000 titles. This has to be notable. [ http://www.ebookmall.com/best-sellers/new-releases-ebooks.htm] We both know ebookmall.com is a reputable company. They give daily statistics and are connected with the publishing companies to each book. They have no agenda. You have to consider this. And why if you say at the top of the page that salisbury is a sports nutritonist is he not labeled as a health and wellness writer? Or a nutritionist? This makes no sense. The guy is a member of American Mensa. Again you make no mention of this either? He was also a member of the Brigham Young University football team, again no mention of this either.

Again, I am not being difficult, please do not think I am, but I would like you to address the mistakes and also address that website being used as the author on his website gives the facts. Also the facts are everywhere as i show above. I would ask that you be friends with us as we will not stop until this thing is done right. Remember you mentioned that you were even putting REMOVE on Brett Jon Salisbury until you simply removed the JON out of Brett Jon Salisbury. Then you found literally thousands of articles in the archives.

I appreciate your time and effort and ask that you please look into these and again no puffery is on the page now. I am only pointing out a few errors and that the authors website should be allowed as every other notable person on wikipeida is allowed.

Thank you 65.160.210.32 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Jeff Moore

hi, thanks for your more cordial tone this time, it is much appreciated. i admit this article has gotten my back up a bit, you must understand we deal with literally thousands of users who come here seeking to use wikipedia for promotional purposes and it is easy to lose your patience occasionally; for that i also apologize. with that said, i do agree/disagree with some points you've raised.
1. the section which talks about his 1995 retirement isn't supported directly by the ref given, think it may have just been a mistake by esprqii when he rewrote the article. the existing ref states he played football after 1995, so i removed that last part.
2. not sure exactly what your point is here; unless you were just providing further information to support point 1.
3. i don't even recall making a single comment about his status as a model, let alone "continuing to comment that he is not". but i will say that your comments such as he "is a top model in the world" are not directly supported by any references, this is your opinion based on his resume and as such constitutes WP:OR and is probably the reason such POV information was removed by other editors. secondly, the fore word reviews page is a reference that you provided in the previous article, i didn't find it on my own; why you are all of a sudden opposed to its use is beyond me. i didn't switch to this ref simply because it contained negative information about the book. i changed the ref from the transform diet website to the fore word reviews website because it is a third party opinion which establishes the same information that is in the wikipedia article. the fact that it contains negative talk about his book is not only irrelevant, but also shows that it is a more legitimate source (despite not necessarily meeting WP:RS) as it was not written with the intrests of brett in mind (i.e. not self-serving) where as his personal website is. finally, i am not editing this article based on the content in other articles, i am merely judging the information in this article based on its own merits as they pertain to wikipedia policies. i will make a point of reviewing the other article you mentioned, but this has little relevance to our discussion. there are many poorly written articles and articles which violate wikipedia policy, individual editors can only fight so many battles at a time if you get what i mean (not implying any polarization of this discussion).
4. the vogue reference is definetly not a WP:RS. the website makes no verifiable claim of association with vogue magazine and its whois information lists the registration to "Don Clayton 4400 Mossy Rock Court, Las Vegas, NV 89108, US, Phone: +1.7023080632, Email: donclayton82@yahoo.com". also i noticed that website is registered with the same registrar as the transform diet website, i somehow doubt this is just a coincidence. next, the ebooks list of best sellers does not imply notability of the book. a list of books that are selling well on their website is not the same thing as a reliable third party source noting its sales as significant (i.e. establishing notability). and the pr.com reference is a reposted email from iuniverse.com, this is by no means a reliable source suggesting notability either; it is just a reposted email on a user generated website. i did however update the article to mention brett's status as a self-published author as the fore word reviews page used to reference "sports nutritionist" is about the book. as for the rest of the claims you make, i have no doubt they are true, yet they are not suitable for inclusion as notable if you cannot find a reliable source discussing them. finally, the transform diet website is generally just trying to sell brett's book and seeing as the book doesn't meet notability standards for its own article, i don't believe it should be included in a biographical aritcle primarily about a college football athlete. all the information in the aritcle is supported by other sources and there is no need for this link other than for promotional purposes; a stance i will take in any other article with a similar situation. again, thank you for your more cooperative and less adversarial approach with this comment, i will try my best to do the same. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

as per the changes made during the course of this discussion; if we are going to include the info about brett's status as an author, i'm afraid i must insist it is made clear his book is self-published. as such i've reverted this edit. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

also, as to your assertion that i am trying to create the most negative biography possible; i don't believe that is true, my main focus has been on the promotional aspect of the transform diet website. i think you merely get this impression because i oppose the inclusion of the numerous dubiously or completely unsourced additions and POV claims (such as "one of the top male models in the world"). i don't have any personal grudge against brett; in contrast, it does appear you have a conflict of interest with the subject. ultimately, if i had it my way we would not have a brett salisbury article, mostly because i believe the article doesn't meet criteria for inclusion or notability, but this article is the compromise that a number of editors, including you and myself, have come to. so i may very well be preserving the negative aspects of this article, but you only view that as a problem because you want to focus primarily on the positives; i am more like your counterweight. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WookieInHeat

The rules on using self-published sources as references are pretty clear: don't!. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk)

i saw that on the article talk page, not sure what you're trying to imply with your partial quote though. regardless, for the sake of transparency lets discuss it there if you like. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The only person continuing to change the article to allow it to go south is you. You have used no sources as mentioned before that YOU would accept from credible sources? So the Marcus Schenkenberg article? He get's to keep his website on wikipedia? Pure Puffery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

i addressed this in the main discussion above, please read it. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

also i have been very carefully referencing the sources for any changes i've made, and conversing with other editors on the aritcles talk page about my changes. you are the only person who has made any objection so far, and only directly to me on my talk page. if you object to my edits why not query the other people involved in the conversation for their opinion? WookieInHeat (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Final word on edits with Salisbury

Mr. Esprqii, we will no longer participate on wikipedia. WookieInHeat as you will see has made changes to fit her or his agenda. I would kindly asked you to look at them. We were wrong about total offense and told Wookie that. Now the issues are getting absured but the administration is planning on banning or removing brett salisbury. No more. We are out. Please help and look at page. We would ask you to use your good judgement and to keep in mind Wookie In Heat has been on a mission to prove salisbury unnotable. Thank you. We again appreciate you making his name where it belongs but will no longer be involved in any more discussions. Wookie heat you can write whatever you wish. Obviously you can and will because you are an administrator. But your facts are not always correct. We find that unjust but then again you never wanted salisbury on the site. However we ARE DONE. DO as you wish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

i am not an administrator nor has any administrator threatened to ban you, you were given a warning by another user. i nominated you for a topic ban on the brett salisbury article as you clearly have a conflict of interest with the subject and consistently insert pormotional and dubious material into it and other articles without discussion. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I side with WookieInHeat on this one. The anon appears to have a single-minded agenda to promote Salisbury's book on Wikipedia--and elsewhere--as much as possible. WookieInHeat has asked you at every step to provide reliable sources to establish his fame and you have mostly failed to do so. Nearly every reliable source in the article now are ones that I found. The websites you have dug up, such as the top25modelsever, do not meet that standard. Sure, they mention Vogue and link to it, but why doesn't the Vogue site mention that site? Why is it so hard to find images of Salisbury, when every other model listed on that top25 site has dozens of images that pop up with a simple Google search? Maybe Salisbury was a model, but he doesn't appear to have been particularly famous for it. And while I'm pretty sure the "Literary Las Vegas" piece was published based on info given by Salisbury to promote his book and thus is likely more fluff, it does appear to meet the minimum standards for inclusion in the article as establishing the model career. I suggest that you read up on the dispute resolution process if you wish to pursue further changes to the article. --Esprqii (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your answer, and then we can put this to rest as we are truly done and thank you

I can answer that very easily. Brett Salisbury never modeled in the United States. He was with Elite in Atlanta georgia however didnt do a single job shown. He also worked the early to mid to late 90's. Pre www days and he did do a lot of GQ ads. You see them. I again will not be participating any longer nor will my family, however scandinavia and milan work if they are not national campaigns do not show up. Salisbury had GQ, Nexus and Nokia phone. Nokia is in Finland. If you write paparazzi and I would ask you to, contact who is on the vogue site, Leila snellman who is also quoted on the site. Write and ask for her to tell you about everything. The model management company sent him to milan. I know his story. Look at Michael Flinn number two model. Where are his pics? they if you look are brand new THANKS TO US as he went unknown but was the Hugo Boss model for years. Again, Where are all the pics of old of Hoyt Richards? Look at the list of the 25. They all are real and did what they did. However the bottom line is if you worked primarily in New York you are on an easy google site. If you were Mike Flinn in New York pre internet days? You wont find even a pic of him.. There is not even a wikipedia article on this guy. That is what we know. Again a simple email to paparazzi's laila snellman in helsinki will prove everything and more as she is the most powerful woman in scandinavia. Again there is an article of her in finnish on this site. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As we said

We are done with the ridiculous uproar you have cause Wookie in Heat (nice name). Seriously, you win. You basically were able to override everything we proved. Let it go. We will not be contributing at all. You seem to stop at no end. Even overriding the last change by Esprqii (John). And we read you took it up and were shut down with the Puppet ordeal whatever the hell that is? Anyway, all the best. Go rest your head. We were going to start a page with our real hero Michael Flinn but knowing there is barely any evidence or pics as HE WAS A MALE SUPER MODEL but the internet wouldnt know, we decided against it. Heck Flinn never even wrote a book or played football, and with hardly any pics? He must be not notable. Ridiculous girlfriend. By the way, I am a woman. You are too. You need to chill out. Did you know that the inspiration to Brett Salisbury was because of Michael Flinn who he saw every month in GQ from 1986 to 1994. I know that must be untrue to. We googled Salisbury just now and it says he slept with over 2000 women. Is that notable? LOL as you would say ever so bogus and trust us, (my girl friend and I) CHEERS! As you mock what you don't understand. Goodluck and Goodbye. If we wrote about our real hero Michael Flinn would you delete him? Silly girl. Canadian too? K. Bye. and we didn't even correct your bogus changes again. You made more mistakes than the Bush Administration. Just remember to Breathhhhhhhh.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Request

i need a page created for my band its a real band and im the leader of the band if so please email me at rammsteination@yahoo.com thnx Lacokalowell (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

do you have any references that might meet the criteria of WP:Reliable Source? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

this is links to my last fm and my offical facebook http://www.last.fm/music/Shadow+System http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shadow-System/104354609617427 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry but that is insufficient to create an article with and is likely why your previous attempt was deleted. is your band signed to a label and have you released any records? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

can u please email me and descuse what i may need to gather —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i would prefer to discuss it here, i don't see any reason why we must use email. and not that this really determines inclusion or not, but after viewing your facebook profile, i highly doubt your band meets the criteria for WP:BAND. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i kno its not many likes but im trying atleast get the name out there and gain some renown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i appreciate that, but you really do need to view the links i posted above. unfortunately it appears your band does not meet the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i've placed further links on your talk page for some info on the creation of articles. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LIKE LEGIT I SWEAR ILL SUE IF U EVER LET ANY FUTURE TRACES OF SHADOW SYSTEM (BAND)PAGE IS MADE WITH OUT MY APPROVAL -HNX SONNY LACOKA LOWELL OF SHADOW SYSTEM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

please see WP:LEGAL, threatening legal action can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1993 Ford Taurus (damaged).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1993 Ford Taurus (damaged).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NPP backlog

Hi. I'm seriously glad to to know that you are working from the bottom of the list. We need all the help we can get there. Keep up the good work! --Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Brett Salisbury at ANI (yet again)

The issue is resolved now, but you should be aware of the thread on ANI that concerned the whois information you posted on the Talk:Brett Salisbury page which has now been removed by Esprqii and a legal threat from a newly registered user regarding that info. Admins at ANI suggested we should refrain from pasting whois records with physical contact information. Sometimes I wonder if this article will ever cease to create unnecessary drama.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yes, sorry, I meant to post a note to you as well when I deleted the info. Anyway, I see that you commented on the ANI page. You could probably restore the website creation time if you wanted to, though of course it is available in the article history. Or maybe it's best to let it lie for now. Note that someone on the ANI page mentioned listing the article for deletion again--hopefully a passing thought. I think it's stable as is, until our astroturfing anon finds another IP range to abuse. --Esprqii (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ya, i saw your removal, no problem. thought about restoring the info sans personal data, but the issue appears resolved for the time being so i didn't bother. if the article continues causing problems maybe we should consider nominating it for deletion again, the guy is just hanging onto notability by his finger nails. but we'll fight that battle if/when we get to it, things are fine the way they are for now. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were about to open a sockpuppet investigation. This edit shows that VentureCapitalistAthlete is the same as the old anon. --Esprqii (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

didn't have any plans to open a new sock investigation just yet, we seem to have the situation under control. if the anon persists any further then definetly, and your attentiveness to sailsbystars' talk page will provide ample evidence if it becomes necessary. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mindlag Project

I see that you proposed deletion of Mindlag Project. The PROD was contested by the author of the article. You may like to consider taking it to AfD instead, if you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agree with the deletion of this article.i know, my first version of references was incorrect, but I've upgraded it, even if it's really difficult to find all the sources on the web. But since you doubt ;and I understand you; about the reliabilty of the source of these interviews, I've given as references the link to the official websites of this magazines, and an official news on the most reliable french metal webzine to proove it. These magazines really are famous in France, and Mindlag Project is an important band from French metal scene. The band has played abroad with some bands that are part of metal scene pillars, you can even verify it on wikipedia. They also appeared last month on the streetcult compilation in USA, with Fear Factory, Leaves eyes, or Tristania, which are really famous band too. In France, they have shared the scene with all the famous french bands you can find, just like Gojira, Dagoba or Eths (which also are on wikipedia), in front of thousands spectators. They even made a french tour as a Headliner, I was there! I'm a huge fan of the band, and according to the notability policy that I've read on this site, I think it is famous enough to have an article in here. Just ask me what proof I would have to give to you, and I'll find it, I'm confident in the reliability of this band82.235.168.105 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for contacting me on my talk page. what i would really like to see are the actual sources for the scanned news and magazine articles, where are they from? second, if the article is going to be kept, it is going to need a major rewrite to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. there is far too much personal knowledge about the band in the current article, many things that couldn't possibly be supported by any of the references. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. I've made an update, so you can see the sources of these articles (references number 16 and 19 show you where interviews are coming from, unfortunately I can't do better, because these magazines are printed ones). I understand that the style of this article sounds too subjective, but I listen to this band since a long time, and I had the chance to meet them, and I've written a lot of things that only a fan know, it's right. I'll rewrite it in a more objective way, and I hope it will be kept.82.235.168.105 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will try and help you work on this article to see if we can't justify its inclusion on wikipedia. i am just a little busy today so maybe tomorrow, but the deletion discussion won't be closed for another few days so don't worry about that. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello WookieInHeat, I've made some changes to give my article a more neutral tone, I don't know if it's good enough. And I've also made some research to find more reliable references. Thank you for you help Jon1057 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi WookieInHeat. I’m about to provide detailed citations to this article soon, they are all within the Website of Lassalle-Institute. Imho the notability of the Jerusalem-Project sources in following facts: It’s a project of renowned individuals/enterprises with a functioning network (no government functionaries) from all three monotheistic beliefs, planned over the last 10 years and initiated 2008 for a time period of 20 years. All discussions are held in English. Could you give me advice? --Spartanbu (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

hi, unfortunately primary sources (i.e. sources associated with the subject of an aritcle) are not sufficient to establish notability, only reliable third party sources do so. if you have any further questions please feel free to ask me. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check now and give me feedback, Thanks --Spartanbu (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

i took a look at the references you've added, they all appear to be hosted on one website. i just took a quick glance at them, but i am not 100% sure the single source qualifies as a WP:RS. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

i will contact the initiators of this project for more qualified, sources in English (e.g. from Israel or US) and will add them OK? --Spartanbu (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sure, sounds good. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Beachin' Award

Slakr's Beachin' Award For having an awesome username, user boxes, keeping a cool head in the face of stuff like this, and still being readily able to admit it if you've made mistakes, I hereby award you this award for being overall beachin' *bad pun included for free. :P Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Who says the well respected Strong's Concordance is NOT a realiable Source?

I know the Catholic Church would say so. Why did you revert the edit from the Samuel article? 99.56.174.63 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vector Marketing/Great Job!

Hey! Thanks for fixing up the Vector Marketing article. It's looks much better then it did previously. Phearson (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

nableezy - 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

assume good faith and be civil and i will have no reason to visit your talk page. everyone involved in the discussion is being quite polite, except yourself. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you dont seem to get the point, I dont care what you think. If you have a problem with something I wrote you can tell somebody who might care. Im not one of those people. Also, read WP:DTTR. Now, one more time, stay of my talk page. Any edit you make there will be reverted sight unseen as vandalism. nableezy - 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

not a problem, wasn't giving the warnings to you for your viewing pleasure, i was simply generating a catalog of the various edits in your talk page history; i knew you would blank them. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

also, from WP:DTTR: 'Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template." WookieInHeat (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is entitled to blank the warning per WP:BLANKING. If he continues to be uncivil th next step would be to bring it up at AE.Cptnono (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i didn't revert his blanking, i gave him two seperate warnings for different edits. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize. LOL. I think that makes at least 4 inappropriate comments in 24hrs? Happy editing to you Wookie.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. nableezy - 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm quite aware of that thanks. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The ARBPIA notices aren't properly effective unless issued by an uninvolved administrator. I have reviewed this situation and while I am not going to take any further actions, I am re-issuing the above notification / certifying it.

Please (both sides) keep assume good faith in mind and try to avoid heated conflicts here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)