User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:CT Cooper, for the period 21 July 2009 – 3 February 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hello, I recently did a search on the internet a few weeks back into the source of the document (cop-vio) in question that I used for the "Production" section for the Lion King. I discovered that the source that I used from "Lionking.org", was an exact copy of the IMAX Lion King Press Release (Which would make it Copyleft). IMAX's website no longer has it for download in its original Adobe format and I've checked the archives, however I was able to find a copy of it here.[1] I hope that it may help you for your work on the article in the future should you ever need it. DrNegative (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I have posted it on the article talk page so others know. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You protected the page but you left the vandalized version. The user removes information since days as you can see on the history page, also, many users and I explained him why he shouldn't do that on discussion pages and that user has received many warnings because his behavior. This is the original version [2]. Regards. --PuebloUnited (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to call editors you are in dispute with vandals, even if they are behaving disruptively. The edits being made appear to be content dispute based, and do not meet the policy definition of vandalism, and hence there is no WP:3RR exemption for editors here. It appears that there has been inappropriate use of anti-vandalism tools in the history of this page, which is hardly a good way of resolving a content dispute. I am not reverting to a version on a request of an editor as that would be a violation of the protection policy, the version that is protected is not an endorsement of a the current version. The edit warring has to stop in any case, and I think protection is more pleasant than alternatives. The best way to resolve this to go through dispute resolution, there are plenty of methods available there, such as WP:MEDCAB. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Camaron, I see you are an understandble person but the user Italodal has been reverting that page since December 2008!, so, the user Italodal doesn't seem to be an understandble person, just check these pages [3], [4], [5] as you can see, Italodal also used personal attacks and blank others articles. Regards. --PuebloUnited (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear that leaving the page indef. full protected is not going to resolve the issue, I have decided unprotect the page and help guide resolution. This will include having a lower tolerance to edit warring, personal attacks e.t.c. and issuing blocks to user's which do now obstruct resolution. I am however giving an amnesty for previous disruptive behaviour. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, finally!, I'll restore the original version (it is with all Latin American countries and their hdi subnational entities reports with only high level (8.0). Just look what happen after that. --TownDown^{How's going?} 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at articles about schools in Worcestershire as part of a drive to improve them. According to the November 2008 Ofsted inspection report: The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre' (an article that you recently assessed)
...opened in September 2007 as a new school. It was formed from the amalgamation of two middle schools and a high school.
It does not however mention which schools were merged. The contents of this 2008 report has little in common with the school's existing article. Moreover, the article on Heathfield School, Wolverley states that it was merged with the Bewdley School and Sixth Form centre, but it is unreferenced, and apart from its own website which promotes it as a private school, there are no other references to it other than online directories, and it is not listed by Ofsted. The article's creator apparently has a history of vandalism. There is clearly something wrong here but I hesitate before making a PROD on the heathfield article just yet. What do you think is the necessary action? --Kudpung (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with the school as I am not from the area but the article has been the subject of my attention since I assessed it. I have looked through the edits of Random809 (talk · contribs) and while some are disruptive, perhaps as a joke, (s)he did not appear to be a pure vandal and did make some constructive edits. The issue of the school's existence appears to be explained on the talk page now, though there is more to this than meets the eye with strange promotional edits being repeatedly made by new accounts. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know Majorly, it is unlikely I will be able to make it up that far north for the time being. My meetup debut is likely to be to a London one if I get the guts and I'm available. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I notice you did the original article assessment for the article on Guildford School of Acting. I've had a look at it and re-written it to try and make it read more as an encyclopedia article, so I was wondering if you could take another look and give me your thoughts. I've made it my mission to bring some uniformity to articles about UK performing arts schools and this one was high on my agenda. I still need to seek out sources so that I can delete the last tag, but I hope I've made a significant improvement. Crazy-dancing (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow that is an old assessment of mine! One of the first I did in fact. I will take a look and give it a full re-assessment later. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay, I have decided now to re-assess all of Guildford's school articles while I am at it and I will shortly get round to this school. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have done an assessment and promoted the article to Start-class. Keep up the good work. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a major contributor to The Lion King, I thought you'd want to know that that article is currently under going a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps. The article currently fails the good article criteria, as detailed at Talk:The Lion King/GA1. Its reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)H

Well this failure is understandable, and I have not given the article much attention recently. The issues are so major I do not think they will be fixed in seven days if I am honest, but I will try and take a look at it. I already have other articles that craving attention as well though. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really must ask why you declined it. The article is vandalized almost every day and numerous times per day. The edits may appear to be good faith but many are not, especially the intensity changing ones. These include minor changes that most people wouldn't notice as they don't check the references. All the correct information on intensities is on the talk page of the season and the sub archives for each month. The same thing had been happening to the 2009 Pacific hurricane season and resulted in a one month-semi protection so I urge you to put a semi-protect on the Pacific typhoon season too. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I declined is given under the request, this was neither an obvious acceptance or decline which explains why it was left long after later requests for protection had been answered. In this case I was borderline and defaulted to decline. The edits occurring were hardly a smoking gun for protection, but non-obvious inappropriate changes are a problem as they can be difficult to identify, but still impact on the accuracy of the article as you say. Pages with high amounts of activity are often left unprotected as inappropriate edits are usually dealt with quickly, but this does not seem to always be the case here. On review, I think this now enough to justify protection. I would normally decline to protect a page for longer than 2 weeks with no previous history of protections (and admins have to take individual responsibility for their protections so decisions may vary from admin to admin), but given this seems to be a special case I will give a full month. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On behalf off Cyclonebiskit myself and other editors who deal with the PTS thank you for applying semi protection to the article Jason Rees (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All editors there are welcome of course. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would have more time to finish up the history section at Oak Park and River Forest High School ... you are just too efficient for my slow pace. I am glad the articles are moving along, and am glad to see there are some potential GA candidates ... I had not anticipated that, especially for Proviso East High School ... the school has seen better days, but has a very interesting history. Thanks for your work. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page bearing an additional gift. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Look again, the user Italodal seems never understand. No matter what or who talks with him/her. --TownDown^{How's going?} 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the user directly, I will see how he (checked using template {{gender}}) responds before I take any further action. I would recommend just letting his revert stand for now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

..for dealing with 96.57.187.186 + 71.172.97.38. Much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed, thought blocking wouldnt be an option but whatever you see fit to do. Thanks. nableezy - 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both welcome, I will keep an eye on the page to see what happens. Hopefully s/he will follow my advice from now on. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for the barnstar and props. It was my first, and I always appreciate kind words, especially from editors who have been around and know the lay of the land.

Second, I would like an opinion: the Oak Park and River Forest High School article is getting really big (over 80k now), and growing (I am still writing the history, and have only reached the 1950s). The academic section will hopefully also be expanded soon.

In your opinion, is this article a candidate to have its alumni list split off as a separate page? LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, you more than deserved it and I was surprised you had not already been given a barnstar. I have responded to the opinion request at Talk:Oak Park and River Forest High School, in short 'yes'. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have checked WP:ASSESS, and it only says that the article should have references, but not necessarily inline citations to qualify for class C. Also, I haven't accessed this article originally (because I was the author), someone else did, and when I noted your edit, I thought the original assessment was closer. Having said that - you are right, I shouldn't have made the change myself. I will appreciate if you could ask 3rd party else to provide assessment (I am not very familiar with the process of how to request it). Thanks again, Wikiolap (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not just on referencing that I put it on Start-class (though this is usually the main reason), but on other weaknesses such as structure e.g. lack of clear section structure and no infobox. If the article was longer but had the same references I would have given it C-class, and if the article was the same length but had better referencing I would have given it C-class. If the article was both longer and had better referencing it might have been B-class, but the article certainly is not at this level at the moment as B-class now has a specific requirement of inline citations.

I have now looked at the history and according to this the article was originally assessed as C / Mid for Schools, you then changed this to B / High, I can see why you changed it to B-class as another project assessor marked it as this and quality ratings should generally be the same, but not with the change to High importance. Most school articles also require an infobox, while the age of the school may give grounds for an exception I still think one could be included, see {{Infobox school}}. In any case I am listing at WP:WPSCH/A#R for an independent re-assessment as requested. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation and for request for 3rd party reassesment ! Wikiolap (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank's for your help! I already report the user as you said to me. I also read what you wrote on talk page and I agree with you. I already wrote several times on that discussion page, including with sources, explaining why that list shouldn't be built. But the TownDown/Prodyginet doesn't accepted it. In fact I'm tired to give reasons and arguments and always see that all I wrote is in vain.--Italodal (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the WP:MEDCAB is the only way.--Italodal (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done on taking it to the correct venue, your page should hopefully be listed soon, and I will probably comment on it then. The accused will also then have to be notified so they can respond. I am keeping an open mind on this, but if it does turn out to be sock puppetry that will change the situation on the content dispute somewhat, if it doesn't then I agree that WP:MEDCAB would be a good next move as plain talk page discussion clearly is not going anywhere. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it turns out you were right, disturbing but I am some how not surprised. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I probably have too many other things to do on Wikipedia to join in. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend, sorry for ask, but do you know the procedures for deleting an article? Recently I found 3 articles that could be merged into one. I improved the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Table_Tennis_Championships. But the two others articles contain the same information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Table_Tennis_Champions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Team_Table_Tennis_Championships. Could you help me delete these two articles and improve the original article? English isn't my native language so the article may contain some errors. Thanks.--Italodal (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, to delete an article editors usually use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (PROD) for non-controversial deletions, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) for more controversial ones. Neither is necessary in this case as when merging articles, as here, you can simply redirect the unneeded pages to the appropriate place, I have now done this for you. I have also cleaned up the article World Table Tennis Championships with a few fixes, I could not find anything hugely wrong with it however. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.--Italodal (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Camaron, could you give me a hand and delete this article for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_American_subnational_entities_by_Human_Development_Index . I think we have all the explanations on the talk page why we must delete it. Thanks.--200.207.80.200 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to log! It's me italodal.--Italodal (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot delete articles on user request unless they satisfy a criterion for speedy deletion, which this article doesn't, so it has to go through the above processes to make sure nobody objects. I will now PROD (propose deletion) the article for you, it will be deleted by an administrator after seven days if nobody contests the PROD by removing it. If the PROD is removed by anybody, the article has to go for a full discussion at AfD (Articles for Deletion) to be deleted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep I have been confusing start and stub class more than anything. I'll try not to do that in future. Its not that I like littering Wikipedia with stubs. I once created an article for every school in List of schools in Essex and they do become decent articles eventually! It just requires someone to make lots of substubs.  Francium12  17:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they usually do, happy editing and keep up the good work. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Does {{User WPEngland}} work better for you now? I moved it to using the UBX sybtax, instead of a table. → ROUX ₪ 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My second edit to the original table syntax did fix the problem I was having, but thank you for converting it to UBX syntax now as it makes the code a lot simpler and the userbox still displays on my userpage as it should. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, you have to be somewhat of an interesting or good character. basing that on your liking of Star Wars. I would like some help with a problem I have. could you assist me? Completelyoverit (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am a fan of Star Wars though I do not usually edit articles related to them. I would be happy to assist you, what is it you want to do? Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

right, I didn't mean you edit that type of articles. I was inferring that you believe in good vs. evil, etc. alright, I am asking if you can help me in a situation. it has to do with certain nefarious users who for over a year have been quite annoying. I have noticed how popular IRC is on Wikipedia; I don't use it. I do have some instant messaging programs however.

thank you. Completelyoverit (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like you are not a new user, but have created a new account for anonymity? I don't use IRC regularly either although I have access. I need to know some more specific information to take any further action however, you can e-mail me if you wish to keep it private. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

sure, I would like to email you or discuss things on AIM, Skype, etc. I have been hounded on here and maybe you can help. Completelyoverit (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I only have MSN/WLM, and I will only give it my address by e-mail to trusted users. You don't need to know my e-mail to e-mail me though, just go to Special:EmailUser/Camaron and type out your message. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

what is so hard to understand? I need to talk with you. if you want, I can give you my email address, then you could email me with how to talk to you on MSN. this is exactly why I am having so many problems on here. none of you people will let anyone contact you. it is pretty aggravating; you guys should know that people aren't using IRC. not everyone can even use it; it is more geekish than you may know. it is ancient and probably doesn't even work on all computers. Completelyoverit (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really use IRC much myself either, though I have managed to get some software to get it to work. I'm not giving out my e-mail on Wikipedia for various reasons, please e-mail me first and then we will work from there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't special email you; I don't have it!! any other ideas? I suppose I can give you an email address for me. is that good enough? come on here, this is getting a bit silly. maybe you could even put your msn id in an email to me. if you agree, I will post an email for me in my next message to you. enjoy your weekend. Completelyoverit (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is because you have not specified a valid e-mail address according to Special:EmailUser/Completelyoverit, add one to your preferences, get it confirmed, then try again. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

you did not answer my question! oh well, tell you what, I will give you an email to email me. do that, alright? I am so done with this silliness!! not at all interested in setting up any email or special email. go ahead and email me at [e-mail removed to stop spam bots] Completelyoverit (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The general behaviour of this account has not exactly inspired trust in you if I'm frank. It takes about five minutes to assign an e-mail to an account, and you are the one contacting me, so the onus is on you to make a little effort I'm afraid. I will however e-mail you now you have provided somewhere to e-mail. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as with the discussion at Talk:Polokwane, could you please tell me if the proposed solution is possible? Thanks, ChrisDHDR 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for following up on this ! Wikiolap (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I can be of help. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an important link that should be on the page as you seem to quote yet not site it. It was fixed before yet you changed it. Add the link due to the fact that you site things from the website yet don't cite it.

http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/bujinkan/

Add this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhartu (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not forcing editors on that page to do anything, but there has been continuous unregistered user disruption on that article for months and it had to stop. External links added to articles should be kept to a minimum and should comply with Wikipedia:External links guideline. I did not write the article so I cannot say if information was taken from that website, though if it was it probably should not have been as I will be surprised if the website passes the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. If you want the link added please make your case at Talk:Bujinkan, edit warring to keep the link however will not help much. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've never done this before so my apologies if I'm getting it wrong. A page I started and did some, but not all work on, Kara Kennedy Allen, was speedy deleted. I can understand if someone wants to nominate the page for deletion, but I don't see why it meets the criteria for speedy deletion in any way. Can you please undelete it or whatever the procedure is for bringing it back so it can be considered for deletion in a normal way? Again, I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion that seems to fit this article. Thanks --Crunch (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the page appears to have been restored by the deleting admin so there should not be any need for me to intervene. Be aware however the article could still be taken back to WP:AfD. For the record if you disagree with any deletion by an administrator try to discuss it with them first, as you did here, and if you don't receive a satisfactory response file a request stating how you thought the page was deleted improperly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Camaron,

Thank you for your faith in me. I have read in detail the appropriate policy and can see the advantages in using this feature as opposed to my current method of Undo then Warn / Welcome, and therefore gratefully accept your proposition.

Kind regards,

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I have granted you access to the rollback feature. Use it well! Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I have responded. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, I am new to editing and I would appreciate your review and comment on the above article you recently reviewed The previous version was a bit too much "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton" especially that "Only" 5 students from public schools were awarded the VC. I tried to explain that the list is biased as some winners were likely illiterate and that the awards are biased towards the NCO and officer class. I want to make sure that I have not gone too much the other way and whether the analysis is original research and therefore not allowed

rgds wakelamp

Hello there, if I'm honest I am hugely familiar with the topic at hand, I just reviewed the importance as part of an article re-assessment drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. I assume you wish me to look at this edit you made. You would be correct to point out a bias if a source specifically says there is one, otherwise it would be original research. Sources used can be many things including books, magazines, and TV programmes, though they should be reliable. One of the references you have given does not indicate a source clearly, British Army during the Victorian Era, is this a book? The biggest potential problem I see here is synthesis of sources i.e. putting different sources together to reach a conclusion, a type of original research. It would be okay to say Source X says 5 state schools won this award, while source Y says that 345 state schools won this award but it would original research to then say This means the award is bias. Do the sources you have cited specifically say what the article says i.e. the figures you gave and the conclusion there is bias? Be aware that there may be source which disagree with this finding that the award is bias, if this is the case they too should be represented in the article too give a neutral point of view. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron, Just a quick note to check something with you. I've had 2 users via another talk page Talk:List_of_channels_on_Virgin_TV basically throwing instructions on how my user page and talk page should be operated. Are there set instructions on how a user should set out their own profile and talk pages? I was under the impression that a user could layout their profile to their own personal taste. They also quote to saying that I should not archive items on my personal talk page. Is this true? Should archiving only be done on official articles and not on personal talk pages? I value your opinion on this. Regards (Gareth aka (Pr3st0n (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)))

One of the users in question has posted an outrageous and personal attack against my personal nature, User Talk:Jasmeet 181#List of Virgin Media Channels to even say the following remark to me "At some point the villagers won't listen to the boy who cried wolf, I suggest that you learn the moral quickly." Surely this breaches all codes of conduct as set out in Wikipedia:Civility? In a civil manner, I have pointed this out to the user, and linked references to Wikipedia:AGF, Wikipedia:NPA, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as well as Wikipedia:Civility. I don't wish to be seen as a biased person, nor stoop down to their vulgar level, which is why I posted those links (as above) to assume [[Good Faith. I apologise in advance to burden this upon you - although as we previously spoke on a similar incident, I have learnt a valuable lesson, and walk away from the situation to calm down before replying to any user. Thanks in advance (Gareth aka (Pr3st0n (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)))

I have moved my response to your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

the problem is not that they can not delete stuff but this user is delete stuff they claiming they never had a message and refusing to engage in a talk so that we resolve a dispute, there attuide is it there way or no way--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n seems to be engaging in discussion to me, the issue of how he archives his talk page however is a trivial one and not worth pursuing. If you want to resolve the content dispute, focus on the article and not other users. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

i agree it not something important but the user is not engage they hav e the attuide it my way or no wasy i work for the compsny so i know best they wont listen even when we hsve tried to explain, but we will try to get it resolve hopefully they will egage more, and i think my defintion of engaging might be defite to yours--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Often in content disputes users can display a lot of certainty that they are right, as has occurred on both sides in this dispute, regardless of if this is true or not the aim should be to build a consensus. Telling people "their wrong" [6] is not building a consensus, instead just show them what you think is the right way and why, to avoid personalising the issue. Repeatedly reverting is not the best of editing techniques either, and can become edit warring if done excessively. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true but you can claim someoen is worng whent he sources they have provide and oyu have provide state completely something different to what they are sayingm (at the end of the day that what wikipedia is based on realiable sources not word of mouth), hence why i left a friendly message saying i think they might be dsylexic as i am and i know i can misread things at times but they took it way to personal and insist they are right and that where the big problem in this dispute is the person was not listening but another user has tried to explain and there seeming to admitting they where wrong and misunderstood but we can not get why they never wanted ot listen to us the ones that maintaint he page often but we never came really personal but i think they took some thing personal so there became a problem between us all so sometimes that when either admin or outside word is best.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said I think the discussion became excessively personal, I am not singling out any individial for causing that, but it was noticeable. I am glad things have now moved on and dispute resolution is being sought through outside opinions. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I'm awarding you with this Barnstar of Peace, in recognition of your help in trying to resolve an on-going dispute, to bring together peace within the Wikipedia Community Pr3st0n (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I could be of some help, thank you Pr3st0n. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I owe you all the thanks in the world Camaron. Managed to read all the comments posted by yourself, and TFOWR, and also by GRK1011. I was a little shocked that some of those users from that I was having slight problems with even attempted to have a go at you too. But I knew you'd have handled them with decorum and ease ;-) A third party interveention has been created now on the article talk page, and things are going forward for a Dispute Resolution, which is what I feel should have been done initially without the bombarding attacks which got beyond control, and personal. Hopefully, this saga will come to a quite end. Regards Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad all participants have agreed to pursue dispute resolution. I will keep an eye on the page for a while to see what happens. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Camaron,

Sorry to be a pain in the ass, I was wondering if you'd be able to do me a favour and check on an article for which I've done a major clean up operation on. The article itself is on the village of Lostock Hall in which I have lived there for all of my life. The article didn't have much content to it originally, and I took it upon myself to frantically search the internet so that I could add sourced references to all of the historical facts which I've added to the article. Also I've uploaded some photos of the Village (some of which are historical too), permission for 3 of them have been granted. I know that you won't know much about the area, however, I want to double check with a more experienced member of wikipedia, that I've kept the article looking professional to a degree, and not breeched any violations set out by Wikipedia. Much appreciated in advance... Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try and have a look later today. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Hopefully I've done the clean up properly. But its worth a second opinion I suppose ;-) Pr3st0n (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I given the article a comb over and made mostly minor changes. I noticed you have uploaded some images and added them to the bottom of the article, however you have not provided a source for these which is needed to check the licensing given is correct. You have also not provided a valid licence for File:Lostock library.jpg. Once a valid licence and source is provided for these images they should be moved to Wikimedia Commons if possible. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Camaron. It wasn't easy as that was my first ever major clean up on any article here on Wikipedia. As I live in Lostock Hall, I was slightly shocked at the lack of information in the original content, and felt that future readers could do with learning more about the "real" Lostock Hall. We do have a famous past too. That guy who made the Wallace & Gromit puppets went to Lostock Hall Community High School. Didn't know if I should have added that in there too. So glad that you could help assist me, and guide me in the right direction on my first ever major project like this. I will get the sourcing for the images, especially the licence for File:Lostock library.jpg. That image came is one that is in my personal files. Wasn't sure which check box I was to mark off when I uploaded it. I have several other personal images of modern day Lostock Hall, which I intend to upload too in due course. Are users allowed to upload images of a place/town/village that they have taken themselves on a digital camera? I look forward to your reply. Again thanks for the advice and guidance. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, images you have taken yourself are welcome on Wikipedia as you control the copyright for them in most cases. I would recommend, unless your uploading fair use images, to upload your image to Commons, as when uploaded there they can be used by all Wikimedia Projects including other languages of Wikipedia. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I confirm for obtaining a cloak that the person in control of the username 'Camaron' on IRC is myself. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you were the blocking admin previously, I thought you should know the anon 208.101.226.27‎ continues to blank his/her talk page of the WhoIs template. I am not getting in the middle of this one after getting blocked for reverting a WhoIs template war previously (on a different page), so I will leave it up to you. Just a heads up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, the offending IP has been blocked again, and I will keep an eye on the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your assessment. It has shed some light on the missing elements of the article. If you peruse the wiki entry now you will see that some of your comments have been implemented, though it still has a ways to go. If you have any comments now about how the document is shaping up do feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Look out for another assessment request soon. Thanks again! X01 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad my assessment was helpful. I will take a look at the page later and make any additional comments if necessary, and I will look out for a new assessment request. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have re-assessed the article for you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, your detailed assessment has helped to guide this article to the ranks of B-class status. This is not the end of the road for I am to collect some more information and take my time and reword the document as per the Wikipedia standards and revamp the layout. Not any time soon but you will surely be seeing a review request. Many thanks! X01 (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck with future article work. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

I work at Sprinturf and am trying to add Sprinturf to wikipedia. It is not being used as a source of advertisement but as a form of research material for people who are interested in learning more about Sprinturf. It is not allowing me to add Sprinturf to wiki. Please assist. Thank you.

Terrence Heller

I have replied at User talk:Sprinturf. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, I (User talk:Tanweer drmc) have greatly edited the article, Dhaka Residential Model College in the last few weeks. I want the article to be featured, so I need your peer-review, as I have learned that you have been editing WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines for a long time and you are a experiencd administrator. It will be very helpful to get peer-review from you. Thanks.

Thank you for your compliments, I will take a look at the article and give it a re-assessment shortly as I am sure it is beyond Start-class by now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now given the article an assessment for you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameron,

Thank you for your input on The Epstein School page...We will continue to work diligently on expansion of the areas as suggested and will add sections moving forward...a work in progress. In fact, I have begun expanding sections already and have added more 3rd party citations. Please let me know what you think. With my appreciationClou2epstein (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated my assessment following improvements. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Cameron. Thank you very much for your encouragement, kind words and suggestions. The Epstein School article is a work in progress, but I continue to work diligently toward improvement. I am planning on incorporating all of the reccommendations you offered and more. It is my hope that I will deliver on my promise to represent the educational community well. I have continued to add/grow/develop sections. I hope you like the progress made today: I worked on development of Middle School academics....next on to Elementary, alumni...citation templates, images etc.

With my appreciation for your efforts and input.Clou2epstein (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck with future work on the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been without a web connection for most of the last two years, and I quickly learned that editing Wikipedia from my iPhone was difficult at best. Right now I'm just perusing the Community Board, figuring out what I'm going to be doing for the next little while. --Moralis (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, happy editing with whatever you decide to contribute. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Camaron - I noted that a couple of months ago you laid two successive blocks on 190.10.0.121 (talk · contribs) for edit warring on Template:Iraq War Coalition troop deployment. The IP user is now causing a nuisance at War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and Template:Korean War Infobox; I assume it's the same person making the edits given the associated subject matter of the articles/templates he's been frequenting. The reverts are now less frequent than back in July, but I believe what he's presently doing still constitutes edit warring; his reverts have been undone by myself and others and requests and then warnings have been left at his talk page, but the activity persists. Having dealt with this individual before, I wondered if you could have a look at and/or keep an eye on the situation. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed (s)he is back edit warring again and I will try and keep an eye on the situation. The last edit from the IP address was before the final warning, but if (s)he keeps this up I will consider a non-3RR edit warring block. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, according to your suggestions and the automated peer review, I have made further improvement of Dhaka Residential Model College. I have nominated it for WP:Good articles. Now I would like to request you to review the article for WP:GA status. Thanks, User:Tanweer Morshed, User talk:Tanweer Morshed

I don't have much experience doing GA reviews which is a separate process to WikiProject Schools assessments. The article would also probably benefit from an additional pair of eyes having a look at it before it is given GA status. Now that you have tagged the article for GA, someone will shortly come along and assess it. By the way, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and date after your comments. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, for inconvenience - I didn't see that.

Clyde1998 (talk · contribs)

Don't worry about it, no harm done as I did discover what had happened, and probably would have done eventually anyway. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope all is well in England!

I have been working over at List of New Trier High School alumni ... the list was long, and had virtually no references. It is better referenced now, but there is still maybe a dozen or so alumni out of about 100 that are not referenced ... I have looked high and wide, and while it looks like there is some evidence of alumniship, the sources are either blogs or some other source that doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. They have all been tagged accordingly.

Barring that ... I am thinking this list might be a candidate for a WP:FL. So here is my big question: can I move any unreferenced person on the list to the talk page with a note saying that they can be added when there is a reliable source? LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP does apply to talk pages as well as articles. However the suggestion that they attended a high school is not really contentious or libel, and with an appropriate note on the talk page, I don't see any problem with this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

...and oh yes, everything is well in England though the weather is beginning to get colder as we approach Winter and it is raining today. ): Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameron,

Previously,you evaluated The Epstein School page. Since then, I have been working diligently to improve the page....added text and graphics, third party citations, removed self-sourced items etc. I am requesting re-evaluation.

With My Appreciation,

Clou2epstein (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I will re-review the article when I go through all assessment requests at WP:WPSCH/A#R shortly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to know, if you can delete User talk:RuleOfThe9th. Yeah, I was RuleOfThe9th up to September 2009, and I would be glad to have your help in deleting it, as I just left this account after dropping a {{retired}} template and departure notice on the talk page itself.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a sockpuppet. Just leaving my old user and moving to this user instead.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not allowed to delete user talk pages by user request per the speedy deletion criteria which states under WP:CSD#U1: User talk pages may in exceptional cases (see right to vanish) be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion; they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. No other criterion I can see that can be applied, in addition the page has already been at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:RuleOfThe9th and I cannot just override the result, community consensus is that the history must remain intact. You can take the closure to Wikipedia:Deletion review or make another MfD nomination but given the strong consensus of keep in the first MfD I would not recommend either. If you don't want the page used the most effective way to ensure that is to re-direct it to your current user talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron

Thanks for correcting my mistake. We're trying to rationalise the huge number of questions (apparently there's supposed to be a limit of one question per user, but it's not yet being enforced and I hope it isn't, somehow). But could I make two suggestions:

• "There are currently 18 seats on the Arbitration Committee. Is this number about right, or should it be increased/decreased? Why?"—this is now the subject of an RfC. Could we remove the question?
• Could we conflate your two mirror-image questions like this? "Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s)."

Tony (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the wording on the instructions page left many users including myself confused on what was meant by a "single question", it turns out it does mean a "single question per user" though I am also not very supportive of such a blanket restriction. I would be happy to remove the seat number question given that this is now at RfC and I will know what people think via this, and the situation may change rapidly. I am also happy to merge those two mirror questions as proposed. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Cameron. There are still 32 questions (x the number of candidates, for voters to sift through, plus individual questions). I might be back. Tony (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it and see how it goes for now, there does seem to mounting opposition to the single question rule. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I've merged one of Majorly's questions into one of yours: they appear to be very similar. "(19) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)". Please revert if you really don't like it. Tony (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry to see you've had an accident. I hope I'm not adding an impediment. Tony (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes the merged question looks good to me, thank you for your help organising the general questions. Majorly said on the talk page he wasn't interested in my question but he seems to be content with it as well. Don't worry about my arm, it is recovering quickly and I am close to not needing a sling any more, though it will be a while before it is back as it was. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Camaron,

I am sorry to read about your elbow ... I hope that it is healing well.

I have been monitoring some edits at St. Ignatius College Preparatory School. The school logo was recently added, with the editor claiming that he was the owner of the image, and was releasing the copyright on it. He did the same thing with a picture of an alum that had to have been lifted from a website. I recently came across similar behavior by another editor at Lemont High School that had some very overt plagiarism issues. I could use some advice: how should I report images that are claimed by an editor, but are pretty obviously not theirs? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes the logo and alumni picture at St. Ignatius College Preparatory School appear to be non-free. If you see a picture on Commons which is uploaded as work of the uploader and clearly isn't, then add {{copyvio|reason or website stolen from}} directly to the image page. I have corrected the licensing at File:LemontHS Logo.png for Lemont High School, as it was clearly supposed to be a non-free image. I have also requested an image size reduction for File:LemontHS Indians Logo HR.png as it is way too big to pass WP:NFCC. The rest of the images on this page seem okay at face value given the uploads have camera metadata and are of high quality, so are unlikely to be copyvio. For plagiarism at Lemont High School, are you referring to the text or images?

There was zero question about the text ... almost all of it had been lifted from the school's website. I found a few of the photos on the school's website, which made me suspicious. Thanks for the advice on the photos. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to check the history while reviewing Lemont High School, and I see you have removed the offending material, well spotted. Are there any particular images that raise concern? Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The aerial view of the school is one of the rotating images on the school's homepage. I will mark that image with the copyvio tag. Thanks again. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one unlike the others does not have camera metadata on it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For the talk page record, I am noting here that I have participated. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron - thank you for helping out the Amador Valley High School article in the past. Over the past few months - I've addressed your comments as well as the comments of quite a few other editors on the article. The article is now going through Featured Article review and I was wondering if you would be interested in leaving your comments. Thank you - Deltawk (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog of assessments building that need to be cleared. I will try and address them soon, including your article, hopefully this weekend. It will be difficult to do much Wikipedia stuff during the week as I am busy at university. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I appreciate your time. Best wishes with everything at university. - Deltawk (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The November 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

hello Camaron - i found you listed on the WP:Highly Active Users list, and am hoping you'd be willing to have a look at an RfC that needs formal closure by someone uninvolved, including a statement about whether the RfC showed consensus for any changes: here's a link to the discussion at the end of it, since i think reading that first will make it easier to follow the rather dishevelled RfC itself, which is just above it. in case it's relevant, there's also some current discussion of some of the same issues here.
i'll keep your talk page watchlisted so that you could reply here, if that's convenient for you. thanks very much Sssoul (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read through it all, closed the RfC, and given my opinion. I will keep an eye on things and respond to any concerns, it is perhaps inevitable that I am not going to please everyone, but I have left it as an "open ended" closure. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you kindly Sssoul (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Cities XL do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

→ Hello Cameron. Maybe they edited the guidelines for external links course the link I added fits in both under number 1 and number 2 suggestion regarding what should be linked. The link that I provided has unique news and interviews about Cities XL, both with the developers and the players. If I misunderstood the guidelines or its still not good enough then I guess you did the right thing deleting the external link. Since you've made me unsure about this matter, I will let it be, maybe someone else will add the site in the future. Thx. --15:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Sainty79 (talk)

Hello, it was not actually me that removed the link as shown in the edit history [7], however I left you a note to welcome you to Wikipedia and explain what had happened to the link should you return. This link would not meet 1 or 2 of Wikipedia:ELYES. Number 1 applies to official sites of the article topic, with Cities XL this is Cities XL.com which is already linked. Number 2 applies only to sites hosting copies of the work an article is about e.g. music article with a link to the lyrics, this is rarely applicable to video games articles. The link you added however probably would fail criteria 10 and 11 of WP:ELNO. The main problem of adding fan site and similar links to articles is that once you allow one in everyone wants to post a link to fan-sites they like or own and you quickly get a huge number. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Camaron,

I am very sorry to hear about your recent robbery. While I am lucky enough to have never gone through anything like that myself, I did help break up a purse snatching some years ago (my back never fully recovered from it), and a colleague of mine was held up at gunpoint in his own garage for his laptop computer just about a year ago. I do hope that you work through this OK.

When and if you have a moment, I am coming back to an article that I tagged some time ago for a merge; History of Athletics at Stone Bridge High School. For the life of me I cannot see why this article exists .... it seems to be a clear violation of WP:NOT, acting as a history of a school's athletic department, almost all of which includes unencyclopaedic content. I tagged it a long time ago, and no one has commented. I am a bit stuck as to where to go next, as I feel sufficient time has passed. I thought I would run it past you for some advice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, the incidents you give make me feel fortunate, I did not luckily get threatened with a knife or a gun, though they did threaten to beat me up and I'm sure they would have done if I had not handed over some money. As for the athletics page, it is being both being maintained and vandalised from a small IP range, probably from the school computers or at least the local area. I agree it looks like it should be cut down and merged. I suspect this will generate opposition from unregistered users, I will try and give some attention to the pages you have put to my attention once the university term is over at the end of this week. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See my talk please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. I'm sorry to hear about this unfortunate robbery incident. Feel free to reply when possible and you find yourself in. I think the Influence section of The Who is overstated, contains excessive POV, and needs a serious cleanup. Someone has nearly added the entire section from this page http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thewho > Beyond: The Who > Followers into the heading of “Influence”:

Green Day,[44] The Jam,[45] Black Sabbath,[46] Aerosmith,[47], Kiss,[48] Led Zeppelin,[49] AC/DC,[50] Deep Purple,[51] Queen,[52] Van Halen,[53] Lynyrd Skynyrd,[54] Styx,[55] Iron Maiden,[56] Rush,[57] The Clash,[58], U2[59] (with Bono calling U2 the "Heirs to The Who")[60] and Pearl Jam[61]

I don’t think that’s right. This extra section on Rolling Stone was not included in the band biography. This section was just a rough inclusion, without any further explanation. Secondly, most of the AllMusic references do not work anymore. If it is valid to add bundles of bands like that, can we add following bands to:

(a) The Rolling Stones: (From http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/therollingstones)

The Heartbreakers, ZZ Top, New York Dolls, The Clash, The Sonics, The Nomads, Caesars, The Chocolate Watchband, Mott the Hoople, Bob Seger And The Last Heard, Bruce Springsteen, Shadows of Knight, Guns N' Roses, Faster Pussycat, David Johansen, The Animals, Dr. Feelgood, The Hives, Terry Reid, David Bowie, J. Geils Band, Hanoi Rocks, Cream, The Black Crowes, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Primal Scream, The Flamin' Groovies, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Humble Pie

(b) Led Zeppelin: (From http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin) UFO, Rush, Rainbow, Fastway, Whitesnake, Spinal Tap, The Answer, Enslaved, Willie Dixon, Def Leppard, The Parlor, Mob, KISS, Priestess, Heart, Cactus, Kingdom Come, Bonham, Queen, Queens of the Stone Age, Guns N' Roses, Ted Nugent, AC/DC, The Black Crowes, Aerosmith

Here, i want to make clear that the "Followers" section, on the RollingStone profile page of any artist, is a rough inclusion, and does not mean that "Band A" was actually influenced by "Band B". Following and Influencing are two different things. Secondly, if we can add the followers section word to word then it might be a problem, for example Rolling Stone lists 20-50 or so artists followed Queen, Led Zeppelin, or The Rolling Stones whatsoever. There's a difference between "Followed" and "Influenced by".

I also had another editor (RightCowLeftCoast) involved who said that also "the content appears to be a direct copy past of a copyrighted". I'm willing to ask for your suggestions because you're an active contributor on The Who article. Thanks in advance. --Scieberking (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right person? I am not an active contributer to this page, and I don't have much familiarity of the subject, so I can't be of that much help. If the content appears to be copyrighted please remove it, note that it is a copyright violation in your edit summary, and possibly leave a note on the talk page. Copyright is a serious matter so immediate removal of content can be justified on these grounds. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

hello again Camaron - very sorry to read that you were robbed. i know the feeling, and it's sure not a good one. i'm also sorry the Pete Townshend page continues to be so beleaguered by BLP issues and other disruptions, and i appreciate your keeping a watchful eye on it. could you also have a look at this uncharming addition to Sceiberking's talk page? it seems to be a violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space ... as does a lot of the stuff that s/he (and User:Sumbuddi) put on Talk:Pete Townshend, but i feel like removals of the contentious/wrong claims (like "he pled guilty" and "he was convicted") need to be done by an admin, to avoid further uproar. thanks for whatever you deem appropriate Sssoul (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the content added to the user talk page which was definitely not acceptable, and given him/her a warning about WP:BLPSE so sanctions can be given if this behaviour continues. The content may also need to be removed from the edit history as well. The content at Talk:Pete Townshend does not seem as serious, though courtesy blanking once discussion is complete may be justified. I will be keeping an eye on what is happening there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you Sssoul (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words ... I try very hard to walk the line between being civil and productive, while trying to defend what is right. It is not always simple.

I am glad to see that things are better in regards to your recent incident. In case I have no reason to write beforehand, stay warm and safe over the coming holidays. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron, Thank you for your help on getting the ball rolling on my project with the Amador Valley High School article. You were the one who received the article after it was placed on the assessment request list for some time. Thanks for giving some of the first feedback that the article has recieved and thank you for helping guide the article along the FAC process. Enjoy your holiday season. Deltawk (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome, it is not often that one gets an article to FA, particularly a school article, and it would not have happened without your determination. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet? You need to relax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.63.222 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for my suspicion are on the talk page of the school article linked in this section header, where I have also responded to the comments you made there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent review of School for Creative and Performing Arts and your helpful and specific comments. I have addressed all of your comments and suggestions and expanded the article a bit following WP:WPSCH/AG#S. I'd like someone to take another look to see if I got the B-Class stuff right, and to help me get a bead on what needs to be a added for a GA assessment.

As a new editor, the requirements are a bit vague. Beyond the stylistic and citation guidelines, the expectations around content breadth, depth, and specificity are hard for the newbie to get a grip on. I am sure there is a measure on learning as you go, but any suggestions you, or others, might have would be appreciated. Are there specific sections that are weak or missing? Is there a better flow or structure I could aim for? Etc.

My goal would be a GA status for this article, but I'm not sure what to do next.

Thanks again.

Vaughanchris (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try and take another look at the page soon. It will be difficult for a new editor to get an article to the top quality ratings, and yes some of the guidelines are rather vague. I will do my best to guide you on the way. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax(talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am noting for the record here that I have participated. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jusdafax 07:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you're a member of WP:WPSCHOOLS, would you be able to work on Coosa High School and bring it up to at least C or B class? Thanks, ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to give it a clean-up later on, though it will be a bit of a learning curve for me as I had not previously heard of this school. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar award. It was a nice surprise. This is my first article and I've struggled with the learning curve, so I appreciate the encouragement. As well as your helpful comments and suggestions. I think it's getting there! Vaughanchris (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Schools Barnstar
		For your excellent work in improving Desert Ridge Middle School. --NerdyScienceDude :) (click here to talk to me) 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome NerdyScienceDude. Welcome to WikiProject Schools, and thank you for the barnstar and your contributions so far. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cam,

I have been spending some time trying to assess articles .... I've been careful to leave a note to call it "provisional", so that people I'm not trying to push an agenda ... as some other editors have. I saw your post regarding the backlog of assessments, and while I am still editing, and not sure I can handle 2,000, I am wondering if you think I am ready to start handling assessments ... if I have doubts about an assessment, is there any method to get help other than putting it on the list to get assessed? Any thoughts, I would be appreciative. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I could add you to the assessment team at WP:WPSCH/A, and if you have doubts about an assessment you can place it in the assessment summaries section where I and others will often look at it. Officially you start off as an apprentice assessor and you have to put all the assessments you do there until you are put under experienced. I am probably going to raise a discussion over this at WT:WPSCH since this system is widely ignored by editors and opening up assessments might make it easier to clear the backlog. You are probably experienced enough to go straight into the experienced list, as the assessments you give are generally right. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think I should start off as an apprentice for the time being. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good luck with future assessments. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

there's a kind of vandalism in the led zeppelin topic....

I try to put an information and somebody are deleting....

Led zeppelin Can't be considered a Heavy metal band, just because they have a more expansive sound than the heavy metal can supose, so I write this:

(in despite of they couldn't be consider as a Heavy Metal band)Plant has commented that it is unfair for people to typecast the band as heavy metal, since about a third of their music was acoustic.[43]

And it dissapeared despite it's true....

If you knew the led zeppelin sound, you will see its not Heavy metal.......

Please,

Keep my comment!!!!!

~~~~ricknupp~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.23.227 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be another reincarnation of User:CosmicLegg. You are not entitled to edit Wikipedia while blocked, so all edits done by you are considered disruptive block evasion and may be reverted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Camaron New vandalism in Led Zeppelin page ricknupp change the stable version of the text. The sources are clear led zeppelin was called in his time and remains to this day. Please see the sources and discussion page. War issues changing stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New vandalism by ricknupp ans his socks in Led Zeppelin page. War issues changing stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. I'm not at all involved but there's a terrible edit war going on for the "heavy metal band" thing. To help stop it, and make a fair compromise for both the parties, I'd edited the controversial sentence to: With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre. My edit remained in there for quite some time and one party seemed to be satisfied with it, but the other soon reverted it, and was then again reverted to my edit by the first party. Zeppelin, The Who Vs. Other Bands socks are becoming quite a problem on Wikipedia. I've sent slow edit war notices to both parties, though. Any thoughts? Your help will be much appreciated. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking (talk • contribs)

When Ricknupp posted the comments in the section above he used an open <ref> tag without a closing one resulting in templates not substituting which also stopped signatures from working, I have now sorted this out. I am going to fully protect the main article to bring an end to this edit war. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I just wanted to tell that i think that the current protection level of the article is unnecessary, since the edit war is caused by one person with multiple sockpuppets, who ignores the cited sources and is openly opinionated. There is not much that can be discussed except for telling him/her to stop. Cheers :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The dispute appears to extend to disagreement between 201.67.35.253 (talk · contribs) and Scieberking (talk · contribs), and it would be at little unfair to allow one to edit and not the other. I will bring the issue up on the talk page and see what people have to say there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Allright... I realized just now that it is not only Scieberking, who used sockpuppets and is oppinionated. The IP also used sockpuppets..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Camaron. Whatever you suggest, I'd be open to that. The fact that Led Zeppelin are the pioneers of heavy metal is not controversial, but the allegation that they were strictly a heavy metal band is, beyond any doubt, is disputable, capable of arousing controversy, and even worse, offensive to original band members. I think releasing the protection for account holders might not be good idea as far as vandals can easily creates multiple accounts. Thank you for your tireless efforts, Mr. Camaron, as a senior editor and administrator. --Scieberking (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Whoa Whoa. I want to make clear that I'm not at all involved in all that dispute and socketpuppetry. I just tried to resolve the dispute by editing the controversial sentence to a fair compromise; in all good faith. That's it. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen anything to suggest you are involved in sock puppetry, and trying to reach a compromise is an honourable thing to do which happens perhaps too little on Wikipedia. I will reply to the rest of your comments on the article talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good day! It seems that a consensus has been reached on Talk:Led Zeppelin#heavy metal first please.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have unprotected the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New Sources in Led Zeppelin discussion. Paulotanner (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw, though ultimately it will be down to editors involved in the article to come to an agreement about what content should be included, I should perhaps not be making that judgement. Once an agreement is reached the article can be unprotected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cameron. Please check in at the Pete Townshend talk page. The discussion and your Rfc about closure on removing the paragraph on further investigations took place without some of the authors of the article. The most conservative version freezes the information in 2003 and thus advances an agenda. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit warring on the page has to stop, there has not yet been a WP:3RR violation that I am aware of, but slow motion edit warring is not helpful either. I will give my reasons for the previous RfC closure on the talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for freezing the page. I agree that edit warring is not productive. I do notice that BrianInAtlanta has checked in with a comment not in favor of the revision, plus another comment from Sssoul that you might be contacted about the Rfc. Pkeets (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I have responded on the article talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

God! Now Townshend article too? Yet the world knows that he was found guilty for child porn charges and admitted his bisexuality for a couple of times (though he later showed a tendency to rebuff both these allegations). It has been well proved with solid references and all, but I won't want to get involved again. --Scieberking (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately so, hopefully both articles will not need to be locked down for very long. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For handling things so well and effectively on Led Zeppelin and Pete Townshend articles. Scieberking (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad my services are appreciated. I will add this to my award page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher -- hello, and thank you for the thoughtful note. I am a little confused. Are you saying that it's libelous to include information about McKenna's lack of college education, in the section on "education" ? It seemed the appropriate place for the information. And, the information is quite germane to the discussion on ... to what extent McKenna deserves to be regarded as a PhD, as he claims.

That is the point of the section on "education," right? To inform readers about McKenna's education, and specifically, to look at the validity of his PhD claims?

I'm not sure if I am responding to you in the right way ... my email is [E-mail removed to avoid spam bots. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)] if that is better. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.231.158 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:24.145.231.158. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied via e-mail. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to thank you, to keep the best information in the led Zeppelin Page, that way there'se nothing that links The led zeppelin name with anyone improper label. Please, sorry this warring, and I'm not a reeincarnation of anyone, I'm just trying to get the best information.

Thank you again

189.106.126.250 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ricknupp

Please see my comments on your main account talk page, User talk:Ricknupp, and please stop using multiple IPs/accounts to edit war. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ricknupp still has not been unblocked... was blocked for 48 hours at 29 December 2009, 12:55? He might be engaged in edit warring but I don't think blocking him for so long is a fair thing to do. Regards. --Scieberking (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think he hasn't been unblocked? The block expired as it should have done on 12:54, 31 December 2009, proof. He even edited as soon as the block had expired as is shown at Special:Contributions/Ricknupp. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry Camaron. When I visited his user page, I saw the block notice, so I was mistaken. Best --Scieberking (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. You'd removed that peter copman thing from my talk page as per BLP special enforcement warning. Could I use this creation of mine http://mohib.org/images/kanye-wiki.jpg on my user page, which I think is offensive to none, and Wikipedians often use their favorite images on user pages. I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks --Scieberking (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with it as it portrays the people positively, so linking to it probably won't cause a problem. I wouldn't upload it to Wikipedia though as it is not related to encyclopedia building and Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, with things as simple as the Britannica logo possibly causing a problem. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise. I'm not really a policy-reader, so, y'know.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's known as "a mistake". 86.152.192.70 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that you made a mistake? In that case, no harm done, but please try to be more careful in the future. The message left on your talk page was standard and assumed good faith, and is intended for edits which were not constructive but the intention of them is unknown. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why good folk like yourself are there, to scoop up lesser users' mistakes. Left with no checking, all articles would be poor. 86.162.131.143 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron, please could I request your help for a moment, there is a certain editor User:Dbachmann being very uncivil toward me and harrassing me. I'm very concerned with his behaviour toward me, as you can see on my talk page and his, and the article History of Iraq. I noticed you are an eguor admin and appeal to you in confidence. Izzedine 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This dispute seems complex and it is probably best if I do not try and intervene. You can appeal any blocks/bans by following the methods given at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. As a last resort you can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee by e-mailing arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org or by using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (should work unless an admin changes your block settings to disable e-mail). Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please fix this section? There doesn't seem to be a template for Belgium like it has for UK and USA. What do I do? Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it by using {{Flag}} with the parameter set for Belgium; that should work for most countries. You will in fact find the code for {{USA}} is just {{flag|United States}}. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Really appreciated.--Scieberking (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hello again Camaron, and thanks for keeping an eye on the beleaguered Townshend article and talk page. could you have a look at this edit, please? i feel it should be removed as an unconstructive intrusion on a genuine (but weary-making) effort to achieve consensus, but i would rather not make that call myself. in fact i feel the earlier posts speculating that Townshend had destroyed evidence (purposefully or not) and that Scotland Yard was somehow too foolish to think of that should also be deleted (i mean this post and the speculative parts of this one), but at least those posters have been making constructive efforts to reach consensus. thanks for whatever you feel is appropriate. Sssoul (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on that page and I am trying to keep an eye on it. Out of what I have seen on that page; I have not seen anything serious enough to justify on the spot deletion at this time. I am also glad in any case that there has been lots of discussion and that a consensus may be reached soon. I will leave a general note reminding users that WP:BLP does apply in the article space. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks Camaron - just wondering if you didn't mean "WP:BLP does apply in non-article space" in this edit, since the issue of concern is what's being said on the talk page, which isn't technically "article space", is it? thanks and apologies if i've misunderstood something Sssoul (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ssoul. I have been involved with this, Townshend Child Porn, issue for about a month now, and I've been actively contributing constructive, verifiable and highly authentic information if you carefully read the talk page. Thank you very much --Scieberking (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With this little thing please. I've just created this article one minute ago and added infobox but its not displaying all the elements I've provided, for instance participation, genres, date etc. Would you please have a look. Thank you very much in advance. --Scieberking (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed what I can. The participation and organizers parameter do not appear to exist; I have converted the latter to founders, as well as year to years_active, date to dates, and genres to genre. Despite being shown in the instructions of {{Infobox music festival}} the promoter parameter does not appear to exist in the actual template code. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Camaron. --Scieberking (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also | promoter = is a valid parameter but its not working too. --Scieberking (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What you see at Template:Infobox music festival is just a replica of the template, the actual code is hidden and you can only see it by clicking "edit this page". If you do that you will see that promoter is not on the actual template, hence I will remove it from the instructions. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Also, where can I find a copyright-free image for this great music festival? --Scieberking (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, a search of Flickr with "Show of Peace Concert" and the settings set to show only images that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (i.e. are free) reveals a few results, however I don't know how many are actually relevant. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

i was sent a message where i was accused of vandalism. what i did however was correct errors. since eurovision song contest 2010 will be held in bærum i removed oslo. bærum isnt a part of oslo. bærum lies in the county of akershus while oslo is its own county. i am from norway so i know. (the person that removed oslo from the eurovision song contest 2010 page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, when you place new content on a talk page on Wikipedia, please place it at the bottom (not the top). I don't know what makes you think you are being accused of vandalism; there was no mention of vandalism in the message left. It simply asked you to cite sources when adding new content and changing facts and figures. A fundamental policy of Wikipedia is that it functions by verifiability not truth, that means Wikipedia content is based on what sources say, not what editors think to be true. All sources currently presented say it is in Oslo, so that is what the article says. If you can present some reliable sources with different opinions then perhaps some text in the article recognising a dispute on the issue can be added to the article, however so far none have been presented. In one of your edits you actually changed what the source said, by changing the title, to back-up your version of the article. I assume good faith in your changes, however misrepresenting sources in this way can be problematic. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

just check the website saying where telenor arena is located. that say bærum. since telenor arena is used to host this years eurovision song contest logic dictates that oslo is wrong. if oslo shall even be mentioned then it have to say bærum and oslo. though that would also be wrong. the truth is that eurovision song contest 2010 will be held in bærum. nrk is however a lier, so they say oslo. wikipedia should tell the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It currently says both, and even the Bærum article says it is a "suburb of Oslo" and it is stated to be within the Greater Oslo Region, even if it is not within the city itself. Logic and truth is in the eyes of the beholder, so that is why Wikipedia goes along with what sources say, not with what editors think to be true. The Telenor Arena website is in Norwegian, which makes of limited use. Unless it specifically refutes the claim that it is within any definition of Oslo then it is hardly a smoking gun to override over sources. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

the greater oslo area is another lie used as a bus company name. bærum lies in a different county than oslo. the county that bærum lies in is called akershus.(not to be confused with the fortress in oslo.) bærum itself is a city called sandvika.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk)

Hey, the user blocked last week has done all of the same edits over again. Would it be possible to administer another block? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given a 1 week block. I have compared the edits (s)he made on 10 January to 17 January and in some cases they were nearly identical, telling me that the previous block had achieved little. I considered blocking indef. on the spot, though I thought it would be fairer to see if a longer block changes the users behaviour first. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

it is say bærum, oslo.(as if bærum is in oslo.) bærum isnt in oslo at all. therefore it should either say bærum without oslo or bærum and oslo.(the norwgian.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not changing it without talk page discussion first, though I do thank you for not edit warring over it. I will place my thoughts on Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 shortly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if I could get you to look at The Avery Coonley School. The last reviewer was unsure on the importance rating (mid vs. high). I do not disagree with their assessment. I am simply uncertain myself where it should fall given the criteria. Hoping you could lend an experienced opinion. I have requested some copy editing help and then plan to nominate the article for GA. If you have any suggestions that would help that cause, I would welcome them. Many thanks. Nasty Housecat (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try and re-assess the article at some point in the future. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Camaron, just to let you know consensus appears to have been reached on the Pete Townshend page, so i've put up an edit request (hope i've done it correctly!). i'm also planning to reformat the whole talk-page discussion as one section with subsections and then archive it ... meanwhile, i'm hoping the article can stay protected until after the Superbowl, so that the consensus-approved paragraph has a chance of remaining in place for more than a few hours! 8) thanks for your help with this page Sssoul (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

May I extend my congratulations on reaching a consensus; I wish all Wikipedia content disputes went this way. An admin has already beat me to it on updating the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to respond to something that you said on the Template:Unreferenced WP Tfd. You mentioned that WP:OUTCOMES is a "simple recording of facts." I wanted to clarify and let you know that this is not the case. WP:OUTCOMES is a recording of editors impressions of trends. On at least 3 occasions, WP:OUTCOMES has contradicted guidelines and had to be fixed accordingly. If it was "simply recording facts," this would not have been necessary. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES claims to state how certain article types are dealt with at AfD, not what policies and guidelines say. Using guidelines and policies as sources about what happens at AfD is analogous to adding content to the mainspace saying that no cars exceed 70 mph on motorways and then using the Highway Code as a source. What the law says, or policies and guidelines say on Wikipedia (de jure), and what happens in practice (de facto) are different things. Ideally the two would be the same, but in reality they often aren't, often due to differing interpretations on what certain policies and guidelines say and what they are for, and in some cases due to dodgy consensus of some parts of them. What actually happens at AfD can differ from what WP:OUTCOMES says as well (e.g. WP:OUTCOMES contains false facts or becomes out of date), but the page should be primarily factual in nature, not editors opinions on the way things should be. Perhaps sourcing of editor's studies of AfD outcomes in certain topics or the like may be helpful, but expecting sourcing of discussions is missing the point of the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"WP:OUTCOMES claims to state how certain article types are dealt with at AfD, not what policies and guidelines say."

Do you feel like someone is asserting that WP:OUTCOMES claims to state what policies and guidelines say? I'm not sure who you're refuting here. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Using guidelines and policies as sources about what happens at AfD is analogous to adding content to the mainspace saying that no cars exceed 70 mph on motorways and then using the Highway Code as a source."

Who is using guidelines and policies as sources about what happens at AfD? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"What actually happens at AfD can differ from what WP:OUTCOMES says as well (e.g. WP:OUTCOMES contains false facts or becomes out of date), but the page should be primarily factual in nature, not editors opinions on the way things should be."

There's no way to know whether or not it is factual in nature. It is in fact, editors' opinion on the way things are (not the way they should be). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps sourcing of editor's studies of AfD outcomes in certain topics or the like may be helpful, but expecting sourcing of discussions is missing the point of the page."

I'm not expecting sourcing of discussions. I would like to warn editors that WP:OUTCOMES is representing some editors' opinions as facts, though. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has attempted to source WP:OUTCOMES at this time. Perhaps because it is unclear exactly what editors want with references. I have got the impression at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 16#Template:Unreferenced WP that some editors seem to be expecting evidence of consensus to be the sources with comments such as "Just about every policy page would benefit from the addition of this tag - please find me an example of one which would not. Claiming consensus is no answer if there is no evidence of the supposed consensus." There may be good grounds for a more clear warning about the non-policy status of WP:OUTCOMES; however I have difficulty how this translates into a tag demanding references, particularly when there does not appear to be agreement on what references are wanted.

I am not sure what you mean by the idea that there is no way of knowing how articles are dealt with at AfD. Old AfDs are visible and from them it can be worked out how different articles have been dealt with. Yes I agree to some extent that the page has a problem with vague assertions being made. Ideally in my view the page should just contain factual statistics e.g. in 2009 80% of AfDs on topic X resulted in a delete result, 10% resulted in a keep, and the remaining 10% were other such as merge and re-direct. In theory yes editors opinions are the way things are; this would only happen though if editors opinions combine to form agreed policies and guidelines, and if these policies and guidelines are well implemented at AfD. There are a lot of "ifs" there.

As you found at WT:ORG on some topics combining editors opinions results in implosion. Some editors don't like what is happening at AfD with schools and don't want it documented on the page, regardless of what the evidence says. As one editor put it on WT:OUTCOMES "The "all high schools are notable" meme [which comes from WP:OUTCOMES] has just become a self perpetuating chant, since everyone who watches the school canvassing list floods in as soon as a high school appears on it. It's not actually true, and just like with schools in general, eventually the cleanup will get done there. It took a while to even get started, we can wait to do the rest, but having the "all high schools are notable" bit enshrined somewhere will just make the process longer." It is clear that many editors would prefer the page to say what they want to happen, not what has happened in the past. The former is doomed to disaster given the inevitable conflicts between editors on their competing visions on the inclusion of some articles and interpretations of varies guidelines, schools being a major one. This is aggravated of course by the heavy use of WP:OUTCOMES in AfDs, making it seem like some kind of policy or guideline, rather than simply a record of past AfD outcomes. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding graf 1, above, I don't think the Unreferenced WP template demands references, it just signposts that there aren't any. Kind of like how a "SOFT SHOULDER" sign letting people know the ground on the side of the road is soft doesn't demand the shoulder be paved, it just lets people know to drive cautiously.

Graf 2: Old Afd's are visible, true, but you'd have to do some serious archival research to actually find what the actual trends are. Unless they do that, they are at worst speculating, and at best, basing their opinions on the proportionally small number of AfDs that have come to their attention since they've been following the page. I agree that your ideal view of the page would be ideal.

Graf 3: In total agreement. Thanks for your commentary. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if the template is just a caution notice then its current wording is problematic. In particular statements such as "Statements of fact which are not self-evident should be supported with verifiable evidence. Please help improve this page by adding evidence to unsourced statements of fact." suggest a request for references. If a special caution notice is required for WP:OUTCOMES, then one could be created just on that page (no need for a template), highlighting its shortcomings. I wouldn't see a need to mention references at all unless they were being requested. It would be difficult to scout AfD archives in order to create statistics, though it could be done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive provides a helpful list for schools right back to 2007. While it is unlikely to contain all school AfDs it is probably accurate enough to use. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I might not be that active anyway, but I will try to take part! Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind; I am not going to be that active so while I won't be causing much drama, I won't be doing much article writing either. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will probably wait until WP:NODRAMA is finished before commenting. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have pulled out of WP:NODRAMA, but exam revision comes first. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't feel like I did very much. I'm glad to have been of use, though. --FormerIP (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you Camaron – i hope all the effort has some lasting stabilizing effect on that poor beleaguered article! Sssoul (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Really appreciated. It was a bit of a slog. And at times frustrating. But worth the effort. Now, back to solving the middle-east.... (!!!)Davidpatrick (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! No One Gives Me A Barnstar And Neither Do I. It Makes Perfect Sense, So I Never Asked Why ;-) --Scieberking (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Cameron, and for the award. I hope the section stands for a while without another argument!Pkeets (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tried to use it but it's not working... Would you please have a look. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/config provides help on setting up the configuration. The bot only runs once a day at around 13:00 UTC, and you have only just added the template, so you may have to wait a bit to see if it works. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I thought it works instantly... --Scieberking (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you this user (Paulotanner) has again started disrupting the Led Zeppelin article like here and here. However, his unconstructive edits were reverted by Fnlayson. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner is now up to 3RR as he is reverting multiple editors, and any more reverts by him will exceed it. I have given him a talk page warning. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again, blocked for 24 hours. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, Camaron. And by the way, if you further see his contributions, he has a long history of disrupting and deconstructing articles, and more interestingly, 80% of his edits were reverted by other editors. --Scieberking (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is only fair though I note that you are now up to 3RR as well; that is not an explicit violation of policy but I will suggest trying to avoid going close to the limit as 3RR is not an entitlement. I would recommend always holding back before reverting anyone multiple times - in a content dispute leaving someone's edits as they are for a few hours or even a few days is unlikely to be very problematic most of the time. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I will surely take care of that next time. What's more, the article is now facing more explicitly malicious edits such as. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that is just a one off; if vandalism from IPs does build-up I will semi-protect the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner has started disrupting the article again right after the unblock so I've added the issue to BLPN. I hope it gets solved soon. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Had been in conflict with this user Off2riorob and now I think he's taking his revenge. :) --Scieberking (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given Paulotanner (talk · contribs) a warning about edit warring straight after a 3RR block. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that such type of characters simply don't care to positively contribute to Wikipedia- only disruptions and adding deconstructive information. Makes me want to retire at such a young age :) One of the reasons WP's slowly, progressively becoming a wasteland. Thank you very much for your help, Camaron. --Scieberking (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you about this- now anonymous IPs are also invading the article with the same editing patterns as Paulotanner. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

2 of 2 votes thru WP:RFC are to KEEP my version. I struck Paulotanner's vote because being involved he was not eligible to vote. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought I should inform you:

The list of people who refuse to offer equal protection to BLP victims

Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, but I already knew about it and I'm not too concerned. The list is misleading as the first person who replied said; I actually do support flagged protection of BLPs. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. IMO, you're one of the most effective and helpful admins on WP and my opinion won't change even if you block me indefinitely :-D --Scieberking (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad my services are useful to you :) Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Camaron we need you to opine on the talk page of Led Zeppelin. The sources claim that Led Zeppelin is a rock band, but not the parents of the same. The history says the parents of hard rock are Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jeff Beck. The same sources call Led Zeppelin the fathers of heavy metal. There is a POV about it that was imposed without consensus. The first paragraph stable as we knew it was amended by a partial view. Please note Scieberking is erasing sources to impose their point of view. Your opinion would be welcome. Have a nice day! Paulotanner (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a revision by Camaron as of 17:53, 12 January 2010 when nobody got involved with that hard rock stuff. Notice these five sources:

1. ^ Chad Bowar, "Heavy metal timeline", About.com
2. ^ Heavy Metal. BBC.com
3. ^ Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Warner Home Video, 2005.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin Biography". Allmusic. http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
5. ^ a b "Led Zeppelin Biography". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography. Retrieved 2009-09-09.

These five sources still exist and I've removed NO sources. You can only attempt to fool people when I'm not around. You've a long history of disrupting articles on Wikipedia and more than 70% of your edits have been reverted by other editors. You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer, among others, and all your edits were reverted. As for the "ancestors of hard rock" thing, see the relevant talk page. --Scieberking (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion is happening I have protected the page for a week so it can continue without edit warring on the side. I am involved in this article in an administrative capacity, and to avoid compromising impartiality; I will remain neutral on the article content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron.. my attention was drawn to user 98.113.216.32 on hard rock page...where he keeps editing the notable bands listed (The Beatles, The Yardbirds, The Animals) in 1960's section, by continually changing his own personal criteria for inclusion of these early forms. His last reason.."The rest didn't even make VH1's top 100".. which has got nothing to do with early examples of hard rock. Grateful if you could ensure this user stops. Thanks. JackFreeman190 (talk 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Such type of activity obviously should not be tolerated. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the user to stop; I will keep an eye on the page for a bit. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is unfair. Very unfair. In Tallahassee, FL, there are two different Lincoln High Schools and its very unfair to mention one school and not the other. Is it possible to have two pages, one for each Lincoln High cause its very unfair to me and others that have gone and graduated from that Lincoln. If two pages cant be made then I dont see a reason that any one of them should have the glory. And both Lincoln's cannot be combined because one Lincoln was here during segregagtion and the other one came after segregation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayebook (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, I was the one who changed the Lincoln High Article to the way it currently is. There ARE NOT two Lincoln High Schools. There is the current Lincoln High School (which this article represents) and the HISTORIC Lincoln, which IS NO LONGER A SCHOOL. The user Jayebook made the mistake of combining the two schools on one page. This was a mistake as both schools are completely separate entities. There should be one page for the current school and one for the historic school. If you take a look at the article as it was a year a go, you can see it is correct now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumlinehoss (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that there be a "Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, FL)" Page and then a separate "Historic Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, FL)" Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumlinehoss (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a page on for the historic Lincoln. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_High_Tigers_of_Florida Just add info to that one about the historic school and keep the article "Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, FL)" About the current school. I also suggest that a link to the Historic Lincoln Article be added to the history section of the current Lincoln page. (Drumlinehoss (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

I will quote and reply to your comments at Talk:Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, Florida)#Content dispute so others can see it is easily. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you protect Lincoln High Tigers of Florida? It's edit history shows no disputes, only 3 edits.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a re-creation of content that was at Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, Florida) as part of a long going edit war. I protected this page to end a long going edit/move war over the content of the article, and I'm awaiting a response from both parties. I have protected Lincoln High Tigers of Florida as well to prevent the edit war continuing there, which would defeat the purpose of protection. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So someone deleted it and then someone recreated it and now you're protecting it, right?-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayebook (talk · contribs) repeatedly replaced the content of Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, Florida), about a post-segregation high school, with details of a now closed high school in the same area of the same name. I protected that page to stop the slow motion edit/move war with other users, and while that was happening he created a new page with his version of the page at Lincoln High Tigers of Florida. I then protected that and asked for dispute resolution to occur at Talk:Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, Florida). I have got a response from Jayebook and it appears that he wants a separate page for the older high school. Obviously the content can't stay as it is, so I am trying to reach some kind of agreement. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I think you deserve this for guiding me to the right direction and to become a good Wikipedian. Scieberking (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Scieberking; I am glad that I have helped you contribute to the project better. You are making some fine contributions to Led Zeppelin and other articles. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner's now using anonymous Brazilian IPs to disrupt the Led Zeppelin article. --Scieberking (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again and again, and for the third time. Scieberking (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Paulotanner about this sudden editing of the page by these IPs. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. It is quite clear that Paulotanner himself is doing such activity, though. The IPs are Brazilian, editing patterns are 100% similar, and he has himself admitted to be one saying "I can not be xenophobic because I am Brazilian". Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner's been unresponsive and uncooperative and it pretty much confirms everything. Just filed an SPI and IMO he should be blocked indefinitely as per WP:SOC policy, but it does not show the case in Initial Clerk Review section. Wondering why? Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the case to WP:SI for you. I haven't got time to make further comments tonight. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Scieberking (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

His sock puppetry has been confirmed but he has only been blocked for a week, not indefinitely per WP:SOC. I'm pretty sure he will begin his disruptive, sock puppeteer activities again right after getting unblocked. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Only any sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Blocking. The master account, in this case Paulotanner (talk · contribs), are rarely blocked indefinitely. The sock puppets were the IPs, but IPs are also rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely as they will eventually change hands. I was originally going to wait for Paulotanner's response before going for the block, but given his recent comments on his talk page, he clearly is unwilling to be abide by WP:SOCK, hence a 1 week block makes sense. I think an indef. block would be a bit heavy handed at this stage, and I would be willing to give him another chance. Though his actions after my first block don't show much hope. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached about the lede compromise it seems. Paulotanner (talk · contribs) is the only problem to the article and I am certain he'll start disrupting after getting unblocked. He still thinks he's clean-handed and impeccable... Let's hope he learns to contribute positively to Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is good to hear. I will keep an eye on the page and be around when Paulotanner's block expires. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This page appears more like a link farm with dozens of spam links- though they are not. Scieberking (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner's latest post on his talk page is a classic case of WP:TL;DR; that wall of text almost makes my head hurt. It mostly seems to be a copy and paste of previous posts; I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by re-posting it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just copying and pasting junk again and again :) Scieberking (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

there isnt a greater oslo area it is just a company name that isnt used anymore. (--84.208.75.65 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC))(the norwegian)

I have replied at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)