Content deleted Content added
David L Cook Article
 
 
Line 1:
{{AMA alertstalkheader}}
{{Big Brother project|importance=High|class=Start}}
{| align="center" style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333; padding: 5px;"
{{ArticleHistory
|-
|action1=AFD
| align="left" |
|action1date=09 January 2007
;'''I'm fealing better Now! Thank you all for you prayers!'''--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 2007 (UK)
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=
}}
 
{| class="infobox" width="250px"
 
 
 
*[[/Archive|Archived Discusion: Sept 2005 - Jan 29th 2006]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyclePat&oldid=37291171])
*(Discusions will eventually be archived by topic)
 
== Categories ==
 
I've just removed some non-user categories from your userpage. [[User:SeventyThree|SeventyThree]]<sup>([[User talk:SeventyThree|Talk]])</sup> 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Warning ==
 
This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=37210064&oldid=37209218] is a clear violation of [[WP:NPA]]. Any more and you get blocked. [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'll second that. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 15:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
And adding {disoute} and {NPOV} tags to articles without providing evidence of factual inaccuracy or bias is also vandalism. So if you do that again you're in trouble, too. God alone knows what readers must think, seeing the article on the humble motorized bicycle tagged up like the Moldovan language conflict. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:To avoid having to ask for you to be blocked (remember, I said I would not block people with whom I am in active dispute) I have protected the page. Absent evidence of real and substantive POV and accuracy disputes, there are no reaosnable grounds for your continuing to add those tags. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::You should be careful at not to abuse your powers, and I would appreciate if you had another administrator do this, considering as you would often say "your fledged interest" in the subject.
--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::It seems like the right thing to do though!! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Actually, Pat, the right thing to do would be for you to stop adding the tags (which you have done before, with pretty much the same result, except without protection). There is no factual accuracy dispute, and there is no demonstrable bias. You just don't like the article being the way it is, but you are not neutral. And yes I did think twice about it and consider getting somoene else to do it, but settled for posting a summary on the noticeboard instead - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==Advocacy help==
What can I do for you, CyclePat? I have some limited time to assist, if you will have me: I have never been an advocate before (on Wikipedia, anyway, I do it for a living in the real world). [[User:Dyslexic agnostic|Dyslexic agnostic]] 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:OK, i've read your reply and SKIMMED (too long to read) the talk page of [[Motorized bicycle]]. Wow, lots of history, and lots of confliect especially with JzG. Have you considered submitting a request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]]? or the less formal [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]].
:Also, you can create your own workspace, for example, at [[User:CyclePat/Motorized bicycle]], and then work on your own version of this page, seeking comments from other interested parties along the way. This might give you the chance to demonstrate your own vision of how you see this page ending up.
:As to whether you are acting POV, I don't realy know that I know enough about the situation to comment. The mere fact that you have some personal financial interest in electric bicycles shouldn't by itself create a POV conflict... in fact, it means you have some expertise to bring to the editing "table", so to speak.
:Hope this helps. I'm a lawyer in real life, so advocacy is often important. The temptation to get nasty with the other side develops when things get heated (I know!), but it rarely helps. Good luck! [[User:Dyslexic agnostic|Dyslexic agnostic]] 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::For your information, Pat has already tried RfC and RfM, and neither of them gave him what he wanted. He has also forked the article to [[Pedelec]] (deleted), created an article in the main space on [[CyclePat]] (deleted), edit-warred over the redirect at [[Electric bicycle]] (redirect by consensus), forked at [[Timeline of motorized bicycle history]] (now proposed for merger folowing lack of interest after his forked content was deleted by consensus), forked it at [[Gallery of motorized bicycles]] (deleted), edit-warred over insertion of {dispute} and {NPOV} tags to [[Motorized bicycle]] and sundry other disruptions. Pat's problem is this: he is a would-be manufacturer of electric bicycles in Ontario, where there is an unfavourable regulatory climate. He has stated in the past that he wants changes to support legal moves by someone he is helping. Your best bet is to steer well clear, because every single person whoi has got involved with this subject has ended up in a battle with Pat's POV. That includes two established admins ([[User:Katefan0]] and [[User|Woohookitty]]) and one editor who has been sysopped recently (me). Long experience indicates that Pat will continue [[forum shopping]] until he gets the answer he wants. If you go back through the archives of the Talk page you will find that there is plenty of conflict with other peoiple too! Believe it or not I'm actually trying to help Pat do this the ''right'' way, ''by consensus''. Apparently this will not give the desired result quickly enough for Pat's liking. Oh, and you might want to check the Talk page archive (Pat archived it just before he went to talk to you). It includes a lot of past history on this issue, a specific description of some of his agenda, and several examples of people giving sound advice. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 13:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Archiving ==
 
Take a look at my Talk page, you'll see that it's usual to copy archived stuff into a subpage so it can be read easily. I've done that for you. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==Wikimedia Canada and advocacy==
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore [[m:Wikimedia Canada|Wikimedia Canada]], and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--[[User:DarkEvil|DarkEvil]] 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 
I didn't know if you stil wanted me to reply on my talk page, so I do it here. I've just read [[Talk:Motorized bicycle]] and part of the article. It's obvious to me that, while I'd like to help, I can't do much for these two reasons:
*I don't know anything in this subject or relating to this.
*Because of my lack of knowledge concerning this, I can't really see much problem with is as it is right now.
I can only say that I partly agree with you and I partly agree with the other editors. I agree with them that some things are obvious, but I also think some less obvious things could need source, but I didn't see the POV problem. I'm sorry that I can't help further resolving this conflict, but I just can't start helping you or the other editors when I'm not even sure what I'd be writing about.--[[User:DarkEvil|DarkEvil]] 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Bonnie and Clyde==
 
[[CyclePat]] Hi Pat! I went into considerable detail on the discussion page on the allegations made on that article, I also reworded a couple of sections to reflect direct quotes from sources. I am at a loss how some of the critics blame Kate for any alleged error - i asked them if they have a source, or an error, bring it to me, and I will correct the article at once, in other words, if you have real information, tell it, instead of attacking the poor editor who is just trying to keep this professional! As to Bonnie and Clyde, I have every book ever written on them -- if someone wants to dispute something, do so, and we will research it, and resolve it -- don't attack people! I addressed their legitimate concerns by rewording the sections in question, and heavily sourcing, by direct quotes and even page numbers! If they have further concerns, I have asked Tru nicely to bring the info to me, and I will take care of it. Hope you are well! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==68.156.240.30==
[[CyclePat]] Hi Pat! Will you take a look at this user? 68.156.240.30 - ALL of his edits are terrible, vandalism, and the one on maternal deaths just sickening. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??? This is a great project, and instead of contributing they make work for the administrators, and users who want to contribute by having to reverse their vandalism! UGH![[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 
{| align="center" style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333; padding: 5px;"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
| align="left" |
----
;'''I'm taking the next few days off because I'm comming up with what maybe pneumonia. Please pray for my good health.'''--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
|-
 
|
== Get well soon ==
* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Start-8 June, 2007)
 
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (8 June, 2007-14 June, 2007)
and next time have the flu and pneumonia jabs :-) [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (14 June, 2007-27 June, 2007)
:Hey, milk being sick for all it's worth, and feel better. Next time you're out on your electric bicycle, wear warmer clothes! =) &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (27 June, 2007-03 July, 2007)
 
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
::Thank you guys!! I'm feeling better after a bit of [[R&R]] and counting all my wiki edits to fall asleep. I then realized: There is a program to do that. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits ... Meuh! Go figure. In the mean time ... (My first official real wikibreak of more than 3 days.) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
{{Attempting_wikibreak|[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]]| on February 21|I}}
 
==Request for Mediation==
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1]].
:''For the Mediation Committee,'' <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]</sup></font>, ''Chairman'', 12:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:<small>(This message delivered by [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] ([[User talk:Celestianpower|talk]]) on behalf of [[User:Essjay|Essjay]].)</small>
 
== response to vandalism ==
 
I am finding sources for these articles. Give me about 15 more minutes and I will be done. Thank you. Also, please know that every time you put those tags on that page, they appear on every page that tallys that medals fgor the olympics and that is a lot. Thank you for your compassion. I just didn't want that page do be deleted when I was working on it. --[[User:JP06035|Jared]] 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'm almost finished with the sources. would you ''please'' be kind enough to remove the tags when I finish. They're ugly as heck and not to mention they show up on like 50+ pages. That would be great if you could do that. I'll alert you when I'm finished. Cordially, [[User:JP06035|Jared]] 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I don't follow you...I've only been editing for a few months. What are you talking about? --[[User:JP06035|Jared]] 17:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Ok, well thank you. Now that everything is fixed, there should be no problem when it comes to deletion because I have the proper sources in place. When it comes time for the talk of deletion, though, where will this discussion be held...in the discussion page? --[[User:JP06035|Jared]] 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Pat, next time you are tempted to tag up an article like that (let alone a template), please ''do'' ask around first. If you don't trust me, ask somebody else. Your action was precipitate - to suggest that an Olympic medal table "requires sources" is [[WP:POINT|pressing a point too far]] since the sources are freely available on the Internet and published every day in the press, whether or not the people using them have accurately transcribed the figures.
 
Apart from anything else you apparently only half-did the process, and it was the wrong process to start with (should have been [[WP:TFD|templates for deletion]]). Oh, and you tagged entirely the wrong article - you tagged the medal tables template, in effect demanding sources for the ''existence'' of the 2006 Winter Olympics. The article you want deleted, [[Olympic games medal count]], does not exist and never did.
 
Also, you said in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count|the delete request]] that all it required was citations - that is '''not''' grounds for deletion unless you believe that the article is irredeemable in that regard (i.e. original research without prospect of reliable external sources - absurd in the case of an Olympic medal table). If that sounds like "[[WP:DICK|don't be a dick]]" then I probably got the tone about right :-) [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Vandalism tags ==
Please please please do not add vandalism tags to user's talk pages. They are meant to be used for...well...vandals...people trying to deface the encyclopedia. I really wish you would see how this stuff is used before using it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Pat, you are not seriously telling me that you aren't stalking pages yourself, are you? I mean, do you want me to believe that you just happened to see Just diz guy's posts on *my* talk page? Come now. And no, what you are describing isn't really vandalism. As I said, the tag you used is designed to warn people making serious vandal edits. Using it on a admin's talk page is absolutely not what it was designed for. I wish you'd see how this stuff is used before using it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Pat. Once again, the vandalism tags are used to warn vandals that what they are doing is destructive to the encyclopedia. The problem is that if we use your definition, then what you keep doing is as much "vandalism" as what JzG is doing. You are adding tags that don't belong to articles such as the Olympic games medal template. Citing sources is good, but in the case of something like the Olympics, it's completely unnecessary. And if you read the WP:CITE policy, you'd see why. But you didn't. You probably did what you usually do, which is to read the first few sentences, think you know what the policy is about and then attack others for not using it. Read the entire thing. General knowledge does not need to be sourced. So. Adding the tag you added and bringing it all up for deletion is just as much "vandalism" as JzG removing that tag. I'd argue that it's even more disruptive. Do not use the vandalism tags like you did. They are not meant to be used like that. I guarantee you that I've done a heck of alot more vandal fighting than you have and I'm telling you that those tags are not to be used in the way you used them. If they were supposed to be used that way, you would've had that tag on your page many many many times since you joined Wikipedia. We all would have. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Pat, your Talk page is on my watchlist, along with several hundred other user Talk pages. There are a very small number of people whose contribution lists I regularly check, all for excellent reasons, and you are not one of them. If I see an edit to a Talk page with an interesting-looking edit history, I go along and read it. In this case I ''tried'' to help you not to make a complete tit of yourself but was apparently too late. [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Blocked for 24 hours==
 
[[Image:Octagon-warning.png|left|30px| ]]You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. <!-- {{3RR3}} --> &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Blaaoooock hum-bug! This is all a WP:POINT to punish me. I sent an email to to the administrator that blocked me. And a copy to my friend JzG because inherently, it is partly because of you that I'm here. Partially. Because I didn't bring up a request for vandalism comment. (or whatever it is!) But it comes down to being my fault. I admit to doing more that 3 reverts. And to the the person that blocked me, my email, goes like this:
 
Thank you for pointing out the 3 RR rule. I would like to point out that yes, seemingly I did do more than 3 reverts. I would also like to point out that most of these where done to revert vandalism.
At least 3 off them where in regards to vandalism. Another 3 edits where a slight accomodation. No mater the fact I would like to point out to you that.
 
Facts:
 
The Incident was solved at around 15:00 hours [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Olympic_games_medal_count&action=history]
 
The reverst where reported by mike around 17:11 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=39396418&oldid=39392307]
 
Comment:
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Intent of the policy 3 RR:
the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment, reports dredging up old incidents long past their applicability/relevance to this policy...
...are pointless.
...will not be looked upon kindly.
...may be treated as a WP:POINT violation.
...will be mocked mercilessly.
...will be sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
 
 
The editing war was done. finito. I even had the time to go and put up the fact on the talk page that the article was listed for AFD. I now know that 3 RR is not the page for dealing with "vandalism" (please review that page for the definition of what constitutes vandalism):
I now know that if I find myself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, I should list that person at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. However on my talk page woohookitty has stated that what JzG tried to do was not vandalism. So I'm all the more confused.
 
Finally:
Arguably, some of those edits where not complete reverts and where discussed on user talk pages of JzG, my talk page, and in the AFD. I move that this block is a WP:POINT Violation. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Meuh! Go figure. Thank you b.t.w. for taking the time to give me a warning. Oh! Yah! That's true you didn't because all of this was done as a spitfull punishement. Good job upholding wiki policy! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:You had a warning on 6 Nov 2005, and FYI it was I who reported your 3RR violation. Yes it does allow reverts due to vandalism, however you tagged a Template with the wrong tags, to make a WP:Point, as you admited to on JzG's talk page. [[User:Onthost|Mike]] <sub>([[User_talk:Onthost|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Onthost|C]])</sub> [[Image:Star_of_life2.png|20px]] 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::No not really. I taged the template for AFD because it was the most logical and easiest way to proceed toward receiving comments from all these article. I had every tag possible to explain my disposition on the subject. I also stated these reasons in the AFD, on the discusion page for that AFD. Again... the articles lack sources, lacking sources means that the information is possibly original research. Original research is criteria for deletion. Anyone could have easilly commented on the VfD but go figure some people though it would be better to remove the AFD from the template. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Also please note that the lines of disruption are drawn not by you, but by those who consider what is disruptive. Therefore, I'm afraid your current defense is not defense enough. --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 06:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Moped Question ==
 
On a unrelated to the wiki note, do you know anywhere in the Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa region that sells new/used mopeds?? [[User:Onthost|Mike]] <sub>([[User_talk:Onthost|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Onthost|C]])</sub> [[Image:Star_of_life2.png|20px]] 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Yup! There a web site called http://moped2.org/main.htm . Unfortunatelly I saw mostly American Dealer ship listings. But I would give it a look if you're interested in buying. You may find something in the for sale section. Used moped dealers I think are rare here in Ontario. I'm more into electric bicycle conversions. Many classified and personal sales exist at www.mopedarmy.com or [http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/search.php?f=2&search=Ottawa&match=1&date=30&fldbody=1 here]. You may be able to buy directly from the user. And if you ever want to add an electric hub motor to the front or back of your gas powered moped. Call me up. For the new mopeds, in Ottawa we have Duran Duran. Or Deran I should say... [http://www.derand.com/ScootersMopeds.html] There is also another place I saw in the yellow pages, that I've called up a couple times but there more into scooters. But for some reason they agree with my petition. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== It's simple Pat ==
It's just not "ok" to make bad faith nominations and you've done it several times. What's a bad faith nomination? A bad faith nomination is putting something up for deletion in the hopes that it fails so that then you can bring back other articles. Or in the case of the Olympic articles, putting them up for deletion when actually, you just felt like they should be sourced. You should *only* put articles up for deletion when you want them deleted...no other purpose. There are many many ways to accomplish what you want without putting things up for deletion. As I've stated since the start, we don't hide these things. But it's disruptive to do what you've been doing. You put what...20 templates up for deletion, all in bad faith? I would call that highly disruptive, wouldn't you? --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:That's the smartest thing I've heard from anyone here on wikipedia in a long time! I think this should be writen right on the delete policy. Sorry if if I've disrupted wikipedia by following the rules to the letter. I think it’s because I here... or read the parts (Remember though, I read this from wiki policy... I don't try to make it up), that I want a hear. I exaggerate those parts in my mind. Then I say them to myself a couple times over and over. Until I know or believe it’s the correct way to go. Extreemism may be the issue. You of all people should know I'm always a couple of step a head, even if I don't have the proper foundation. (in this case slowly permited the other steps to mature... ie.: my electric bicycle company and this most recent example)... As you've said wikipedia will be a learning curve. As I've said... I think it will help in my personal developement. Thank you! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::b.t.w. It was one template that was on about 50 pages. The reason being that all or most of the pages that it appeared on are missing sources. I believe those articles are a candidate for wikisource... but only after we get the citation problem fixed. And the vicious circle start all over again... This time, I'll try not to jump the gun on in the future. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== on the pictures ==
I collect Albanian memorabilia and I have several newspaper articles that talk about this lady. Not sure... can I upload them?
 
(above comment is from [[user: Sportiv]])
 
Hello and greetings from Canada. If I may sugest a solution for you, all you really need to do is cite the source of the newspaper. The date. At this point there is probably no need to upload picture of the entire news paper cover. This may be interesting to add later on as a picture within the article to give it credibility. However, you will still need to add a proper reference\citation for the photo's. You may find the answer here at [[WP:CITE]]. p.s.: Dont' forget to sign your comments! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Found!, [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_hidethis=no&p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Author&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&s_dispstring=elisabeta%20nishica%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(elisabeta%20nishica)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no] thanks for your help
 
::Don't forget the pictures need their sourcing. I'm not sure how wiki does it but I think it can't hurt if you put sourcing on the pictures and on the article. Good luck. Cheers --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== NiMUD ==
 
Thanks, CyclePat. This one's a hoot: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Online_creation]
 
==bonnie and clyde==
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] [[User:katefano|katefano]] Unknown internet addresses keep putting tags on the bonnie and clyde article, without citing what precisely they are challanging. I removed it at first, but decided that it needed referring to an editor. I think when someone tags, they should be required to show cause, why factually it is tagged, then source same. This is Pig, again, with his internet addresses without names, because he is barred. Lord, when someone tags, they should at the minimum be required to cite why, and source same! At any rate, I am not playing a revert game, I have shifted it to you and Kate! Thanks! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=next&oldid=40962958 CyclePat wrote:]
::''Hopefully in the mean time, the person that nominated this article will stand up and explain. It only seems logical. Simply saying or putting on the dipute tag because of some discusiong that maybe have previously occured, in my eyes, is not the best way to do it.''
 
:Apparently, CyclePat and Oldwindybear have not noticed that the [[Talk:Bonnie and Clyde|talk page]] for [[Bonnie and Clyde]] holds plentiful and explicit documentation of errors in accuracy and failure to maintain NPOV, exactly as claimed by the TotallyDisputed tag. When such directly relevant documentation exists on a talk page, ''there is no requirement that new documentation be added'' -- only that it be there roughly in time with the addition of the tag (which it was). To discern the reason for the cleanup tag, however, requires nothing more than reading the article with a clear head.
 
:Given the evidence on the talk page, calling the tag vandalism is denial of the obvious. Further, ''the talk page is locked to all edits by IP users''. Therefore, claiming that more verbiage need be inserted by tagging IP users is the same as saying that IP users may not tag articles as violating NPOV, needing cleanup, etc, when the corresponding talk pages are so protected. That is not in line with any Wikipedia policy of which I'm aware. The repeated attempts to disclaim through such feigned legalism the POV and other problems should be embarrassing to anyone who reads the article and weighs it against the evidence, cited and logical, on the talk page. ''After'' that material has been dealt with, there remain more problems with the article which haven't yet been documented on the talk page. One thing at a time, since some observers are unable to cope with, or even notice, the evidence and points raised already by multiple users on the talk page. [[User:216.8.14.54|216.8.14.54]] 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
As you have indicated. "One thing at a time, since some observers are unable to cope with, or even notice, the evidence and points raised already by multiple users on the talk page." And I am simply asking for you to state the key executive issues. Please summarize the issues, as is I believe customary. Please present a excutive summary of the issue and please talk about the subject in a general overview (Unlike previous instances where oldwindybear was being harrased by user:Pig or when he RFCd katefan, analysing every sentence is not an option here.) And if you want us to take you seriously you will create an account. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:The problem, of course, is that this person has already created an account (or several accounts, to be more accurate -- including [[User:SaltyPig]] and [[User:Wbfl]]), but both were indefinitely banned from contributing to Wikipedia for trolling, harassment, personal attacks, vandalism and disruption. And of course, if he creates more accounts, they'll also be banned. Hence the problem. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']] Hi Pat, Hi Kate! I noticed at once that this was the person known as Pig, Wbfl, and several other aliases. Kate summed up the whole situation very nicely a long time ago, when she challanged him/her to correct these terrible inadequacies in the article, if they do indeed verifably exist. Pat's request that this person, banned under several names, submit a key list of grievances is fine with me - in essence, he wants to rewrite history. John Treherne, and the other genuine historians who studied Bonnie and Clyde literally went to every jurisdiction alleged offenses took place, and could find no warrants (or even sworn complaints!) against Bonnie for murder. The best evidence available for an encyclopedia article is sources like Treherne, or other experts, who actually went and studied every single available court record. Trouble is, Pig, or whatever name he is using this time, prefers to threaten people, or launch particularly viscious personal attacks rather than doing what Kate has told him to do time and again -- bring forth the evidence to back his claims, and correct the article. Instead he threatens me, literally, and gets banned. When I saw his writing last night, I knew immediately it was pig under yet another anonymous account, and continue his campaign of (I like Kate's sumnation) trolling, harassment, personal attacks, vandalism and disruption. I am taking Pat's good advice, and leaving this one to you and Kate. Personally, I hope you lift the tag, because the article is a good one, fair, changed many times to reflect a consensus among everyone but Pig and his many aliases. Pat, thanks, Kate, hi, and I hope you are well. Hey, the really amusing part of Pig's latest alias, and his response, was his claim that "many" users have disputed most of the article. He is the "many," having made up repeated and different aliases, trupatriot, Jerry Dorsen, SaltyPig, et al. I suppose by that logic I should go the library, use different computers, create many accounts, and agree with myself, creating a huge consensus! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Following is an example of how a Wikipedia administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Hamer&diff=35280559&oldid=35279239 comments on a talk page] after adding a TotallyDisputed tag:
 
:::''I also dispute this article as it is written's facual accuracy as well. Many, MANY assertions of fact in this article need specific citations, particularly ones that could be viewed as potentially libelous to Frank Hamer or his living relatives. [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)''
 
::That's it. There should be no expectation for greater specificity placed on a non-admin, especially when the manifold issues of inaccuracy and POV are far better documented at [[Talk:Bonnie and Clyde]] than they were on the page where [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] left the above comment to accompany the added TotallyDisputed tag. If there are to be two standards for editing at wikipedia, then please admit that explicitly and end the dancing. For Oldwindybear and Katefan0, this has simply become a Pig fixation (all assumed, of course -- incorrectly in Oldwindybear's comment above), rather than one of content -- demonstrated ably by the duplicitous requirements for accepting the tagging of an article.
 
::Surprisingly, the Bonnie and Clyde article gets very little editing traffic in relation to the infamy of the subject. That has always been the case here, and most of the issues left on the Bonnie and Clyde talk page have not been addressed by anyone, much less by "consensus". Therefore, arguing that ''new'' documentation must be supplied is specious (just as the decision by an admin to SP the article talk page). With all the referring to "Pig", no one can point to a single instance where he, or anybody arguing his position, vandalized the article. Please address content, not personalities. The content in existence for this tag addition is clearly superior to that in place when Katefan0 added hers above, and that tag is still in place. Put some perspective on the complaining please, and deal with the flaws at Bonnie and Clyde objectively. [[User:216.8.14.101|216.8.14.101]] 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Or, instead of complaining, you could simply fix the errors you see yourself. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble0]] I strongly echo Kate's response -- fix them. By the way, you neglect to mention that since Kate left that note on my Frank Hamer article, I have completely rewritten it in accordance with wikipedia format, sourced it all, and still Kate has eliminated part of it. Point is, you neglect, as usual, to mention that her instructions, and concerns, were met with dozens of edits, rewording to comply with the necessity to avoid potential for suit, and strongly sourcing. You still have not specifically listed your concerns, as [[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] required. And frankly, the writing above is exactly the same as Pig's and many of his alias's, including Jerry Dorsen, Esquire of nothing. Either list the errors, as Pat has requested, or fix them, as Kate has requested - but no, you will do neither, you will continue to dredge up old statements, and attempt to waste all our tiem in an endless debate. Kate, Pat, please require this user to either list his issues, as Pat requested, fix the errors, as Kate requested, or lift the tag. Pig would have us all debate forever to no useful purpose except endless argument. Woohookitty is right though, all he does is endlessly use different addresses, for endless debate to no point.[[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 21:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Oldwindybear, there seems to be confusion regarding the requirement that a TotallyDisputed tag have appropriate comment. The issue is not one of chronology. Rather, it's that the documentation ''be there'' with the tag. That requirement has been met, and then some. Katefan0 added documentation much later at [[Frank Hamer]]? Great! You may also notice that she implies that one should fix rather than tagging. Obviously, that was not her fervent personal belief until, oh, about 30 minutes ago. Plenty of time has elapsed to let truth rise to the top in that regard.
 
::''You still have not specifically listed your concerns, as [[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] required.''
 
:Let's be very clear on this. Far as I know, not one person has approached me, the tagger, to ask in good faith that more detail be provided. CyclePat's approach, and yours, has been in the form, "this, or else". Nor is there any reason for the Bonnie and Clyde talk page to be SP'd, preventing me from responding to your supposed challenges. I did everything possible under the SP restriction to add the tag according to policy, yet good faith was not assumed in response. It's all threats and conditions, and CyclePat, especially, is not in a position to issue "requirements" or accelerated "deadlines" contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice. Is there something in the air preventing somebody from asking nicely for a summary? Seriously -- what kind of respectful response do you expect to get with such techniques, especially when all the information is already present on the talk page? I will not respond positively to threats, especially when I'm in the right on this matter. Neither will I attempt to edit an article in such a state (with such a history) without tagging and discussing. The history shows that one user will not allow the article to become something other than a POV defense of Bonnie Parker. That is documented ''ad nauseam'' in the article history and, apparently by multiple users (no, not socks), on the talk page. [[User:216.8.14.101|216.8.14.101]] 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::So, fix it. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Please read:
 
::::''Neither will I attempt to edit an article in such a state (with such a history) without tagging and discussing. The history shows that one user will not allow the article to become something other than a POV defense of Bonnie Parker.''
 
:::I am following Wikipedia policy to the letter, as much as I am able given the SP of the article talk page. Fact. "So, fix it" is not a meaningful reply to all the world's ills. I am attempting to fix it, following Wikipedia guidelines and policy explicitly. Doing otherwise is futile in this case, if history and reality are any guide at all. [[User:216.8.14.101|216.8.14.101]] 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] [[User:katefano|katefano]]I echo Pat's words, list your specific issues, then I echo Kate's words: '''fix it, with sourcing for your "fixes.''' I will not interfere. You misstate the history of the Frank Hamer article - Kate thoroughly edited my work after I had made literally dozens of edits. But I abide by her decisions as fair, and reflecting a good consensus. You neglect to mention this, as you neglect to mention that your identity of Jerry Dorsen was a complete falsification. I await your list of issues with historical references and sources, as I am standing by, and waiting for your "fixing" this article you find so reprehensible. If you do not, then Pat and Kate, I ask you remove the tag. That article went a long and arduous process where everyone but pig and his plethoria of guises were satisfied. If he is not willing to list his objections, as Pat asked, or fix them, as Kate asked -- and he cannot blame me, I am standing by observing -- then remove his tag. His goal is chaos, not scholarship, trouble, not education. [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
I agree some of us could do better with our conversations allusionning bad faith. I understand you are losing patient Kate but try not to bog yourself down on this one. It may be hard for our nominator to cope with the excitement of finding something, and now the idea that he may feel gang up on! Asking him to fix it might not be the best solution. I'm here to help you help us all! Let's take a step back for a moment. Okay! I'm sorry if I may have seemed rude in asking you for a summary but anyone that comes to see this article may not be able to see the issues you are trying to argue. Kate and Oldwindy you must understand that our user feels he is trying to fix the problem. He has followed wiki rules. We just can't see it right now. The problem here is that we can't see the problem unless we get a summary of the issue. It doesn't have to be big. Simply state "this line and this line are argued because of this .... and this .... etc..." A couple key points. That's all I'm asking for, a reasonable request for someone who is trying to help everyone out. And considering you have 2 editors that are familiar with this article that didn't know (perhaps now they do!) what you are talking about I find it difficult. Imagine how difficult it is for someone outside to understand why the template is there! The idea of you collaborating and writting down a summary was a request to help everyone out. I'm going to have to read through this entire comment and try to decipher the context again. Arguing symantic on arguing about arguements... It can be time consumming and many people, (that goes for the professional world) don't like to waste time. I also feel that if it isn't clear what we are arguing about then there is no reason for that template to be there! You have indicate an issue from january 15th. From what I gather you believe the problem is more about sourcing and proper WP:CITE then it is about factual accuracy? Or is it about something you have read elsewhere that contradict the content in here? No mater the case. I think the problem here is not a big problem, however if we start ordering people around and telling them what to do it may turn into some other type of problem. Necessarilly, and ironically, I have only on request, (so things may proceed smoothly) instead of me removing this info tag (note that at this point I haven't verified your comments with the article) perhap you may explain why I shouldn't remove it? (I'm trying to do this the relaxed way but you are making it difficult). Again a quick summary would be nice. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] Hi Pat -- I absolutely agree, the tagger should just come forth with a quick summary of lines which are factually in error, what is wrong, and why. My only goal is finish up the article and move on to other ones i am working on - so if he will tell you (and thereby the rest of us) why the tag is on, specifically, then i can respond appropriately, with factual information and sources, if I disagree. Pat your request is quite reasonable, and anyone acting in good faith would respond appropriately...Take care, and hope you are still feeling better, you had us concerned there for awhile! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] Pat, this is the 3rd day, and this guy is not going to give you even a line or two in good faith. Will you think about removing the tag, which is simpe harrassment of the rest of us who reached a good consensus on that article? [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== That ????? thingy ==
I closed the debate since it was speedy deleted. When it's speedy deleted, it ends the debate. The thought is that if people have problems with it they can take it up at Deletion review. As for warning the guy, it looks like he's using a dynamic IP, which means that each time he goes online, he gets a new IP address. Means that he's almost impossible to track. :( I have a suggestion for you. Since you are starting to get into the "guts" of Wikipedia (i.e. afds), I'd suggest doing vandal patrol for awhile. [[WP:CVU]] is a good resource. It'll just teach you some basics about IPs and such...and vandals. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
==mediation of bonnie and clyde article==
[[User:CyclePat]] [[User:Katefan0]]Hi Pat! Hi Kate! I still encourage you to mediate the Bonnie and Clyde article, and will speak to you via email instead of creating a circus, i. e. challanging another user to sit down with people's families, etc. Just the facts! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:CyclePat]]Let me know when to respond to specific points "raised" by pig. I have a brief summary, with cites = you don't need 5 pages of ranting to say what you can say in 5 paragraphs with citing. I will respond by email when you tell me you wish the response. [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== Mediation at Bonnie and Clyde ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=41781895&oldid=41698513 You admit] that you "actually did notice mediation at the bottom", where I announce clearly 3 editors I'd accept as mediator so that Oldwindybear could choose one (or propose some to me for consideration), yet you ''still'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=41678537&oldid=41599129 wrote], "Until you clearly state that you are willing to have mediation I feel it is useless to continue on. You must first want to be able to negotiate." Yeah, that ''is'' "com fail", as you labeled your latest edit there.
 
You don't notice the obvious, and you argue disingenuously. There -- two huge reasons, ''in response to your direct question'' (so please don't start with [[WP:NPA]] hurling), why I will not accept you as a mediator. You don't seriously think I'm unaware of your prior behavior at Wikipedia, do you? Want another reason? In attempting to inculcate yourself as a "mediator", you issued many veiled threats against me, yet you ask, "Why do you wish to have a different mediator?" I'll answer that: Because I live on planet earth.
 
Unlike Oldwindybear, I'm not interested in having somebody on my "side". I'm interested in somebody who can objectively and intelligently swim in fine detail (somebody, in other words, ''not'' obsessed with "refactoring" in the middle of an argument of complex detail), then come out on the side of Wikipedia's core article policies, without exception. My agenda is for strict adherence to [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:CITE]], and clear writing without errors whether in fact or formatting. If it means I'm wrong, I want to know it. One potential mediator I proposed, I've never even talked to, or seen before. I have no idea of his opinion on Bonnie and Clyde, if he even holds one. However, he did write on his talk page an explicit opinion indicating that he agrees in principle with Oldwindybear's core thesis. Why do I still approve of him as a mediator? Because neither my thesis (indicated as obvious opinion in the latter part of the section "Recent editing", and clearly not intended for inclusion in the article) nor Oldwindybear's has any place in this article, except as it agrees with the thesis of an authoritative, external, cited source, displayed in proportion with NPOV. Obvious as it is, you haven't yet noticed that I'm not proposing extra verbiage for the article, as your continued straw man touting of a supposed requirement for "A" and "B" examples implies. I advocate the objective gutting of all uncited opinion and slop. There is no "B" there. The "B" is absence.
 
No, you continue openly as an advocate for an editor rather than for Wikipedia, and things will be just fine. The record shows that I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=41599129&oldid=41579166 publicly offered the other principal disputant] a choice of 3 mediators, encouraging him to return with counteroffers or ask for more proposals if none of those is acceptable. You, having already been explicitly rejected, are not a counteroffer. Upon my announcement that you will not be a mediator in this dispute, Oldwindybear continued pushing you. Far from good faith, it's the furtherance of a mission to keep the article a soapbox for original thought. Oldwindybear hasn't understood that from his first appearance at there, and apparently still doesn't. If a vociferous editor doesn't understand and honor [[WP:NOR]]/[[WP:NPOV]] (among others), the TotallyDisputed tag isn't going away. That's Wikipedia policy, not my opinion. [[User:216.8.14.188|216.8.14.188]] 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 
==Just a hello!==
 
[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] Hi Pat! I just wanted to say hello! Nothing new, other than I just wanted to say hello, with no problems, just hoping you are okay! [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== AMA ==
 
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates|Association of Members' Advocates]]. There is a poll being held at [[Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates]] for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
==Image copyright problem with Image:Garneau.PNG==
Thanks for uploading [[:Image:Garneau.PNG]]. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] is very careful about the images included in [[Wikipedia]] because of [[copyright law]] (see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Copyright|Copyright policy]]).
 
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are [[open content]], [[public ___domain]], and [[fair use]]. Find the appropriate template in [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] and place it on the image page like this: <code><nowiki>{{TemplateName}}</nowiki></code>.
 
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.
 
This is an automated notice by [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]]. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on [[Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags]] or [[User talk:Carnildo/images]]. 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits]] ==
 
I'm just asking you to review your vote in the discussion, it doesn't seem to fit in with the article or the nomination. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]] 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 
 
== Userpage ==
Looks like you have an extra "=" in the heading '''About My company CyclePat's='''. Thought I'd let you know (rather than edit your userpage which is bad form IMO).--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 01:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 
:Thank you isotop --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 
== What-ho ==
 
Hey, Pat, how's things? Been quiet lately. Getting on OK? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 22:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 
== Images and Garneau ==
 
The context here is that we have a big problem with images which are falsely asserted as fair-use. Per image and copyright policy Google Maps images are fair-use ''only'' in the article on Google Maps, although this is widely misunderstood (same with magazine covers, they are ''only'' fair use in articles on the magazine, we are forever having to delete them from other articles, especially ''Time'' covers). The same will apply to other satellite maps: they are not free, and the standard fair-use disclaimer does not apply any more than it would to a photograph; Snowdon's photographs can be used in the article on Lord Snowdon, but not elsewhere unless explicitly released ''by him'' into the public ___domain. The image from the yearbook was apparently mis-tagged (GFDL, whereas it is probably from a copyright work). JKelly is trying to fix the image problems, and incidentally apparently a para which was difficult. I'm happy to talk about it, but the images are unquestionably unfree, and we are on a mission to purge those out. There is a fuller description from JKelly on my Talk page. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 
I look back with nostalgia at our past disputes - they were so much less complex than the mess of POV-pushing nonsense I am constantly drawn into now! [[Remote viewing]] and other such lunacy - bring back the easy calls! [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== Nunavut citation ==
 
You asked for a citation for the previously missing [[Nunavut]] region in [[Google Earth]]. Anyone who used Google Earth noticed it when it hadn't been fixed yet, and [http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/316752/page//vc/1 this page] mentions the fact.
 
== How is your investigation going? ==
 
== Semi Protected ==
How is your investigation into the [[User:Michael D. Wolok|Wolok]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael D. Wolok|case]] going? I am anxious to see if you reach the same conclusions that you insinuated at [[User talk:HappyCamper]]. As you may see if you read his responses on that talk page, accusations like yours have been quite hurtful. So if your investigation does not turn up evidence against [[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]], you might consider making a new less sarcastic and inflammatory statement there. Perhaps even an apology. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]</sup> 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I had to semi-protect the article, as this afternoon there was a lot of vandalism, I had to spend 20 minutes clearing it up. Everyone happy with this? [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, you might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael D. Wolok#Outside view by Laura Scudder|my outside view]] in the above case. The most important thing I've learned from Wikipedia is to always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] first. &mdash; [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|&#9742;]] 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have reverted the addition of the template. You're not an administrator and therefore cannot protect pages. Thanks, —&nbsp;'''[[User:Xy7|<span style="color:#61B329">Xy</span>]][[User talk:Xy7|<span style="color:#91219E">7</span>]]''' 16:59, 07 June 2007
::Hi John - don't worry, many users have made the same mistake :) If you need a page protecting, only an administrator can do it - to request, ask on [[WP:RFPP]] where you'll normally get a fast response. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''[[User:Majorly/MU|meet]]'') 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Really? Wow, how come I'm able to then? well I guess I should request it then. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah yes, I didn't read that the first time I read the protection policy, my mistake. I have requested it now. It still surpises me that it's possible for non-admins to do that. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 23:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::By adding the template, you didn't protect it - the template just informs people that it is protected - admins have to use their tools that we don't have to do it :) -'''[[User:Trampikey|Trampikey]]'''<sup>([[User talk:Trampikey|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Trampikey|contribs]])</sup> 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes we do. Article semi-protected for 24 hours. It is better to request semi protection if crap is being added, rather than continually removing it (potentially risking 3RR). [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::I understand now. So should the template be added now, and if so am I allowed to do it? [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 11:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, and yes. -'''[[User:Trampikey|Trampikey]]'''<sup>([[User talk:Trampikey|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Trampikey|contribs]])</sup> 11:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Done. One question how does the time bit of that template work, can't see instructions for it [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the template to the smaller icon that appears in the top right corner - I hope noone minds, but it reduced the amount of banners at the top of the article :) -'''[[User:Trampikey|Trampikey]]'''<sup>([[User talk:Trampikey|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Trampikey|contribs]])</sup> 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:Seems sensible [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 
I've had the page semi-protected again, this time for a week, as the vandalism, unsourced comments, and potential libel from IP users has continued. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
== Uotdated workpages ==
:Well the protection has run out, so lets see how it goes. Only one, possible, incident of vandalism, though I think that was done in good faith. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]] 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm going to request it again, still quite a big of IP vandalism [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 10:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Big_Brother_2007_.28UK.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29|Requested]] [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 10:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Semi-protected for a week again. And...... relax. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::And again. Did anyone request it this time? [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::And again, until the end of the series, replaced with small template. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Is a two-month protection really necessary? Anonymous users ''do'' provide useful information and updates in this article, even if some of them do go a bit mad sometimes. —&nbsp;'''[[User:Xy7|<span style="color:#61B329">Xy</span>]][[User talk:Xy7|<span style="color:#91219E">7</span>]]''' 18:28, 03 July 2007
:::Probably not, the admin seems to have taken it upon himself since he first did it. I certainly didn't request it. I don't really mind either way, though it has become a bit dead round here recently. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Jonathan ==
I see you don't work with [[User:CyclePat/Motorized bicycle]] and [[User:CyclePat/Gallery of motorized bicycles]]. Please consider their deletion. `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Although he walked on Day 35 he still nominated on Day 34, I can't recall anyone walking the day after nomination before, but his choices (I will guess Nicky and Tracey) may still count. We will see on tonight's program, but if so the table will have to be adjusted. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
== Advocacy help ==
:Yeah i was wondering about that. Though if he voted for Charley I hope they keep them! But I think the table should show his nominations, but with a note (and strking them through) saying that didn't count (if that becomes the case). But you're right we'll find out tonight what happens. They might mention it on BBLB too. --[[User:81.178.69.196|81.178.69.196]] 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree, based on how we have previously handled nominations which didn't count (see Billi and Charley), we should list them, but strike them through if they are not counted. If they are counted we should list them as normal. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::I think that the last time this happened was with Sandy in BB3, he nominated then walked two days later, his ovtes still counted, although the announcement had been made, this time the announcment hasn't been made. All we can do is watch. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== [[Big_Brother_2007_%28UK%29#Nominations_table|Table column: Nomination Twist]] ==
there is an admin that is using vile curse words in their edit summary
and a photo of their privates on their page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture
 
The first two listings in this table (Notes 1+2) are nomination twists... But i don't see how the third is? If Jonathan's nominations weren't counted, and this isn't a nomination twist, why are not counting Charley's and Billi's votes a nomination twist?
Maybe there could be another column listed in the table? Though it should be noted why the votes were not counted. --[[User:85.210.161.91|85.210.161.91]] 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:We don't know if Jonathan's nominations count or not. On the subject of Charley and Billi's votes, there is a discussion at the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Nomination_twist_.2F_Nomination_note|Big Brother WikiProject]] on this subject, that nomination twist is not the best term for this. Feel free to comment on that discussion. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Subsections in House section ==
according to what Wikipedia is not
 
I would like to add some subsections to the House section, to improve it. Currently it's a bit "and this room... and this room... and this room". I think it would be improved by having subsections for various rooms. For example one for diary room, ones for the secret rooms etc. Obviously there wouldn't be any point having a subsection for each piece of info. What do you think? [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
:I have made a few changes now, seperated into Main Area (isn't enough content for bedroom by itself), Garden, Diary Room, Hidden Room and Rumoured Areas.
 
== Jonathan Left? ==
On the Official Website it doesnt Say Walked it says Left, Should we change it on wikipedia or keep it like we kep Emily Ejected whereas on the official website it says Removed
:See the discussion about this on the Big Brother Wikiproject. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Big Twist ==
the freakofnurture is in direct violation of the above.
The Insider on ''Big Brother's Little Brother'' has said that tonight, there will be a big twist involving Australia. [[User:Fugio|Fugio]] 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Yeah, an actress >=) [[User:FiringRange|FiringRange]] 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
can you do something to remove this filth?
 
== The Room of Nicky ==
thank you
[[User:Narrow is the way|Narrow is the way]] 07:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 
How do we know this was actually in the hidden room on the other side of the diary room and not just the lobby area again? &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|zomg!]])</small> 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== of interest ==
 
It was just the lobby room.[[User:FiringRange|FiringRange]] 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought you mind find [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_lazy|this MfD]] of interest. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:That's what I thought. It needs to be removed from the "Hidden Room" section if that is the case. Also the lobby needs to be added and the bathroom shouldn't be in the diary room section. I'd fix it now myself but Big Brother's about to start ;) &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|zomg!]])</small> 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== AMA Roll Call ==
 
There was a map showing the house and some of the secret rooms, if you want I can put it on this discussion article?
There is currently an [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Roll call|AMA Roll Call]] going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) <small>[[User_talk:The_Thadman|אמר]]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">[[User:The_Thadman|Steve Caruso]]</font></b></tt> <sub><B><font color="#000000">([[User:The_Thadman/Desk|desk]]/[[User_talk:The_Thadman/Poll|poll]])</font></B></sub> 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Found 'em. http://insidebigbrother.net/bb/images/stuff/housepics1.jpg
http://insidebigbrother.net/bb/images/stuff/housepics2.jpg
 
Those pictures aren't right, the second on shows the entrance going straight in to the lounge when we all know it goes through the reception area, which is mis-labelled as a secret room. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Advocacy help request - FACIM ==
 
But there is a second secret "lobby" area which is labelled picture 4. [[User:FiringRange|FiringRange]] 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been quite a bit of controversy regarding three articles and one user that is resulting in the destruction of articles.
 
I don't think that's a second secret lobby, it's just the lobby but draw in the wrong place. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
One article, "Foundation for A Course In Miracles", was merged with [[A_course_in_miracles]]. I was not watching the article at the time and the merge passed a vote. None of the editors working on this material now know much about the material. One administrator suggested that I request that the article be re-instated:
 
:The pictures are wrong. Not only is the lobby wrong but the main bathroom is as well, it's at the wrong end of the bedroom and should have a corridor. Also there's a bathroom in top left of the picture that shouldn't be there and there seems to be another room behind it... surely that's where the garden should be! &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|zomg!]])</small> 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:"I don't know enough about the the ACIM community to know the proper place of the FACIM material. The merge was performed due to the outcome of an AfD. However the Fad was irregular and a good case could be made at [[WP:DR]]. I suggest that you draw up a case for its recreation as a separate article. I'd support it, as it appears to an outsider as an stand-alone topic. -[[User:Will Be back|Will Be back]] 04:27, 19 July 2006 (TC)" [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Who123&action=edit&section=5]]
 
Ok then, thanks =) Edit : Note, I don't think the lobby area (4) looks anything like the entrance lobby area. It looks a bit small to house double doors, especially with a mirror where the double doors would be. [[User:FiringRange|FiringRange]] 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you please help me through the process of re-instating the article? Thank you.--[[User:Who123|Who123]] 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Regardless these pictures do not help. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Never mind. We are not at that point yet and I suspect [[User:Will Be back|Will Be back]] will help out when needed.<span style="color:grey;">&mdash;</span>[[User:Who123|<font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who</strong></font><font color="#9400D3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">123</font>]] 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 
Oh that's ok then =) [[User:FiringRange|FiringRange]] 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== Power assisted bikes - help ==
 
== Paulene ==
Hi Pat, I live in the US and am interested in a power assisted bike. It seems you are not active now but if you return, I wonder if you could help?<span style="color:grey;">&mdash;</span>[[User:Who123|<font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who</strong></font><font color="#9400D3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">123</font>]] 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 
so how can we fit her in the article. Can't add her as a housemate yet. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Request for comment page ==
 
Weekly summary, her appearance on tonight's show, then her entrance on Sunday. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you appear to have forgotten about [[Wikipedia:Request for comment/motorized bicycle|this page]]. Do you still need it or can it be deleted? --[[User:Thunderhead|Thunderhead]] 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 
:I've put her under "Housemates" in the paragraph - and linked to the actress's article -[[Thaila Zucchi]]. -'''[[User:Trampikey|Trampikey]]'''<sup>([[User talk:Trampikey|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Trampikey|contribs]])</sup> 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hello Thunderhead, Thank you. I have listed that article under prod. Perhaps it may be a candidate for speedy delete? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 
Also, when she does enter the house and gets her own section, shall we call it Thaila "Pauline" Zucchi? I think that's the best way to put it, as Pauline is a fictional character... -'''[[User:Trampikey|Trampikey]]'''<sup>([[User talk:Trampikey|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Trampikey|contribs]])</sup> 22:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== David L Cook Article/Wikipediatrix ==
::I think that when fake week's over though, she won't still be known as Pauline.
 
i Say just put her real name which is Thaila
CyclePat, we are having a continual problem with one of the editors by the name of Wikipediatrix. She continues to go through our contributions and makes edits to everything that we have posted. There is not a problem with that and we invite her contributions, however she gets way to personal into them. She tags everything and does not give any reason of why she is tagging something. She has had many run ins with other editors and administrators about her editing. They have told her to stop tagging without explaining why she is doing so. She ignores this admonishment and continues to do so. When we asak her why she tags things she goes on to tell us to stop berating her and just make the changes? How can one do this? We have cited things and she has gone right behind us and removed them and asked for cites again. This last time we edited the David L Cook article and took the stuff out that she had tagged and she went right back added the edits back onto the article and then removed them again? We are at our witts end with this woman. She has turned this into a personal issue. She is not nice to anyone who questions her and finally, she does not explain herself or her edits and tags. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a community that works together. If she sees something wrong what would it hurt her to be a good editor and fix it? Not her! She tags it and then gets upset when questioned. We need help. We would prefer to have her blocked from our articles so that she cannot continue to do this to us. We have no problem with someone wanting to edit or give suggestions, we just do not have time to continue to bicker with this woman who is seemingly on a Rambo quest. Thank you for any help you can give us. [[User:IAMAS Corporation|IAMAS Corporation]] 15:52 22, Aug 2006 (UTC)
::: Hello CyclePat! Or, for a different view of the matter, you might take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipediatrix#David_L_Cook_Article here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipediatrix#David_L_Cook_Article_2 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_L._Cook here] and most importantly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vilerage/Iamas here].
 
:I don't think she should be added to any of the tables or housemates lists becuase she is not eligible for the prize, so any refernces should be resricted to the weekly summary and tasks. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for the links! Can you please sign you name next time wikipediatrics! My comment is posted on the articles web-page.
::I personally disagree. In the article for [[Big Brother 2003 (UK)|Big Brother 2003]], Jon Tickle's re-entry is listed in the housemate table (top right), even though he wasn't eligible to win the second time round. So I think Thaila should be included (under the name "Thaila", as this is what Big Brother refers to her as when in the Diary Room). Just my thoughts :) Thanks, —&nbsp;'''[[User:Xy7|<span style="color:#61B329">Xy</span>]][[User talk:Xy7|<span style="color:#91219E">7</span>]]''' 18:45, 09 July 2007
:::He ''started'' as a housemate, as did Nikki last year, this person is an actor and will not nominate, be nominated or win the prize, she is not a housemate, just an actor. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I think she should stay in the lists for the moment, for all we know she will stay in and be able to be nominated, evicted etc. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::This is true. But also remember, Nikki ''was'' eligible to win the second time round as well. —&nbsp;'''[[User:Xy7|<span style="color:#61B329">Xy</span>]][[User talk:Xy7|<span style="color:#91219E">7</span>]]''' 21:55, 09 July 2007
::::Forgot about Nikki, hard to I know, but if she is an actor and part of a task how could she end up staying and win the prize? [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Because in the end Big Brother can make up the rules as they go along. If they really wanted to they could, for arguments sake, remove everyone from the house today, and fill it with new people. So we risk predicting the future if we assume that she cannot stay and/or win the prize. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I say she should be put on there under '''"Temporary"'''. Ideas? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">[[User:Dalejenkins|Dalejenkins]]</span> 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Now that she is gone, I am undecided. Technically she was a housemate, on the basis that she lived in the house. But as she never nominated, or was nominated she probably can be left out. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Restrict her to the weekly summary and task list as she was a task. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah sounds good enough to me. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Credits ==
== Spoken version of [[Bicycle]] ==
Should it be mentioned that Thaila's name appears in the show's closing credits? &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|zomg!]])</small> 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see why it'd be relevant, so id say no.[[User:Babygurl1853|Babygurl1853]] 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Jonathan in Priory ==
There's a notice on the [[Talk:Bicycle|talk page of the Bicycle article]] that you're recording a spoken version, but the notice is six months old. If you're not still pursuing this, would you mind removing the notice? Thanks, '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 
I will remove the info on Jonathan being in the Priory, as what he does after Big Brother, especially as there were no stories of him using coke or call girls in the house, is not relevant to this article. If he is notable enough for his own article (which he possibly is as a millionaire businessman) then it could go in there. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, What I've made can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle#Audio_file here]. It is incomplete. But it is a big part! If you wish to continue that would be appreciated.
--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 
== Thaila - Swindon or Isleworth?! ==
== Français ==
[[Thaila Zucchi]] and the programme says she's from [[Swindon]], but this page has [[Isleworth]]. WHere did the latter come from? [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Thalia Out? ==
Bonjour Pat! Il si bon pour trouver un autre Wikipedian qui parle français. j'ai juste voulu m'arrêter près parce que je suis dans le grand besoin de parler français avec quelqu'un autre que ma famille! --[[User:SpecialSylvia|Sylvia]] 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 
Can anyone confirm this and provide a source. I haven't heard about this. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been improving on my English. I don't need a translator as much now. Thanks. I don't have an e-mail but I live in Manitoba. --[[User:SpecialSylvia|Sylvia]] (using her IP while it's 12:42 our time.)
:It has been self-reverted. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I found [http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bigbrother8/a65259/pauline-revealed-as-fake-housemate.html this]. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== DavidNotable L Cook ArticleHousemates ==
 
I think we can create articles for at least Jonathan, and possibly Ziggy. Jonathan is notable for 3 things, Big Brother, Guardian writer, and business man, easy to find sources on google. Ziggy also possibly as as a former member of a boyband, and a FCUK model. I'm writing this here, to attract some interest. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, thank you for your support with this article. I am the one who created this article and I have had nothing but problems with Wikipediatrix since day one. She is rude and instead of her trying to help in the editing or going to the talk page to ask questions, she just goes to the article and starts putting tags all over the place. I have tried to be nice to her and ask for help, but instead she runs to her editing friends and has them back her up. This is unfair. If you look at her talk page you will see that I am not the only editor that she does this to. Her talk pages are full of people who are always calling her out for her tagging without editing or explaination. I set up the account under Iamascorp and I was not aware that I could not contribute as a represetative of a company. I have set up a new account as they have asked me to do. They have tagged the article for IAMAS Corporation saying that it may be a hoax article? The IAMAS Corporation is a media company that operates overseas as well as in the United States. They have said that the web page for IAMAS does not use the word corporation? On the webpage it clearly states that {we+The IAMAS Corporation only use IAMAS when talking about our learning institutions. We use corporation when it comes to the various locations throughout the United States. They never went to the talk page to ask about the company format or how it was set up, instead they tagged it with a Hoax tag? This seems to be more of a witch hunt to me and not an effort to contribute to good wikipedia. I am at the point where I just want to remove the articles that I have written. Even as of today, Wikipediatrix has gone onto the David L Cook page and has placed more cite markers and has totally removed all of his discography and filmography. That information was contributed from what the IAMAS Corporation has on file for David. The company did not write the article, I did. I know these contributions are facts because we were involved in the developement and successes of this artist. I just do not understand this womans quest. I do not think it is to contribute to excellence here. I feel it is a quest for her now! I am pleading for some help here. If you know of a way that I can wikify this and the other articles so that she has no standing on editing them any longer. If I could word them in a way that takes control away from her I would surely love to do that. If you could help I would surely be in debt to you. Thank you in advance to your attention and concern. [[User:Junebug52|Junebug52]] 3:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:Right I've started [[Jonathan Durden]], with hopefully enough infos and sources to keep it for the near future. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 14:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Interesting. Ziggy may become yet more notable when he leaves the house if he gets advertising deals or whatever, too. It's no coincidence that there are statistically far more potentially notable people on the non-celebrity Big Brother than there are from your average sample of 18 people from the UK chosen at random...-'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)