User talk:Bennie Noakes

• Yo, referring to SKTFM's entry. Please ask the relivance of a topic in the discussion area, before you change or delete it. So far you have deleted the String Theory (which is the reality map concept from Tales from the Afternow in season 3), Then! You deleted the SKTFM.TV link without replacing it with the one at RANTMEDIA!!! http://sktfmtv.rantmedia.ca/

I have corrected your errors and please consult with others about possible changes.

--Nalos6 05:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that's there's just WAY too many links for someone of Sean's standing. Some of them are already in the body of the article, so why put them at the end, too? Why is the "string theory" considered crucial? My "consultation with others" (on the talk page) has shown me that there's nearly a consensus that the article is too long and rambling in the first place. Bennie Noakes

Ingraham

Thanks, I didn't catch that part about the "but monkey" and it being used as a term for male homosexuals. Having listened to the show a few times, I know it has nothing to do with that. The mere suggestion that she would say such a thing is unacceptable. I will petition that it be removed. Haizum 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if it should be removed. But it should be cited, as the origin of "butt monkey" is definitely not common knowledge. Bennie Noakes 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Hello, I'm writing you to determine if there is concensus amoung recent editors of What the Bleep Do We Know!? to remove it's NPOV tag. Please weigh in with your opinion on the talk page Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?. Thanks!! Adelord 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

notability

Of course that they are notable, I'd suggest you revert your last action or expand your explanation with a few more sentences. Lovelight 04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you base this notability on? Bennie Noakes 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Lovelight 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Read Talk:World_Trade_Center. This has been discussed before. This article is about the building, not the attacks, so conspiracy theory links are irrelevant. If you go to the Sept. 11 attacks page, the CT article is mentioned. Bennie Noakes 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, however, there is interlink to the collapse of the world center theory, which shouldn't be there if consensus decided against conspiracy theories… never mind, these double standards are everywhere. Lovelight 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

link to warning templates

This page might help you get started. Non-admins cannot block, but admins are much more able to block if the rest of us place proper warnings on the offender's talk page. There is also AIV, but, again, AIV needs to see the warnings in place first. Hope that helps ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 03:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Dreadstar has filed a 3RR report regarding your recent edits to the articles on What the bleep do we know!?. If you have reverted to an earlier page four or more times then you have broken Wikipedia's three-revert rule. You should undo your last reversion to avoid being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to comment or you believe you have not violated the rule then you may post here. Perspicacite 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of a reference

You can use a format such as:

<ref name="ABC">{{cite web | title=What the Bleep are they on about!? | url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/ | accessdate=2007-07-24}} ''Australian Broadcasting company</ref>

for the initial ref, then use the form <ref name="ABC"/> for other instances of the same link referenced in the same article. This cuts down on the number of duplicate entries in the References section. – Dreadstar † 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks! Bennie Noakes 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayanism

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Mayanism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Masters (commentator)

I'm asking the major contributors to Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) to see my request for participation in a research review leading up to a significant rewrite of the article. Please take a moment to see my comments at the top of that talk page. VisitorTalk 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Square

Please explain this edit. Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How would you find a reference for "elegance"? It's an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, a request for a citation seems ridiculous. ---Bennie Noakes (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an explanation. I agree that it was excessive and have removed the pov word. --DerRichter (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Hello Bennie Noakes. There is a discussion on the article talk page. You are welcome to participate. CassiasMunch (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. CassiasMunch invites you to the talk page then accuses of being a sockpuppet. Not cool. Thejka (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the “unexplained deletion” for which CassiasMuch accused you of being a sockpuppet, you may wish to look at this sockpuppet report: [CassiasMunch Sockpuppet. The Atlantic Monthly quote about Nader has been deleted many, many times by this sockpuppet. You are indeed "welcome to participate," but you may want to review the background first. CalBear44 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Removing the World Trade Center from video games and television shows is just overdoing it. It's not even the real thing. Have you ever heard of special effects? Besides, it doesn't matter. It's the real Twin Towers that mattered, we lost them. Television shows and popular culture do not need any interference with nine/eleven. Besides, it's been over seven years, SEVEN YEARS! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. That's more than 3,000 days!

Just wanted to clear that up so you know why editing the World Trade Center out is ridiculous and uncalled for. Bob.--99.141.167.0 (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neo (constructed language)

The article Neo (constructed language) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this is notable, lacks references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Bennie Noakes! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,303 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Inga Muscio - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)