User talk:AnyPerson

20000 bites of self-serving jibberish is still jibberish. Where's the proof that the movie played well at comic-con and failed because of a poor marketing campaign? Where's that proof?

The movie failed because it stunk. People didn't like it. Crtitics hated it. Audiences hated it. It made a paltry 2 million despite playing at over 3 times as many theaters as the directors previous film.

The Wikipedia page for Mallrats is self-servingv propaganda full of lots of misleading fluff and endless hype & trivia that has no place in a proper encyclopedia. It was clearly composed by someone with a strong Kevin Smith bias and is designed to place Kevin Smith in the most favorable light.

I have nothing against Kevin Smith personally and he has other decent films, including "Clerks" (the film before Mallrats) and "Chasing Amy" (the film after Mallrats.

There is almost no negative information, and the little "factual" negative information that is presented is immediately explained away as soon as it is presented.

You say I gutted the "Mallrats" entry? Fine. It needs to be gutted. It's not a true fact page, It's a Kevin Smith "Mallrats" fan & trivia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playserious (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding? Did you read the self-serving propaganda on that page. The movie Mallrats was a major bomb that nearly ended the writer / directors career. It failed comerciallly and it failed critically. That's why writer / director Kevin Smith was only given a 250k budget to do his next film "Chasing Amy" - and he had a hard time even getting that much.

The page that was there before my edit looked more like a Kevin Smith "Mallrats" trivia page hyping Kevin Smith & his "ViewAskewniverse". The whole page looked like it was written by Kevin Smith's publicist.

Where's the reality? It's not my opinion. It's a fact. A 6 million dollar movie that grosses only 2 million and is universally panned by critics and audiences alike is a failure.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, presenting the truth. It's not a Mallrats fan & trivia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playserious (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SWIFT Portal

Hi , Apparently you feel that the SWIFT portal is not deemed appropriate because it is the only article I have written. Is this a valid reasoning? I am currently carrying out research on the financial industry and am slowly building my knowledge of this industry. The base foundation of this network starts with SWIFT that very few people have ever heard about this - apart for the 'SWIFT code' or 'BIC code'. I believe it is important, especially today where banks and the financial industry are crippled, questioned, and investigated to provide information to the public that the system that links these banks is a seperate non-profit cooperative (as the UN - but do not get me wrong I am not implying that SWIFT is the UN of the financial world - simply the same spirit dominate it - an international political organisation who does not have self interests but that of a specific community) entity that mission is to provide a resilient and secure financial network for financial institutions. SWIFT was created by banks and national banks together in the 70's to replace the unsecure and un-encrypted telex for payments and financial transfers. The only advantage that SWIFT could gain from what was tagged as 'more like advertisement' is to put a face to the network and provide some re-assurance in the financial industry. I look forward to your response and hopefully find a solution to this problem. Nicolas39 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to discuss with the three admins who felt that the SWIFT portal was too narrow. However i provided a defence of which I still have not received a response. My defence still lies in the fact that the UN has its portal - SWIFT, albeit being smaller, serves the same role as the UN but to a different community. SWIFT is a non-profit and non-commerical organisation involved in Standards for the financial community and collaborates with ISO and the UN CEFACT. Based on this reasoning how can one have a portal and the other not? Furthermore it has come to my attention that microsoft has its portal - if this is the case than I would have to declare that the deletion of SWIFT portal is positive discrimination. How can a profit and commerically orientated company be a valid portal topic and how is this not too narrow? A valid logical response would be appreciated. Thanks Nicolas39 (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

_MRNinja_ I want To know Why Ed Parker Can HAve A Wikipedia Page But Charles Mattera Can Not. He Had one and A good A awhile ago. Where did it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrN1NJA23 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP AH

This user wants you to join
WikiProject
Alternate History.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nantucket series

Because its already linked earlier in the article. See WP:OVERLINK. Thanks by the way for the good edits, I've been meaning to work on that section some more but always got sidetracked. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AnyPerson! I am Jake Wartenberg and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not substitute {{db}} templates. Such templates are not supposed to be substituted. For more information, see Wikipedia:Template substitution. -- IRP ☎ 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

You Said: "You are making changes to the Philippines which are sourced to a site, but you are changing the information and making it look as if the source is supporting your edit. You will have to provide another source. I'm reverting your edit till you do it right. AnyPerson (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"

I ask: Where did you get that freaking idea?

Take this source: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Chinese_Filipino_-_Chinese_Mestizos/id/1223154

Heres a direct quote from the 1st page...

"Chinese mestizos are those in the Philippines of mixed Chinese and either Filipino or Spanish (or both) ancestry. They make up about another 20% of the country's total population (those who are pure Chinese make up 2% of the population). A number of Chinese mestizos have surnames that reflect their heritage, mostly two or three syllables that have Chinese roots (e.g., the full name of a Chinese ancestor) with a Spanish phonetic spelling. The Chinese mestizos may also be known as Chinoys or Chinitos, although these terms may also refer to the full-blooded Chinese Filipinos.

Starting from the Spanish period, the mestizos have been afforded several opportunities that the full-blooded Chinese or the native Filipinos do not have access to. Historically, the mestizos have been economically more successful than the local population. Even to this day, a large percentage of land or plantation owners in the Philippines are the Chinese mestizos. Due to their fairer complexion, which is a coveted attribute among Filipinos even to this day, a large number of people in the film industry are mestizos."

Stop reverting my work when you know that it's based on solid evidence. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Standford source said 3.6% of the Filipino population have European genes. I think that's true. I put that fact in the statement that the Philippines population only has 3.6% European mestizos. But the term mestizo isn't limited to Europeans, boy. There are also Chinese-mestizos and Arab-mestizos and whatnot. Which means up to 30% of the Philippines is multiracial but out of that only 3.6% have European genes. Cappish? I myself am of Chinese-Mestizo ancestry.

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mestizos#Philippines

Now revert it back to the correct statement. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The sourced site whom you soo fanatically defend, explicitly said that 3.6% of of the Philippines have European genes. The same sourced cite also said that Chinese genes dominate in the Philippines especially Southern Chinese and the same source explicitly stated that they do not know the exact amount of European genes in the Philippines.

Page 432–443 (Part 3/12 of the internet PDF)

DIRECT QUOTATIONS:

European Chromosomes in Southeast Asia and Oceania

"our data-set may be missing European hapoltypes present in the region" "...these must be taken as approximate"

Also in the same page but this time on the topic: "A Melanesian origin to East Asia Y Chromosone" it said:

"Chromosome diversity among the mainland samples (49 chromosomes from India, Mongolia, Southern China and Taiwan) is also substantially lower than in than in Southeast Asia and Melanesia..."

~this means Southeast Asia in general (Which includes the Philippines) is more racially mixed than India, Mongolia, Southern china or Taiwan.

The source whom you so fanatically defend and refer to in order to revert my righteously updated edition of the Philippine ethnicity sub, in fact supports my thesis!!!!!

Undo your undo of my reversion now please. Thank you. ^___^ If you won't Ill undo it myself. (;-P)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The reverted sub is dumb & grammatically incorrect.

It said: "Mestizo those of multiracial individuals form an estimated figure of about 3.6% of the population."

It is supposed to be: "Mestizos, those individuals of multiracial descent form an estimated figure of about 3.6% of the population."

You attacked and persecuted my righteous and updated edition of the Philippine Ethnicity sub yet you replaced it with a reversion that was grammatically incoherent. (:-()

Please undo your revert. Thank you.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 03:38 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Panama and Kosovo

Of course, this is news. Panama was a member of the UNSC when Kosovo declared its independence in 2008. But as Kosovo independence is a rather controversial topic, all UN member state recognitions may well be worthy a brief note and inclusion in portal:current events. --Hapsala (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every other recognition after the "first wave" have been "recognized" also at portal:current events (and they are still there, should you not already have deleted these inclusions...). --Hapsala (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Re: Welcome to Wikipedia Yes. It was sarcastic in that "Welcome to wikipedia" was writ to me as I have been a user over three years. And it has certainly changed quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbulwink (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at {{Uw-vandalism1}}, the level one vandalism warning, you will see that it is part of the template. I was assuming good faith in the warning so I went with a level 1 warning instead of the more harsher levels. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Big Gay Musical

Howdy. Inre your delete as WP:Crystal at this article's AfD: Ctystal for film refers only to those films whose principle filming has not yet begun. This one has, and many actors are speaking about their parts in the past tense, indicating it is now in post production and so Crystal does not apply. And as for WP:NFF, it states that a film should usually not have an article unless filming has begun. Filming is finished. Might you care to revisit the article and advise further? Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. I removed the "official website" cause it ain't up yet... but that's on them. IMDB does not confer notability, only provides directions to look to verfy cast and crew... which I have done through the provided references and sources inre WP:GNG show notability. newnownext announced the beginning of filming. As far as the film having been completed, their official myspace page has production stills and the announcement that filming has finished. And a number of the principles have written about ther completed work on the film on their own websites. I do not think much of myspace as a source... but this allows me to assume good faith that the official announcement of such will be in the trades in a matter of days. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

? I know its not a reference source, and I did not use myspace... nor the websites of the actors who have competed their filming. However, these hints allow my WP:AGF to believe that further sources confirming post production will be available soon. And it sure is not WP:Crystal. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

re from Ched

OK ... I'll admit I haven't read the hidden comments. Give me a few minutes to sort this out. I agree, this isn't a place for "fake" stuff - it look(ed) to me like a real TV show that he was working on ... let me do some research and talk to the user, he/she is brand new. I'll explain about not posting the fake stuff to them - but when i looked at the user history, they only have a couple edits - so I hate to see their "User Page" deleted before they ever got started. .. Please? Ched (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did find this Big Brother (U.S.), but am still not clear on where the user is going with his efforts. The hidden comments I found in the page revolved mostly around consensus on whether people were called houseguests or housemates. If indeed it is just some made up stuff, then I agree with you 100% that it doesn't belong. But maybe rather than deleting a user page, it should be blanked. I've left him some stuff on his/her talk page, I don't know at this point if the user is interested in being a wiki editor - or as you said - just looking for a hosting type site. Let me know what you think, and I'll do what I can to make things right. Thank you for being patient with me and the user. ;) The (second or third) post on the AfD page that I made was prior to seeing your comment about it being fake .. Ched (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I pointed him to the WP:NOT page, I haven't heard back, and he hasn't posted. Oh well, it was worth a shot, lol. I hadn't seen the beauty pageant stuff, but I haven't been editing very long either. I'll stop back over at the delete page, and change my opinion to delete. Guess I'm just a "wiki-hugger" at heart - no harm in trying I guess. I appreciate your patience, thank you. You have a wonderful day now ;) .. Ched (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

LMAO .. if it's not a word - it should be. We could always forward it the George W. Bush library, lord knows he loves new words. Ched (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There were times I wasn't sure what language that man was speaking ;) .. Ched (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie

There was a movie a while back that I read about, and wanted to add to my collection. It was an alternate history movie about the south wining the civil war, and what the US would be like now. I can't remember the name of the movie, but I think it was fairly well known, at least by civil war buffs and alternate history fans. Have any idea which movie I'm looking for? Ched (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I found it ... Confederate States of AmericaChed (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, now I've gotten side-tracked again, and won't get anything done today. I guess I was thinking about C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (which was linked at Confederate States of America), but I thought it was a theatrical release rather than TV. I'm not even sure at this point if it is on a DVD. That will teach me to follow links lol. I enjoy sci-fi, time travel and such, so I just had to click on that "alternate history" link ... Oh well, don't be surprised if you see me pop in at that group from time to time. Really appreciate you time, cheers .. Ched (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:98.223.164.233

Which is why I said "most of his recent edits". :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. It should just be investigated more closely. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was an appropriate course of action. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If a user vandalized a week ago, but now they're making good-faith contributions, we should always assume they're vandalizing? I'm also not sure why you're so set on getting this particular user blocked. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted Tanthalas39. Perhaps he can provide you with a better explanation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Relief

I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy delete - criterion A7 - candidate. Please note that A7 only applies to real people, organisations and web content, it specifically excludes articles about their works (in this case an album). I have retagged the article as an A9 candidate - A9 applies to musical recordings where importances isn't indicated and the artist's page does not exist or has been deleted (as appears to be the case here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Riverbank High School

Hello, just wanted to let you know per your use of the {{selfpublished}} tag on the Riverbank High School article that I am not a publisher of the Modesto Bee, but I suppose that is a flattering compliment. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Woe of Tyrants

Could you send me the page of Woe of Tyrants before it was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkempton (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MGP 2009

Re this: I wasn't done yet :-). Now I'm done. Have a look. --Bensin (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll do the same to 2008. --Bensin (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aragon High School

Your assistance is requested in the related talk pages.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete encyclopedic articles by redirecting them to a non-equivalent topic

Please don't delete whole articles on encyclopedic topics with a redirect to a topic that is not the same thing as you did in this case [1] with the article artificial nails; artificial nails are no more the same thing as a manicure. That would be like saying a scalpel is the same thing as surgery. Artificial nails are in themselves an encylopedic topic; a large amount can be written about the types of materials they're made from, the ways in which adhesion can be done, their health effects, etc. I was in the middle of a merge-out of relevant paragraphs from the manicure article to an artificial nails article that has more than just the information in the manicure article when you interrupted by deleting/redirecting the article. —Lowellian (reply) 05:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't redirect to Manicure. I redirected to the section of the Manicure page which discusses artificial nails. What a concept. AnyPerson (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Artificial nails is more than than worthy of its own article and shouldn't have been redirected at all. —Lowellian (reply) 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Qazim Dervishi.JPG

I didn't do the photo myself of course but that photo was on a newspaper together with what I've written there. I scanned it and here it is. There was no copyright addresing in the newspaper and according to the law if there is no copyright sign or mark then the object is not copyrighted. That's all. Felix (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

For example? What kind of proof? Tell me and I will send it to you. Felix (talk)

Look,I really don't want that image to get deleted but when you say proof, I want to know what proof exactly. An e-mail from the copyright holder? An image with the copyright handwritting or with the photographer's signature? Please explain it to me exactly. Felix (talk)

Ok,thanks,anyways. I'll check that. See you around. Felix (talk)

Manitoba Scotties

Look, don't get offended. All I'm doing is filling in the missing provincial playdown pages. Why do you have a problem with the Manitoba page and not the Territories page? Excuse me for contributing. I didn't come here to get attacked for one little error. A link to the event page is under External Links, so what more do you want?

I removed the tags because they were no longer valid, as there's now a very clear heading that it's a provincial curling championship...which could be very easily learned by clicking on "Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts". Pardon me, but nobody's going to navigate and search their way to that page with utterly no knowledge of what curling is.

If you don't like what's on there, then fix it yourself. I'm not here to be barked at. Budd2049 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other provincial articles (Newfoundland/Labrador, for example) list only the official site, and there's no problem. Still others have no sites listed at all, and there's no problem there either. Am I to understand that it's better to have no websites mentioned at all instead of only the official event site? Or I have to find some other random website mentioning the tournament? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. None of that contributes to the article, nor does their absence diminish it. If the link is removed, then the tag can be too, is that correct? Budd2049 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Breast

since you are the one claiming the small work I did is nonsense then I would guess you are an expert on this topic? maybe you could help me do some research about this subject? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you an expert on Breasts? And you are not being helpful. It seems you have made your mind without any discussion. As a user on Wikipedia you should be creative and work with other users to improve articles, you are not doing so with this attitude --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one subject where every guy thinks he's an expert. There's no question that more study is needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The subject does deserve a closer look. AnyPerson (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true wikipedian: Dedicated to scholarship. P.S. Maybe you saw my comment on ANI. The Gospel according to Fife. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone let me know when a "well-rounded" and "firm" consensus has been reached on this topic? ;) — Ched (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving my page, AnyPerson. I appreciate it, I'm only a novice editor. :) Zuzzerack (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybot

That's right; and it places a note on the article talk page informing editors of this fact, so they can incorporate information into the article if appropriate. Is this the best way of doing this? Perhaps I'd be better off creating the pages at User:Anybot/pagename? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/anybot would probably be the place, but on thought, I've decided to go with my suggestion. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: 217.41.243.16

Given the shared nature of IPs, we typically require that they be warned through three or preferably four levels of escalating warnings during the current month before a block is placed. However on closer examination of the case, it appears that this IP has been used intermittently for the past month to edit various Sylhet articles. As such, I went ahead and blocked the IP for 24 hours. Hopefully this will help the person using this public terminal figure out that edit warring over their own un-encyclopedic insertion is not appropriate. Thank you for asking me to look deeper into this issue, and please accept my apologies for my initial misunderstanding of the situation. Likewise, please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to source film plot summaries

Hello, AnyPerson. I noticed that you tagged the Keith (film) plot summary as unsourced last month (January). However, I wanted you to know that film plot summaries are usually not sourced on Wikipedia, which is only one reason I reverted that article back to a previous edit of mine (I mainly reverted it back due to all the changes, not just yours, I felt were not best for the article, then I tweaked it).

The reason that film plot summaries are usually not sourced here is because the film is the source. A good example of this is The Dark Knight (film) article, though it currently has one reference in it.

If you want to add an unsourced tag back to the Awards section of the Keith (film) article, though, I completely get that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jargon - Princeton Offense

Hi! You recently posted a lot of jargon tags on the Princeton Offense article. Instead of doing this, on future articles, could you Wikilink any jargon you find to an explanatory Wikipedia or Wiktionary article, since doing so would not only point out the problem, but solve it as well. Thanks for your contributions! -- eb3686 | talk 04:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)