The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thanks for helping me remove the duplicate templates on my page.

Raccoon Fox 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC

Dear Icarus3, I'm new to Wikipedia & have just created the Alternative Living page. I've noticed that you've placed the following tags on the top page: (cur) (last) 07:57, 20 March 2006 Icarus3 (adding AfD tag) (cur) (last) 07:56, 20 March 2006 Icarus3 (NPOV tag)

The page is new, and a work in progress, still learning the rope here. Would like to hear your advice and input on the code of practice at Wikipedia.

sincerely, WikiSoul

Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, and especially for being open to learning instead of getting mad and removing tags you don't like. You wouldn't believe how many people do that!

The best place to start is with the links in the welcome message that Kukini left on your talk page. If you're wondering what policies in particular I believe Alternative Living is in violation, check out WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. As for the POV tag, that is because is is, so far, reporting only one point of view. It reads more like an advertisement for a certain dietary lifestyle than a neutral article about it (or even an actual article, covering a topic distinct from the numerous other article in the "See also" section).

Listing an article as an Article for Deletion does not mean that it will necessarily be deleted. All it means is that the matter is up for discussion. An admin will review the article's entry and act according to the general consensus of Wikipedia editors who participate.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. We all start out as newbies, but I'm sure you'll catch on in no time! -- Icarus 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've read many other pages, not sure what's the benchmark for Neutrality is. For each topic has its believers and doubters, with both sides being equally passionate. In my humble opinion, most importantly is to ensure page creators don't set out to disparage or demean any individuals or their belief systems, but treat all with respect. --WikiSoul

Right now it's actually more about a lack of citing sources for the medical, so I went ahead and removed the NPOV tag. The part I thought was the most iffy is gone now anyway. -- Icarus 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I remember seeing it on a documentary a while back. PMA 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you remember the name of the documentary? -- Icarus 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Gender thing on Four Corners IIRC - i'll find an episode guide. PMA 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I created for all the commonwealth realms articles on the monarch of. See e.g. Monarch of Belize. I did this because every country has a Politics of series. In this series allways a head of state article is included. It helps to find your way quickly. It would be nice if these Monarchs of XX could be enlarged, but at the moment this is what I can offer. Now it is proposed to delete these articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch of Jamaica. Because of the consistency of the Politics of series, I oppose the deletion of these articles. Could you reconsider your opinion? Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 09:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've added a link to a typical web site and removed the 'unsourced' tag. Please reinstate tag and/or find more references if still unhappy. Bob aka Linuxlad 10:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Just curious when 11,000 employees and 2 billion in sales is not notable? What the hell? WP:CORP isn't even policy yet, so no need to quote it. If you really doubt that it's notable, please say something in the talk page... for now I'm removing under the assumption that you made a mistake. --- J.Smith 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm always suspicious of new business articles (and bio articles), as they're very often vanity. I wasn't sure in this case, which is why I added then notability template instead of a nomination for deletion. Upon looking over the article again, I think you're right. The article is short and has only one external link besides the official site, which are sometimes red flags, but in this case it's because the article is a new stub and not because the subject matter is non-notable. The way I see it, adding the notability template is like asking a question, and you've answered that question, so thanks! -- Icarus 19:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. Sorry for my tone... :( --- J.Smith 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, just wanted to thank you for re-redirecting Southeast Asian American and East Asian American to Asian American. I wasn't sure whether they should've been directed to the group of people or their origins. Admittedly, a big reason I redirected them to their places or origin was because User:Dark Tichondrias seemed less likely to begin an edit war that way (he's been heavily pushing pro-Asian, pro-racial categorization POVs lately). — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 12:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This article has now been listed at WP:AFD, please come and participate in the discussion, whatever your opinion. -- Hetar 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Your tag's discussion wikilinke lead to nowhere. You might want to set the discussion up in Paramita talk page, explaining why you think the article should be deleted and content transfered to the main article. Vapour

Thanks for the heads-up! When I suggested the merge, The Ten Perfections was a brand new and very short article. Someone else changed it to a redirect to Paramita after that, which I agree is a better way to handle it. I'd have done so myself, instead of suggesting a merge, if I'd known that there was such an article to redirect to. I've removed the merge tag on the main Buddhism article now. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused! -- Icarus 05:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Icarus, thanks for trying to clean up Trisma's edits to FASD. I take the view that it's best to revert material like that, because it's potentially harmful, so I've done that. I'll look to see if I can find the name of the Surgeon General in 1981, but I wonder whether it matters because it was a warning issued by the office, not by the man personally. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You know, you could always use the edit summary if you don't want to lok at the diff for every edit on your watchlist, the only things minor edits do in practice is weeding out non-vandalism for RC patrollers (vandals usually never mark their edits as minor) and determine the main contributors of an article if anyone wants to cite us [1].

Oh, and that's a help page, not a policy :) - O bli ( Talk) ^? 11:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Check it out - I got your userbox lined up with the previous one using a table. I'm proud of myself for that lol. Good idea making that userbox. J. Finkelstein 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for giving me my first Barnstar. Believe it or not, I did actually follow the link to Bridesmill to see what else we were instigated to delete. -- Lambiam ^Talk 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. Saw your question on my talk regarding AfD template. The problem is, the AfD template is subst'ed into articles. On older version of the AfD template had a call to {{ qif}} in it. qif is now replaced by the built-in #if:. These are programming like constructs that emit one of two texts depending on a condition (see also m:ParserFunctions). This doesn't make that much sense when a template is substed as in the AfD template case. The problem is, substed templates make troubles for template mechanics like me, as we have to visit every page where a template has been substed if changes are needed.

{{qif|test={{NAMESPACE}}|then=|else=}} has no effect, as both the then and the else text is empty, so it can be safely removed. qif is deprecated and may be even deleted (there is a delete discussion going on, see talk on qif).

Maybe it should be rethought if substing the Afd template is such a good idea. OTOH, with the new #if: it is a bit less painfully, and maybe the substing of templates will be improved in the future (currently the #if: constructs are just copied unoptimized (not evaluated) into the articles, which is indeed not optimal, because the conditional expressions are constant at substing time and could be evaluated at substing time.

Bah. I hope I didn't increase your confusion with all this :-). Just ask more if needed. Cheers! -- Ligulem 08:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You added a warning re Benzoyl peroxide causing bleaching - which is true enough. I wondered though if this info should not be transferred to be under Benzoyl peroxide article itself, (rather than Acne). Whilst it is an issue for BP use, it is not a factor that generally affects whether or not it is appropriate for a given severity of acne, or in a patient deciding on choosing between treatment options. Similarly the antibiotic section does not mention for the tetracycline antibiotics that they may cause sun photo-sensitive rashes (yet the specific article on the drug group does). I thought I'd ask you directly rather than seeming to just blank your edit and transfer it elsewhere :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for comments. I would point out that wikipedia should not be giving out medical advice, so no one should "only check the main article on acne before going out and buying over-the-counter products". You also mentioned that a doctor would discuss side-effects on prescription drugs, which lead me to wonder (seriously for a moment) - are there not patient information sheets provided inside each pack of benzoyl peroxide that gives out appropriate warnings - its a legal requirement in the UK/Europe ? Of course people often don't read instructions, but similarly wikipedia does not give precise warnings over use of chain-saws, but would be very stupid not to read the copious warnings that come with there instructions.

Now for my most important (not) concern for your comments: re your bedsheets being stained - I rather thought that BP was quite useful at keeping white sheets free from any stains, saving on any additional Vanish (or equivalent) stain-removers and the amount of washing powder needed to achieve that crisp clean look :-) Of course that assumes one starts with having white sheets in the first place, but otherwise I'm sure you are by now the proud possessor of hospital-white sheets at no additional expense :-) Ok, I giggled too much over this and so surrender - I'll leave your added comment in Acne for now :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 10:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Red_hair The avatars are a social function of Red_haired_people, and the "See also" correctly is about the hair. (you call it "stretching it"). However it really suits the article about the people, and it is a public service, you/anyone can have a redhead avatar today, and owe nothing for it (it is not a commerical advert).

I do not know if it makes sense to remove my links, but it is worth trying (as i make mistakes of course). It is not an article i created myself, and i do not like it the way it is. Probably you can help out re-write it? Akidd dublin• tl• ctr-l 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

by the way i subscribed to the suggest bot i found on your talk, hope you do not take it personal (as it is not good style to browse people's business by random) Akidd dublin• tl• ctr-l 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit to Seth Bohstedt was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This revertion was in error, and I have notified the bot's owner. I can understand where the mistake came from, however, as the article in question was nothing more than the article name repeated over and over and over again. When I added the speedy deletion tag, I also removed all but a dozen or so lines of this. The bot mistook this for blanking. It's totally understandable, so I just re-did my edit and no harm done. -- Icarus 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that tip of advice, but please anything that was derived from the "defiinitions" was entirely for the purpose of clarification because It does not seem logical to have something like "corporeal" as exclusive to one article, but a general link

Well I'd be damned, the things I'd learnd if I bothered to read things like those carefully :). I must unfortunately report that my minor-marking is still reflexive and rampant, but I'll try to keep it out of the way when dealing with prods and afds. (This message was marked as minor) - O bli ( Talk) ^? 06:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Image:Childwithdimples.jpg: what's wrong with this image? I made it myself...why can't I put it up there? ( Oahc)

If you really are the person who took this photo, then there's no problem. However, we need some kind of evidence to show this. You were notified about this on your talk page back in February, but did not respond either on your talk page or on the talk page of the person who notified you. If you can provide such evidence now, the image will be removed from the list of possibly unfree images and will not be deleted. If you cannot prove that you are authorized to grant GFDL permission for this image, then it will be deleted to protect its copyright. -- Icarus 21:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

How do I provide the evidence? ( Oahc)

The image appears to be taken from www.jerilyndufresne.com. Do you have an e-mail address from this website (one that end in "@jerilyndufresne.com")? If so, I can tell you how to use it to prove that you're really from that site. -- Icarus 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see the image anywhere on the site. ( Oahc)

okay...maybe i did saw it. and how did you find the site anyway? You don't see the image up there anyway....only the same girl...but different photos.( Oahc)

this photo at jerilyndufresne.com is identical to your photo. --- J.S ( t| c) 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, just do a search on Google images for "dimples." Did you know knowingly violating copyrights is against the law? --- J.S ( t| c) 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just me butting in where I don't belong. Don't mind me, I'll go away shortly. :) --- J.S ( t| c) 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Madhav Nori, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mango juice ^talk 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The deletion of the Boxipuss was a mistake as there was a misunderstanding between user: Porge. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. AlanSieve ( talk • contribs)

• This article has been repeatedly deleted for being nonsense without accurate sources. Please check the deletion log and ignore Alan's note. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the information, but don't worry; I already know. Either this article should be protected against re-creation, or the good "Doctor" should be blocked for repeated re-creations, or both. -- Icarus 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Icarus, the grouping of cephems (including cephalosporins) can be a bit of a mess – I've been trying to sort it out a bit on the cephalosporin page but haven't quite finished, unfortunately. Loracarbef is a carbacephem (carbacephems have a subtle modification to the cephalosporin nucleus), but for all intents and purposes is very similar to the second-generation cephalosporins such as cefaclor. It's similar enough that cross-reactivity occurs, but not technically a cephalosporin. Hope that helps and thanks for your work on the template. - Techelf 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The block of text you added looks like a contribution from User:FredrickS, relating to his idiosyncratic insistence on a link to proportional representation on the Emancipation disambiguation page. I assume he has been wandering various associated articles looking for support. BTW, would it be appropriate to delete the empty "Political" section on Emancipation of minors article, since the political emancipation article would not have anything specific to minors? - David Oberst 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for the info. I really just scanned the block of text, and aside from seeing that it was in the wrong place, the content didn't really register in my mind. That's why I just moved it to the seemingly appropriate talk page instead of moving it and commenting on it, or just deleting it for being in the wrong place. I think you're right about removing that section from the Emacipation of minors article, though, as it's empty, so I'll go ahead and do that. -- Icarus 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh grow up, my silly addition was added specifically hidden as a comment. It's not "vandalism" in any sane definition of the word, as only someone editing the article can see it. -- Kaz 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You add unencyclopedic nonsense to an article (not blatantly or apparently maliciously, granted) and then remove the warning left on your talk page (which is itself generally considered vandalism) and I'm the one who needs to grow up? Interesting logic. -- Icarus 04:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mind giving me an example of where this user has added these templates? — this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, they're fine. — this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mine is fine as well. I've offered a bounty for articles on rapid transit systems, which includes the Cairo Metro. It wasn't me who put the template on that article, but I'm happy for it to be there. Thanks for the heads-up, though. -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's the template name you requested:
{{subst:welcomeg}}

It is pretty cool.=)

Srose talk 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pruning the external links. The trimmed links keep growing back. Joyous! | Talk 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's really awesome, thanks for letting us know! pfctdayelise ( translate?) 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I reduced it to semiprotection so registered users can edit the page now. Hopefully the trolling is done. NoSeptember 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: the images on the Night Porter page - those are captured images I scanned personally -VARSITAL COP

You can post any information you have here by finding the entry about your images and posting a comment after it. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I saw that you "seconded" my prod on this. I just wanted you to know that it was deprodded, so I have moved it to AfD. -- Brian G 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Please try to keep the personal feelings out of things at AfD, especially when they go against policy, such as WP:NOT censored. It's not that I don't want you to have opinions, but there are editors involved who may be further agitated after a spirited AfD by comments like this. Because it looks like the article will be deleted, they may view your comments as salting their wounds; I know you didn't mean it that way but people get upset like that when they feel an article is theirs. Anyways, just something to think about, I'm not asking you to revert your comment or anything. BigNate37 _(T) 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I knew that I wasn't exactly being nice with my "then clean Wikipedia with bleach" comment. If the creator of the article in question wasn't acting so unbelievably superior (nominating it to be a featured article, even!) I would have restrained myself. But you're right, I should still take the high ground. I'm going to remove the unnecessary snarkiness from my comment. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, I forgot about that FA nom. Say, I noticed you're into New Page patrol as well, and your comments lead me to believe you sometimes get mistaken for being deletionist when you're not an admin. To blow my own horn for a second, I wrote an essay ( User:BigNate37/I am not an administrator) to this effect and if it is at all helpful to you I'd be happy to have you use it by link or transclusion, and you're more than welcome to edit it to seem less first-person. I'm using it on my userpage if you're interested to see how it transcludes. BigNate37 _(T) 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion (or the keeping of unencyclopedically toned articles). I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote to a shorten, merge and redirect? - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Icarus3, Please stop removing Technostorks from the External Links section of the article on IVF. Technostorks is a unique resource. It offers unbiased educational coverage on issues of infertility anf IVF. There is no other documentary that deals in depth with these issues out there. Thank you. technostorks 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Repeatedly adding a link to multiple articles goes against the Wikipedia guidelines for external links and spamming. You have been notified about this in the past [2], though I'm going to assume that you never received that notice because it was left for one of the anonymous IP addresses you were using at the time. Please familiarize yourself with these guidelines before adding your link again. If you still believe that your link should be included, you may present your case on the article's talk page so other Wikipedia editors can weigh in. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I’m very new to editing pages on this site. I see you have edited my page, are you an administrator? There is a tag on the page that I made, and I’m not sure what needs to be changed...can you help me?

Icarus3, Your vandal fighting efforts are much appreciated. I noticed that in one of your speedy tags, you nominated an article on the basis of repost of an already speedied article. I want to call to your attention that the {{db-repost}} criterion is meant to apply to articles deleted as a result of AFD. The criterion (G4) specifically states: "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions. However, it is often the case with a recreated article that thes same speedy criteria hold. — ERcheck ( talk) 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info! I guess that sometimes I don't read things as clearly as I should, and this was one of those cases. I'll be more careful in the future! -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a problem. I do want to be sure that you know that your efforts are much appreciated. — ERcheck ( talk) 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

If you do not know about a subject, please don't change it. The jersey shore stretches from jersey city to Cape May, and is not an administrative region. The Shore region is Monmouth and Ocean counties. I would like to talk you about this more, as this was an uncalled-for edit from the unintelligible. - Evan 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting a merge is just that, a suggestion. I didn't change a single word of what was there, or even change it to a redirect (which still would have been no big deal, as it could have been easily reverted). If there's a clear reason why the merge would be a bad idea, then it won't be done and that will be that. There's no harm in simply inviting discussion!

As it was (and still is), the article does not have enough context to explain if the word "region" is being used in an administrative sense or in a colloquial sense. If it is the former as I believe you are saying here, then the article needs to explain that. Otherwise, people will continue to wonder why that particular section of the Jersey shore area is distinct from the rest of it. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The article will now state the difference between the two. Thanks for the tip and I am sory for any misunderstandings we may have had. -- Evan 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As you suggested, the following note was posted on the discussion page for the article on IVF: Editors, please resolve an issue I have with Icarus3 who keeps removing Technostorks from the External Links section of the article on IVF (it was also removed form articles on Infertility and Fertility. Technostorks is a unique documentary. It offers unbiased educational coverage on issues of infertility anf IVF. I received many comments from the infertility community that they need to be aware of this resource. It is not spam as Icarus3 keeps assuming. Perhaps I should write a separate article on it and include it in the See Also. I would really appreciate your comments. Thank you very much in advance. - Technostorks 11:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion continued here. Short version: This spammer posted the same link to at least 42 articles, up to 5 times each. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there:

I noticed that you removed the {{ disambig}} from DC. I am in a rather annoying position. Neelix removed the {{disambig}} first. My response to this was to update {{ 2CC}} so that it identified itself as a disambiguation template. I then had William Allen Simpson revert my change to {{2CC}}, claiming that {{2CC}} is not a dab template. At this point, I protested on Template talk:2CC but restored the {{disambig}} until I could get a resolution. Then, older ≠ wiser made a similar change to {{2CC}}, identifying it as a dab template. And then you removed {{disambig}} from DC.

I'm getting whiplash, people. Make up your dern minds!

Sorry. I just want you to be aware of the wider context, and to aware that this is part of a larger battle that still has not been resolved.

— DLJessup ( talk) 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion continued at Template talk:2CC. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, just wondering why you removed the list of ART procedures I added to the Assisted Reproductive Technologies page? If you're wondering about copyright issues, I do have permission from the site I referenced to publish that material in the Wikipedia.

Before removing anything else I add, I'd appreciate if you would talk to me about it first.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jen1026 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 August 2006.

Hi, I think you may have deleted a chunk of text from the description i wrote for Miracle at Morgan's Creek in the Multiple Births entry under Fictional Multiple Births, and you mentioned that the movie details were incorrect. Could you be more specific please? I had just finished watching that movie an hour before so i'm pretty sure that my brief description was accurate. In fact, knowledge of the real-life Canadian quintuplets when the movie was made allows for one of the movie's more timely punchlines, since the movie was a fictional account of American sextuplets.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dextersinister ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 August 2006.

I found the edit you're refering too, and I'm not the one who did it. This edit is the one that removed some of the info you added, and it was done by the anonymous user with the IP address of 68.103.12.88. My username is there because I'm the one who did the previous edit, not because I was involved in this particular edit. Anonymous editors can be hard to contact, but if you're sure that your info is correct (and believe that it adds to the article) you can always re-add it. I'm not familiar with the movie, so I can't really help you there. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding your merge suggestion, I added language that should satisfy removal of the tag. Checking back now, I see it has not been removed. I have always felt that this should be left to the person that added it...would you please do so, or if there is some objection please let me know. Thanks. Rblaster 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You wrote on my talk page about no commercial external links when in fact there ARE commercial external links on that page - this is silly and hypocritical, especially when the page I linked to offers real information and actually helps people, unlike most of the sites out there that offer no real hope for people with this problem. Grinc 06:12, 9 September 2006 (CST)

Your link does not meet the consensus-driven guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. If there are other links that do not appear to meet these guidelines, then they should also be evaluated and removed if necessary. I'll do that if I get the chance (though I have quite a few real-world obligations right now), or another editor might get to it before I do. If you think that certain other links should be removed, I suggest you mention which ones and why on the talk page of the relevant article. If another editor agrees, they can then remove it. If they disagree, they can explain why. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I understand what you mean about all of that. Fine; it makes perfect sense. But if that's the case, then that naturallyguaranteed.com site needs to come off the external links too. Its nothing more than an affiliate site for "healing oils"...take a look and see for yourself. That site is the reason why I thought it was all right.

Grinc 14:51, 9 September 2006 (CST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.