Why did you put a speedy delete header on Henry the Fat? In the first place, it should have been rfd for redirects for deletion, and second, it's not a candidate for speedy delete. Rick K 22:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I didn't know about the RFD thing, and I've never heard of "Henry the Fat". Its sounded like vandalism. Sorry.

Not a problem. Also, when you create VfD listings, you need to add them to the Votes for deletion page. Rick K 00:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks, and okay.

In reference to the comment you left on my talk page:

• Stereotyping or not...you know it's true. -- ExplorerCDT 01:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please read and follow the VfD instructions in full when nominating a page. I have added the heading for you this time. Chris 02:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been a convert to "when in doubt, link", after starting the other way although I can assure you that floor never occurred to me (guess that there's no doubt). The only explanation as to why someone would do that would be "because they can". I guess they were either playing or making some sort of point. I can somewhat plead guilty to that in that sometimes when some articles seem so overlinked that I see just how far that I can take it, within the rules (only first use of a word being linked). This could just be an example of that, I guess. Hang in there!

Rlquall 05:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe it that you put a welcome message on a user who vandalized Wikipedia and even called me by a offensive name that I view as offensive. 66.245.108.212 23:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who would that be?

Just curious why you changed "Boogsie" to Lennox? "Sharpe" or "Len" I could understand, but I had to go looking to find "Lennox" - never heard him referred to by that name. Is your experience different? Guettarda 00:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is best known as "Boogsie" or as Len "Boogsie" Sharpe. But I suppose it wasn't clear what I was trying to say if you read it that way. Guettarda 02:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved List of websites back to its original name, to avoid Wikipedia self-references. — tregoweth 17:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

64.160.53.49 vandalised your userpage. I had the honour of reverting it :-) You may want to add him to your wall of shame. JFW |  T@lk 10:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me about that =) I'll add him now. Oven Fresh 15:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed your comment that there are no copyrights on Wikipedia. The subject is covered at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations. As I understand it, the person who writes the material owns the copyright, and retains that copyright even when posting it to Wikipedia. The act of posting licenses it for use under the GFDL. The copyright owner still has the option of blocking uses that don't conform to the GFDL. Some Wikipedians, considering the GFDL to be possibly too restrictive, also license their contributions under other, similar licenses. That's why Anthony (and I, and others) have various kinds of multi-licensing on our user pages. JamesMLane 20:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anthony is welcome to have whatever he likes on his userpage if it does not violate Wikipedia policies, and as he owns the copyright to all his edits, he is welcome to license them however he pleases. Snowspinner 21:34, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Your screenshot of the Wikipedia mainpage was tagged with {{screenshot}}. However, this implies Fair Use. The correct tag would, IMHO, be {{gfdl}}, because all content that can be seen at the screenshot is free or GFDL content. Can you change the tag? That means other users can change the image (-: Gerritholl 15:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With regards to my stylesheet, I encourage you to use it and modify it to your liking. In fact, I got the stylesheet off of mediawiki's webpage and I added some very minor tweaks to it. Just make sure you have Firefox, a high version of Mozilla, or Netscape 7.2 to get the full effect.

Thanks for removing the full stop from the deletebecause template. I'd just gotten used to it very unnaturally being there and making sure not to put an extra one at the end of my sentences, and then you go and remove it. *grumbles*. -- fvw * 11:00, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Because I consider them to be negative criticism, and each incident of negative criticism feels like a very hard punch in my face. I still follow any directions I am given, but I just want to forget those moments. Denelson83 02:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thank you from the bottom of my retinae. -- fvw * 20:31, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

• XD OvenFresh ☺ 20:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you re-created the Ambition article. I'm not going to advise in favor of, or against, doing that; it's totally your decision. However, some things you should consider:

The history of the controversy is chronicled sporadically on Wikipedia, both on my page (as you've probably read) and others. It may help to read up on it and understand what the history is. Go to Ambition (card game) and use the "what links here" feature (which works even on a nonexistent page; providing locations of the redlinks) and you'll find some of that stuff; a lot of the negative stuff is untrue if not slanderous but still represents how some people on WP feel about the issue. The stuff is not all pretty, but you should know what you're getting into.

If your edit history were less extensive, I would also warn you that you will probably be accused by some of being me. You still might.

I am flattered that you want to support me. However, if it will reduce your effectiveness as a WP contributor, you may want to stay out of it. It's totally your choice. Personally, I decided that an article on Ambition was not worth the crap many months ago, but these are different times. I made some pretty big mistakes on WP ( Ambition trolling phenomenon & 2004 Ambition Googlebomb (both deleted)) because I had stars in my eyes. My mistakes probably won't dog you the way they did me, but I can't be sure.

Also, while I think previous VfD is a shitty reason for speedy-deletion (I think that policy should have a 3-month statute of limitations, after which the article can be recreated and, probably, subjected to another deletion debate) User:Jerzy is within policy to re-delete the article. If you really believe that Ambition should be included in Wikipedia, you should list it at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and a debate will ensue.

The notability of Ambition is not in question. (Just curious, where have you heard of it? Have you played it? Feel free to send me comments/criticisms/praise/stories -- here or churchm (AT) carleton.edu). The controversy over Ambition (which spans more than just Wikipedia) has two ingredients:

1. Dumb, immature, starry-eyed mistakes I made on Wikipedia; creating articles and content that was more promotional of Ambition than it should have been.
2. A right-wing smear campaign against me (my politics are left-of-center and somewhat nonconventional; what this has to do with Ambition or why it merits smearing is beyond me, as I'm a private citizen with no political influence or ambitions).

I'm also curious about the article you wrote on Ambition. You could consider posting it as a subpage of your User page, where it would probably be immune to deletion (you couldn't link to it from the main namespade, though). Then I could check for accuracy and up-to-dateness.

Thanks for your support.

Mike Church 06:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you meant to add Druidston rather than Drizabone to WP:CP in this edit. I've amended it in a way that makes it clear that it was done after the fact. Just to let you know. -- rbrwr ^± 19:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the pet skunk page. Do you have any recommendations for how I could lay out the images better? Some people are saying the pictures cause "ugly layout problems". Thanks, Nathanlarson32767 23:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd recommend against using tinyurl's: They make it impossible to see where you're going before clicking a link, increase network traffic, and will cause problems for people viewing your content when tinyurl has disappeared. -- fvw * 19:34, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Oven Fresh wrote: "I've put Privacy Policy up for speedy deletion because Wikipedia's privacy policy must be written by someone official. Furthermore, you should've created it in the Wikipedia namespace. Please don't recreate it. Thanks! —OvenFresh ☺ 23:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

Oven Fresh, I put this up because one did not exist and like all things on Wikipedia I thought it would excite a discussion for a real Privacy Policy...sorry I am new to Wikipedia...I did not know anything about Namespaces, just trying to help from this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#privacy_policy. BTW, how should I go about helping the creation of a Privacy Policy? - Gabriel Kent 23:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok I fixed the namespace and sent a message to Jimbo for review, thanks for your help! - Gabriel Kent 23:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that your user page contains a personal attack against a Wikipedia user. Please consider removing it, as personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks in advance. Rhobite 22:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to echo the sentiments expressed by User:Rhobite. Please consider making these changes immediately. Thank you again and happy new year to you as well. GRider\ ^talk 22:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry about what was on my userpage. I was just very, very angry at the ignorance of that person at the time and I guess I wasn't thinking. *removes* —OvenFresh ☺ 00:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I before E except after C! :-) Evercat 00:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see you moved British coin Fifty Pence to Fifty Pence piece. Bad idea, unless you plan to rename all 60 or so articles on the current and past British coinage, and even then it's a bad idea because it creates ambiguity with the Irish Fifty Pence piece, therefore I've moved it back. These coinage articles may look awkwardly named, but there is a reason for it! Happy New Year. -- Arwel 01:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for expanding console games. I have, however (though not because I'm not thankful for your input), removed your edit to computer and video games, and your redirect in video game. The definition of computer games, or video games, or interactive games, or electronic games, or what have you ;), is not a light subject, and I'd ask you to read Category_talk:Computer_and_video_games, as I'd be unable to do it justice here. If you do disagree with my changes, let me know on my talk page, and we'll get a discussion going.— Slike | Talk | 08:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits to Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Computer and video games was not a personal attack by any means (at least, it wasn't meant to be). Alas, I won't reinstate it but I do not see how you interpreted it as one. Just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's under "Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi", or in your case, an implication of Dictatorship. He was making a request, not oppressing you in any way.— Slike | Talk | 02:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't implying he was opressing me, I made a silly comment that he should have a dictatorship, I did not say he was trying to gain one. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 03:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you check what the word imply means. It's has little to do with "what you literally said". By sarcastically suggesting that he should be wp's dictator, you use dictator and it's negative connotations as a political affiliation attack . Tell me, what other purpose did your comment serve? — Slike | Talk | 03:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know what imply means. Read my comment here, please: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Computer and video games. I certainly didn't mean to call anyone a "Nazi". ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 03:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to pull a straw man here, I never said you called him a nazi. Apart from that, thank you for leaving the section removed. However, an explanation of your deleted actions is not something that needs to be there. Please remove your last comment, with an edit summary of "See prev version for my response to Slike's reverts", or something similar.— Slike | Talk | 03:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 03:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, no hard feelings I hope. — Slike | Talk | 03:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None! ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who do you think you are??? You son of a bitch. Stop messing with me.

I'm Oven Fresh, nice to meet you. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 01:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- fvw * 02:59, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

:P ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 03:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. — Cantus… ☎ 04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bolding to the St Nicholas' Church, Durham article (I knew I'd forgotten something - it's my first article from scratch). I notice, though, that you've also marked it as a stub. I'd be interested to know why you think it is a stub - the page on this describes a stub as 'a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less'. While I know a great deal more about St Nic's, I'm not sure how much more is encyclopaedic. Not to say that this article is finished - it could do with fleshing out in a few areas (in fact, I've just realised - I was going to mention the bells, which are notably ancient) - but I think the majority of what is notable about St Nicholas' is covered of what is notable is covered there at least to some extent. The article does not seem to me to be a stub; but I'd be interested to know why you think it is one. TSP 02:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure. I've removed it. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 02:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to remove it, because you're obviously a much more experienced editor than I am; but thanks for reconsidering :-) TSP 03:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please show professionalism and good manners and not call someone who makes nothing but quality contributions a "troll." Thank you.

JillandJack 19:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not call you a troll. I said you were trolling; adding tags to articles for no reason and refusing to discuss it leads me to conclude this. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 19:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Before you make false accusations against someone you should check the volume and the QUALITY of their contributions first. Second, you should in fact be extrenely pleased that someone cares enough to actually try to do something about the people/articles that Wikipedia is being derided for by Britannica and others. As stated in our posting, we don't want to do this kind of crap -- we want to enjoy making contributions of interest. How then are we "trolling"? When people deliberately create biased articles and lie and distort facts, then invalidate the good work in ALL other articles. We have a policy: unless we know facts about an article, we mind our own business and allow people who do to say something. Thank you. JillandJack 20:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Note:Above user has been verified to be DW, a troll. ✏ OvenFresh ² 15:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I actually found it in the sony article and i copied it...

I found the Number of employees at (forbes.com)

I found the Number of employees at (forbes.com)

Why did you add "supposed" to the mention of the mission statement? It's right there on Google's corporate information page: Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. BrokenSegue 04:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not sure their actual mission is to do that, I think they're probably just looking for money, like everyone else. I felt that it looked to much as if we were stating a fact that that is their "mission". I've removed supposed and changed this "mission" part to say "mission statement" now. ✏ OvenFresh ² 20:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that the image Orion.jpg was found in copy vio and removed. you have it listed at your fav pics. I am going around removeing references to it so that someday when someone uploads a new pic of that name it is not messing things up. I am not removing it from your page but you should just be aware that this could happen. Cavebear42 18:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! 172 23:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I found this orphaned test artifact (or whatever) from the main namespace. Is it something you made? If yes, please move it under your own user space, or put a {{delete}} tag on it. It is obviously in inappropriate place. Thanks, jni 12:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... No, that is not mine. But I'll add {{delete}}, anyway. ✏ OvenFresh ² 22:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that JillandJack has been blocked, as a reincarnation of User:DW. Adam Bishop 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, yes, I'm an idiot. I meant vertically. Everyking 21:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is currently a vote in progress on whether to adopt a template for the the official CVG infobox. Please take a look at CVG vote. Thank you. K1Bond007 03:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility and your trust. -- khaosworks 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spilt milk, man. --Mead

Vandalism has nothing to with spilt milk. ✏ OvenFresh ² 19:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop removing potentially controversial images from articles without any explanation for the action either in the edit description or the talk page. It may be considered by others in the future to be an act of vandalism. Thanks.-- Deglr6328 05:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I removed those images because they are obviously trolls, do not add to the article, and are almost definitely copyright violations. It's seems to be a new troll tactic to upload obviously-copyrighted images and claim they are uncopyrighted (only to waste other's time and discourage use of Wikipedia by scaring readers off with unpleasant images). ✏ OvenFresh ² 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply

They are from the 19th century there's no way they are copyrighted. Anyway if you have objections to an images inclusion you place that objection in the talk page, you don't just go removing things without comment.-- Deglr6328 22:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think those are from the 19th century. It's just some kind of weird fetish porn. ✏ OvenFresh ² 23:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Template:Google has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Google. Thank you. — Xiong 熊 talk * 21:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

You recently reduced the size of the icon in {{ invertebrate-stub}} from 48px to 30px. Can I ask why? You gave no reason, and it didn't seem to be either necessary or desirable. I preferred it when it was easier to see what the subject of the picture actually was, and in the absence of a good reason not to, I'd like to revert it. -- Stemonitis 13:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I feel large stub images draw too much attention to the stub-notice itself and make the article look ugly. Also, the image for the invert-stub has a white background which looks awful, in my opinion, if you have modified your CSS to have a different background colour or if you're using a different skin. Large stub images look especially ugly when there is several stacked on top of each other— the image should not exceed the stub's text in height, IMO. ✏ OvenFresh ² 15:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Are you getting this game when it comes out?

Nope. ✏ OvenFresh ² 02:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Oven Fresh,I disagree with you that Rabbi Aled Keferson is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe the text of the article is patent nonsense:

"Rabbi Aled Keferson was born in Eastern Spain in 1765"..."When the pink elephant king was passing africa he dropped in on the rabbi to ask for his council. Today the rabbi can be found trying to rebuild the Jewish temple in Mecca although he has substantial opposition"

Obviously if he was born in 1765, he can't be trying to rebuild a jewish temple in Mecca. And think about that for a second. A Jewish Temple. In Mecca. Lastly: "renowned witch doctor Mumbo Dajumbo". Mumbo Dajumbo
Mumbo Dajumbo
Mumbo jumbo.

I am going to re-add the speedy delete banner. However, that will be my last revert. Please use the talk page of the article to reply if I have not convinced you, and you feel the speedy banner is innappropriate. Best regards, EvilPhoenix

This is of course nonsense, but it is not "patent nonsense" in the Wikipedia context (basically complete unintelligibility), and therefore does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. It does happen sometimes that an article that looks completely ridiculous to one editor will be found to be demonstrably legitimate by another, which is why the VfD process exists.-- Pharos 07:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the article does not fit the definition of total nonsense characters, however I personally believe the article fits the second criteria, as listed on the page: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.". However, I respect that there is a difference of opinion, and two other editors have disagreed with me, so I will consider the matter closed, let the article stand as is, and take both of your opinions into consideration before I make future speedy nominations. Thank you for your time. EvilPhoenix