User talk:CliffC

If you've come here to complain that I reverted your links, please make a selection at
TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo first. (Thanks, Tasty)

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message to discuss my actions or tell me about something that you think I might want to know. Please add your message at the bottom, and sign and date it by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end.

• I prefer to keep conversations intact, so if you ask me a question here, I will reply here, unless you indicate otherwise.
• If I left you a message on your talk page, I have added you to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I will see your response.

Speedy of Conceptual Net Art

I removed the tag (I didn't write the article, but I did new page patrol it). That speedy category does not apply to concepts, only to organisations, and then only where there is no assertion of importance. Feel free to use AfD if you feel it is not notable enough for the encyclopaedia. Cheers --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I'll just keep an eye on it until I have time to figure out how to do an AfD. Best, CliffC (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Winnie Ruth Judd

Nice work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it still could use improvement, without restoring ""several gunshots rang out in a small bungalow", although I did rather like the bit about "Apparently with no need to downsize the body of Anne LeRoi...".  :-) --CliffC (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ScottRothstein

I have responded to sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottrothstein (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gemmail FYI

Hi Cliff and thanks for fattening up baby Gemmail. FYI: Talk:Gemmail#Marcmaison.2C_aka_Antoine_delorme.2C_aka_AzitaS.3F Eric ^talk 22:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Deletion discussion of that photo/composition at Commons here, in case you have not seen it. Also, I don't speak French, or I'd request a citation for this edit. Assuming good faith and all, perhaps the photo in question was taken at Galerie Charpentier? I imagine Picasso saying: "You want me to write what on your paper? Well, okay, but you're buying lunch." --CliffC (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible gemmail source?

I chanced upon http://www.carrefourdesarts-lalouvesc.com/p_gemmail.html - seems like a legitimate site with an article based on (apparently out of print) «  LE GEMMAIL » Art de lumière, expression du 20e siècle. L’atelier Roger Malherbe Navarre – Paris. Interestingly, a Google translation tells me

The great masters of painting became and remain supporters of the prestigious new means of expression. Some gemmaux have been based on their works. These are unique pieces that receive their signatures once completed. Their quotes will remain famous [They will continue to be quoted]:

Picasso [would write] this sentence: "A new art is born, Gemmaux.

And Braque: "If I were thirty I would be Braque the gemmiste."

Rouault called gemmail "his beloved [favorite] art."

As for Jean Cocteau, gemmail was for him "a new face of beauty."

I don't know what to do with any of this since French is not my native tongue and also I cannot say if this is a reliable source.

FWIW, although this would not be usable in the article, here is an interesting before-and-after:

Picasso original http://www.galanart.com.au/images/70370.jpg

Gemmail of the same http://www.jungi.com/cgi/getimg.cgi?0880&/allbild.htm

Regards, CliffC (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cliff- Thanks for finding that stuff. I'm surprised at how good that Google translator is. I did make a few tweaks and notes above. The site does look promising as a source--I'm tempted to call that gallery and ask a few questions, especially regarding Picasso. One possible cause for skepticism: the link to good ol' gemmail.com at the bottom of the Carrefour gemmail page. Eric ^talk 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that link too, perhaps it's a paid link?. As long as it's at the bottom of something we link to and not here at WP, I guess we could live with it. On the translation, I haven't done much lately, but I was very impressed - years ago these translations were laughable, but after translating that whole page it almost looked like it could be picked up and plugged in somewhere without editing. Regards, CliffC (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Structured products

Dear CliffC - I've reviewed the information at TastyPoutine, External Links and How not to be a spammer. I believe the external link which I added to structured products has merit and is directly relevant to the topic. Additionally, the link is for a lengthy article and contains a figure. This material is copyrighted by Invetopedia, a firm known for being neutral and accurate. Thank you for your consideration. Jason Whitby 1/19/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwhitby (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason - I'd be the first to agree that that article has merit, but as I noted in my edit summary, "site already has one link, see WP:EL". WP:EL states "In the 'External links' section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site". This is mostly so that our external links sections don't end up looking like link farms. It's always preferable to add cited text to the encyclopedia rather than a bare link that takes readers elsewhere. I suggest that you add, where appropriate, some points from the linked article (taking care to paraphrase the material so as to avoid any WP:COPYRIGHT problems), then cite what you've added with <ref>[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/10/structured-notes.asp Investopedia - Structured Notes: Buyer Beware!]</ref> so the link will appear in the References section. Thanks in advance for contributing. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cliffc - I've done as you suggested. Thank you very much for your help and professionalism. Jason Whitby 1/20/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwhitby (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ScottRothstein

Hi this is Scottrothstein i have response to the sock puppetry case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottrothstein (talk • contribs)

Cut the bullshit, Bob. You haven't responded anywhere. --CliffC (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

David G. Friehling‎

Hi ... was just wondering what the basis was for the see also deletions. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that's a fair question and I apologize to Wikipedians in general for being too lazy to spell out the reason in some cases where I could revert sock edits by simply clicking Rollback. These were edits by the latest confirmed sockpuppet of Bobmack89x, his sock history is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobmack89x/Archive, who has a longstanding history of overlinking and in general wasting everyone's time (old case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Disruptive editing by Bobmack89x). Even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts, so I tried to be selective in what I reverted, if I made any mistakes in the case of Friehling‎ or anyone else please feel free to undo them. Best, CliffC (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. Will do so. Keep up the good work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shawcross

I think I found what the "cannibalization" thing was all about, in Olsen (a great book, but possessing no index and written in a "disjointed" temporal way). Again, it's Shawcross blatantly making something up, but here's the full quote (in his own words) from pg.446:

"Yeah, I go out there and came across a woman—a girl. She was putting an AK-47 on the side of a coop and I shot her, tied and gagged her, took her up to where I had a clear view of the area and tied her to a tree.... I didn't have nothing to eat that day, and I took a big chunk off the hip of the girl.... I took off all the skin and took a piece of green bamboo and I ran it up inside the bone and I roasted it on the fire.... After it cooked down, it was almost like eating charcoal-broiled pork, the consistency of a dry roast beef.... I was just in the mood, that's all. After I was eating it—it didn't taste that bad—I took the body and carried it down through the jungle area where I knew there was a big anthill and laid it beside the anthill, went back to the tree, and was sitting there sharpening the machete and eating that meat. The other girl had the sweat running off of her. I untied her hands and tied her on the ground and raped her.... And I cut her throat, took her head up there where the house was and put that head on a stick right in front of the house...."

For a guy in a supply unit, he sure had a lot of time to run around in the jungle and commit atrocities all by himself, huh? I plan to expand on his "war stories" - no wonder Ressler saw right though this sociopath's ludicrous lies! Cheers! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Migraine

In reference to your revert at migraine, there is a discussion about the source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Food_and_Chemical_Toxicology if you are interested in contributing. Deli nk (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, thanks. As a layman, there is no medical wisdom I can contribute there. I reverted that edit due to its lack of a good explanation, we often see such edits by those with an axe to grind, and perhaps I misread it. Looking at the state of the discussion you've linked, it seems premature to be chopping references to that source from the whole of Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Kars4kids at Car Donation page

Cliffc -- I added kars4kids, which you deleted, because it is one of the leading (if not *the* leading) car-donation programs in the U.S. How can you talk about long-distance service without mentioning AT&T? Or fast-food without mentioning McDonalds? Kars4Kids, with its annoying jingle, is certainly the most recognized player in this field. No?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Car_donation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.148.90 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you time to review the material posted on your talk page and at the top of this page explaining why links get removed, then if you still don't understand post again here. --CliffC (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Juneteenth

Ironic that you would refer me to the Talk Rules, oh WikiCop...

The sections I was removing were sections of a talk page added by people using the page as a forum rather than discussing the article itself, which is clearly against Talk rules. Also lots of spam sections that were added, so I cleaned up the page. So you should probably review what was removed/edited before you get all bent out of shape...but whatever you have to do to make yourself feel important, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.193.1 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I did review what was removed and I agree that some of it was chaff, but at least

"My boss told me to remove it, claiming that Juneteenth is controversial and that many African Americans object to the name "Juneteenth". I have been unable to find anything on the web to support this view."

and

(link omitted)"The information will give you the year and the name of the state legislator that sponsored Juneteenth legislation. Just go to the state legislative web site, pull up the passed legislation archives for that year, reference the legislator's name with Juneteenth, and the legislation should come up for your review."

seemed to be suggesting improvements to the article. Edit summaries might have helped. --CliffC (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo or not?

Hi Cliff... you recently corrected a typo in a date that appears in the article on Scottish Rite .... I need to know if you made your correction after checking the cited source, or just assumed that this was a typo. Further explanation of why it might not have been a typo is on the talk page of the article. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with everything you've said on the talk page -- "the Masonic date simply adds a rounded off 4000 years" would explain what seemed at first like a very odd vandalism but after using Wikiblame to find the edit that put it there seemed like a very odd typo instead. Were the source online I would have checked it, changing quoted material is a pet peeve. Best, CliffC (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can fully understand why you assumed it was a typo or vandalism. Most people would. No harm, no foul. Another editor has access to the source and will double check it... and if the "5" is correct, we will add an explanation so other editors don't make the same assumption you did. Your good faith edit did nothing but improve the article... so thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician)

Dear CliffC,

Thank you for your attention to the Adam Clayton Powell IV article.

I noted your edit regarding the New York Times article with respect to bar examination results, and agree with it.

The page has been Blanked several times and I recently reverted it, so that it may receive proper administrative review.

Please inform as to any correct procedures to be followed...we don't want an edit war here, or improper reversion, just the most complete and accurate article possible.

Thanks again,

MBernal615 (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see today, the article is getting broader attention after having been stubbed as an attack article and mentioned in some admin areas. Any time there are rape accusations in an article lede, it's obvious what's going on, no matter how much of a lowlife the subject is. I think the article is on more watchlists now, it's on mine, so any edit wars will hopefully be short-lived and you won't have to feel you're fighting the page blankers alone. However, please review WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT before editing again so that you can understand what edits are acceptable. --CliffC (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

help save that article!!

Pls make a comment if you like Flight Time (criteria for speedy deletion )...Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just saw this since I've been out shoveling all day. I see that the speedy got declined, it's on my watchlist so if it goes to AfD I'll chip in. It's a little puzzling that a guy whose user page shows so much involvement in Marine Corps subjects would nominate it for a speedy; my inclination is to look the other way when I see a shaky article appear that I like. Right now I think it needs more work to survive Afd if it goes there. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Me to i am not a fan of individuals making decisions on what is notable!!...i think everything should be here! yes as it is now its just a copy and past from the website..its ok as there is no copyright concerns..But i think i will write (email) the web site .. see if i can get the HOLE story and improve the article...Again tks !!Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arthur Kade

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Arthur Kade. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kade (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio in American Mafia

I see your point to some extent; that particular quote was a bit removed in the original article and I didn't pick up on it at first. Still, I hate to use the other stuff exists argument, but I've seen cases that were a lot more egregious. The rest of the paragraph seems to be pretty accurately synthesized from the NYT and MSN articles. It seems a shame to delete the information from both articles (it was word-for-word in the Mississippi civil rights workers murders article too, but I copy-edited them both a little for their individual context) based on one sentence and the poster's history in other articles. I'm headed to bed right now, but how about if I try to recast those bits tomorrow and see what comes out? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, that's interesting stuff that belongs in the Mafia article at least, some rephrasing should do the trick. Bob and his socks are very lazy about doing any actual writing; when he contributes anything beyond overlinks or categories it's almost sure to be a copyvio. It's interesting that he cited the Times but stole the text from MSNBC. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm easily distracted. Figured under the circumstances, I'd post here first and ask for your opinion before replacing the section in the article. This is the proposed Mafia version. After it's worked out, I'll make the small adjustments needed for the Mississippi Murders version:

In 2007, Linda Schiro testified in an unrelated court case that her late boyfriend, Gregory Scarpa Sr., a capo in the Colombo family, had been recruited by the FBI to help find the bodies of three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964. She said that she had been with Scarpa in Mississippi at the time and had witnessed him being given a gun, and later a cash payment, by FBI agents. She testified he told her he had threatened a Klansman by placing a gun in his mouth, forcing him to reveal the location of the bodies. Similar stories of mafia involvement in the case had been circulating for years, and had been previously published in the New York Daily News, but had never before been introduced in court.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=February 20, 2010|title=At Trial of Ex-F.B.I. Supervisor, How to Love a Mobster|work=The New York Times|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/nyregion/30agent.html|date=October 30, 2007}}</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21534657/ "Witness: FBI used mob muscle to crack ’64 case"], MSNBC.com, October 29, 2007, Retrieved February 20, 2010</ref> Fat&Happy (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to run anything by me, my only concern was that the original MSNBC author might run across Bob's work one day and say "Gee, that sounds quite familiar." Your retelling of the tale is good writing. Regards, CliffC (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, all done. Thanx. I just figured since the point of the exercise was to eliminate any copyvio(s), a second, neutral set of eyes might be helpful, since it's human nature to think you didn't actually copy from the source even if you might have, albeit sub-consciously... Fat&Happy (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Annual Report Awards Win

Thanks for your note, and I understand your concern, but organizations invest heavily in their annual reports, and if they submit an annual report and garner a win, it's something that they are looking to highlight. The links lead directly to this profile of the nature of the award garnered and do not contain any advertising whatsoever. The name of the awarding company has even been removed in order to minimize the concern about "commercial" intent. And yes, I'm aware of nofollow, and it's not germane since--again--the purpose is to highlight the performance of the entrant, not the award giver. Thanks! KinsmanRedeemer (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you some time to review the material posted on your talk page and at the top of this page explaining why links get removed, then if you still don't understand please post here again. Note that several other editors have also reverted your links. --CliffC (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

park incidents RFC

Hi Cliff. If you haven't noticed, there's been a rather lengthy discussion over at Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks regarding including or excluding victim names in these articles. Some are for inclusion, some are against. Since I referenced an article that you are active in maintaining (the Six Flags Haunted House) and am using it as an example of how names should be handled, I thought I'd make sure that you had an opportunity to chime in with your opinion on the matter if you would like. SpikeJones (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trademarkia Edits

Hi Cliff. I just posted a response to your post at the Conflict of Interest Board. I'd like your feedback before I start improving more Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Raj. Rabhyanker (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rabhyanker.2C_company_trademarkia.com. --CliffC (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Above discussion archived at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_41#User:Rabhyanker.2C_company_trademarkia.com --CliffC (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Rabhyanker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

122 links as of 27 April 2010. trademarkia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Thank you...

...for the vote of confidence. I will admit that it has taken all of my immense physical strength to bite my tongue and not add any more fuel to the fire. Sometimes I have to be aggressive in my day job, but I do my best to keep that out of Wikipedia. Thanks again. – ukexpat (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA nom

I was looking over your contribs after I saw your name pop up at WP:UAA and I think you'd make a great admin :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've considered it in the past and thought about what would be involved. I travel pretty far and wide here and I think adminship would cut into my fun time and lead to the more frustrating areas of the project, bless the people who do it. Thanks for the vote of confidence, it means a lot. --CliffC (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Aquitted of corruption

What is your problem? Maybe if you actually read the articles (Ray Donovan, Joe McDade, Vince Fumo), you would learn the category fits those articles. Don't accuse me of being a vandal when I'm clearly not. 68.38.104.95 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied in advance on your talk page. --CliffC (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So I read everything you sent to me, yet you still deleted...

I read all the linked material you sent to me, and felt confident that the one link that still remained fit the criteria. It was a database very similar to the ones that are already linked on the Clematis page, except that it is geared specifically to the USDA growing zones. The Clematis on the Web site is directed toward the European community, and the American Clematis Society requires a paid membership to use their database (which I also believe is a violation for posting, is it not?). So, what, SPECIFICALLY, caused you to feel the link to the database was in violation of the contributions here? It's situations like this that cause others to think long and hard before putting in the time to contribute an article, if a simple link cannot be accepted without constantly checking to see if it's still here. I would very much appreciate a clarification of the EXACT reason for removal rather than a generic list of links again. Thank you. --BlissfulGarden (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the history -- I have Clematis on my watchlist, and I noticed your first-ever edit, where you added an external link to simplyclems.com/cutflowers.htm ("Quality Products for Reasonable Prices") to Clematis with this edit. You followed that by adding a similar link to Flower bouquet, then a link to a cubits.org entry written by you and featuring a link to your website. To me and to any editor who's been around Wikipedia for a while that looks like an effort to promote your website; the blue links in last week's messages on your talk page explained that. I reverted your other edits, where you also added bare links.

As to the cubits.org database link, about a week later unregistered user User:69.88.42.185 spammed a cubits.org link to another article I follow, Floristry, and several other articles. In looking for more spammed links to cubits.org, I noticed one still in Clematis which pointed to "Database designed and maintained by Evey Blalock (BlissfulGarden)" and removed it. The real answer to your questions is already pointed to in the detailed answer left on your talk page last week about how to contribute cited information, not bare links that appear to promote or advertise. Since you seem to have a conflict of interest regarding the cubits.org database external link you wish kept, the COI guideline suggests that you ask on the Clematis talk page and see if another editor with a history of contributions agrees that it's a good addition and does so. --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understood the SimplyClems.com removals, as those edits were entered by me prior to reading the information you sent. I thought that the database link was within the guidelines, and certainly comparable to the other links that appear on the Clematis page... so, in about a week when I have more time to interact, I will take your advice and post to the talk page to see what others think. I do know who posted that other link you mentioned on the Floristry page... another member over at cubits.org... and I will pass on your info to her. BTW, I had already posted the information you sent to me about how to not spam over on the cubits website (here's a link: http://cubits.org/Clematis/pages/115/) so I am making an effort not to spam and to pass on your tips to others... but apparently not very successfully. --BlissfulGarden (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. Sorry you're having a frustrating time. Where you say on your user page "...considering one of the remaining links is to a site that requires a membership fee and promotes the site owner's book", I assume you are talking about http://clematis.org , American Clematis Society, the second external link in Clematis. You are correct that "sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content..." (quoting WP:EL here) are "links normally to be avoided" but I don't see a problem with this one. Maybe I'm missing something -- although I didn't see any mention of a database, the site allowed me to look at various sections and photos on the site and use their 'Search the site' box for simple terms such as 'yellow', 'red' and 'nursery'. There is nothing wrong with a site promoting its own products or publications, this is to be expected, as long as it's not blatant. In any event, the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good one for inclusion. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The "other stuff exists" line of thinking was not an argument for inclusion, but more a statement of "how is item A okay, but item B is not?" As in, I wanted clarification of why item A is okay. You answered that with your comments above. Thank you. --BlissfulGarden (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bloomex

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bloomex. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloomex Article Cleanup

Hi Cliff, I am working on cleaning up the Bloomex article and would appreciate some guidance as to what information would be useful / relevant to wikipedia to make the article more encyclopedia friendly. Mophyz (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mophyz, I've copied your note over to Talk:Bloomex and will reply to it there. You'll get lots of additional guidance by conducting the discussion over there where other editors familiar with the company and its history are likely to be watching and willing to participate. --CliffC (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner functionary date change

Thanks for the fix ...and the amusing note attached. Marrante (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't really mean for it to be amusing, but I'll take credit anyway. The only thing I knew for sure was that it wasn't 1994, because I would have heard about it at the time. :-) That's an interesting article. Best, CliffC (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Enzyte

"...overlooked festering mass of advertising..."

That's just so cool. There's gotta be a barnstar somewhere for lines like that. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I wax quite poetic when I get PO'd. :-) --CliffC (talk)

KFTC?

Really? Are you sure? I give everyone benefit of the doubt, but consider sourcing that acronym on the talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, really - that's the classy New York media for you. I'll add a citation for the acronym itself at Ernie Anastos, which already describes the incident. (Per WP:DAB, citations are not added to disambiguation pages, they go in the article itself.) Best, CliffC (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Farber Bio

I need to know exactly what the issues are here. I have edited, I thought according to the guidelines you suggested. Can't seem to get it right. Assistance appreciated. Pampina (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked other editors to look in on the article and provide some help here. --CliffC (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cliff, where I note that Farber has appeared in various news publications, I actually sourced those publications and linked directly to the newspaper articles in which he was quoted. I will add the major work he published. Pampina (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please copy your comment over to Talk:Bernie Farber where it can be seen by all interested parties, it's best to keep all discussion about the article in one place. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Ray

Thanks, I forgot to correct the KOs on the "Decline" section. For the second no contest I can understand why the referee was so digusted he walked out: the opponent, Neil Morrison, was only an 8-fight novice. I'm guessing maybe he was brought in as a late replacement. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Must have been a nasty beating to make a guy that sees fights every day walk out. (Later) - wow, "SUGAR RAY'S FOE EXPOSED AS AN IMPOSTER, FUGITIVE"[1] --CliffC (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also here, and, God bless the Milwaukee Journal, the whole story here. --CliffC (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Zynga

I've been working on it for about the past 8 months, and it still needs some work. Thanks for your contributions in helping to make the article better. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my pleasure. This seems to be one of those articles where the company wants to shine itself up, but may not have much positive coverage in reliable sources, so falls back on pressagentry. Right now there's so much critical stuff in the article that I'm surprised no one has yet complained about WP:WEIGHT. But then the job becomes to find more positive stuff to balance it off.

There's a mention of Farmville in tomorrow's (Sunday) FoxTrot comics. My wife didn't want to believe me when I told her you could spend real money to buy virtual money to buy virtual chicken coops. --CliffC (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

libelous information and vandalism - William C. Rader wikipedia page

Dear CliffC,

Currently on William C. Rader page, CliffC - June 7 revision, there is libelous and untrue information. Also, some of the refrences link to dead pages.

Dr William C. Rader has been the target of a vicious smear campaign. They have used wikipedia and other posts to publish defamatory comments, impersonate Dr William C. Rader, and publish deceptive and misleading statements. The statements published on CliffC - June 7 revision contain numerous misrepresentations of fact that are provably false relating to Medra's business and Dr. Rader's trade and profession.

The revision posted by, 99.160.165.171 on May 20 2010, has correct information backed up by a published book by William C. Rader and other references.

William C. Rader page keeps being reverted back to the libelous information. Spreading falsities regarding the profession of another is injurious in the eyes of the law and constitutes actionable defamation, among other torts. In order to avoid further harm to Dr William C. Rader, can you please correct this problem.