User talk:Veinor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stephanie McIntosh

I'm sorry but I did not know the rule about forum links only being allowed if the forum does not require registration. Our link has been on this page for over a year now, and the reason we put it there is not to promote our forum. It is simply to offer somewhere to go for fans of Stephanie who want to talk about her with other fans. Adding the link to the page was to help people of this nature find it, as wikipedia is one of the first places a fan would search. We thought that by calling it "Stephanie McIntosh Fan Forum" we had declared that it was specifically for fans and it would be assumed that registration was needed. It was never created for the purpose of finding more info on Stephanie, but I suspect this is why it is a problem. Could you please clarify this for me, thanks. CyberneticOrgasm 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the rule is that no fansites are allowed unless the subject of the article would have a significatn number of fansites and the fansite is very large. This seems to fail the second criteria. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

About the speedy deletion of Davis Senior High School Band Program

I had created the article for a school project, and it is due tommorow. As such are the circumstances, I will have to re-make the article because it is going to be presented tommorow. Feel free to delete it any time after this week. Tricklin 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't keep pages just because they're for a school project. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our assignment was to create a wikipedia article randomly assigned topics and present it to the class. And, like I said, as presentations are this week, I have no problem with the article being deleted anytime after this week. Just give me time to present it. Also, I will remove the deletion banner before it is presented, but if you would like I can put it back afterwards. thanks Tricklin 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article meets WP:MUSIC, as "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources", "Has won or placed in a major music competition. ". Tricklin 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have this information, then you need to put it in the article, along with sources. Also, you're free to remove that deletion banner at any time (and if you don't by 3 December 2006, it will be deleted), but keep in mind that an AfD deletion banner will be added, and if it is still there by the time of your presentation, you will probably not be able to remove it. Finally, if it goes through AfD and is deleted, recreating it without first going through deletion review will result in it being speedily deleted again. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Manowar Petition

Hey, please don't delete the petition section from Manowar's page. I am not a Wikipedia vandal. I am merely trying to provide information for UK Manowar fans who share the same sentiment. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.76.230 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

It's still spam, as it's a fan-created petition with only 100 signatures. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 180 signatures, and it was only started yesterday evening. I'm just trying to get the ball rolling really. I know you have to mark it as spam, but it's kind of a unique situation. I know the Manowar fans are out there, I'm just trying to find ways to reach them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.76.230 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

If you're trying to 'get the word out there', then Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How come? It's a band information page, and it looks like it's viewed fairly often. It seems like just the kind of place to get attention for it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.76.230 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not using it as a soapbox; we are not just voicing an opinion, we are presenting a legitimate cause with relation to the band.

Er... you're advocating a cause; that's pretty much the definition of a soapbox. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that you're just doing your job. Would it be possible for you to allow the link to the petition to appear in the "links" section at least? Thanks.

No, for the same reason. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well fair enough, you have the power, we dont, so you feel happy using your iron first, I bet i'd see double standards if someone posted a petition for having another Ratchet and Clank game for the PS2.

Not really. I'd remove it and treat it just the same. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You took "probably" out, because you're biased. If you want to know Manowar's opinion on the matter, look no further than the page you so clearly think you own. "I know that a lot of people are against us. But they can get fucked and eat shit and die" - Joey Demaio.

I took "probably" out beacuse I'm used to writing in that way, not because I'm biased. I don't think that I own the page. And are you saying that I can "get fucked and eat shit and die?" May I refer you to WP:CIVIL? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. You've done nothing to offend me :S. The point I was trying to make is that Manowar's whole ethos is that the fans come first. Wikipedia's page says that the aim is to create "an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia". Therefore the page should represent the band, and the people involved. Inherently linked to Manowar are the fans. Manowar's page should therefore not only be a page about the band, but a page for the fans themselves, and with this in mind, fan activity in relation to the band should be allowed. Even a brief glance at any Manowar DVD will show clips sent in by fans of their tattooes, or things that they have done to show their loyalty to the band. The section on self promotion states that neutrality is required; yet this is difficult to apply to a page about a band who once said "If you do not like Manowar, well then fuck you".

How does the band's statement make neutrality difficult exactly? And what do you mean by 'a page for the fans themselves.' If we allowed fan activity to be added to every band page... I think the servers would probably fill up lightning-fast. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then what Wikipedia needs is some kind of forum section, where the opinions of those responding to the pages can be aired separate from the main page. Seems like a case like ours is problematic...because while it contains factual information pertinent to the band as an entity (other Manowar fan groups, such as the official forum for the band, are also participating in the petition), but because the petition is active, and by its inclusion we are promoting it...as if the page were a "soapbox" as you phrased it. If the petition is successful and the band return, then I imagine the section would be allowed.

You see that little tab at the top of your screen, the one that says 'talk'? I think that's what you're talking about. Go to the Manowar page, and click on it. And if the band does return, and proof is given that the petition played a significant part in said return (e.g., a statement from the band), then yes, it would deserve a section. However, until then, the link should stay off. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Drmspeedy template nonexistent talk page choking

Sorry about that. I'm digging through Mediawiki documentation about conditional inclusion as we speak... Tonywalton  | Talk 01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? I just found out you can {{#if:thing|then thing 1|else thing 2}}. Hopefully that works now! Tonywalton  | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did test it, at [[User:Tonywalton:Drmspeedy]]. What with being a complete pillock though, I forgot my driver page at [[User:Tonywalton:Drmtest]] was subst-ing the /expletive deleted/ thing (yeah, I'd typed "{{subst:" out of sheer habit), so I was looking at an old version. Sigh. Still, should be OK now. Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, you might want to give {drmspeedy2}} the same treatment. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'Tis done. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Solstice

Okay. I'm fully new here, and not at all sure if this is the right place. But I'm hoping to contact Veinor about his rather rapid deletion of a link that I made (my third ever) on the Solstice page regarding a global celebration of the solstice. This is a new and unique cultural event, and one that I thought should be more widely noted. It has a red-herring kind of name, and that may have been the reason for its rapid removal. But the event is very much in the vein of the solstice, rebirth, renewal, and all that, and it is happening this solstice. I have nothing to do with the site; I'm not spaming. Just trying to share value. Take a look, and I think you'll agree: GlobalOrgasm.org Thanks. WilliamCrandall 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did reach me. The reason I removed it wasn't the name, but because it seems to be rather irrelevant. It may be in the same vein, but it isn't related to the solstice except for being on the winter one. See the external links policy for more information. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. A global celebration of the solstice, which highlights one of its ancient/perennial/key meanings, is "irrelevant" to the solstice. Doesn't make sense to me, but you're the man. Thanks again. WilliamCrandall 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I need to explain this differently. The Global Orgasm event is clearly related to the solstice, but the solstice's relation to Global Orgasm is more tenuous; the relationship isn't symmetric, so WP:EL comes into play here. We don't have links to any other solstice-related event on Solstice for the same reason. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, some light. More's the pity. Would it be wrong to create a Wiki page for Global Orgasm, and link *from* there *to* the solstice page? I'm likely heading off in another direction, so this is a fairly academic question. Thanks. WilliamCrandall 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can show Global Orgasm is notable (by providing coverage by multiple independent sources that are themselves notable, such as major news networks like Fox, CNN, ABC, the BBC), then yes, that would be perfectly allowable. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From your userpage

I suspect the following, which I've stripped from your userpage, belongs here. Tonywalton  | Talk 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry

i dont know if this is where i should write this.. sorry i deleted the speedy thing.. i'm new, this is only my second artile created.. check the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedee911 (talk • contribs)

S'ok. And in the future, add comments here, on my talkpage, not on my userpage. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dreadhead

According to the Wikipedia:Notability (people) article, one of the criteria for inclusion is a "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" and "Name recognition" all of which Dreadhead has in the Indianapolis Colts community. The Dreadhead appears in the team's opening video, in the program and on the big screen as "AAA - Fan of Game," in addition to his weekly occurences on the big screen in RCA Dome. In the Indianapolis community, the Dreadhead has been recognized on countless occasions, and in his former college community of Muncie, IN. He has also appeared on several Colts Caravan promotional tour stops, recognizable as such.

Sources are required for these claims, and whether the above-mentioned communities are large enough to be considered a 'large fan base' is possibly debatable. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources will be placed, but in your fanaticism, the page hasn't existed long enough for me to provide them. I am a bit concerned with your "Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Dreadhead. It is considered vandalism." I hadn't realized that writing an article under anything but your auspices would be considered as such.

As for a 'large fan base' as debatable, why not let readers decide. You opinion is clear, but does that make it the only correct one? That's debatable. And BTW, your name is spelled wrong in romanji.

I haven't been a fanatic about deleting it; I don't think I've put it up for deletion at all. What makes you think that my 'auspices' are the sole determination of what belongs on Wikipedia? And finally, no, my opinion isn't the only correct one. BTW, the romanji aren't derived from the katakana; the katakana are derived from the romanji. 'Vēnoru' is the closest thing in Japanese phoneticsphonology to the way I usually pronounce it: Vānōr. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at this story where he is quoted: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4837613

"I don't think I've put it up for deletion at all." You placed it under speedy deletion despite my hangon tag.

"What makes you think that my 'auspices' are the sole determination of what belongs on Wikipedia?" Two telling quotes: "but it's all worth it when you see that you got someone blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags from his vanity page about his band. Aww yeah." You seek out those you deem unworthy and high five yourself with such bravado as if it were a badge of honor. Yet you bemoan your fate with the statement "it's a thankless job, and you tend to get flamed for it." Perhaps it's not the anti-vandalism, but the arrogance?

You displayed that with "BTW, the romanji aren't derived from the katakana; the katakana are derived from the romanji. 'Vēnoru' is the closest thing in Japanese phonetics to the way I usually pronounce it." Romanji's not phonetics, it's orthography. Perhaps you meant Japanese phonology.

"You placed it under speedy deletion despite my hangon tag." The hangon tag does NOT mean to remove the speedy deletion tag; it should be added either immediately before or after the speedy tag (I prefer under). The 1st quote from my profile is meant to be tongue-in-cheek; obviously this doesn't necessarily communicate over the internet. The 'thankless job' bit isn't a result of arrogance, it's a result of the fact that people who vandalize wikipedia despite warnings tend also to be rather rude.

And I'm not sure whether I meant phonology or phonetics; let me try to explain that again. I came up with the name 'Veinor' a while back, and I use it across the net. Then, I decided to add the katakana that would be pronounced closest to how I pronounce it, and that is my result. So yeah, I did mean phonology. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Something you've never quite answered. You've never explained what an "inappropriate page" is other than quoting qualifications that the article meets.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here; would you please clarify? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies about loosing the speedy delation tag, it was not intentional. Will put the hang on tag in, then add to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robespiere (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

Fable 2

Veinor, I apologise for the editing of Fable 2 page, I will confirm my update before editing again.

Modern Times Link Deletion

Hi, I think that just because the movie is hosted at google video, the link cant be on wikipedia is not right. Bcartolo 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that google video can have copyright issues, just like YouTube. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But it says explicitily that the movie has been released under the creative commons licence. But waht about if i upload it to wikicommons? that would be okey? Bcartolo 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it has? I didn't see that part. Go ahead and add it back then. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2

so are you da self-appointed link police.. well, you know the old problem is, that waht the one finds usefull the other doesn't. maybee you should therefore reconsider if it is exactly YOU who is the chosen one to sanctionate other users, for i personally don't intent to add useless or unfitting content and those self-appointet sherriffs frankly spoken do bother me a little. why don't you just focus on your own business instead of getting involved into other ppl's business?

just for information, as you obvoilsy didn't read the guidelines for linkposting: "They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page." i'd say my link perfectly fits the criteria. i have red the discussions in the talk section and found that absolutly noone answers the the discussion concerning links so whats the point in it...

get grown up buddy;)

If you read the section immediately under your link addition, you would see that approval on the talkpage is required. This approval was not obtained. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

???

What did I do?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pointlessweb (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

You recreated Pointlessweb under Pointlessweb1 in order to get around the delete-protect on Pointlessweb Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Davis Senior High School Band Program

Sorry, I just needed to remove it very very briefly so I could save the HTML with out it. Tricklin 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused

You have just sent me a message about editing a page about spam... I replaced a link that someone else deleted and added more information to the topic at hand—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.171.254 (talk • contribs)

Eh, it looked kinda spammy at first. But I guess it can stay; just don't overdo it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done anyway, there just aren't many good examples of extreme hard drive mods or extreme laptop mods out there to actually link to, and when trying to explain something like that I've always felt that examples are a good thing.

Hi Veinor, the changes we discussed the other day were now just deleted by someone named Qtip42 as being spam.. I've tried to contact him via talk and the discussion page, but he just ignores me, in question was the 'case modding' page with the examples I added .

You did well bringing these up on the talkpage instead of re-adding these. I'll keep an eye on this, but remember that nobody is in fallible on wikipedia, and I might have been wrong. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that he cited 'site promotion' as a reason to delete.. but HIS site Computer-Choppers, and the picture of the Batman Case mod is his... so there is obviously something going on here... if you look into the history you will see he is deleting things often and editing them to make himself look good in a not so obvious way. His site computer-choppers is actually a site that sells modding services, does that not fall under spam? also the WMD mod that links ot bit tech is done by a bit-tech staffer. and the other link leads to bit-tech as well.. what gives here? only his site and bit-tech are allowed to be externally linked and he deletes the rest? If you need proof of who he is go to digg under the latest section, there is a front page story about case mods... and a user with the same exact name Qtip42 post for people to check out his site and his mod with a link to computer-choppers.

I just received a message so I'm not trying to "ignore" anyone as I just noticed it. When I first got here which was not that long ago I put up the computer choppers link which was a bad idea. Someone removed it and rightfully so. I kept the batman case up because it is a relavant example of a professional custom case which has much to do with what is being discussed. While I do run a customizing service, I am also a hobbyist and have been for a decade. I don't believe that excludes me from trying to help make the wiki page as professional as possible. That stated, I'm in no way affiliated with Bit-Tech. Their forum produces quite a bit of professional cases as well. If you've noticed on the case modding wiki page there's a lot of people that post their links and run. I decided to stick around and generally help out by adding whatever information I can. The external links look like they got out of control at one point so I keep the ones I post to a minimum and others that don't seem to fit or are of bad quality, I question.

I didn't see they were approved. I assumed because someone simply added links in various places to the same website without adding too much in the way of dialogue that it was probably just site promotion so I modified it. The examples, in my opinion, were subpar as there are many examples of laptop and hard drive mods done professionally (but that is simply my opinion). He is more than welcome to put it back up. Sorry for the hassle. -Qtip42

The 'approval' thing is kinda murky... a lot of times, you get disagreement about it. So, I really don't mind either way any more. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles about companies

See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you

Many new articles about companies and organizations are added to Wikipedia every day. Not all belong here. To ensure that articles you create about companies are clearly seen to be in the category of those that do belong, always work from sources that are independent of the company, and cite those sources in the very first edit. That will demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Simply recycling the company's/organization's autobiography and promotional blurb taken off its web site will not do that, and indeed is one of the things that our G11 speedy deletion criterion addresses. Uncle G 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I saw. I'm not sure about Hope Haven now, but I'm positive Direct Relief International is WP-worthy. I'm kinda busy right now, but I'll probably look for citations later. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Goodonya! But don't postpone doing so. Working from and citing independent sources right from the start really will save you effort overall. Uncle G 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice; I'm usually a vandalfighter, not a page creator.

Milk

Hi, you recently deleted a link made on the milk page. I believe the "Nutritional/physiological detriments" section of this page is severely lacking in content and references. As opposed to filling up the page with this information, I feel it is prudent to link externally. I have no relation to its author or motivation for linking to it other than I feel it is a very comprehensive collection of studies from around the world. The page's author has listed his references and cited many medical journals and studies. There is a wealth of important information about studies done on milk consumption, its affects and myths, etc, which are not easily gathered in one place, to my knowledge. If you are aware of a more appropriate site that contains this information and is unbiased, please replace it. Otherwise, I'll ask that you leave the link alone.

Thanks

The link in question comes from a very biased site, the purpose of which seems to be exclusively to discourage the drinking of milk. The article is also written in the same tone; therefore, it cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll invite you to point out which one of the following "types" of bias (from the NPOV page) the link in question violates: Class bias, Commercial bias, Ethnic or racial bias, Gender bias, Geographical bias Nationalistic bias, Political bias, Religious bias, Sensationalism.

I'll also invite you to explain what the author (a breast surgeon) or myself has to gain or profit from the implied bias.

Finally, please explain how a link to the National Dairy Council is any less biased. A quick review of the site shows a strong bias towards the benefits of daily consumption of milk and dairy and zero effort to consider the adverse affects of daily consumption (except to dismiss relevant medical studies as myths perpetuated by special interest groups).

Outside the US, there is fervent debate on whether or not dairy consumption is "healthy". These issues and concerns are not currently given a place on Wikipedia.

Please do not let your own biases interfer with the purpose of Wikipedia - to share information.

Thanks again

Please note the statement above the bias list: 'Types of bias include'. This does not deny the existence of other kinds of bias. As for what the author or you have to gain, you do not have to gain anything to be biased. The National Dairy Council link cannot be compared to the notmilk.com link because of the relative sizes of the organizations; also, the bias is much more blatant on notmilk, since it states it explicitly. The NDC is only biased implicitly, and implicit biases are harder to judge. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused. You have since removed the PETA run "milksucks" website (even though that site is referenced elsewhere in the article) thus eliminating almost all opposing viewpoints. Doesn't that make the article even more biased? I am not a fan of PETA (nor did I post the link), but their website has just as much relevance to this article as any of the others listed. There needs to be some instance of this information listed in this article for the article itself to be unbiased. Since my contribution and the PETA link have both been removed, the article is certainly not.

I will request mediation or comment on this issue.

Thanks

Dispute

I noticed that you have locked your talk page instead of allowing discussion or debate about the article in question.

No I haven't. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. It would not allow me to edit the above section before. I made a false assumption.

Apology accepted; however, in the future, please do not assume that your inability to edit something is a result of malicious intent. The wikipedia servers are becoming somewhat iffy, and the database must occasionally be frozen wholesale. I wouldn't lock my talkpage in any case, as someone might need to contact me for a very good reason (and I couldn't even if I wanted to, lacking admin powers.) Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

links to lyricwiki

hi veinor, about my links of songs to their lyrics on lyricswiki, i read the external links guidelines and they say nothing about not being allowed to link to other major wikis. also, the wikipedia page for lyricwiki said that links to lyricwiki are needed, so these links i'm putting up are justified. -Use_the_force

You misunderstood. The wikipedia page said that links to the article are needed, not to lyricwiki itself. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

threat of blacklisting

seriously, Veinor, what you're doing isn't fair. my links are very useful and they are most certainly NOT SPAM LINKS!!! just reconsider deleting the links, and DON'T blacklist me.

I didn't mean to add the threat of blacklisting... yet. If you add another link to lyricswiki, however, I will add the template back. Listings of lyrics are generally easily findable, and adding the same link to many different pages is generally considered WP:SPAM. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

mtg plnner deletes

You deleted some links to commerical sites listing mtg plnners, calling them / it linkspam. I don't see how they fit the definition of linkspam I just read on Wik. What is your reason for deleting these links? Kdammers 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD deletion reasons

Because something is made in school one day is not a valid deletion reason. Something like CSD G1 is better. If you have questions you know where you find me on IRC. If you don't find me on IRC please reply to my talk page thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool. I'll start prod'ing those instead. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Thadius856, hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your tireless efforts in reverting vandalism and cleaning up linkspam.

Username

I had no idea, I just assumed that it would work as it was my IP address, would it just be easier to start over and creat a worded username or will the system allow it? 74.241.140.49 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you have 53 edits, it's somewhat borderline. It is possible to change usernames... see WP:CHU. I'd put in a request but state that you're willing to make an entirely new account if it's too much trouble to change it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher_Pimentel

Beat ya :-P Nashville Monkey 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I could use some advice here. Please look at the talk page plus the article's history Nashville Monkey 09:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Poke Ball

it's used as a reference in Criticism of Pokemon, and it's being used as an outside source that has seen the connection to Poke Balls and Fetishism. If there were another source I'd use it, but there isn't, and the point is important to make so the reader can understand the reasons behind so much variety within the pokemon universe. Also, pls do not do massive reverts when you only disagree with one part of the article. That is not proper etiquette and is considered very rude and disrespectful, see WP:DR. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; I didn't mean to do all that reverting. I don't think you can use that as a source; it's so obviously POV that it hurts. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to give balance to the article, and even though the article itself may hate Pokemon and find it evil, the parallels it draws are significant and notable enough to be included in an article that talks about Poke Balls. I'd like you to understand how I'm trying to show the similarity to fetishism, I really can't just say there are parallels because that would be WP:OR so I'm giving a source, a neutral source would be ideal, but there just isn't one right now, not until someone writes a college paper on the subject :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, I think that, due to the overall bias of the article, any conclusions it draws are going to be suspect. The thing of it is, the only mention the article even makes of fetishism is that it says that children might try to use the pokemon themselves as fetishes; it mentions nothing about the pokeballs being in-universe fetishes. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, feel free to view the compromise I've made at Poke ball. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

Of course I'm somewhat upset, but also I'm not surprised. But hey, kid, I'm through with wiki for a while. I've learned my lesson.

My proffessors don't "cite their degrees as proof," I do. I'm not the only person who got their articles deleted in my class, in fact I was the only person who successfully defended her article for a time. My classmates didn't all write or edit articles that had to do with the school. One person edited articles on two college football coaches at an entirely different school. One of his articles went by with no problem and the other got deleted on the spot.

As far as relevance goes... journalism proffessors generally preach notability and truth. It's not like I asked a chemistry (or programming) proffessor if an article was relevant... I'm really not that ignorant, I promise you. In fact, I didn't -ask- any proffessor, they just told me when I turned in my assignment. Where 'school spirit' is concerned, well, come visit my university some time.

By the way, yes, they have read the policies. The one who gave us the assignment has been casually editing pages for a while.

But, I think I'll get back to my homework. Like I said, I learned my lesson: Wikipedia is not a -notable- source. I think I'll stick to the World Book Encyclopedia. But you get back to whatever it is you do (such as relentlessly pursuing the violators of wikipedia rules and regulations).

Oh, I'm a bit concerned about how quickly you saw the changes on my page... 147.97.242.147 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you what you mean by "Wikipedia is not a -notable- source"? Also, it seems to me that a lot of the notability stuff is subjective; I personally conferred with some other people who have a good deal more experience at vandalfighting than I do (one of whom is an admin). You have your authorities to back you up, I have mine. As for my quick response time, there is actually a good reason for that. When I asked you what your project was, I put your page on my watchlist, so that when you responded, it would show up. When I did so, your userpage automatically was added (that always happens; there's no way to remove one without removing the other). I never did get around to removing it, as I viewed it as relatively unimportant. So your edit to your userpage showed up on my watchlist. It's not like I was stalking you or anything. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wikipedia was never considered a reliable source in my high school. In college, it's allowed, but most proffessors look down on students who can't get better information. A student definitely couldn't write a thesis with wiki sources. Like I said, I'm just going to stick to World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica, since those are worthy sources (actually, encyclopedias should be used very little) and the editors can be trusted. Wikipedia is more leisurely. If I was curious about the name of an author, or some such, I -might- come to wikipedia, but I'm not going to say "Hey, I'm right and you're wrong because wiki told me so..." PandaRico 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; when I'm doing my homework, I use WP to get a general idea; I never cite it directly. I used Wikisource once, but I try to avoid that too. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo Links

• Well if you don't want links to Bobobo pictures, then why don't you just upload images then so I don't have to go through all that hard work!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Why should I upload images for you? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not about me, it's about the site. I mean come'on!, Naruto has images. Bobobo only has 2 images and that is pretty sad! You'll be helping in cotributing instread of wiping all of everyone's hard work. Don't be like Danny Lilithborne. Kid Sonic

A: What did Danny Lilithborne do to you? B: While I agree that the lack of images is bad, I think that the spam and the vandalfighting is a more pressing problem. Obviously, you don't, so why don't you upload images? And if you think that vandalfighting is 'wiping all of everyone's hard work', I invite you to consider how you would like it if, say, someone replaced all of Bobobo with 'PENISPENISPENIS' and nobody bothered to turn it back? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I'm trying to help the site
• 2. Danny Lilithborne is very limited on the Zatch Bell! He won't even let my add a plot summary(like Naruto) let alone episode summaries.
• 3. That's just it I don't know how to upload images. Everytime I try to, it comes up invalid. I'm not good at uploading images. Kid Sonic

The thing of it is, I'm trying to help the site as well. I'm just doing it in a different way, mostly by removing useless content. And, are you trying to upload images directly from the web site? Because you need to save a copy to your hard drive first. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Last change

Hi,

I wrote an article about a piece of software I discovered and find tremendously helpful, after searching and finding that such an article doesn't exist here. I have no connection with the company that makes the product, except that I'm a very happy user. Furthermore, the software I wrote about is free software, like wikipedia itself. I don't understand how this is inappropriate, in fact my goal here was to help others find free, non-commercial solutions to their problems, as I've done for myself. It seems like this is a very good example of appropriate content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

First off, thank you for not deleting the CSD tag when you added {{hangon}}. That's pretty rare. Second, I think it looks like spam because of phrases like '[I] have already fallen head-over-heels in love with it' and 'I use Web Maestro now because it knows which files I've changed and allows me to upload only those, without having to track them myselves.' Generally, use of first-person and second-person (I, you, we, our, ours, your, my, etc.) is highly discouraged on Wikipedia; in this case, it makes the article look like an advertisement. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Veinor's penchant for deleting appropriate material?

(manually transferred from talk:Web Maestro by thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

After reading Veinor's talk page I find a great many complaints about inappropriate deletions and blacklisting:

• "hi veinor, about my links of songs to their lyrics on lyricswiki, i read the external links guidelines and they say nothing about not being allowed to link to other major wikis. also, the wikipedia page for lyricwiki said that links to lyricwiki are needed, so these links i'm putting up are justified. -Use_the_force"

• "seriously, Veinor, what you're doing isn't fair. my links are very useful and they are most certainly NOT SPAM LINKS!!! just reconsider deleting the links, and DON'T blacklist me."

• "You deleted some links to commerical sites listing mtg plnners, calling them / it linkspam. I don't see how they fit the definition of linkspam I just read on Wik. What is your reason for deleting these links? Kdammers 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

• "Because something is made in school one day is not a valid deletion reason. Something like CSD G1 is better. If you have questions you know where you find me on IRC. If you don't find me on IRC please reply to my talk page thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

It seems Veinor would like to remove the article for personal reasons, rather than for the quality of its content or the usefulness of what it describes.

DigitalEnthusiast 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit the last one was my fault. However, the other 3 are taken wildly out of context. The first one was a misunderstanding; the user thought the request for links to the lyricwiki article meant links to the lyricwiki site. For the second one, the blacklist was an accident; I mis-clicked. The third one was a bunch of links to sites that didn't contain any additional information. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

and, I came here to thank Veinor for helping delete commercial spam on the e-Books page.DGG 03:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

re: User_talk:JackFoxInc

Hi Veinor...you will see that User:JackFoxInc still puts up those petition links on Ed Kavalee, Richard Marsland and Tony Martin (comedian) wiki's....what a pain eh? --Mikecraig 05:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

but petitions are good things!!-Hotspot

Not when they're linked to on Wikipedia (unless they've garnered mainstream media attention). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I didnt know about that. Please give me more time to elaborate on the page

pnut10

If you take a look at those links, they are websites the review, hype energy drinks, we do not own these site. They are just sites or blogs that reffer to the specific taste of our product. They are a reference to taste, style, and effect. Not spam, they are totally related to the character of hype energy and another reference (like wiki) about hype energy.

Veinor, FYI, I've deleted the whole Hype Energy article as a blatant advertisement. FreplySpang 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

--(warning removed) WP:AGF-- --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding; I accidentally added vandalism while reverting it (didn't find the right edit to revert to). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

KwonHo

I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia. So forgive me if I'm acting like an idiot. But, look, tell me why you think ijji's most recent game doesn't deserve a page on Wikipedia. Look at the ijji page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijji GunZ, Gunster, and Gunbound each have their respective pages, because they're games that are published by Ijji, and because plenty of people play them. It's the exact same thing with KwonHo--it's a game published by Ijji, and is currently being developed and expanded upon. Hell, GunZ is still in beta as well. What's up with this? I can't think of a single reason why it doesn't deserve a page. I've cross-posted this to the KwonHo discussion page. TerminusEst13 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of other articles does not establish notability. You need to prove notability for KwonHo. Also, GunBound gets 2.75M googlehits, "Gunz the Duel" gets 340K, and Gunster gets 310k. KwonHo gets 20k. There is a clear difference here. Cross-posting to Talk:KwonHo. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

KwonHo is relatively new and quiet, it doesn't have much publicity, and it's by a yet-unheard of company. Gunbound has been around for years and years, and GunZ has numerous other editions across the world that are complete. I dunno about Gunster. Again, I'm a newbie, how do I prove notability? Should I take pictures of how many people play the game and compare them to GunZ/Gunbound/Gunster, which might be a while since today's beta access hasn't opened yet? Should I make a list of all the good sites that mention it, under criteria one? mmosite.com has numerous references of KwonHo. It's even on the Korean version of GameSpot, of all places: http://www.gamespot.com.cn/gamespot/common/0,3800070310,39057342p,00.html . Sure, it only has 20k hits, but most of those are pretty good. What more should I do to try and prove notability, or should I just wait until it's released completely and more people have heard of it? Also, should I keep cross-posting to the discussion page so the admins can read our debate, or just keep it to your talk page? TerminusEst13 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely keep posting to KwonHo; I don't know about continually posting here. But the admins can read it either way. And your statement "KwonHo is relatively new and quiet, it doesn't have much publicity, and it's by a yet-unheard of company." proves its non-notability. I'd wait until it's completely released and more people have heard of it. The notability criteria are on WP:WEB. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Guh. On a completely off-topic subject (sorry if this should get a different convobox thingy or if I'm doing something I shouldn't), but do you think you could put up the Deadwina article for deletion? It's entirely unnotable, dealing with a character that makes only a cameo in the singleplayer campaign and is just a playable character in the multiplayer. She's got no impact on the story whatsoever, and thus, isn't important at all. I'd nominate it myself, but the "how to do this" guidelines kinda...made my head swim. Though, admittedly, maybe that was all the vodka. TerminusEst13 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this; I put it up for proposed deletion. Someone removes that, it goes to articles for deletion. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoo, thanks. You're the man. TerminusEst13 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Visual Music

the iotacenter (www.iotacenter.org) is the oldest organization dedicated to visual music, and the website contains many great resources including over 40 published articles, biographies of artists, and upcoming events. To claim such a link is 'innapropriate' on the visual music page indicates the correcting user has not done any research into the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonelvisamerica 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I presume you are Jonelvisamerica? The reason I removed it was because it was spam, pure and simple. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

yes- I apologize for not logging in before. I'm unclear on why you would regard this as 'spam.' This is a legitimate website offering much more information on the subject of visual music. The organization is well established and has been aiding those of us in the visual music community for several years. Another visual music organization, the Center for Visual Music has an external link on the page, and it only seemed appropriate to link to the large cache of information at the iotaCenter as well. Currently the page is dominated by the Center for Visual Music (a user named 'CVM' initiated the page, and 3 of the external links point directly to them or their subsidiaries). The attempt to include iota was to help people new to visual music (as I was once myself) to understand that there are multiple routes to support in the medium, and a great deal of information online outside of Wikipedia.

how can this be resolved? would it help to link only to iota's online library? Jonelvisamerica 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; I think a link to the library would be all right. And thank you for the information about the Center for Visual Music domination. I actually might remove that link, since you're not supposed to link to your own site. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline of video gaming

Hey man, thanks for giving me advice. Why did you get rid of my external links? And do you know anything about the Decline of Video gaming?

a^(talk)]]) 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the external links because most of them were only tangentially relevant. And I've seen the series a couple of times; loved it too. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you deleted my article. You could have at least said what was wrong with my link on the talk page, or posted it on my talk.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by E-lord (talk • contribs).

We already went over that on the article's talkpage; its popularity simply couldn't be ascertained. And I didn't delete it, I think it was User:Eagle 101 that deleted it. The 'Doctor Flash' site appears to be rather non-notable. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting other people's work without notifying them first

Why would you take it upon yourself to delete others' work without warning them first so that they can delete things on their own?Bcsurvivor 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no obligation to tell you that I'm going to remove your content. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"What makes you think that my 'auspices' are the sole determination of what belongs on Wikipedia?" Two telling quotes: "but it's all worth it when you see that you got someone blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags from his vanity page about his band. Aww yeah." You seek out those you deem unworthy and high five yourself with such bravado as if it were a badge of honor. Yet you bemoan your fate with the statement "it's a thankless job, and you tend to get flamed for it." Perhaps it's not the anti-vandalism, but the arrogance?" - I agree with this person completely. You should have an independent, objective person read your user page and tell you the truth. Perhaps you can't see how you come off to anyone who reads your user page and gets their first impression of you from it.Bcsurvivor 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'offending' section has been removed; apparently the tongue-in-cheek didn't translate over the internet. And the repeated removal of CSD tags from a page of which you are the author, for example, is a definite blockable offense, no matter what anyone says. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The so-called 'tongue-in-cheek' didn't translate well at all, and I'm sure that many, many people who have read your user page felt the same way - that it only makes you look arrogant and callous.Bcsurvivor 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it's gone now, and it's replaced with something that I find to be really true. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you come off as 'arrogant' and 'callous' when you automatically accuse anyone who criticizes you as not knowing any better.Bcsurvivor 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do I do that? I simply said that sometimes, people criticize me on the basis of the fact that other people have criticized me. I never said that this is what most people do, I simply say that it happens. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were smart, you would simply stick with the facts on your user page and not digress into your personal, subjective opinion regarding other people involved with wikipedia - and no one would be able to misinterpret your attitude and behavior.Bcsurvivor 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it; I'm entitled to my own. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re:Kya: Dark Lineage

You beat me to it (reverting Hotspot's edits). It's not just that it's a forum, but that it's his/her forum, so Hotspot's clearly only adding the link for their own promotion rather than for the benefit of other users. Ironically I only looked at Kya: Dark Lineage after reading Hotspot's anti-Wikipedia-admin rant on Petitiononline [1], where he also managed to post a link to his forum! 172.188.100.135 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

that is such a lie! i made the article on wikipedia! the forum has to do with kya dark lineage, and where the heck do you get off with anti wikipedia?!!!! i like wikipedia i would never be anti wikipedia! and the link to the forum is so people can ask questions about kya dark lineage. [User:Hotspot|Hotspot]]

You supported the 'stop wikipedia corruption' petition. That seems to be anti-wikipedia to me. Also, the forum is a forum, and therefore forbidden under WP:EL. Finally, please remain WP:CIVIL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

that is not an anti wikipedia petition that is a stop wikipedia corruption petition which would mean it stop people from editing the most dumbest things on wikipedia like the link to my one more chance to wish forum that has kdl in it. and where does it say that there aren't any forums allowed?Hotspot

Right on WP:EL, under 'Links normally to be avoided', number 10. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't see anything about forums unless it says something else that means forums-Hotspot

Go to WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Look at number 10 in the list. If you can't see the word 'forums' in there, I suggest you get your eyes checked. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Hotspot's trying to troll you, I've already highlighted the relevant section on forums on Hotspot's talk page, a message which he replied to earlier. 172.188.100.135 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

okay i did not see that i am sorry for the trouble but that ip guy is lieing and he/she still is, and he is still trying to be a mean person or something like that. oh and if wikipedia didn't have the forum rule would you keep my forum on wikipedia?-Hotspot

No. I still would not, due to the fact that it is also your forum, and is therefore self-promotion; see the section of WP:EL labeled 'Advertising and conflicts of interest', as well as WP:COI. Also, please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

do you even belive that i made the kdl article???? and do you even like kya dark lineage??!!-Hotspot

I believe you made the article; I can see your username as the first editor. As for the game itself, I've never even heard of it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

then why do you even bother going to the article if you have never even heard of it?-Hotspot

Because addition of links to Wikipedia is recorded and rebroadcast in an IRC channel. The fact that it links to a forum caught my eye. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i found a kya dark lineage fanlisting here [[2]] is it okay to put it on the kdl article?-Hotspot

No; it's still a fan-run site, and has a markedly asymmetric relationship to KDL. See WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kokudrumroll

First, thanks for taking the time to patrol wikipedia. I know that it's a thankless job but it is really great that you are doing it since it makes all of the information here much more relevant.

Here's more information on kokudrumroll:

Kokudrumroll is a turn-based strategy game with growing user base of hundreds of users (including board game groups, groups from work, etc) and would make a great addition to wikipedia. A link to the game is already the top link on Google's search for "java turn based strategy". Also, it is often used for reference for java based programming by a number of people that I know. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thraveboy (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, you're welcome. Unfortunately, however, you will need to prove notability using reliable sources in order for it to be included. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Foshata

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Foshata, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Foshata. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

what is a foshanta anyway?-hotspot

yKAN article

I am writing to inform you that I have made modifications to this article. I have re-written the article in "my own words" so as to avoid any potential issues with copyright infringement. I hope by sending you this update, you may be able to re-review the article as possibly remove the flag that is currently being displayed. As well, as an administrator, if the article was acceptable, I was wondering if you could update the topic name to be indicated as "yKAN" instead of "YKAN". Jochoki 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Jochoki

I'm not actually an admin, but I can make that change. I wrote how on the article's talkpage. I removed the copyright flag, but I added one due to a lack of assertions of notability. Please read WP:BIO and WP:N; if you can prove its notability using reliable sources (see WP:RS), then I don't see any reason to delete it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the claim for notability, the following are Korean newspaper articles scans for the organizations participation in the New York area community. The articles appear pre-dominantly in Korean, due to the organizations primary focus being that of the Korean American community. As there are multiple times that this organization is written about on multiple occasions, I hope this is sufficient to classify as notable. Scan of Article 1, Scan of Article 2, Scan of Article 3, Scan of Article 4, Korea Times Article 1, Korea Times Article 2 Jochoki 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see; I think this discussion should keep going on Talk:yKAN, rather than here. I'm watching that page, so don't worry about me missing anything. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IP you warned today (74.64.36.4) vandalized three more pages after your warning

Hello, this IP, 74.64.36.4, vandalized three pages after your warning today. I have Thalía on my Watchpage which is the first rewrite it did. You can see the rest of the "contributions" of this IP at [3]. Thanks Ronbo76 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Felixstowe Museum

Help required please. I am webmaster for newly created site for Felixstowe Museum (Registered Museum and Registered Charity), trying to post as an external link, but this has been deleted saying that it is a 'personal site'. Your advice would be appreciated please. Thanks word-rover 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, links to pages hosted on sites such as freewebs.com are considered 'un-encyclopedic'; moreover, links to sites you maintain are highly discouraged under WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Inapropriate Links

Sorry but I dont realize that. Because exists a Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arburg that is a company profile. The external link that I ad (http://search4plastics.blogspot.com) deals with Injection Molding and profiles of Companies. I dont understand the diference. I also ad the same link to Blow Molding article and Injection Molding article to show the users how fair trades can be positive. There just aren't many good examples of trades envolving Blow Molding or Injection Molding Material out there to actually link to, and when trying to explain something like that I've always felt that examples are a good thing. Its not spam. Sorry again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Search4.0 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The difference is that the sole purpose of the link is to promote sites; it has very little useful content. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point. But you have to admit that exists a promotion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arburg. Why dont you delete the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Search4.0 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that deletion is necessary; I'm going to mark it with {{advert}} instead, to let other people know that the article needs a rewriting. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I delete the external link that pointed to the "company web site" just like you deleted mine. Is that ok? Tank you for the clarification.

No. WP:EL makes specific exceptions for links to the official web site of the subject of the article. Also, you deleted category tags, which are an important part of Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to avoid:"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.". Links to consider:" Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So, http://www.arburg.com/com/COM/de/index.jsp, doesn´t sell products or services? Lol, that´s ok I understand your point. Tank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Search4.0 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Not that it doesn't, but the fact that it is the official site overrides the fact that it sells products/services. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The comprehensive ARBURG service offering also covers spare parts supply. In order to ensure a quick and timely supply of spare parts around the globe, the ARBURG headquarters and the subsidiaries are connected via an IT" network.http://www.arburg.com/com/COM/en/products/index.jsp

". It doesn´t sell, you are right about it. It offers.

Congratulations!

Congratulations! You spotted the nonsense! You get a cookie.

Off to Uncyclopedia now. :P --Ian 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

what was the nonsense about? care to tell?-hotspot

Created a nonsense page; I tagged it for speedy deletion. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, thanks for telling me!-hotspot

Davis Square

Veinor, I'm hoping you can help me. I'm not the savviest of Wiki users, so I'm hoping a guru like you can school me a little bit. You sent me a note about editing the Davis Square page, which was not spam or vandalism. Citysquares.com is a website for specific neighborhoods and communities of the Boston area, of which Davis Square is one. I've added a link to Citysquares.com yet it gets removed, I'm assuming by you. Yet, Bostonsquares is linked to. I'm not sure if this wiki world is a democracy or not, but Bostonsquares is a less relevant resource than Citysquares.

Ultimately, here's what it comes down to. I've never deleted someone elses post, I've never placed Citysquares.com on a page that it doesnt belong to. But if there is a better method that I should be employing, I'd like to know so I can avoid these problems. I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beneeball (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I see that. Yes, I am the one removing it. And no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. In any case, however, the issue is that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Also, when someone adds a link to several pages in a short amount of time, it looks suspicious (to me, at least). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what makes Bostonsquares more relevant or permissable than Citysquares.com? Citysquares.com, in fact, provides relevant information about those specific communities. This is not SEO strategy as much as it's an added value to people who want to learn about those neighborhoods. Citysquares.com lists post offices, libraries, artists, businesses, discussion boards and so forth. Perhaps you can provide me with a little instruction on how better to add Citysquares.com to these pages. I don't want to be seen as a spammer, and I want to respect the wiki community. Surely there is a balance here. My no means do I intent to have 30, 40, 50, 100, 1000 links to Citysquares.com - no matter how relevant it may be - it'd be excessive. So again, I respect the policies, but I'd like to know how it can be a win-win for everyone, especially the users. --Beneeball 22:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bostonsquares isn't really an acceptable link either. Especially given that a couple pages have 10+ links to it, and not as a reference. As for how to add it, well, I'm not sure if there's any good way to do so. Though if you went on the talk page of one of the articles and made a new section, I think that someone more experienced than I would be able to help you better. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are the checks and balances here? It seems that no matter what, you are going to win here and where it the "concensus" in that? I have to be quite frank in suggesting that you're now doing a disservice to people. You even removed the LiveJournal link from the Davis Square page? That is a very very popular community forum pertaining everything Davis Square. --Beneeball 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you, you just need to ask other people's opinion on the talk page. And forums are explicitly forbidden under WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Four-stroke

I can understand you feeling that four-stroke was not sufficiently 'notable' to be on WP - a matter of opinion, but not out of the question. However, since the deletion of f-s, you've gone around and deleted any reference to the band from other WP sites, despite the fact that these references are entirely appropriate. These edits of yours seem frankly spiteful, and you should revert them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ketchumk (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 December 2006.

The problem is, if we have a link to an article that's been deleted and prevented from recreation, then it reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also, if the band itself isn't notable, then it shouldn't really be mentioned on other articles, especially for such a relatively minor thing as covering a song. I made a parody of Take Me Out to the Ball Game once; are you saying that I should add that to its entry? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's really a circular argument, again I would say that the notability of four-stroke is debatable, but plenty of entities that do not have (merit?) WP entries on their own are mentioned in other articles. I don't agree with your position on deleting the article, but it is reasonable. Your action in deleting references is not.

(And if you're worried about having links pointing to removed articles, just replace four-stroke (band) with four-stroke. Ketchumk 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ketchumk

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, if you add ~~~~, you don't need to add your username; the MediaWiki software takes care of that automatically. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, you know you're being over the top on this.Ketchumk 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for your feedback on my proposed change to the See Also section on the RIB page. I added this because many people search for information on a common three letter acronym that is also a word, ie RIB for Rigid Inflatable Boat. I could not see an easy link from the RIB page to the Rigid Inflatable Boat page.

I accept your comments about my external links. I'm a Newbie and have read the articles you suggested. As a result I've added a comment on the Talk Page. Please confirm this is in line with the policies and procedures. I do have one question. This is that there are currently only two external links from the Rigid Inflatable Boat page, therefore, I think there is room for another well rounded site. How do people add external links?

If you feel that a site that you're affiliated with should be added, bringing it up on the talk page is indeed the correct thing to do. Let the discussion run for a day or two; other, more senior editors will decide. I don't have anything against you or the site, I just am a firm believer in WP:SPAM and WP:EL.

As for your final question, I'm not sure what you mean. When you edit Wikipedia, the changes go live immediately. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll wait a few days.

Solentribster 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your words of advice when dealing with flybd65. He continues to blank pages and delete POV that go against his opinions. --XLR8TION 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was telling YOU to remain civil, not User:Flybd5. And I can find no blanking of pages in any of his edits... it seems to me like you have a grudge against him. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user apparently thinks it's correct to post insults and threats when he gets taken to task for making insulting style edits to articles. I think it's time to take corrective action. Take a look at his latests posts on my user page. Thanks. Flybd5 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This person has continued to threathen me online. I have repeatedly told him to stop vandalising my user page to no ado. He is trying to instigate an online war apparently because it appears he has nothing better to do with his time. If you read some of his posts on some discussion pages he belittles many editors and denigrates them and their writing style. He definitely needs some type of guidance in order to take his anger elsewhere. --XLR8TION 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Telling you to post your ideas in the discussion page of an article prior to making style changes, and changes that insult hispanics at that, is not vandalism, period. If you feel threatened by such comments, that's a personal problem which does not interest me in the least. You are attempting to start an edit war with the article in question (Pedro Rossello), and such will not be tolerated. If you can't bring yourself to control your attitude problem and follow simple rules of etiquette, you need to find something else to do with your time. Flybd5 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1031 exchange page reverts

Please take a look at the 1031 exchange page and you'll see that all four reverts have been reverted by Stuart Chamberlain, who clearly has his own agenda on linking to his (?) own or his company's webpage.

I've posted a comment on the TALK PAGE, so maybe you'll add your support and we'll get rid of this stuff?? Click on Talk:1031 exchange

Thanks in advance. Vivaverdi 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Sorry for adding inappropriate links. How do i remove spam from Wiki? I tried to edit something to remove some spam and it didnt have anything listed in the box for me to remove. Tj00xj91 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove a link under the reference section on this page: [4] The link for www,bubbajunk,.com is spam, but i dont see it to remove it.

ThanksTj00xj91 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conference call

I received criticism for adding several links to our website for conference call services. I do not understand since there are already related links on "Conference call" to the URLs of competitive services. Why can they provide those links and I cannot?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmckibben (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 December 2006.

They can't either. I removed the other links (which, in this case, was all of them). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! -hotspot ^{(come say hi)} 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to know

QUOTE: Userpages are not subject to the same notability requirements as the rest of wikipedia; they are designed for users to put a short autobiography of themselves. So your addition of {{db-bio}} to my userpage is vandalism, though it may have been good-natured. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) In that case, why did some guy just wipe away my whole user page???Seven Sorrows 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

so why did someone wipe my user page?Seven Sorrows 10:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. What was on it? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just some stuff about me, and someone tried to put it up for speedy deletion for a bio or something. I forgot who, but it was a moderator of some sort.Seven Sorrows 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. If you have a copy of it, I might be able to tell you... Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

argh, I didn't make a copy of it, since I didn't think it would be deleted. Oh well, I'll tell you if it happens again, when I get round to making a new one.Seven Sorrows 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

question

i am trying to expand the Cabot Creamery entry, and i added 4 new pictures, but saved them as a restricted something or other...and now they are all deleteable? i didnt realize this the first 3 times i did it; how do i change the liscensing agreement on those pictures?

sorry i kept messing up the links...i am new, and trying to get a good grasp on how this editing thing works. now, i know what the "messages" are, so if i do something wrong, i will not do it twice! [or more, as i have been]. let me know if you think the information is too promotional...

i am going to lunch, but i will be back in an hour, and you can let me know how much damage i've done!

thanks

averill earls, cabot intern

Who made the pictures? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

image 03499-t was taken by Glenn Moody, all rights granted to Cabot Creamery image 7328-t was taken by Bob Eddy, all rights granted to Cabot Creamery image 02395-t is anonymous, with all rights granted to Cabot Creamery image 03286-t was taken by Bob Eddy, all rights granted to Cabot Creamery

also -- i could probably get the citations needed for most of the info in the article...but i dont know how to add the citations! averill04 averill04

You'd have to get Cabot Creamery to release it into GFDL, Creative Commons, or Public domain. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

could you give me quick instructions on how to release it to the GFDL?

I just added another image to the Cabot Creamery article, and I tried a different rights thing but it is also a speedy deletion item...which I was hoping to avoid. Again, I'd be happy to try and do the GFDL thing for this image [01505-t.jpg] as well as the other four, but I don't know how. Image 10505-t.jpg was taken by Glenn Moody, and all rights were granted to Cabot Creamery. Perhaps you could guide me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Averill Earls

If all rights were given to Cabot Creamery, then they have to release it themselves; nothing you can do. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam policing

I recently attempted to make some edits to the article on The Hooded Swan series by Brian Stableford. While attempting this, I mysteriously found that my work was being modified in mid-edit. Is it normal for moderators to change or block editing in mid-process as it becomes very confusing? I didn't realise what was going on and I got the impression that for some reason someone had chosen to sabotage an edit.

I would also like to request clarification on the issue of link spamming. I attempted to add a number of links to this article which were then deleted, again in mid-edit. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the sites; the purpose of adding the sites was to provide an insight into the books from the perspective of other writers. The book reviews I attempted to add were meant for the same purpose.

abdullahazzam 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that, when you add 5+ links to the same site at once, it looks really bad, no matter whether you're affiliated or not. And there's no way for your edit to be modified in mid-edit. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened was, I made a series of edits and while trying to save one, I received the message that the article could not be edited as someone else was already working on it; in other words, within a split second of the page save, it seemed as if someone had immediately jumped onto the article and undone the work.

The warning that you issued to my talk page was also unhelpful in that it was worded in such a way as to imply that I did have a personal connection to the websites to which I had attempted to link which was not, in fact, the case. abdullahazzam 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. An edit conflict. Those happen sometimes when A and B edit an article at the same time and A saves before B does. And there's no way to tell whether someone's connected to a website they link to. But when you add a bunch of links at the same time, it looks bad. In any case, removal of warnings without discussion is forbidden, unless they're like 6+ months old or obviously false (e.g., if I warned you about not personally attacking me on my talkpage). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are the guidelines on adding citations or links? How many can be made at once? I have worked on articles where I eventually ended up adding a significant number of links over time. I take it that the matter of time allows other editors to consider the relevance and usefulness of the links before more are added? abdullahazzam 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The link guideline is at WP:EL; citation guideline is at WP:CITE. Generally speaking, don't add more than one link to the same site in the external page section; multiple reference links are OK, but they have to be references. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please remove the warnings you issued from my talk page? abdullahazzam 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolute Power Corrupts?

I also object to your refusing to add my information about one of the local businesses in Myrtle Beach, SC. You have links to the major shopping centers, and Dick's Pawn Shop is considered on of Myrtle Beach's major attractions. I am not trying to "advertise" for them, and kept the link to the point of what they sell and who would be interested. I also do not wish to promote them in such a way as you imply. I am a resident here and it belongs in that section. I think you may have let your power go to your head and you're being just a bit too hasty in looking for SPAM in every post that is made. If you don't allow links to shopping and attractions, then you should just remove the section altogether. The malls and restaurants are every bit as much of a "spam" addition as what I tried to post.--Luvdavy 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, "With 3 Locations in North Myrtle Beach, Surfside, and Carolina Forest in Myrtle Beach, Dick's offers a new concept in the traditional "pawn shop". Those who love flea markets and anyone wanting new and used jewelry at near wholesale prices will appreciate these huge inviting stores. You'll find them as Power-sellers on Ebay as well." seems like advertising to me. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now any tourists who might like to look up where to shop (which is a MAJOR attraction in Myrtle Beach) can just go to Google and look. I guess we can assume that anyone using Wikipedia to look up a tourism site is only interested in the population and schools. I'm sure that's right at the top of the list for someone interested in vacationing here. You need to chill out. --Luvdavy 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially not a travel guide. And I think you need to watch your attitude, and see WP:CIVIL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's funny. Since it contains sections for all the major cities and tourist attractions, I think most people WOULD consider it a good travel guide. I'll have to be sure and publicize the fact that it isn't. No wonder the search engines remain the most effective way to get information on the internet. --Luvdavy 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It has articles on major cities/tourist attractions because they are notable in and of themselves, not because they're useful for a tourist. It all depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for travel information, then go on a search engine. If you want an encyclopedia, use Wikipedia. It's like saying that porn sites are bad because they don't provide information about STDs. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Crane Family

In response to your removal of an external link on the Crane Family page...

You wrote: Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to personal site in Crane family. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link added by a user is a substantial change in the content of the Wiki article.

There must be some clear and convincing reason to do so. Otherwise, the more information available to the user of the site, the better. Right?

You say the reason you removed the link to "cranefamily.com" on the Crane Family Wikipedia page is because "the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source". That can not be a valid reason because nbc.com is still a link "valid" to you and that is a commercial one. Far from encyclopedic.

Maybe the fact that it is a personal link is what made it offensive to you. So offensive in fact that you had to remove it. But the personal link is only a "Links normally to be avoided" - not absolutely to be removed.

Let the users decide.

This is a page that refers to the site linked-to. If you or anyone else has a problem with this link - don't visit it. But since it is not on Wikipedia's banned lists, nor does the content run afoul of posting protocol (i.e. cranefamily.com on the Crane Family page) it should be re-instated. I have done just that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esstmaeb (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

As I told you before, it violates WP:EL quite clearly. And 'the more information, the better' isn't true either; see WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:V. And, as it is a 'link normally to be avoided', the burden is on you to prove it should be added, not on me to prove it shouldn't. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The link police.

You must be so proud of your stature and position.

Are you kidding me?

Get a life.

Questionable links "can" be removed, but "people" like you take away the information others wish to find. Congratulations.

What is it in you that makes the sad desire for attention so strong? Parental neglect? Molestation? Alcoholism? Lack of other interests besides Wiki?

Just let it be. Your user talk is full of comments from people who should not even know you're alive.

Please, for the sake of humanity, knowledge, information, and wiki - stop your overbearing paternalistic censorship.

Oh yeah. Cheers.

Esstmaeb 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My God.

I just read the conversation you had with a school kid on your user talk page. Psycho say "what"?

Please leave questionable links alone. Better still, get a job.

When dozens of real people with souls tell you you've gone too far with your wacky editing complex, chances are you're wrong and they're right.

Again, find a life.

Esstmaeb 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Esstmaeb 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Congleton

Hi,

I am sorry about adding the link I had been visiting the site and thought it was quite interesting with some info and pics about Congleton. Even though the guy who designs it has not completely finished designing it, he was very helpful when I email him about info regarding the town.

Cheers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phatolive (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

KFC

Hi, its me. I am sorry for what I have done, but i am very upset that you would just erase my edits. Can you tell me what I did wrong? It is the truth, and it is facts, how the chickens are inhumanely treated in KFC. I see nothing wrong in adding a section about the facts of what is really going on behind there. Do you support animal abuse or something?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.93.189 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that you're adding unsourced inflammatory assertions without a reliable source; the one link you're adding is going to have a large anti-KFC bias. If you can find coverage by major media such as FOX, CNN, ABC, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. then go ahead and add it. And no, I do not support animal abuse, though I do support animal experimentation. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?

First of all, is veinor actually here, or is a bot or something deleting my edits? Veinter, i would like to speak to you. I am not vandalizing wikipedia! I am adding facts, isn't that what i am supposed to do? What do you hold against me?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nabbig2 (talk • contribs).

okay

oh i just read your response. okay sorry, i am new to this website.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nabbig2 (talk • contribs).

there

i added now with resources from cnn. now what is the problem? i dont get it! it has solid facts!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nabbig2 (talk • contribs).

The issue is that you're just blindly adding links; you'd need to make a 'Criticism' section and add whatever you can get from those links (and those links alone), and cite them as sources (for how to do that, see WP:CITE). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)