User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Thanks

Thank you for protecting me so fast it was over before I noticed it.David in DC (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Guamrules2

Hi SI, I was looking at Guamrules2 (talk · contribs). S/he had only three edits and no warnings. Granted all three were vandalism but shouldn't there have been some warnings issued before blocking? (I admit it probably would have ended that way anyhow, but...) Aleta ^Sing 04:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought it worth asking you about it, but I won't undo it. I would have warned first, but like i said, I do think it probably would have ended the same way. I think your analysis is probably accurate; I just would have approached it slower than you did. Aleta ^Sing 04:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Subjective Advertising

Thanks for mking the Onion Juice Therapy content avaialble!!!! On the subject of advertising, I see your point I just think that funneling people to a website of anykind for any reason is similar to what we are doing in as much that increased trafic ups the chances that people will donate to a particular site. In effect it is all advertising and promotion to a point. I think the standard as always must be intent. Is this something you believe in and promote to help people or is it designed to bring in revenue to pay salaries - commercial or not. In our case there is no motivation other than to help people have a choice when making critical decisions about their own health. In some respects, every article on Wikipedia is advertising at everyone has something they want to sell to others - even if it is just ideas without profit. Again, the intention is everything in determining what could e perceived as advertising. The problem is that admin's o not have the time to dig very deep to determine that intent and frankly 99 out 0f a 100 cases the intent is to profit - no matter how it is packaged. Think tamks are very savy at presenting what appears to be independent analysis and research - but it is all advertising - all mememtics designed to change ideas, policy, funnel money to a PAC. I believe our approach, while different, is by far the most honest and upfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

Quite a few of my song articles could be considered short but broad, I guess. It's all about context. Something you might like to see would be WP:GAN/M (happy to do this for you if you like), if you'd rather get a second opinion on your reviews...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"How should we proceed?" - I suppose the easiest thing would be you find an article and start reviewing, and I'll gently breath on your shoulder observe. I've got a stack of useful essays and the like combined at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/GA tools if you're interested, but it may not be overly user friendly...feedback please! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monkeyking123

This user is back at Mountain Pointe High School, readding the same unsourced information here [1] even after you warned him not to on threat of block. Just thought I'd let you know, I didn't want to edit war over this since he obviously doesn't care about sourcing the section. Redrocket (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

and now i know. aren't you supposed to be writing? </post> Geek45 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

'On drama' quote

Just thought I'd let you know, I've taken your 'On drama' section from your UP to use as a quote on mine as I thought it summed up the whole 'WIKIDRAMAHZ!!!!1111' thing perfectly. Hope you don't mind [you, obviously, have full attribution!] Thanks.RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:35, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks better now. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry about 'fixing' it, I am something of a Grammar Nazi! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

From your userpage, thought you should know

Deleted Again

Hi! I contacted you before to retrieve my deleted page content. I made some changes that I felt addressed the issue and was promptly deleted again by the same admin - who you said was on borderline grounds for deleting in the first palce. I am a new user with I think much to contribute to Wikipedia - providing a not so often heard but globally legitimate perspective, but I am feeling that this process is abusive and a waste of my valuable time. Is there anyway to keep aggressive admins from attacking new users and letting them work through a process - or allowing peers to decide what is relevant and important, instead of one admin with an axe to grind or an ego that is uncontroled? It seems if an article does not contain a western bias, it gets hit hard. America is so limited in it's perspective - American's need to travel more. Such narrow perspectives. If it is not on CNN - must not be important or relevant. Pathetic!!!!!

I would appreciate any help, including the deleted file. Any way to lock this idiot out? Sorry forgot to sign JamesMMc (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Onion Juice Therapy

P.S. Seems this same admin has now deleted my username JamesMMc (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question

How can I tag a section to be revised to meet NPOV? the article is here the section is "Hardware Issues" hopefully, you will see what I mean. </post> Geek45 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email relating to your candidacy for the 2008 Board Election.

For the Election Committee, Daniel 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

John celona could use your help.

At this noticeboard. Please chime in asap. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep

It helped </post> Geek45 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Moo

You made me laugh today. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion due to banned user

Mr. Idealist - the Drug Policy project page was deleted, and although I agree that deleting pages created by a banned user is a valid reason for a quick purge, I put a fair amount of work into that myself to ensure NPOV (so as not to have some pothead banging the legalization drum) and to broaden scope from just prohibition to treatment options and distribution/regulation of legal drugs, as well as unofficial policy (such as Iran-Contra and the French Connection).

As I looked into the thus far scant List of Entheogens page, there was a question about listing the legality of each, and I responded with a comment about regional differences making this difficult. I think that the banned user had a good idea in looking into the Policy aspect of intoxicants, and 200 million illicit drug users (according to www.unodc.org) worldwide probably agree (as might the many more users of legal ones)! Might we discuss reviving the project, and what flaws in it you saw, if any, apart from its creation by a banned user? Regards - Clavius Centralis (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to assist with this project, it was deleted before I could join. --Abd (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I'm examining this issue, and will address it tonight when I have a few minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Too damn much rush around this place anyway.... --Abd (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I'll keep my eyes open. My email's posted as well if you have questions. Shamanchill (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Found one that was overlooked, and if you could please undelete, SarcasticIdealist, we'd appreciate it. Cagegory:WikiProject Drug Policy members. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You looked after that super quick, and just as I was about to add a second page as a minor edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy/Assessment. Thanks again, Shamanchill (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

SarcasticIdealist - could you please undelete the following:

• Unassessed Drug policy articles
• WikiProject Drug Policy articles

Thanks again - Shamanchill (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day up to his same old same old

[2] --Abd (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation is getting worse. See [3], where an AfD nominator removed strikeout I'd inserted and threatens to "report" me. See also [4], and contributions for the IP.

(This AfD is complicated because the article is about the public debate over Instant Runoff Voting, and thus part of what is sourced is opinion that ordinarily would not be considered reliable source, but which is reliable for the fact that the opinions are being expressed notably. The subject article was not a POV fork, it was created through a consensus of editors working on the main article, including editors affiliated with various POVs in conflict, as a means of exploring, in an NPOV fashion, the details of the debate, more thoroughly than was considered appropriate in the main article. WP:FORK specifically allows this as a matter of editorial consensus, but the nominator -- and Fredrick day -- are appealing to a knee-jerk reaction against kinds of sources that would, indeed, ordinarily be inadequate. Further, I'm in the process of adding secondary sources about the debate. They exist.) --Abd (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Thanks for granting me the rollback rights. Just so I understand a bit better -- is there anything special I have to do to use the feature, or will it apply to any reversion I make? GreenSarah (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave fork

Think it was previously deleted as a speedy. The first thing I thought when I saw it on the new pages list was that I was pretty sure someone had just got done deleting it. I think the first article might have been Dave Fork. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC) From deletion log "15:57, 16 May 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dave fork" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance) " Hope that helps Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for your contribution. I'm new in this and created the Britney Sixth Album article with limited knowledge and now im getting it fast. Mazenation (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Lara's userbox MfD

Please see my last comment there. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, both because I'm a Keep !vote, and because I'm the one who requested the closure, but there may be some merit to that suggestion (that the content was just moved to the userpage, rather than retained as a template-style Userbox). Do MFD's deal with individual content items on userpages? If so, then maybe this should stay open... The alternative, and one that might get wider discussion, would be WP:ANI, which I'm sure everyone would be thrilled about. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(moved from Equazcion's talk page) Frankly, I'm out of my element here, since I probably don't have the breadth of experience to evaluate the proper use of MFDs, and whether your proposed use of this one qualifies. I'd have no objection to somebody else undoing my close. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I started an ANI discussion regarding this -- WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for colorizing my reasons box.

I got frustrated by the process and said the hell with it. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

vote

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions

I see you there.

I can not read english well. :)

So, I decide by "only picture"!! :)

Have a nice day~ :) -- WonRyong (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I am working on my entry on the Constitution of the Roman Republic (and greatly expanding it into many other entries). For some reason, it seems to be marked for deletion. It doesn't say this on the top of the page. It only says this when I open the history part of the entry. To see an example, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic&oldid=212759111 and look at the bottom of the page. It says that it was marked on May 16. I can't tell who marked it. I have spent a lot of time on this, and don't want someone just deleting it.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question. I have another question. When I finish with my series (which will probably occur within a couple more weeks) I wanted to submit Constitution of the Roman Republic for per review. I would like to make it a featured article. I am still quite unfamiliar with the protocols of Wikipedia. Can you tell me if the article looks like it might be approaching featured article status?RomanHistorian (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can add many more references to Constitution of the Roman Republic. I have not added more because I wasn't sure how many references would be too many. I could probably add references to just about everything, but I thought that might be excessive. How do I know what the right balance of references would be?

Also, all of my references come from the four books at the bottom of the page. Do you think four books is enough for featured article status?

Finally, if featured articles are not your expertise, do you know a few people whom I can talk to about this?RomanHistorian (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will send a message to him. I wanted to get a better idea regarding the logic you were using. When I look at other Roman featured articles, such as the one on the Emperor Augustus, I see as many as 20 books being cited. Could you please give me a better idea of why you think that four books is a satisfactory number to cite from? Is it common for featured articles, even ones on subjects as unique as this one, to have only four sources for citation?RomanHistorian (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Little present

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		It seems every time i check my watchlist for the latest new pages i've tagged for deletion or vandal-tastic users who i'm waiting to be blocked, there's your username on every line. So this is just a quick thanks and reward for all your hard work deleting csd'd pages and blocking sockpuppets and similar. Enjoy! Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilovecallie...oooookay....

Thanks for taking care of that...whateveritwas. I have never even interacted with that user, which leads me to believe it might be a reincarnation of Jamesinc14, of whom I've been catching and reporting socks quite often in the past few days. The fact that he went after Azumanga pretty much doubles those suspicions... Anyway, thanks for catching and squashing....much appreciated! Gladys J Cortez 07:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sho Dozono

I've made some edits and responded to the points in your review. Thanks for taking the time to do a thorough review! VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything you brought up has been addressed, and the article has been updated now that the election is over. VanTucky 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Hi there, I saw your comments on related questions on the talkpage of WP:SOCK so I thought I'd ask for your opinion on this RfC. Part of the question I think needs to be addressed is if this editor has used multiple accounts in a way that is inconsistent with policy. User:WLU has tried to address this on the RfC talkpage, but received what I see as equivocal and evasive answers. If you have time to comment it would be much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Driscoll disambiguation

That's OK. I turned it into a disambig page because they can be very helpful. Firstly, both pages already had different titles and no page moves (leaving loads of links to fix) were needed. The page itself creates a list of the individuals and means the title can be listed in Category:Lists of ambiguous human names to track ambiguous names. It also makes identifying links that need to be disambiguated much much easier to identify as they point to a disambiguation page, rather than the wrong article, and are much more likely to be fixed to point to the right article (see Special:Disambiguations, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links which tracks these things, good place to start if you want to learn a bit about disambiguation and help out). I added a hatnote at Joseph Driscoll (Canadian politician) as it is possible a link may be mis-disambiguated, or people arrive at the article from outside, eg searching for Joseph Driscoll politician and they want the other article, and the link makes it much easier to find the disambig page and the other article (articles if it's expanded). Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions. mattbr 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello - when you did your stuff with the various Matthew McCauley pages, you conducted at least one copy and paste page moved. I've undone this, because copy and paste page moves violate the GFDL, because the page history is lost. After undoing all that, I've re-created Matthew McCauley (disambiguation) (although without the Wiktionary link, which seemed to me to serve no purpose, although I left Matthew McCauley pointing to Matthew McCauley (politician), just because there are a bunch of pages that currently link to Matthew McCauley intending it to be to the politician. If you want to change all of those links, feel free to point the main one back to the disambig. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how to do the moves best but wanted to be bold and get them done. I don't think your changes adversely affected any of my edits; your's just helped restore the page history for the politician...great job and thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

Hi,

You've answered a couple questions on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, could you answer one more? Thanks, WLU (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Would like a copy of Joquiste

That page was created by a couple of my friends as a harmless joke. I hope the wikipedia community wasn't offended and I really don't think that I damaged wikipedia because of it. But Hopefully you would be willing to provide me a backup copy. I was told, after my article was requested for a speedy deletion, that I could ask an administrator for such a request. - Cstarj (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More Fredrick day shenanigans

I made a report to AN/I at [5] about current edits of Fredrick day. He's basically been following me around, watching for opportunities to disrupt. Response to the AN/I report has not been swift, so I'm letting you know here. If you have any time, thanks for your attention, and, if not, thanks anyway. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy S word

I thought you had John in a corner on that Prison Sentence thing. He may be turning a corner attitude wise. Thanks for helping him. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Byrne

My bad. I checked the revision history and looked to be the same editor. How I missed that I don't know. Thanks for catching it. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Byrne

Yeah, Bearcat already informed me of my gaffe. In my head I really thought I had checked the history, but clearly I didn't. I'm guessing its time for bed. AniMate 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Permanent IP Block or Extended (5 Yr intervals)

Hi i want your opinon about an IP block, please click here for more info, its to do with an IP block. Im gathering opinions of multiple admins. Thanks

 Done Prom3th3an (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost password

Hi SarcasticIdealist.

This is GreenSarah. You granted me rollback privileges recently. To make a long story short - a hard drive crash has left me without my Wikipedia password. There's no email address associated with my account. Am I out of luck? Feel free to leave a response on my talk page. I'll find it there. GreenSarah (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.44.250 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of what I figured. I wanted to change my user name anyway, so maybe not such a big deal. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.33 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article

hi man, i made a page today that was very hastily deleted. i would like a copy sent to me please. and if u could find the time to indicate how i could make it legit that would be awesome. if not, thanks for ya time anyways. Robfranx (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help man, i got what i needed from the restored croydon click article. go ahead and delete it. thanks again Robfranx (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Kerry G. Johnson, not Milesaurus

Hello. Yes, I am Kerry G. Johnson. I'm not Milesaurus, BUT I know him. He informed me of what was happening with his Harambee Hills article. I reget that my webcomic title did not meet your Wikipedia standards. He told me he was a fan and wanted to support my efforts. especially after I told him about all the other webcomic entries on your site. Additionally, Harambee Hills does have a entry on Comixpedia AND a web site.

And about the edits to my own Kerry G. Johnson entry. I believe he also originally started that about 2 years ago. Though, I do and edit or clarify the content if I see any mistakes or for updating. It's not an actual autobiography, because I do have an online presence.

One last note, as Milesuarus, mentioned. I am an award-winning cartoonist and caricaturist. I do believe this is notable, because there are not many African-American professional cartoonist and caricaturist in our industry. Not to mention, cartoonist who were born in Nashville. Here are true to life examples: I have been contacted often by aspiring minority artists/cartoonists looking for source material for projects or book reports. So in closing, I am not a novice in this industry, my accolades, illustrated books and awards have proven that.

Perhaps you can also rethink Milesauarus Harambee Hills entry?

Sincerely,

Kerryjohnson (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, give me a few days

Okay, give me a few days to gather the info. I will update the reference content in the next few days. Who is Steve, do you mean Milesaurus? Also, after I add the third-party reference information, can the administrator please remove the "tags"? (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

- Kerry G. Johnson

Yarrow

There is a pending compromise offer [[6]] on both the prison sentence and on the "category" dispute. While VERY imperfect, I have gone along with this in an extreme display of the 'spirit of compromise". John celona (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my full support

I supported your request for adminship and I also support your campaign for the board. I have placed your banner on my talk page. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

However,

This is precisely hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle. David in DC (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Who would you vote for?

Re your board vote ranking: I agree with your 1, 2, and last, but I don't understand your 3rd position for Kohs - did you read his Wikispecies answer? Even worse, his wikipedia edits and the things he's posted on dozens of other sites? -- Jeandré, 2008-06-04t21:58z

Well...

I would vote for you, but I don't have enough edits :( good luck though!</post> Geek45 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Html challenged

I am not sure how to set up my user page in the way you suggested. I am a non typist as well. But I am still willing to give it a go if you can coach me as how to get it started. I am hoping that the expansion will quickly become a group effort. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Timeshift9#Blocked

FYI, Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to unblock Timeshift9 (talk · contribs). Her justification suggests she was under the incorrect impression that it was for removing the warnings that had been "sanctimoniously added back". Despite my requests that she discuss it with you (the blocking admin), despite Timseshift9's persistent incivility (I have been watching it for months) and despite her obvious familiarity with Timseshift9 (from their similar contributions), Rebecca considered it prudent to unilaterally counter another administrator's action then go offline. Therefore I reinstated the original block length until it is properly discussed. Rockpocket 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked him again for the original period to reinstate the status quo. Consider it your block, so if you wish to unblock at any time feel free to do so without consulting me. Rockpocket 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret the reason for the block, as I explained on Rockpocket's talk page. Rather, it's about dispute resolution.

Here, you had a good user who was angry after some pretty sanctimonious warnings had been re-added to their talk page a number of times. In the circumstances, what could possibly be hoped to be achieved by blocking them for incivility, apart from creating a load of drama and potentially causing them to get so furious they quit? It sure isn't going to calm them down, and it isn't going to make them any less abrasive, so what's the point? There are better ways of dealing with these things.

Thank you for unblocking the reblock, and letting the matter die. However, it's worth thinking, especially when you're dealing with established users, "will a block here actually help things, or will it just generate drama?" Rebecca (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Timeshift has been making those sorts of poisonous comments for, literally, months. I have had two editors, independently, request my assistance in dealing with his attacks. So, what do you suggest one does to make him less abrasive, because that sort of behaviour is not really acceptable when it is driving other editors away? (and that is not a rhetorical question, if you have a better solution, I would like to hear it). Rockpocket 08:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think a better way could have been found to deal with it, I don't strongly object to the block and wouldn't have done it myself - although I agree with the reasons for unblock.

However I just wanted to respond to the above points by Rockpocket. Being a user of 2 years and more standing on the relevant projects and having watched the intractable dispute between various parties along with other admins for some time, I'm confused as to how he has come to this conclusion - although I could almost bet on which two users it was, and point to examples where their behaviour has been as bad or worse. It should be noted the dispute being referred to is limited to at most four articles (of which Timeshift is involved in two), that there are two very definite "camps" each with a mix of tendentious users intent on rewriting history and good faith users who are unfortunately prone to react to the excesses of others in a manner not entirely consistent with Wikipedia expectations of behaviour. I would classify Timeshift in the latter category. Each side has for as long as I can remember been trying to get the other wiped from Wikipedia in order that they can "win". I don't even think anyone who could be driven away is still there - previous disputes were remarkably efficient at removing such from the scene, which is one of the articles' biggest problems. Some of the worst disputants who got the battle started aren't even with us any more - one was effectively community banned and another is serving a three-month block for stalking one of the others (his second for the same offence). I've talked privately to individuals of all sides and good faith doesn't even remotely exist between the parties. There has been occasional discussions between admins who watch the area - especially around December last year when it was hitting AN/I every 4-8 hours - regarding what to do in this area, but in my view it must be approached as a whole-of-area problem, involving ArbCom if we're not able to resolve by other means.

I'd also note that outside these 2-4 articles I have seen Timeshift edit very well and interact well with other users. Orderinchaos 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Idiot" is hardly the most incendiary attack in the English language. I've had reason to call others that on a few occasions, and it hasn't led to cataclysmic things. There's plenty of users around who are really good editors, who do a lot of terrific work, and generally work fine with others, but are a bit abrasive and sometimes need to be handled a bit carefully.

It's the nature of working on a broad project like this. You can barge in and chase them off - but you'd be losing a huge amount of great content for not a whole lot of gain - or you can deal with issues with a bit of care as they come up. I've worked with the guy for a couple of years, and I don't recall ever seeing him drive anyone else off, so the fact that he's a bit terse? It really ain't doing any harm. Several of the best editors I've worked with on Wikipedia have been similar. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is far to much defense of abusive communication going on here. I think this sort of apologist attitude towards personal attacks, and the idea that established users should be given more freedom towards personal attacks contrary to the well being of Wikipedia. _{1 != 2} 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

I will likely start working on it later on tonight. I will likely be moving at a snails pace. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any Ideas about how to go about including the others in the expansion.? Should we wait a bit or do it right away ?  :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then I will do it sometime before they all wake up, Also do feel free to go ahead and tell them yourself. It may go over better if you tell them. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

I heard you mention it as a possible solution for the Yarrow article conflict. Do you see any hope for the mediation ? Can the mediation continue during a probation period ? And or are you willing to back an Rfc against Jkp aimed at an article ban against him ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

See here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Freebutchers Updated Sources

There is now a source of information for the freebutchers. www.freebutchery.com The page should continue to exist.Crimsondeath4 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondeath4 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The group is underground trying not to get attention, but they would like to be known as true group. Freebutchery is a small religion and is growing with time, what does it take to create a religion? I am not sure how many people it takes, or what is the correct measures, but this group is a small group believing in the god of Meatzus.Crimsondeath4 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondeath4 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

meta: board election - question regarding Wikiversity

Hello Steve, since there are only a few days left until end of election I personally hope I still can see your response about this question regarding Wikiversity. Thank you very much in advance, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. Have a nice time, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiana General Assembly

Hi, thanks for you review. I have addressed most of the issues you pointed out in the GA review. I am going to continue adding more inline citation today, beyond what you suggested. If you would be so kind as to reassess and follow up with a couple of the questions I asked it would be appreciated. Thanks Charles Edward 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the heads up. And good luck! MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statusbot is dead.

The category only exists because people are using it, but the purpose of it was shut down, and I believe there are more informative tools. Perhaps you know someone who can address all of the relevant user talk pages with a message like this.BrewJay (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Ed Stelmach

Heh, it's definitely not a quick fail candidate. I grabbed it, as being from Alberta, I have enough knowledge of Stelmach's background to assist in determining the comprehensiveness of the article. It's not quite a pass yet, but it is close. I'll have my comments up shortly. Regards, Resolute 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left my review at Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1 and watchlisted the article. Drop me a line when you believe it is ready for a second look, and I'll review again. Thanks, Resolute 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Following your latest edits, I have passed this as a GA. Congratulations! Resolute 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that expansion of Stelmach's personal/family/pre-political section would be the most important thing to expand for a FA. The article is pretty good at what he does as a politician, but is lacking on who he is. More images of Stelmach would help. Some of the sections might benefit from a little more filling out. My two FA's are both sports teams, and I haven't a ton of experience with biographies, so I'd suggest looking at FAs of politicians for more ideas. FA reviewers are very strict about reference style. i.e.: ref's 3, 5 and 10 (and others) dont list the publisher. That would get picked up on. I'd recommend a Peer review as well. Good luck!

You look like Steve Jobs

(I said it in the admins IRC channel, so it would only be right that I said it to your face.) MessedRocker (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing. :) Also, no logs are available (any logs that do exist are contraband). MessedRocker (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

His talk pages are up for Speedy deletion under U1, as well... am I missing anything here? Is there a reason to (or not to) delete these pages? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That is my thinking as well, but wanted to make sure there wasn't more to it before doing anything. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Politicians

It hasn't always been added to all articles, but it generally seems to be accepted practice. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Accusations of vandalism

Hi, it seems like there has been a grave misunderstanding on your part. I am not unjustly accusing him of vandalism. I never accuse a person, if i have no evidence to back it up.

First of all, he removed the Italian American and Neapolitan-American categories from the Joseph Esposito, while the article clearly stated that Esposito was Italian American and born in Naples. Moreover, he reverted my edit and falsely claimed that "the article DOES NOT state he is either Italian or Neapolitan" in the article's history page, while there was evidence to the contrary. Is this working in Good faith? If he didnt even have sufficient time to even go through the article completely, then he should not have done the edit, in the first place.

Also, with the exception of a web link, the entire information about Esposito, including his ethnicity and place of birth, is derived from the books which are listed in the references section of the article. Well, correct me if i am wrong, but removing relevant information from the article, while it is properly sourced, and furthermore, lying about it, does appear to constitute Vandalism to me.

Also, please note that i do not have any personal grudge or animosity against him, for i dont even know him. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk)

Look, I dont mean to say that any editor who justifies his edits is committing vandalism. Thats ridiculous! The fact that he removed relevant information of Esposito's ethnicity from the article, while it was properly sourced and mentioned in the article, and lied about it in the edit summary, led me to assume that his edits were not done in good faith. At least, not in any true sense of the word. Joyson Noel (talk)

The one link on the page made no mention of any Italian or Neapolitan ancestry. The above user then stated the source was named books which are NOT available online. I have accepted that for this specific case, although I think it is poor practice in general since, as you are well aware, other users have completely made up contents of an alleged newspaper article online and this can happen all too easily. In any event the Esposito matter is closed as far as I am concerned. John celona (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source is about the Unione Siciliana, not Joseph Esposito. Esposito is only mentioned once in the source. It just contains one line mentioning the presence of Esposito at Angelo Genna's funeral, which is as follows: Among the mourners were a state senator, two state representatives, 'Diamond Joe' Esposito, and Al Capone. I believe that this source was used in the article to back up the fact that Esposito was present at Genna's funeral. However, i totally agree with Celona that false references can be made to fictitious books. As far as the references to the books in the article are concerned, i cannot prove for a fact that the books do exist, neither can i disprove it. The edits which i have made to the article are only minor, and the references to those books were not added by me.Joyson Noel (talk)

User:Timeshift9

Regarding this edit it is obvious he has not learned to be civil to other users, despite your previous warnings and actions. Corey Temperature (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hatfield GA review

Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed all the issues or explained my reasoning. Let me know if there is anything else, or if all the changes screwed anything up. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi-- I think I addressed the remaining issues here (though I didn't understand one of them), and I think AM might be a little occupied off-wiki these days...hope this wraps it up! I'll keep an eye on the talk page though. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the passage. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

+ Points for hilarity

Added bonus for having to explain it. Antelan^talk 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please let me know if he doesn't" (or "No kind offer goes unpunished")

Regretably he hasn't. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed "consensus" for your own viewpoints where such consensus clearly doesn't exist is in any way improprer. John celona (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rush. Real life is more important. It's kind of you to monitor this at all. The behavior isn't going to change. David in DC (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one. David in DC (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Please stop sending me links to articles I already know about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

_{Please note that the above comment was added, not by Jimbo, but by Pontorg (talk · contribs). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)}

Don't you have anything better to do?

I mean really, you love to shove your opinion down other's throats and go around censoring completely relevant comments. Get off my dick. --Mista-X (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

John celona

I'm not sure if this is relevant, as there is no way to actually prove this, but I've been convinced sine first encountering John that he was the reincarnation of User:Tommypowell. Both user and talk page have been deleted, but as an admin you can see them. You'll notice that both were active in discussions about Brent Corrigan, a porn star who may or may not have been underage when he started doing films. [7] [8] They were both quite active in the discussions surround Michael J. Devlin's kidnapping of two young boys, both being quite angry about censorship. They both insert the exact same sentence about nudity into Tom Sawyer (1973 film). [9] [10] I'm fairly certain this isn't actionable or conclusive, but I'm also 100% sure that I'm right. Could any of the similarities between John and Tommypowell be beneficial to the RFC? AniMate 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice job. The evidence that John celona is Tommypowell is conclusive, for me, and we didn't even need a checkuser! Tommypowell was indefinitely blocked on February 7, 2007. The John celona account was created on February 11, 2007. They also edited some of the same pages. So basically, John celona is a block-evading sock that was never caught. And to think, John celona was responsible for derailing my RfA when he should've been indefinitely blocked! Am I a bit bitter? Yeah, you could say that... Enigma ^message 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I've suspected this for over a year, and probably should've made more noise when things were fresh. AniMate 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It greatly impacts things, because as soon as an admin became aware (I guess they didn't), John celona should've been blocked indefinitely. Enigma ^message 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This admin certainly wasn't aware (I've never even heard of Tommypowell). I agree that the evidence is overwhelming, but I'm in job interviews all morning. I'll take action this afternoon, when I have some time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona‎

I would like to commend you for the work you did in compiling the evidence for the RfC. Excellent job. This was sorely needed. Enigma ^message 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the evidence you put together on AN. Also great work. Way more than enough to convince any unbiased third party that John celona is Tommypowell. It's just unfortunate that he was allowed to get away with abuse for this long. Enigma ^message 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what shall we do with the RfC? Enigma ^message 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona and mediation privilege

Hi Sarcasticidealist. I've had to remove a few diffs from the request for comment as you referenced a formal mediation case. Per Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation, mediations undertaken by the Mediation Committee are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings such as RfCs or ArbCom cases. Best wishes, WjBscribe 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel

I'm going to go ahead with this, assuming your offer to nominate me stands. Please follow instructions at WP:RFA/N and we'll take it from there. Also see the "editor review" link in my signature. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

Don't you see the messages I leave here? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Testing... Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the e-mail. Okay. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Steve

I stumbled upon your page and had to comment. I was unaware that you had so much prominence here! I was aimlessly surfing around Edmonton/Alberta political articles and you kept popping up, then I saw your pitch at the board of governors election on Meta-Wiki. I am thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of Wikipedia technical mumbo-jumbo. --C civiero (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically "silent" on my account, but I have made occasional anonymous edits. Mostly to fix politically loaded terminology on articles, which is(in my experience, at least) a much greater problem on wikipedia than factual inaccuracy. It's something that people can easily get away with if they are even remotely sly about it, while factual errors are usually fixed pretty quickly on articles that receive decent traffic.

Anyways, I figured coming across your page was as good an excuse as any to see if I remembered my old password. Have a good one. --C civiero (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fern

Hi there -- would you mind taking another look at Fern Hobbs, which you placed on hold? I've done a fair amount of work. Would be good to know if you consider it good enough for GA, or think more work is needed on writing quality, etc. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow missed those inline comments. Got it now, I think I addressed your concerns. thanks again! -Pete (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure I addressed your concerns in the last few days. I'm sure there's still room for improvement, but for now I feel like I'm done, hopefully it's up to GA standards. -Pete (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

don't feel silly you did good.

You are a good administrator. 1 good Eguor admin is worth 4 of the less tolerant variety.Here is what the admin who finally blocked John had to say. Be well and stay as neutal as you always have been. You did good. :Albion moonlight (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I meant every word of it. Albion moonlight (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Darkspots (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did not intend to be mysterious. Reverting the edits of a banned user off my talk page a few minutes ago: [11]. Darkspots (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, figured that you had just rolled everything back, after I posted. Agree with your sentiment, but my spidey sense tells me 2 months is optimistic. Darkspots (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

We did not revert the same item for the fourth revert on Fastest with the Mostest. It was a simple edit explaining an action that was somehow removed by a bot. Andrewb1 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello Sarcasticidealist! :) I guess you saw that I replied back to your comment on my talkpage. However, I am just wondering...How am I doing? Let me know. Hope to hear from you soon! Have a nice day! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ta da!

a prize!

Hows about that?! - A prize for you (don't worry, it's only a light beer......) - here's hoping you might join the 'improve PM' effort over there..... - now quick! say something wise and meaningful.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

something to go with

Your note

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wile E. cartoon deletion

So why have only two of the three cartoon summaries that I created under this controversy been redirected back to the main page, and the third one, plus the other 13 I have written, been untouched? Andrewb1 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Why would any of those guidelines apply to these two only, rather than all 16? Andrewb1 (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please read my comments on her talk page. I am accusing her of meatpuppetry at the very least. She is not an editor of good standing - she is a single purpose editor with the same editing pattern as the other confirmed sockpuppets and found to be a possible sockpuppet by checkuser. The pattern of her editing gives rise at the very least to meat puppetry. The tag in my view is strongly justified. --Matilda ^talk 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Happy for you to escalate to a noticeboard to gain further views. Note possible is not the same as inconclusive checkuser result. --Matilda ^talk 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You may wish to link to a previous discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism on the same topic --Matilda ^talk 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I have replied invoking WP:DUCK and setting out my rationale - I hope clearly. If you think I need to add anything or disagree further please let me know. Regards Matilda ^talk 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cohen

Please stop forcing your opinion of Cohen NOT being controversial on the Leonard Cohen page. His actions are controversial, and its something all us fans have to face up to. We don't need to vandalise Wiki pages pretending that refusing the BBC the right to broadcast or record anything from his Glastonbury is anything other than controversial. Find me one other performer that has done so, because many of us have searched around and dug up nothing. Therefore it is a controversial move, to be the first to do this. Controversy does not have to be negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.238.215 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Xenocidic#Trolling

Check out JeanLatore's new sock and what he's said at my talk page. What (if any) action should be taken? I've already indef'ed the account - what I'm concerned about is if we should look into his subtle claim that he's been messing up articles? Am I just feeding the troll right now? –xenocidic (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, I just noticed you got the message as well. –xenocidic (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let me know if you need any help; though my knowledge of the U.S. court system is slim to none. –xenocidic (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got the same message as well, but my knowledge of court cases is best summed up as none... I think we would be best off asking an expert to fact check any of the articles that JL edited or created... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reblock of User:OfficeMax

Because the admin who imposed the original block was on Wikibreak, I went over to AN/I to report the user's violation of the terms of the unblock. There I found that you'd already reblocked. Nice work! JamesMLane t c 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your deleting of an article that recently survived AfD

Could you please explain why you saw fit to overrule the outcome of this deletion debate from less than a week ago? The fact that the article was contributed by a banned user has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the topic.and your action was blatantly out of process (CSD, PROD, AFD). Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at my talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of basic tort law topics

It was pretty bad off when I started trying to rescue that. I was thinking that by putting an effort not to make it look like an outline of notes from a class on common law (which is what it looked like), he'd start to get a clue. It didn't seem to be the case; anyway, the article itself ended up as basically the beginning paragraph of the articles on each subject mentioned in the list. I think that it's mildly useful for navigational purposes, but with the air of being originally created by a user in bad standing, maybe it would be best to start the whole thing over again. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Ken_allred.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ken_allred.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Boumediene v. Bush

was not the creation of a banned user. It was a section of Boumediene v. Bush that s/he just spun off into a seperate article. If you don't want to recreate it, maybe you'd like to reinsert it into Boumediene v. Bush . Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to deletion discussions

I was looking through some broken redirects, and came across List of property concepts in common law. You said it was recreation of stuff deleted by a deletion discussion, but in the edit summary you haven't linked to the deletion discussion. Normally, "what links here" would take me to the deletion discussion, but that doesn't work here. Do you think you could: (a) point me to the deletion discussion; and (b) link to the deletion discussion in the deletion logs? I know it can be a pain to do so, but it saves a lot of time if someone like me is trying to work out what happened. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Is always good to check it once in a while. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you deal with this newbie? User talk:Y'b Pimp D. He just don't listen. He uploads non-free content and use it. Just check my messages I left on his talk page. He's also uploading images that already exists and the back cover of an album. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance at its best. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped him a polite warning - non-free images are a fairly complicated area of policy, so it's possible he just needs some help. I agree that his uploads have been problematic, though, and that they can't continue; if they do, please let me know (and I'll get on it more quickly than I did this time). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now he's been removing the quotation marks from the songs titles. Of course, this goes against the MoS. I have left also a warning about this in his talk page. But I think I've had enough from him. I suggest a block. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've echoed your warning and linked to the specific portion of the MOS he's violating. I'll block him if he repeats any behaviour after a warning, but as long as he corrects his behaviour when he's told too, I don't see anything blockable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He added unsourced content that needs verification: [12], [13]. Block? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him about this. So far he hasn't continued problematic behaviour after warnings, so I don't see a reason for a block at this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request email of deleted stub Davide Marocco

stub was speedy deleted under section A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Apparently there's some question of his notability. Davide Marocco and another researcher Stefano Nolfi are currently doing research in AI, from a unique angle dealing with language development. I had added some material to the main AI article in which I referenced work done by Marocco... which you can find here [14].

The material was later deleted from the main AI article because of it's specific nature and the fact that the AI article is already very long and needs to be cut back. The research is important and if I find a good place for it, I will reintroduce the research.. in which case I will want the Davide Marocco stub again.... So right now the stub is not really important but I would like a copy of it, if in case, I find a good place to add how language evolution is currently being tested in AI cognisance.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

I don't think calling someone else's comments "ludicrous"[15] is polite or professional behavior from someone running for the Board of Trustees. Seriously...request you tone it down.--MONGO 02:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikimedia Commons

Hey Steve, thanks for fixing the error on my user page. I must say, I'm a little creeped out. Good luck with your move! Nick.wiebe (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't badgering

This is badgering ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)

Just wanted to say, I was very impressed with your closing of this AFD. I expected it to be closed as 'no consensus', and argued on the Talk page that it should be as such - but your comments convinced me otherwise. That was a very logical and well-thought-through conclusion to a heated debate over a highly controversial article. I'm sure other users will disagree, but I just wanted to say, nicely done! Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that I concur with Terraxos here. I've participated in a couple of very diffult to close AfDs lately, and each time the administrator performing the close has done admirably well. Keep up the good work. S. Dean Jameson 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Brilliant closure. I'd give you a wiki-defender barnstar but I don't want to clog up your talk :) Sceptre ^(talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A useful and well thought through close, the argument may rumble on but I think you comments will diffuse a lot of initial anger for those who wanted it kept and lead to more constructive editing. (Anyone else; more like this on contested ones please) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate you for writing a tome for a closure. While there are no guarantees, your detailed explanation of why you made your decision is less likely to be disruptive than would a simple Consensus was Delete, which I've seen in the past with contentious AfDs, and which I found appalling. And practically an incitement to DRV, i.e., more fuss. I'm not convinced that Merge wouldn't have been a better closure, since it would leave the content more generally available for possible merge where appropriate, but anyone who wants to Merge can get a copy of the content, you're one of the admins who will do that! Good work, even spectacular work! --Abd (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and candor (and think it was entirely appropriate to write about your reasoning at length), but you misused the term "average." To identify those votes that are either unsubstantiated or substantiated in irrelevant factors is fine; and to take them out of the "count" as it were, is also fine. But what you're left with isn't a reduced average - what you're left with is a smaller number of votes on one side. And I think you'd agree that "punishing" one side because a few of the votes were poorly reasoned, doesn't make any sense. It's obviously a judgment call whether a vote along the lines of "Delete per User:xxx" is of much higher quality than a rambling, somewhat incoherent vote on one side or another. And while I appreciate the effort that it would take to prove whether ChrisO engaged in votestacking by picking who he solicited to vote or not, I think there is an ample possibility that he did this that a consensus of any kind is hard to ascertain. So, while I certainly admire your courage and decisiveness in this messy matter, the decision was poorly reasoned. I'm not going to launch a DRV, as I'm sick and tired of the whole topic in general and the futility of actually reasoning more specifically. --Leifern (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have one or two minor quibbles with the decision, but overall I think this is one of the best, most closely-reasoned closes I have seen recently. Congratulations. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I echo Relata's comments - your thoroughness in this close does you great credit. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the crowd thanking you for thoroughness. Every time some Wikipedia editor explains his or her thinking it lets the rest of us confirm (in the only way possible) that the editor was taking the matter seriously and sincerely, and you just did that. (I guess it also lets us confirm lack of seriousness and sincerity, but you didn't do that.) I take issue with a few points though: The UN convention on apartheid is actually so broad in scope that it encompasses everything I can think of as racial discrimination, even by individuals and not states (just look down the definitions in Articles 1 & 2; particularly Article 1 (2) and Article 2 (a) and (c) -- definitions broad as the Great Plains). The more informal allegations of apartheid would be covered by this broad definition, and even if they weren't formal complaints presented to a legal authority, that shouldn't matter -- they're a list of examples connected to the central concept "crime of apartheid". I think the UN Convention definition or any treatment of racial discrimination worldwide would give you the encompassing source you were looking for (I don't think you could have meant a single source that encompassed all individaul allegations). This article really worked like a list, and I think all items on the list were linked through the broad definition in the UN convention. (I also think this overcomes arguments that WP:OR or WP:SYNTH were going on here.) If there were a really limited number of murders in the world and we had an article about "Worldwide allegations of murder" we'd have a similar situation (minus the BLP violations). Nor would it matter if the allegations were formal or informal if they were adequately sourced. Anyway, I think it should be merged, so I'm not interested in appealing it to DRV. I really just wanted to get this off my chest. Thanks for thinking about it and showing us your reasoning. Noroton (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Syncrude Picture

Hi there, I took the picture during my coop job at Syncrude and originally uploaded it a couple years ago. I was (and remain) pretty fuzzy on all the licensing stuff, I just wanted to release it for whatever. I'm not sure what Jamitzky did to it... TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lo-Ji Sales v. New York

Hi, I see you deleted this article as a CSD G4. It's been recreated, but I'm not sure if by the same banned user. Might be worth your attention. Thanks- L'Aquatique[review] 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it with this. In the first AN/I diff, Homotlfqa83 says Why does wikipedia have like a vendetta agaisnt this fine actor? Is it because he's French. And I know at some point JeanLatore said something like "don't worry, they don't like me because I'm French". Damifino where, I've looked, but I know he said it. And he identifed as French in RfA #2. Darkspots (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

I was confused. Now if we can just dump the ridiculous Israel and the apartheid analogy or whatever that bit of anti-Israeli propaganda now calls itself I will be happy. Anyway, thanks for jumping in. How did you do that so fast, lol? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

D'oh!

I didn't see you appended the case (people usually write at the bottom when they are lazy, or create a new subsection). I fixed the mess, sorry ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed Stelmach: Your first FA! —Giggy 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: RFCU archiving

Hey Sarcasticidealist, sorry you missed you, you dropped me a note right as I was logging off. It looks like someone else already got to it, but for future reference you simply add {{subst:rfcua}} to the top and {{subst:rfcub}} to the bottom achieving your goal of having the previous case no longer transculde onto the RFCU mainpage, the thing is that is only the first step in archiving the request and the other steps are not so easy seeing as they must all be done by hand. I would be happy to walk you through the other steps or you are more than welcome to just drop me a note when you have used the archiving templates and I will just archive the request for you (I really do not mind). Oh, and "Who's there?" Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done.

Re your closure of Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination): I was thinking of voting "weak keep" but returned too late, after the discussion was closed. I read your closure and have not read the whole discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate you for doing a good job on the closure. You clearly did a lot of thinking and expended effort to try to arrive at a fair result. Thank you for braving one of the more difficult Wikipedian tasks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Josh Hamilton

Hello Sarcasticidealist. Thank you for blocking the user. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And the comment you posted on User talk:Josh Hamilton was impressive. He could be innocent. We have to assume good faith. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

your message

I have responded to the email you sent me with the information you requested. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

and again. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't know what email there has been, and don't want or need to know, but.... Fredrick day is a highly sophisticated user, perfectly capable of arranging a mail server anywhere. I'd be more comfortable with a checkuser result that shows that the account he's been using for thousands of edits isn't colocated with Fredrick day. If he is using a proxy for that, well, he's not going to be detected with checkuser, my guess. But that would be a lot of trouble. Odd, when he was asked before to communicate with a trusted administrator about his identity, he refused. Could it be that he really doesn't want that checkuser to happen? Please do look at the checkuser case, the first comment on it was inclined to dismiss it as insufficient; you know Fredrick day fairly well and would be more likely to make a decent judgment. I sat on this for almost a month, thinking the evidence wasn't adequate to identify Allemandtando as Fredrick day, but then noticed the coincidence of my AfD vote and his immediate registration, voting the next day and clearly being very involved with the issue. (He edit warred with Shereth over it.) --Abd (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See my most recent comments in the checkuser case; Allemandtando has "retired." He did it before, when it got very hot in AN/I, I reference the prior "retirement" there. This would be very consistent with Fredrick day; this account was a throwaway, nothing invested in it, he can simply do the same over again, maybe a little less blatantly this time; but I think he enjoyed the fuss. His interaction with me was a *tiny* percentage of his editing work here, so, for an experienced user -- which he clearly was -- it doesn't make sense that he'd come completely unglued at a very low level of confrontation, there was no need for him to respond at all. SSP report? Really? I've been SSP'd and checkusered, big deal! Unless, of course, I had had something to hide. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Josh Hamilton

He posted an email address for you to contact him, which seemed to meet the requirements. I've deleted it from the history, so you'll be able to see it in deleted edits, and take it from there. --Stephen 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know a US sports email address if it bit me, but a new registration = fake id. Just Josh@ without a surname was also a red flag, and he also didn't mail in to OTRS, either. It was stretching my good faith assumption which has now broken under the strain! --Stephen 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Josh Hamilton is an imposter. He supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[16] few minutes after creating his account. Why would Mr. Hamilton, a baseball player, be interested in the RfA of Finalnight? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel

Please look at this. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me

Please explain what this is all about? I have not been on the computer for ever and today I get on and I am blocked. I am CWatchman. My url is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CWatchman

Thank you very much.

CWatchman

I could not find your email address you referred to . Please let me know how to find it. We have one computer here at our small Bible College that several people use and I have often discussed with our students how AGCwebman, Nicotheus, BlazinPaddles, DennisB, etc, was the same individual that was attempting to libel one of our teachers (Dr. Ward) by posting things online. Unfortunately someone decided to fight fire with fire. However I find it difficult to believe Chuwils (Dr. Wilson) himself would do such a thing. I myself, have been away from the computer for awhile. I now have to figure out who did what and when. Records should reveal that sometimes my posts came from the schools computer and other times from my home computer, which is the one I am now using. There have been posts in Wikipedia pretending to be Dr. Ward. One post was allegedly Dr. Ward admitting he was a "theological terminator", a liar, and other such nonsense that no one would ever say about themselves. Most of these have been since deleted. Much of it was written and then immediately deleted in order to insure it would be permanently recorded in the Edit History and available for search engines to pull out in the future. This attack has been going on for some time. One of our teachers family has even received threats over the telephone. This is a very complicated, convoluted, mess that will take some time to figure out. In a private email I would feel more comfortable revealing my identity and those that I am aware that are involved in the libel scam as well as those involved in retaliation. Your assistance would be most appreciated. Thank you very much, CWatchman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.99.29 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

You've got something here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebirth?

Have you seen this [17] ? Let's please not allow this to happen again unchecked..Thanks --Jkp212 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Got your note. Thank you! --Jkp212 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help

What on earth should I do with this? Enigma ^message 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User is making borderline disruptive comments, and then refusing to read his messages or discuss his actions. Enigma ^message 05:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick scan of talk history reveals that he's received warnings before, and promptly removed them. Very disturbing behavior. Reminds me of this bit of idiocy. Enigma ^message 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Response was to enlarge the image on his talk. Heh. Enigma ^message 05:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided to leave a message after I saw this. Behavior is getting worse, if anything. RfBs are not a joke. Enigma ^message 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The blanking of the last two warnings is the last straw for me. I'm indenting the votes, and I recommend some kind of block. Enigma ^message 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just discussed with SQL. Dumpster just removed more warnings without responding. Enigma ^message 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed a version

Thank you for helping to clear BLP violation versions on Ctrl+Alt+Del. In one of your edits you removed this version but I see in your most resent purge it was restored again. Any continued assistance with this article and BLP vios is much appreciated as this seems to be the main crux right now for the article. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lemonsquares

If that editor is John Celona and has the good sense to keep his mouth shut and not be disruptive he will have defeated his enemies without firing a single shot. I have put him on my watchlist and will be following his edits with a sense of amusement. Albion moonlight (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk

Don't worry about it - you've done some great review work and we don't plead for you to do one every time (well, actually, we do... this is added to your IOU list). —Giggy 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it bother you

Does it bother you, and your cohorts, that no matter how much time, effort, money you guys dump into Wikipedia.....it will never gain credibility? It has to. Nothing anyone of you can do can gain that. Not even 1st and 2nd graders can use any of the information in the terabytes of information stored here. It's essentially a forum. So maybe all of you "admins" or whatever you call yourselves should get off that high-horse. That will be all. RIP bottom dollar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.58.16.27 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bull shark

Hi Sarcasticidealist,

Maybe I'm being paranoid by checking this with you, but I presumed this is what you meant to do here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards BLP problem

Hi Steve - see my note on the BLP noticeboard - semi-protection is not stopping the problem, because a couple of existing editors are tag-teaming and adding problematic material that needed to be reverted. The sources they are using - the content of the sources and even the titles of the articles they are citing - include potentially libelous material that is sourced only to the National Enquirer, and so I believe those source articles and their titles should not be allowed into our piece at the present time. (And I believe this is wrong - User:Therefore's reverts were of BLP violations, so shouldn't they be exempt from 3RR?) On top of all of this, this problematic stuff is being added without consensus to do so - the situation is deteriorating and I think we need some admin input. Thanks for any help and advice you can give on this. Tvoz/talk 05:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I will. I plan to stick to following the BLP pages as it's an important area that needs careful watching. --Claude Jour (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA review of Charles Mathias

Thank you very much for your lengthy review of the article. Constructive criticism is certainly appreciated since I would like to get the article to featured status, so I'll work on addressing all of your issues soon. Regarding references, if there is only one ref for an entire paragraph, then everything in that paragraph comes from the source mentioned. I.e., I mostly relied on newspapers, so each paragraph with only one ref can be considered an "issue" that a newspaper article may have covered. As for his earlier life/career, I'll try to find some more material, but I didn't come across much information during my initial search. Thanks again! --Tom (talk - email) 02:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

shivraj patil

you can't protect a psge if the information in it is provided with proper reference

1 http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/may/13rajblast.htm 3 http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Blast-toll-revised--21-blasts--more-than-50-dead/341374/ 2 http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058672&ch=7/25/2008%2010:28:00%20PM 4 http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/11pota.htm 5 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/Mr_Shivraj_Patil_go_home/articleshow/3299913.cms

page link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivraj_Patil

Under him as the home minister of India, several terrorists’ blasts have taken place across Indian Cities. Latest being Jaipur(1) (7 serial blasts), Bangalore(2) (8 serial blasts) and Ahemdabad(3) (21 serial blasts) have resulted in deaths of hundreds of Innocent lives.

Not a single person have been convicted till now for these terrorists acts across India.Shivraj patil(4) is against any stringent anti terrorist act like POTA and he(5) is also against hanging Afzal guru, a master mind of terrorist attack on Indian parliament who has been awarded death punishment by Supreme Court Of India.

(5)Shivraj Patil feels that those who carry out terrorist acctivities in India are his brothers But nothing seems to shame Shivraj Patil. (5)Not even such numbing statistics as the killings, at last count, of 5,900 people and terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Varanasi, Ayodhya, Hyderabad Bangalore and Ahmedabad. He appears to believe that his job ends with making an on-the-spot visit to the site of the terror attack and mouthing few meaningless words.

you don't have a right to delete a properly referenced material as above. 67.161.83.13 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

these are our brothers who have gone astray. We have a duty to bring them back to the family fold. It is only through dialogue that a solution is possible: Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil in the Lok Sabha ( this is 1st paragraph from patil's speech( see reference 5)....

regarding shame ( see reference 5 where the newspaper is giving statistics of death under his post)

Thx!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my Talkpage!  Channel ®   23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Ellen Roberts

Thanks for your review! I'm out of town and busy at a conference at the moment, but I'll have a chance to take a look at the article and make revisions by the end of the week. -- Sethant (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome

for that :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to argue with your thoughtful oppose vote, and I appreciate the A of GF. I sympathize with the view that AGF does not necessarily extend to blind faith in the claims of a secretive new user with 500 edits or so. (Those claims are true, but there's no way for others to know that, of course.) As regards BLP, the admin version of Mr. IP would pretty much go with the flow and enforce existing policy — while simultaneously arguing that existing policy is madness, and pushing for changes. I just think we've gone over the edge with this policy, personally. At any rate, I'm rather glad to have drawn an oppose based on a policy other than WP:POINT :D Seriously, I do appreciate that. Hope to see you 'round on WP Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Note

Thanks much, Sarcasticidealist. If you go back in the history of the Lisu page, you'll see I've been working on the Lisu page for some time. Of course, much of my earlier, cited, text was deleted in a lead-up to the Great Lisu Religion War. We'll see how long these edits last. Sigh. Kagillogly (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, really, it was helpful. Nicer than the first time I tried to contribute! Enjoy your trip, I'll look for the Kia around town. Kagillogly (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

before you hop in your Kia

could you take a look at Giovanni di Stefano's page history? Fred took a similar approach as at Billy Idol and I wonder if it's the best solution... there's also a conversation here about this - and while I'm pestering you, maybe you could take a look here and see if you think it might be ok to plonk that draft in a subpage somewhere here for the sake of discussion (part of my path strolling mentor process thing) - I don't agree that it's libelous at all. Privatemusings (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)actually, I think it was rather aggressive to describe it as such, and a bit unnecessary, but that's all chit chat for the path.... :-)

Your right

Hi, I've been a stickler for proper labelling in the past, so you are right. I was actually thinking am MfD would be interesting. Have a good trip and we'll leave it tagged as humorous. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ellen Roberts

Thanks for your GA review of Ellen Roberts. I've tried to address your comments, which were extremely helpful (thanks for being specific!) If you'd like to take another look at it now, please feel free. -- Sethant (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As you followed up, I'm trying to respond to the concerns you still raise. I'm hoping we can get this article up to GA before you depart on your journey. :) -- Sethant (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thorough review, helpful comments, and promotion of Ellen Roberts to GA. I feel like the back-and-forth we had improved the article significantly. Thanks again! -- Sethant (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here! :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I'm asking for your expertise -- or at least input, lol -- on how we might operate procedurally since what we're contemplating is sort of new ground.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC) What I'd meant, actually, is if you provide input about how we might structure our proposed procedures?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Mathias GA Comments

I believe I have gone through all of your comments, and I tried to address them:

• Is it well written? I liked your suggestions, so I tried to implement them all. I also agreed with you regarding the "political editorials" section (I didn't like how it turned out), so I removed it. I may try to integrate some of the information later.
• Is it factually accurate and verifiable? Most of your points seemed to be regarding paragraphs with only one citation. If there is only one citation for a paragraph, then the entire paragraph is from one source.
• Is it broad in its coverage? I tried to add some more information about his early life, but there isn't a whole lot out there. The vast majority of the information out there is focused on his senate career, which was definitely the defining moment of his life.

Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! --Tom (talk - email) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. I also made some more changes:

• Based on your comments regarding his early life, I added a few more paragraphs about his later life to help balance the article.
• I added two sentences concerning his committee assignments.
• I split off information from two sections to form a new section titled "Election of 1980", since there seems to be enough material for it to stand on its own.

Thanks again. --Tom (talk - email) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixes made to punctuation and capitalization. --Tom (talk - email) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For the excellent suggestions and thorough examinations you provided in the good article review of Charles Mathias, all of which were far beyond this editor's most optimistic expectations. Thank you! --Tom (talk - email) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Don Getty

The article Don Getty you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Don Getty for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harry Strom

The article Harry Strom you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Harry Strom for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall clerking

I've noticed you around as a cool head whose editing doesn't intersect with my own that much. I'd like to list you as a clerk option at User:MBisanz/Recall for people to select from when invoking my recall criteria. Is that ok with you? MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day back?

I finally filed a new SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), you might be interested, since you have some experience with Fredrick day. I'd been noticing that it's been quite quiet on the Fredrick day front, but also that a certain "returned vanished user" who won't reveal his prior account (at least in no way that has been confirmed publicly as far as I know) seemed an awfully lot like him. Strong deletionist, uncivil, etc. Since CU evidence was about to expire, I was finally pushed by events (and goaded and taunted by the user, who may expect that the CU will exonerate him, that's certainly possible) into filing the report, which was actually suggested almost a month ago in AN/I. This user came out swinging and was on AN/I twice within two days, as I recall, of registration. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still appreciate your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day (3rd), because I think this will be cleaner if there is, in fact, checkuser. Allemandtando has "retired," but he could simply wait a couple of days for the critical IP evidence to expire, and then be persuaded to come back, as he was before, a month ago. And then it's deja vu all over again. --Abd (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back "likely," which is clearer than I expected, I'd have thought "possible" is what we would see, or that it was ruled out and the similarities were just that "great minds think alike," or the reverse. Fd, previously, abandoned ship and did not fight when he was pinned, and thus avoided checkuser then. I think he has other accounts which he doesn't want to risk. Those accounts would only be found by a more intrusive checkuser request than is normally allowed, but he doesn't want to take the chance. In any case, the abrupt "retirement" when he was about to be checkusered is right on track for an Fd sock. And the attempt to leave behind as much disruption as possible, as will happen when, as is almost certain -- it's already happened a little -- the "you drove him away by harassing him" argument comes up. Defenders of the project, who don't seem to care a fig when a new editor is truly driven away by uncivil and unhelpful deletion of their contributions. Be that as it may, whew! This was a close one. Even though I was always careful to note that it was merely likely and not certain, even though I abstained from some blatantly obvious conclusions, for the most part and until the end, it would have been seen as harassment by many if the CU request hadn't been as it was, and occasion for more disruption. As it is, now, I think, his camp will nurse their wounds and stay quiet for a while. Thanks for your help. Somebody should block him, seeing the SSP report, now. Should I take this to AN/I, or just let it sit? --Abd (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there are two new Fd socks, Prisongangleader and, duh, Frederick day. Prisongangleader has been blocked, Frederick day just registered today (with two e's). There is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prisongangleader‎. Prisongangleader is a reference to a post of mine on AN/I.[.[18]]. Apparently, Fd considers himself a leader of the deletionists; my comment, actually, was about how prison gang leaders -- real ones -- regulate behavior in their communities to avoid unnecessary conflict. And how a would-be leader, fancying himself a rising star and trying to make a reputation for himself, would be disciplined by his own community, not by the opposing community. And this seems to be happening here, the RFCU was filed by Protonk, otherwise a supporter of Allemandtando, the last major Fd sock. Not that it was terribly necessary, Prisongangleader was blocked on behavioral evidence.--Abd (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I took the name because someone on IRC thought it would be funny but don't let that stop your sherlock holmes impression. And Prisongangleader was blocked as an obvious sock of mine, so please don't tell lies and say it was on behaviour issues. The only account that has ever been blocked on behaviour issues was the Fredrick day account. --Frederick day (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This stood, unchallenged, and probably should not. The other major, highly active account that was blocked was User:Allemandtando, who was edit warring with admins (as User:Killerofcruft) almost immediately on registration, and could easily be considered to be a disruptive account. Yes, the actual block wasn't because of bad behavior, but we block socks of abusive users because it's simpler than going through the sometimes agonizing process of RfC, etc. Allemandtando was popular in certain circles, and that would have made a debate over him highly disruptive. I did not ask for Allemandtando to be blocked, if I'm correct; if I did mention it, certainly I didn't push it. As to Prisongangleader, the "behavioral evidence" does not refer to bad behavior, but simply that sock identification was not through checkuser, but through identifying behavioral similarity with Fredrick day, and that is not limited to bad behavior. Some of the behavior of both Fredrick day and Allemandtando was legitimate, perhaps even most of it. Nevertheless, it can display a signature of identity. --Abd (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for reverting the vandalism to my user page before I even knew about it. David in DC (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I don't know how you found the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier but I think the tag should read something like 'editors required to re-work the information', removing peacock terms and ensuring a NPOV so some of it could be restored to the article. As a newbie to Wikipedia I didn't understand what those terms meant before becoming a member. I was told the purpose of the tag is to list it in the RFCbio list so editors might take up the challenge. In reading your user page you may be the ideal editor for the task. The bio is on me. It's been here for over two years, and I just discovered it April 19. I have recused myself from editing it, rightly so, waiting for others to come forward. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a newbie so I don't know all the rules and procedures. You must know more about the purpose of the bio list than I do. As you can see, except for the editors who removed 95% of the information to the dustbin of history, nothing has changed since I recused myself. What are you doing up so early in Alberta? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have an opinion you would like to share on this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I addressed J. Milburn's opinion that you refer to on Kingturtle's talk, but to the specifics you mention, this is my POV.

• Those who glance, will not see. Those who skim, will not understand. Is the objection only to including the image of the missile strike path and it's relevancy? If that was removed, would you have further objections? If this article is about a self proclaimed or ordained prophet or emissary of God that is yet to be determined, it appears to me all information that might lend support or verification to the idea has been removed. Of the prophets it is written: God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders (Hebrews 2:4) [19]. Lets discuss signs and wonders.

1. November 2, 1976 The Kansas City Times prints a report with an image of me standing at the base of the pillar at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City.

2. In 1981 Canada's National Magazine Maclean's reports I hiked 4000 miles to Whitehorse to symbolize the White Horse of Revelations 19:11.[20] Armageddon is mentioned, showing a missile strike path to Kansas. If the world is brought to the grand finale, those missile strike paths are already fixed in the mind of the public domain. They released the image freely knowing it was going to be posted in Wikipedia.

3. Seven years after the image of me in the Kansas City Times report, the TV movie "The Day After" appears in the public mind following that very missile strike path, ending at the exact same frame as the newspaper report except I wasn't in the movie.

I would expect there is some clever editor/contributor who could take this raw information, knowing how to use references and citations and make it encyclopedic. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a difference a day, a week or a month makes! As you may have noticed, I withdrew from further discussion from this site after the disputations over this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg that Kingturtle removed from the article.

World events will now bring into clearer focus the relevancy of it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

glad you and the kia made it...

to wherever you were going, or from wherever you were fleeing.... in case you're still motivated to ask any questions about this one - it still appears to have sprung fully formed into existence in December last year..... I'm also still inclined to restore my draft for the record - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you've got any... :-) (on this issue, of course... it seems likely you may have several on other matters....) - and a cheery G'day to you regardless! Privatemusings (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Size reduction

Hi,

You just tagged Image:AM Safari 2.1.3.jpg as requiring size reduction. Could you please let me know what size is appropriate for screenshots (pointing to a policy document or something similar would be appreciated). Please note that when creating that screenshot I shrunk the browser window before doing the capture and then shrunk the capture itself. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there was no reason to reduce that image as only a small portion of the image was copyrighted (90% of it was a screenshot of Wikipedia which is GFDL). The portion of the image which was actually copyrighted comprised about 52,000 pixels which is well below the 100,000 pixel rule of thumb. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got the image's talk page watchlisted. I think I agree with your points there - the image will see no further interference from me, at any rate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection on Ctrl+Alt+Del

Thank you, was a bit more than what I had requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ctrl+Alt+Del. I am wondering what was the warring in this case as there are 2 current issues happening at the moment. The Criticism/Reception reverts (that reached agreeable concensus for "Reception" on the talk page) or the addition/removal of the character list that has just started? If you could close that rfpp as it is still sitting open (I actualy think it has been missed completely). Thanks, Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got barnstar!

as confirmed here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

My spelling never ceases to fail me... ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Seeing that you moved Sweetgrass, Montana to Sweet Grass, Montana (confirmed by the GNIS), I wondered: as an administrator, can I view OTRS tickets by myself, or do I have to ask help? Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If we could find the Sec'y of State webpage, that surely would be definitive, but I'd believe it otherwise incorrect to call it anything but an incorporated community, given the strength of the evidence toward unincorporated. By the way, when I left this note, I wasn't asking for the OTRS (although I'm thankful you sent it); I was just curious in general whether I can look at them, or whether I have to ask someone like you. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm very sceptical about this document that was sent to you: if it's really incorporated, we should have tons of evidence for that, instead of absolutely no evidence: aside from all else, the Montana Association of Counties and the National Association of Counties list Sweet Grass as unincorporated. Moreover, the Census Bureau's Census of Governments, which tracks these things carefully, has no mention of Sweet Grass: go here, click Montana and municipalities, hit Narrow by County, and click Toole County, and you'll see exactly three listed. There's no possible way that they could entirely miss a municipality, unless it was once incorporated but has disincorporated since that certificate that you were shown was produced. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Humbled

Good golly! I'm pretty sure that if I've demonstrated anything conclusively on Wikipedia, it's that I lack the proper temperament to wield the tools. That you have not reached a similar conclusion surprises and pleases me. Thank you.

Gonna have to go all Groucho on ya. If you're unfamilair with the quote I'm referencing, you can find it here (Bullets #7 & 8).

Your kind regard has lifted my day. I appreciate it. David in DC (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 us election

thanks for protecting page. someone may want to remove protection in February or so, Tom B (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't unprotect until well after the election. The article was semi-protected from January to yesterday and within hours of it being unprotected there was multiple IP vandalism. Kind regards, Tom B (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

James Randi image

Just got your message. I originally deleted it, because I went with the assumption that any photo of living persons would constitute some kind of copyright infringement. Sorry about that.

I do wish someone would use a different photo though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GondolaState (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

?

Since when are you an expert on Ukrainian politics? (See: [21]) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can't see the difference between the 2 edits anymore. But OK, I really like Yulia (and most Ukrainian woman!) so I should be careful (not glorify her here). I like Avril Lavigne too, I hope you like her too! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the grammar lessons! That is the difference between native speakers and foreign speakers. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian politics - "forthright"

Hi, I spotted your comments to Mariah-Yulia here about the use of the word "forthright". I introduced it here in an attempt to make the wording more neutral. I felt that the previous "more balanced" implied an editorial judgement that Yushchenko's response was unbalanced and therefore an editorial preference for Tymoshenko's position. To me (and perhaps I'm in the minority) forthright doesn't imply anything about honesty, rather it indicates that a position is stated with determination or vigour. If this is open to interpretation as well then I'm happy for it to be changed to something more universally neutral. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=240363006&oldid=240362644 --Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hi, this User:Tv93 has created a duplicate article about a fictitious non-existent Sicilian Mafioso, entitled Tommaso Verderame. The entire information in the article has been copy-pasted verbatim from the Tommasso Buscetta article. As such, i request you to delete the article, and send a warning to the user not to do so in the future? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this. That was a weird one... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Randi

Fine (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You saw it here first

This is just a friendly notice since you involved yourself in the discussion of my biography in Wikipedia.

Finding my biography in Wikipedia two years after it existed, was a great and joyous surprise for me. It is in fact my first foray into the Public Domain in 11 years, since my last attempt at elective office. Everything I have contributed to this site, all the discussions with all the Administrators is self published material in a public forum.

The mainline media, CNN in particular, is portraying the current economic crisis in Apocalyptic terms and totally unexpected. The record bares witness that on July 3 I made this statement in Ground Zero talk:

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

This is the financial crisis.

Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del Thridel Edit Warring

In regards to the protection on the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic wiki page over the Criticism/Reception debate: There are many, MANY users, both IP's and members alike that have had extensive discussion on the creation of a criticism section, and any attempt to present published or sourced criticism is always instantaniously reverted by Thridel or another member, regardless of legitimacy, discussion or concensus.

This is a serious problem. After finally holding enough serious ban warnings over the user Thridels head, as our sources were sound and far outweighed his nonsensical revert responses, we managed to create a Criticisms section. Which after a short while was then reverted to "Reception" despite it containing clear criticisms. This has been continuing, and despite the failure of Knowledgeum or Thrindel to present any sort of argument for its revertion, they have ignored a serious concensus (of members and IP's in huge numbers, so much so that Thrindel friendly mods have deleted some comments and even discussion topics) of leaving it at criticism

So far the only "concensus" they have for 'Reception' is Thrindel, Knowledgeum, and another member. See the "criticism" sections on the talk pages for members for such a section of reception.

Its bad enough we cannot act upon Thridel and his POV problem of his identity and previous acts of vandalism using that identity on the same page because of lack of serious evidence, but to have to put up with constant reverts and non-discussion despite complete wikipedia rule compliance in relations to the simpliest of problems that he happens to not agree with that are just dismissed because he feels they dont belong there...its not only against the rules, but a serious valdalising problem.

A third party, NPOV moderator needs to keep a watch on the page. If a simple matter of consensus is given to 3 people over 100 (and even then I do not overexagerate, I guesstimate legitimately) when the 100 have the sources and rules to back them up, something is seriously wrong. Also, excuse the poor English and spelling, this is my second language. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harle

Don't worry about the spelling; you should see me writing in French, my second language. As for the CA issue itself, I've just re-read the relevant portions of the article talk page, and I don't think I see consensus for inclusion of any specific criticism. Moreover, it looks to me as though most of the sources being provided by the pro-criticism side are inappropriate for use on Wikipedia per WP:RS. In any event, though, administrators such as myself have no privileged position with regards to content disputes like this one. What I would suggest those of you who support the inclusion of more criticism do is find two or three examples of criticism that you think are very widespread, find the best possible sources supporting the existence and significance of that criticism, and instigate a request for comments to get other editors' opinions on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and with regards to the suggestion that Thrindel has been edit-warring, note that he has made one edit to the page since September 6; I don't think that qualifies as edit-warring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted page to my userspace

Request to restore deleted page to my userspace so I can work on it to get it up to Wikipedia's standards: Would you please restore the text of Jerry's Artarama to my userspace? Thank you PaintSculptCreate (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RE Giano Block

Got it, thanks. You missed a couple edits though.--Tznkai (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No big deal.--Tznkai (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hatfield

Done. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

how you going?

jus' wondrin..... :-) I also wonder if you might be interested in coming along to a podcast in the coming weeks / months - I enjoyed interviewing you, and if you could bear to be part of a panel at some point, I think it'd be cool..... whaddya reckon? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)I'd also like to gently poke you about that gfdl violation I mentioned before your trip, but I don't think it's wise today.... oops.

great stuff re:the podcast! - I'll rattle your cage in a few weeks time for sure... re: the other thing - thanks for looking out for me - it's appreciated - but don't confuse my persistence too much with worry.. I'm pretty horizontal about the whole thing really, though it'd be nice if someone sorted it out :-) - you seem to have the impression that Mike has offered advice re: the history of the article, and gfdl... I wouldn't be too sure that that's necessarily the case, myself...... the article is at mediation now though, so maybe someone will notice the problem, and tidy it up :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore Bayesian regret to my user space.

The header says it. (There is now a redirect there, that's why it's not a redlink, but Loss function is hopeless as a clear explanation of Bayesian regret as the term is using in voting systems theory.) TIA, if you can do it. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it possible to restore it with the original edit history? --Abd (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

hello

You seem to have reverted my edits on the CAD talk page, since, as far as I'm aware, they were not vandalism, nor personal attacks, I would like to know why. 86.46.208.159 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed them per WP:BLP, as they were designed specifically to denigrate an identifiable living person, and did nothing to improve the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I did not mean to mess it up i was trying to take the forthcoming eletion table off! Thanks for Fixing that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tag on Dyatlov Pass incident

Hi, I have a quick question about a hoax tag you placed on Dyatlov Pass incident, on 14 September because of an OTRS ticket. The edit summary [22] said you were investigating it and the tag should remain. I know you can't discuss content of OTRS tickets but since it's been a month I wanted to ask if it is still under investigation and the tag should stay on or is the investigation over? Thanks :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and no problem nobody is infallible :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Mason

Thanks for taking time to review the Hugh Mason article, time spent helping articles try to gain GA status is always appreciated. I've expanded the lead as you suggested (a perrennial problem when I write sadly) and would like you to take another look at the article when you have some time, but you seemed more concerned about the neutrality of the main source used which is probably a bigger issue. Although you said in your review that you were prepared to accept it, I thought I should try to ease your worries. The book was co-published by the local borough in association with the University of Manchester and written by an academic there; while the borough may want to exert some influence, I think it more likely that the author tried to present a neutral picture.

I'd have liked to have addressed the concerns you raised in the GA review earlier, but I've been pushed for time recently. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address all of the concerns you raised in the review and think the article is ready for another look. Cheers. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done again, sorry to keep bothering you. Nev1 (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe I nearly forgot about this. I think I've sorted out the broadness apect now. Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough and challenging review. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the action taken and subsequent fixing of User talk:172.131.176.51, i was going to fix the talkpage myself but you beat me to it ;) great work! Thanks a lot :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please undo your last reversion of template_talk:weasel ?

I've been trying to get people to fill in a voting form that I made up for two months. My 'slim' version has been up for a total of about four hours in a month. The most functional noticeboard is one that calls any old administrator to the problem in quesiton. Considering how verbose some templates are becoming, I don't care what a template says it is for. It blocks edits and calls an administrator, and I prefer to keep all relevant materials regarding a motion to block someone in the same place. Below that, I told you that I did not want an adminstrator to do anything for twenty-four hours. What, exactly, was "messed up" in my version? Since I was asking for five decisions, I think it would be nice if voter minds were not cluttered with argumentation crap that forms the bulk of a messy version you left. Please revert to my version, for a period of twenty-four hours. That's a block upon myself, anyone who would want to vote, and my problem, who calls herself user:newbyguesses. Why is this so hard to understand? Judges routinely sift through evidence for what is relevant before a trial. On wikipedia, we get to shut lawyers up, too. Oh, shit, that isn't polite, is it? That's like your major or something, because you study politicians:-() Maybe I should re-write WP:NOTAVOTE. It seems so full of crap, because deletion decisions are mostly votes. BrewJay (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing that's a colon in the subject header, not a comma. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh - I've been called worse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How long hav I been trying to get people to fill in a voting form that I made up?

Is it wrong to restrict attention to that from people interested in this language issue?

Am I to understand that {{editprotected}} only calls for attention from an admin?

Am I likely to find that out before I first use it?

How long was I allowed to delete irrelevant argumentation?

Is twenty-four hours out of a likely month a great fraction?

Why do judges spend a pre-trial period eliminating evidence that is irrelvant to the charges?

BrewJay (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Help on a BLP:NFP (William A. Mobley)

Thanks for your help on this. I'll go getting my sources together and get cracking on making the page. ATLongino (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously

Listen guy, It is well known among everyone at both schools that Mountain Pointe does not like Compadre students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phazzer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

I saw a recent post of yours which seemed to me to support the fact the GFDL is really important. I thought I'd swing by and say that I totally agree :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Steve! :) I just wanted to know...How am I doing here on Wikipedia? Also, I wanted to let you know that one of my creations, Portal:Feminism, is now a featured portal. I'm excited about this and it's all thanks to Cirt because he added lots of stuff to the portal. I was also wondering, how do I add articles, quotes, and other things to the portal? I've been thinking of adding more to the portal, but I'm not sure how to go about it. If there is a page that explains it, give me a link to the page. Since we last talked here on Wikipedia, I have been commenting on a few AfD's and on RfA's as well. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha doin' here?

Is it because the user is who I think it is? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally thought it might be Fredrick Day again, given the tone and interaction on Abd's talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Right-libertarianism sidebar

Template:Right-libertarianism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. John Nevard (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

It was indeed unneeded; that's why I haven't reverted again, even though I saw that the tendentious material had been reinstated. I'm hoping more editors will lend a hand to keep a handful of people from inserting this material without achieving a consensus for it, but if nobody else jumps in then maybe the consensus isn't clear. -- Zsero (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen

I think you may have just hard-deleted some edits to Leonard Cohen. If so, please note my related ANI report. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...and to do likewise at Phil Spector. Thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh, right. I forget that 'crats only have one-way ratchets (although all ratchets are one way, making the metaphor superfluous).

That's a good catch on the voters. Should probably make them have 3 months/500 edits like the nominators, or do you think this is too high? I certainly want it open to non-admins. Cool Hand Luke 02:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla

Thanks for pointing me to those links. After taking a look, I'm fairly certain that Sarsaparilla is the sockpuppeteer behind Aldrich Hanssen and Simultaneous movement. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the scoop. The perp has confessed via email to me - since we are on the same outside email list - that he would get a new IP and start NEW sockpuppets - he thinks being an anarchist gives him that right! I edit a lot of the same articles so his appearance and his sockpuppets were very obvious - and annoying - to me. The most obvious New users who I believe are sock puppets are:

• User:Simultaneous movement - among others edited Libertarian perspectives on revolution and Free Market Roads (both Hanssen and ECVM edited)
• User:ProductionsGuy Anarcho-capitalism (both Hanssen and ECVM edited)
• User:PublicSquare Controversies within Libertarianism (Hanssen edite a lot); Bureaucrash (Hanssen and two suspected puppets below); Right-libertarianism (countereconomics also edited) He's now created 2 fringe POV templates Template:Right-libertarianism_sidebar and Template:Agorism_sidebar added first to articles both Hanssen and ECVM edited. And doubtless will add second soon.

These New users below are suspicious because same pattern of editing, to many of same articles, but I could be wrong.

• Awesomeeconomist
• Dropperada
• OpenFuture
• RothbardSpooner

Carol Moore 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

PS: As I wrote on User:Skomorok's page I think these two pages Template:Right-libertarianism_sidebar and Template:Agorism_sidebar created by probable sockpuppet PublicSquare will be deleted soon. I'm going to put the category suspected sock puppet on pages in question soon. I have a head cold so mind not real clear and I'm not sure if I am doing it right. Carol Moore 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Yo SI, thanks for the heads-up, I've replied on my talkpage. If you take a look here it seems Alison couldn't find our mutual friend at work recently. In any case, I was thinking of setting up a user subpage to examine the content contributed by the recent socks; any chance you could put on your admin deletion-goggles and supply a list of deleted articles created by the latest sock-batch? Danke, the skomorokh 14:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't she need to have his new IP address for a search to mean anything? Carol Moore 13:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Moved from User_talk:Carolmooredc since I'm watching this page and others are interested:

Hi Ms. Moore - thanks very much for your comments. I've reviewed the accounts you mentioned, and I don't see sufficient evidence to block any of them at this time. There's a couple that bear further scrutiny, which I will engage in. Please keep me posted if you see anything else suspicious. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point there may not be enough diffs built up to make it obvious. I assume your review did not include an IP check which would be pretty definitive. Given the person sent an email insisting they would continue their behavior I'll continue to pursue the issue as necessary. After all next time I might run into a really bad sock puppet and practice makes perfect! :-) Carol Moore 04:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no IP check (I'm not a checkuser). I've sought some clarification from the last checkuser to perform a check on Sarsaparilla here. A couple of things that suggest that the accounts aren't Sarsaparilla are that ProductionsGuy was registered more than a year ago (I can't fathom why Sarsaparilla would have had a sock ripening for this long and never used it after all these incarnations he's gone through) and PublicSquare has denied being Sarsaparilla, which none of Sarsaparilla's actual socks have ever done. Besides that, the editing similarities are usually more blatant than they are in this case. I certainly can't conclusively say that they're not Sarsaparilla socks, but it seems more likely that they're not. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-checked, and I did not find any other sockpuppets. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you are looking for a new IP address, right? (Though I assume User:Simultaneous movement was that IP.) Second, I assume if I send headers of private emails I got from Sarsaparilla (boasting about loving sockpuppetry) you can figure out the (or one of them?) new IP address. Just not sure who to send them to. User:Nishkid64??? Carol Moore 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carol - might I suggest that you take this to Nishkid directly, as I'm not sure she/he is watching this page? Though as you noted, the checkusers should know Sarsaparilla's new network by reason of having nabbed the Simultaneous movement account, so I'm not sure your information would be new. Also, while Sarsaparilla undeniably loves socking, his usually M.O. is to do so in fairly obvious ways and not deny it if asked; unless he's changing his ways, I continue to suspect that those accounts are not him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just in case he hasn't changed his ways, what's the best way to get him to cut it out? Just accuse him on his talk page, add the category to talk page? FYI I have read WP:Outing on this and have complied with that policy, even though I am the type who loves to send out a press release when I get good dirt like this on people I'm annoyed with :-) Wikipedia is teaching me a lot of good habits :-) Carol Moore 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI. When I went to look for the email about a new IP I couldn't find it, if there was one - but I found one saying there were lots of public terminals he could use so it is possible he has lots of different IPs, meaning the best strategy is to challenge all the new questionable ones. ;-( Carol Moore 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stortini

Is it because you are an Edmonton Oilers fan that you find it difficult to handle criticism of Zack Stortini? Each 'fighter' has a certain style. Andrew Peters of the Buffalo Sabres turns his head backwards, Wade Belak grabs his opponent's collar and punches him. Zack Stortini bear hugs his fellow combatants until they surrender or fall. See: Laperriere Vs. Stortini. The fact that there are hundreds of hits on Google regarding the subject, it seems then that this is not a stretch of the truth. I watched him fight in Sudbury for years, and his style has not changed. Zack Stortini is a serial hugger and that is his style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstack (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you've deemed it unfit for inclusion. The article is about Zack Stortini. He is loosely defined as an enforcer although 'plug' would be a better description. You don't see including a fighter's style as appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.255.242 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please answer in a talk thread of WP:NOT

Who said anything about "verifiability over truth"? If what someone says isn't falsifiable, then it can't be written either way, and I don't care who says it. In other words, if I can't find out, now, if what someone says is true for myself, then it isn't reliable. If it isn't reliable, then it doesn't belong here. You can still say it, and it doesn't belong here until it's a fact. BrewJay (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Semaphore Two. BrewJay (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pakistani towns

May I ask how articles that say nothing but "such-and-such is a town in Pakistan" sufficient context? MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I appreciate it. MuZemike (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain protection

Just a pointer: Last night, based on this thread, all 4 of the election bios were full protected. The McCain one was already protected, of course. But we shouldn't unproctect it until/unless people agree to unlock the others too. We can discuss this at the ANI thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Somebody (me) should have left you a note when the other pages were protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection of John Mccain

Protection of this article for that length of time is unwarranted. I would understand the need for a short protection, say 5 days to afford editors to seek WP:DR during that time, but to protect until Dec 1 is an overkill, in particular given that the subject is running for President of the US, and there is biographical information being uncovered in the international press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. I think that there is enough of a consensus to resume editing, and given the notability and actuality of the article, keeping it protected for any longer is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has a problem with speculation in Senate, 2010.

Someone put the speculation tag there, and the keywords can help someone else remove entire sentences that are speculation, if need be. Since I am not an American, and I am not directly involved in those elections, I'm not sure that I can do it as carefully as an American, who might be able to be more definite about those speculations. I was planning on leaving the markup there for a few days before I did the pruning, myself, if need be. The words are offensive in this venue. They don't belong in wikipedia, unless they make a statement more precise and the possibility is critical to someone's safety or someone's pocketbook (among other exceptions I might make). The comment about the GOP that you reverted at the end can stay or go with the comment about why it was deleted. So, I think you are paying too much attention to me, and I believe you are pressing the undo button to hastily. As long as it isn't clear that you understand the problem with your own prophecy, I think you should stay out of this. As long as you aren't contributing on the talk page, I think you should stay out of this. As long as you aren't checking to see if there are already biographies of these people written in detail (for wikification at least), I think you should stay out of this. BrewJay (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cliff Taylor

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Cliff Taylor, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --MadScot (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Omegacommand

Will you please take a look @ user Omegacommand he and his roommate Freakdomination got a indef block and were called sock puppets for being critical of Barack Obama in his article. Omegacommand talk page is even protected so he can't request a unblock and has been labelled a troll by the Obama lovers. Please Help 76.110.175.48 (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Drag Entertainer Speedygone!

Dear Sarc: I created an article the other day called Michael St Laurent to try to document a person who is very noticeable (if not notable?) in the The Rose (film) on stage doing a Mae West act and interacting with Bette Midler who is up there with Michael and 3 other DQ's in the memorable scene. I have worked with shows where (1) drag entertainment and (2) Mae West material have been involved and/or discussed at length and this person's image has come up several times making me think that St. Laurent is notable. Started the article hoping to get an "expand" box and that we would find out more. Only had "about 1949" for a birthdate. I also have a very nice free photo of St. Laurent from 1972 to add, but never even got around to it before the article was speed-deleted and disappeared. Only minutes after it was created. I thought you might know whom I could turn to try to get it reinstated and at least left on an expand basis. Michael St Laurent is billed 16th in the movie's credits on IMDb. Can you steer me in the right direction or am I asking too much? EmilEik (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC) aka User:EmilEikS

PS: Goofed on the place to post. Knew better. Sorry! Look forward! Thx EmilEik (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kindness! I have now linked "female impersonators" from The Rose (film) to the page and hope to have some info come in. Sincerely yours EmilEik (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag of (the Republic of) Ireland

I'm just dropping a note of praise here for your rationale in closing the move request at Talk:Flag of Ireland. It was beautifully reasoned and restores some of my confidence in our admins here. You pinpointed the bad arguments advanced by both sides. I voted "oppose" (and I can honestly say that when I think "flag of Ireland" I picture St Patric's cross as incoporated into the Union Jack; and I'm not British) but the current solution with a hatnote is the best. Thankyou. Srnec (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've come here to say thank you, too, I'm delighted with your reasoning and how you handled the close. Maedin\^talk 08:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one question - you stated that "Would we then be obligated to locate this article at Flag of Ireland (state)? I don't believe that any reasonable person would argue that that is so." What is your opinion on Flag of Georgia (country)? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to add my congratulations. It's unusual and refreshing for a closing admin to leave such a comprehensive rationale for their action. Nicely done! Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Enabler

Well, since you thought it not a horrible idea, take a peek at Wikipedia:Project Leader and see what you think. Did I miss any of the powers that he currently has? --06:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Can you point me to where Jimbo says he won't overturn arbcom decisions involve himself, so I can make that change? (sorry if it's on WP:JIMBO and I overlooked it). --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

wat

"(Protected Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del: Egregious BLP violations by I.P.s ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC))))"

I can't believe you did this because I posted on the discussion page. (ﾟ∀ﾟ)86.46.246.49 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, I think you are refering to me. My net's been down a while, and since it came back I have a different IP. This IP right now is from my college, so it's different again. I believe you are refering to 86.46.208.159. That's my old IP. And the last time I used it was roughly a 2 weeks ago.193.1.52.12 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope - the I.P. I'm talking about is 79.66.69.234. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I just can't see the edits that he did.86.46.246.49 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Greenfield

I've left a few more comments at the peer review. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate your views on Max Mosley, which is also on peer review (see here). There's kind of a political connection, so it may be of interest! 4u1e (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The decision to delete my page

dear Sarcasticidealist, regarding your comment today and the page deleted on 17th of Nov User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. I believe this was not a right decision for many reasons which include among others:

• This is a draft for an article. The original article was deleted from the wikipedia and before that it lacked a lot of materials. Because of that, and because I know that Zionists in general are very sensitive to this topic. I decided to make a draft for the article in my account and tried to develop it as much as possible before transfering it to the main articles space.
• The draft was put for MfD debate under a request from a pro-zionism wikipedian(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism_and_racism_allegations) and the final result was Keep with almost consensus.
• After failing in first MfD, another one was made (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)). Only 3 persons participated in the voting and there decision was to delete the draft.
• Recently I decided to make a new version of the draft and to begin working on it again, to remove substantial blocs of the original draft and to add entirely new sections, but for sorrow, Jayjg -who is a well respected wikipedian but a very biased one when it is related to Zionism or Israel- deleted the new draft while I was still in the early steps.
• The page was deleted under the claim that it as a Recreation of deleted material, while it is not, and the two materials differ substantially. (you may compare the original draft and the new draft that you deleted). According to Wikipedia:CSD#G4 a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version doesn't appply in this case.

For all the above reasons and many others, I hope you will undelete the new draft and will give me the chance to work on it until it becomes suitable to be transfered to the main space.--Aaronshavit (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano/Cate

Thanks Sarc. Has Giano admitted to his double-identity on Wikipedia (before today); or left a note on the Cate account, that he was she? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still (a little) troubled by the previous lack of admission. A sock, is a sock; no matter what it was used for. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I'm cool with it now. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP Vio on Gordon Ramsay?

Just saw this edit[23], to me it seems to be a blp violation on a few fronts, I can only find sources that point back to the original tabloid who first ran it (that tabloid has its own issues noted on its wikipage. Wondering if you might be able to shed some light on that one for me. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi. I followed your advice and asked fellow Wikipedians to to some stylistical improvements to the Slovenian presidential election, 2007. The copyediting is now underway. If you can check it from time to time, it would be great. Greetings. --Tone 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the template since there has been no editing since Nov 29. Whenever you have time. Greetings. --Tone 10:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering your questions

These are excellent and tough questions. I'll try to answer them tonight (Eastern Standard Time). I encourage you to use my answers to inform your vote.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I've elaborated here. David in DC (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Puma Swede

Why did you delete the whole article about her? Considering she's Sweden's biggest rep in the adult industry, her profile should be on Wikipedia.

Norum (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will, because the same information is on Wikipedia's Swedish page and that seems to be enough over there.

Norum (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance Request with BLP Policies

Several editors and I are having some issues over at Talk:Gordon Ramsay (also covered previously on the talk page. The main issue is addition of an alleged affair to the main article and its sources. I put forth a request at BLP Noticeboard that has gone unanswered, there is also a seperate request at Relaible Sources Noticeboard on the reliability of the original source. As you're the most well versed blp admin I know if you could shed some light on this matter for us on the article talk page? Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Scandal

On 5 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My ArbCom candidacy

May I trouble you please to revisit your oppose vote? I am concerned about the influence that Durova's oppose may have had on you and I have addressed this separately here. Additionally, I have extensively clarified various replies and written a new consolidated section on BLP. I've also linked to key questions on my candidate statement for ease of reference. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Congrats. :) It's a tough job, good luck! GlassCobra 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Well, in that case, apologies for not noticing and updating my page sooner. GlassCobra 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you voted ...

... but as I told SandyGeorgia, I feel thoroughly misrepresented, and recharge with some more content work makes no sense to me. My edits are almost all in mainspace, and are very numerous. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I'll never run for dog catcher

My rant (not meant to be [personal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoroton&diff=257343113&oldid=257328886]). As I often do, I'm beginning to hope nobody reads it because it's too long. -- Noroton (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar – it's good to be recognized personally but, more than anything else, it's good to hear that people actually think the content I've added is useful and interesting! Best of luck in your work on here as well. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

important unanswered questions

Hi, if can you care to reconsider, I have answered almost all of the questions. Answers to the others can usually be inferred from the other answers, but if there is any outstanding question that you are interested in, I'm open to suggestions on that front.

For explanation, I have been giving much longer answers; midway through the first week I was ~7th for largest Q&A page size. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

kmweber

Just wondering. Does Right to vanish also cover all the user subpages? If so, you might want to get to those too if you haven't already. I know he had several. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Regulars and templation

Thought I'd drop you a note on your talk page instead of on AN/I. You tell me not to template the regulars, as I did just a few hours ago. You even cite an essay. I would like to cite a counter-essay, Wikipedia:Template the regulars. Enjoy! Bstone (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Marijuana Party candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

Hey there, I was about to notify you as creator about the CFD, but of course, you already know about it. Normally I notify people shortly after I complete the CFD nom, but this one was more complex than usual and I got sidetracked responding to the replies that got posted almost before I could catch my breath. Anyway, I hope you'll continue to participate in the CFD, which appears to have opened up a whole can of worms, as the saying goes. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the unfortunate timing! I want to assure you that I will keep your concerns in mind. That said, given the complexity of the issues, my crystal ball is pretty cloudy as to where this one is heading. :) Btw, did you notice the newly added parent cat, Category:Cannabis politics, which I created last night? Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the 1984 General Election I ran as an Independent Candidate in Ottawa Centre with the theme ´God, Country, Peace, Love, Freedom and the Legalization of Marijuana.´ With no money or organization there was not much chance of wining the seat. I was happy to see the Marijuana Party arise after that with no input from me other than my 1984 run for Parliament. I may have been the 1st Candidate for the Parliament of Canada publicly affirming the legitimacy of the plant God created.

I ran as an Independent for the same seat 13 years later in 1997. This time I ran to fight government corruption, and campaigned for minority government and the need for change. Government corruption became the issue in the following elections and Canada has had minority government under both Liberals and Conservatives since then. The need for Change is now at the top of the agenda.

In 1997 I also wrote this. Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Cannabis_Culture_.26_Cost DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Hello. Thanks for the help you have earlier provided me on Wikipedia! I could need your input here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord. Please help me with your guidance. Thanks! (Hope you read this while in Germany.) --Law Lord (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Jussinniemi

I noticed you deleted this page twice, I'm just informing you that it has been recreated again by User:Norum with a invalidly placed {{TempUndelete}}. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Johanna Jussinniemi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Johanna Jussinniemi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Norum (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

Never ending story has to give up the name on the ongoing blp vios at Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del, I'm sure you can see from the history, but if your too lazy I've also spelled it all out at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel. Your continued assistance in your expertise of BLP is much appreciated. Knowledgeum :  Talk  07:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Steve Smith, Merry Christmas!

Steve Smith,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Richard Hatfield references in New Brunswick general election, 1987

FYI I have restored (slightly altered) the claims about Richard Hatfield from this article, including references to unproven parties with young men and illegal drugs. These were widely reported in the media and I have sourced it with a video CBC report from the CBC Archives. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edelsten Comments and Recent Editing

Sarcasticidealist, thank you for your recent comments. I have looked into your references and thoroughly researched the WP topics of discussion. Your insights have been helpful, your impartiality and conduct is commended and is recommended to all other Wikipedia users.

I understand that an IP (210.56.73.107) has removed properly referenced, on topic information that is required to un-bias (bring neutrality to) defamatory statements/references/information. Such editing has left the article defamatory biased, defamation should not tolerated. IP 210.56.73.107 has also introduced unreferenced information. I propose to revert this latest editing. And suggest that the Sydney based IP be blocked from editing as there is no audit trail for contentious editing. Your thoughts? --Gepa (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

that is not a basis for blocking a user. We work by consensus here, not because you don't like it we block it. suggest you edit a few articles to learn more about Wikpedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

dear Sarcastic Idealest, I am concerned this kind of edit which has been reverted, is really not NPOV and trying to spin out a defence for Edelsten. Even more interesting is the editor who is doing this and their motivations. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassess Improved Article?

Hello! Would you please see if the article about Jacob Truedson Demitz now might warrant a reassessment due to quite a bit of constructive work done to improve it since it got a C rating? Some people apparently find these assessments of no consequence whatsoever, but I would still like to ask you kindly to have a look at this case when you have a chance. Thank you! /Thurgood Rosewood (from a computer belonging to the City of Stockholm, Sweden) 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate your kind reassessment of the article mentioned in the message above from someone else concerned (there seems to be quite a few people following the histories of some of the contributions made to Wikipedia by our organization). Thank you! It seems from this however that you have broken rules (?) in doing this reassessment. That was not the intention, I'm sure, and as also concerned about the artice, we are sorry about that this happened in a way that drew such serious (?) criticism. In studying all the correspondence about this article (some of which is not very nice reading) one can find that the question was posed much earlier to experienced editors about how to go about a request for reassessment. These were never answered until you helped out now. What we are mostly concerned about now is two unsettling and quite embarassing details in the message now left at the above IP talk page of a computer belonging to the City of Stockholm (which has nothing to do with us):

• what do you think is meant by "mostly has been ignored regarding the article in question"?
• why is it addressed to our board member Emil Eikner who (a) never has used that computer (b) closed his user page and stopped contributing to English Wikipedia long ago?

217.209.96.57 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Board Member, Southerly Clubs of Stockholm at the organizations own IP

thanks

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I have done as suggested. However, is there no-one to whom I can complain to about another admin? That's my main issue. Thank you 90.220.37.95 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. The admin provided the links to where this abuse occured, and I'm not debating that. The part which annoyed me is when, after already stating it was not me who posted, the admin seemed to reject this, advising me to check my household as someone here did it. Fair enough, they didn't know I lived alone, but the comments made still continuously refer to 'you...'. It doesn't look like this block will be lifted, although I don't understand why. I don't post on here, as my history will show, but I don't like having the block there. With it to expire shortly, is there a big deal with it being lifted? Can you explain also who is on this committee - i.e. is the user in question going to be part of it? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.37.95 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi SI, thanks for the message. I've been kinda out of the picture for a while due mostly to real life, and to a lesser extent, wiki-stuff. Always good to see you around!
Best,
R. Baley (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Alberta-politician-stub

See my comments there. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Just letting you know I've responded to your concerns at the Super Columbine Massacre RPG! FAC page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I would apologise for this edit, in which I accused you of ownership. I acknowledge it was out of order. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC

I have a lot of respect for your editorial advice and opinion. With your help Byron Brown will move up to second in line among my future FAC nominations (Saxbe fix will be next due to the possiblity of getting it as the WP:TFA on the 100th anniversary of the first Saxbe fix). I am struggling to get Jack Kemp through the process and am on FAC #4. I would love to either get your support or some editorial advice, even if it is just for the politics section of his life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kemp is a higher priority because getting a FAC decision one way or the other is holding up Saxbe fix, Byron Brown and a bunch of others from being nominated there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you removed the Greatest game ever played info. Please comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am almost halfway to D.C. right now (330/700 according to my Garmin). I am taking a pit stop. I am thinking anytime someone mentions that team it is worth noting the were the team that played in the first NFL overtime playoff game known as the Greatest Game ever played. There is certainly nothing nearly as interesting as that to have occurred to the team. Kemp being a roster player is significant enough to warrant a NYTimes article. There are very few thing considered not notable enough for WP that warrant a full NYT article in my book. I may revert that, but would welcome a response to your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you found something discouraging about the article since I had thought you planned ot finish the article this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Ctrl+Alt+Del Unprotected

User:Toddst1 protect the page until jan 31st, but as seen by the recent edit I believe the protection has come off prematurely. If you couild take a look at the logs to see if the edit summary was wrong or if the protection was removed prematurely? Thanks. Knowledgeum :  Talk  01:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Ched Davis talk page

thanks... I'm not sure what that was, I don't even edit any of those types (religious maybe?) of pages? Appreciate your cleaning up though. Nice to know people have each other's back here. thx again. Ched (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank you Steve for the kind words and offer. Yep, still very new as an editor here, but I figured if I could survive a half century of real life, I could survive a few wiki-edits. I've made note of your talk page, and if I run into anything I need backup for, or clarification of, I'll be sure to give you a shout. All my best buddy, you have a good one. ;) .. Ched (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I had run into Abd before, and I complimented him on his efforts to coach and mentor a young, (and persistent), editor - guess that's how I ended up on the troll list... LOL. Ched (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

John Brownlee sex scandal

About a third of the current article on Brownlee is taken up by the sex scandal. Are you sure this merits an independent article? Rklear (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Actually I was just checking in because there's an active politician in Virginia, John L. Brownlee, and I wanted to make sure there were no libel issues. Rklear (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

what was so wrong with my Cohen addition?

Hiya,

well, the subject says it all?

I quite like the username actually, and it is quite appropriate to myself as well. In other places I have described myself as a frustrated perfectionist :)

How about I try again?

Andy

Itandy (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that :)

Yeah I was probably pushing it a little :)

I have been here for a while, actually, but lost my old account when I changed jobs :(

Itandy (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta

.LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal policy

Sorry, I've got a personal policy of not blocking someone more than once unless it is for blatant vandalism. Gonna have to pawn this off to another admin or ANI. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Text

Can you please send me the deleted text fromWat (slang)? The page was deleted because it was mistakenly believed to be vandalism. I didn't think to save the source, but I want to improve the article (add sources etc.) so that it doesn't seem like vandalism. My email is ahnolds@gmail.com. Thanks. --TruthfulCynic 06:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk page

My idea of a grace period is not for my benefit; I have transwikied all material I need and the other wiki is soon to open. I'm just writing for others.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Brownlee sex scandal

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Brownlee sex scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted page.

Hi, Steve, would you mind dropping a copy of Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments in my user space, with history and the Talk page, which was also deleted? A suggestion was made quite some time back that a subarticle be created on this, and, as often happens, the subarticle may have become unbalanced. Or the state of the field is that appearance of unbalance is created. Can't tell which, without seeing the article, just noticed the AfD. I don't see that the major editors of Cold fusion participated in the AfD, but maybe I don't recognize all of them. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the first: another: Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science. This was deleted, apparently unilaterally, by JzG, it might be simpler to just restore it, but I certainly don't mind it in my user space. There may be a blacklisted link on it, which could complicate things. JzG, that day, went around deleting links as he added two websites to the blacklist without discussion. Not asking you to get involved in the mess, but I'd like to see that page, with history. The article page was redirected, not deleted, it's fairly unusual to delete Talk pages in that case. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, JzG has essentially recused himself on this matter. I'd rather simply have the page undeleted without fuss, but I haven't seen any basis for deletion and I think DRV could also accomplish this. The arguments about "fringe," and JzG's personal experience with a chemist, however important that is to him, are a content judgment and shouldn't affect the deletion or undeletion of a Talk page, we don't delete fringe arguments on Talk pages without consensus, if that's what it is -- and I don't trust JzG's judgment on this. I'll be addressing the merge later, my opinion is that the merge entrenches a POV, i.e., that CMNS is simply Cold fusion under another name, which it isn't, in my opinion, and I doubt there is an RS for it. CMNS is a broader field, and some of it is accepted science, apparently; certainly there is plenty of published RS that falls under CMNS and is only peripheral to Cold fusion at best. "Cold fusion" was a mistake, and that's accepted by most in the CMNS field! These should be editorial judgments, not administrative ones. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Steve, the reopened AfD for Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments went for Delete, and, since you moved the article out of my user space, I now need a copy again! Thanks! --Abd (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Emergency

Lingle, Wyoming just had a murder threat (someone will die at "11:30"), which I reverted. I've reported it by email to the local sheriff's office, but could you please report this by telephone if you have the chance by 10:30 Pacific Time? I would do it myself, but I don't have phone access at the moment. Website is here for the Goshen County Sheriff's Office. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have called them and made the report. Useight (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown

Without even looking at your review, you sound like the type of reviewer who can help me take this article to WP:FA status. I look forward to working with you, just not tonight. I have to finish up putting Rashid Johnson together and responding to an A-Class review for Willie Gillis. Look for me to start getting to your thought hopefully within 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was one of the best reviews I have ever had. Thanks for the effort. Take a look when you have time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are done with your latest review, but I have responded to your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

When you promote articles in the future, update Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Do you have any idea what I should do about the 2005 Mayoral election results which do not appear to be on the public record, but that I got the Board of Elections to email me the results for?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Priliminary results were published in the newspaper, if I recall. Official results are from the Erie County Board of Elections and they are no where to be found on their website. I will see about that WP:PRIMARY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Byron_Brown#Mayoral_Election_Results and let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I have a captive audience, I thought I would ask do you prefer the choice of main images or should I swap with the one of him at the podium?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a new reviewer that wants a lot of negative stuff added claiming the article is nearly a hagiography. He wants most stuff unrelated to his political career removed. I have never had a review that wanted all personal stuff except a negative controversy removed before. Please watch the discussion and comment as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

It was mentioned on Jimbo Wales that the subject edited his own biography, which was later noted by subsequent editors. How does this mention violate BLP ? GoldDragon (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

OK! I didn't see how to add to it, but maybe this is it. Anyway, thanks for your help today. I may make additions to Wikipedia on behalf of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey (on some other day).

I like your username.

Platystrophia (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Wiki is not obvious! I don't see where to enter a subject line, unless it is the edit summary line below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platystrophia (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Is this how I post something on your page?

Thanks for bearing with me as I learn how to use Wikipedia.

Platystrophia (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lane

What's your view on this as a secondary source in support of the sources in the Lane book? It appears somewhat, but not heavily, based on info in there? Use of it on key points might address your concerns. I'm also trying to fill in around the edges from bios of other figures of the times. Oddly, other than what's in the letters book, there is no bio of Lane. You can reply here, I've watchlisted you--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In view of edits performed at the behest of BuddingJournalist, who has made sure no fact in the article is sourced to a Lane letter, would you mind reviewing the discussion and possibly reconsidering your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Good Article review of Joseph Tydings

Sorry for delaying. I've been a bit inundated with work so I was putting off implementing your recommendations. However, I think I have now addressed all of your points. Thanks for giving it a good, solid review. I'll have to return the favor for one of your articles some day... but probably not until the summer! --Tom (talk - email) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering about how you feel about Charles Mathias since you gave that article a lengthy GA review. How far away from featured status do you think it might be? --Tom (talk - email) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just found a bit more about Tydings and fleshed out his legal career. Let me know if there's any issues you see. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts on the potential FAC of Mathias. I'll try to address them sooner rather than later, and I'll get back to you! --Tom (talk - email) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro forma or

Your opinion? "Protecting the wrong version" (ID). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 05:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you answered my cryptic question fully. (Sometimes I can be a little too concise :) I disagree with you re the application of NFCC #8 -- the images are of far more value than say, the image here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Can you please undelete the page Wal-Mart (disambiguation) that I created several days ago. Somehow, this got speedy deleted before I had a chance to say anything about it. I was told that the issue had been "resolved," but I looked at the earlier AfDs I was unaware of, and they happened a long time ago, and the issues stated would not apply to the version I created, nor do I agree with them. Tatterfly (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the deleted article and the AFD, and I'm forced to disagree with you. The arguments raised in the AFD apply every bit as much to your version of the page as to the one that was deleted. You are free to raise the matter at deletion review if you continue to disagree with my decision; I will take no offense if you decide to do so. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, I would prefer if you undelete it and have someone propose it for deletion if they want. Tatterfly (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bash

WHAT MAKES YOU AN EXPERT ON "JEREMY BASH"?

There is nothing in the edited versions that is inaccurate or negative. Just because the truth sounds harsh doesn't mean it isn't correct. Your continued reversions reduce the entry to pablum and leave the reader with no substance on who this person is.Tongueincheeky (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the licensing section of Map 13?

Hi, sarcasticidealist,

Last time I checked (last Friday), the licensing section of Map 13 of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map13.jpg) was correct, and now it has been changed again. Do you know what happened? The Pennsylvania law that specified that our publications are not subject to copyright had been mentioned, and that is no longer there.

Platystrophia (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything new on the template for the licensing information? It still is incomplete.

Platystrophia (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

lyrikline.org

This article was speedied by User:Hu12 as alleged spamvertising. de.wikipedia has an article; the article here was created by the same user who created the article there. lyrikline.org is blacklisted on meta, and whitelisted on de.wikipedia. The story of the blacklisting, if you are interested, is at User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org. (I've been learning about how the blacklist works. Very efficient. Unfortunately, also sometimes brutal.) I don't know if the article has a link in it, might need to be fixed to undelete? Unfortunately, the only way to whitelist a link to the web site would be to essentially whitelist the whole thing, if I'm correct, and there are some digging in their heels.... In any case, I'd like to see the article as it was, and to get the history, to see if it can be used here. Might be better than my very, very primitive German. Very primitive. Userfy it for me? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jon Favreau (speechwriter)

Thanks. :) rootology (C)(T) 04:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! Maybe it was the cache hanging? You did catch that one stray word. :) rootology (C)(T) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FA

I already made the necessary changes for the article.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Undelete and userfy, please.

TurnKey Linux. I'd prefer to see the history. (If none of it appears useful, I'd then request it be deleted from my user space or moved back or whatever.) --Abd (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your wife know? Anyway, was there a Talk page with any significant content? If so, I'd appreciate it being attached.... Thanks profusely, salaams with head banging on the floor, and all that. Anyway, this may defuse a few percent of a situation. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review my new articles

I have written some new articles on the following old Saskatchewan provincial ridings:

Cypress (former Saskatchewan provincial electoral district), Wynyard (provincial electoral district), and Notukeu (electoral district).

Could you please review them? And, how does the tan-coloured "quality-control" box under the "Discussion" tab appear - who puts it there? Thanks. Jwkozak91 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoptme!

{{adoptme}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlemartirao (talk • contribs) 11 February, 2009

Re:Brownlee sex scandal GA review

Hi Sarcasticidealist, I too am partial to the first option as it would result in a better article. I see that the GA terms no longer have a "week" as a limit for "on hold" articles (in fact, there seems to be no set duration for an "on hold" review at the moment). I am confident that if I state the reasons for an extended hold, it will be abided. I am going to do it now. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job on getting those material in. Now, the final hurdle: the few bits of prose that seemed too hard for me to digest. Jappalang (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Struck most of them, only a two left (the witness one is probably me being dense, but hopefully my mind can be further cleared with your help). I also encountered an image issue on going through the new photos. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Only the image is left. I, too, do not readily trust the copyright assertions on the web, but unless there is proof that the government puts no claim on the pictures (like the portraits of Brownlee and Macmillan), I am not certain we can put it verifiably as a public domain image. How do you feel about my suggestion of using Mrs. Brownlee's portrait? The caption could be of her defense to her husband. Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the "unreasonably high threshold" has not yet been reached; I described my action to test if this is true in the Talk. Jappalang (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Case closed. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was a preference for the legal name of the case (which tends to be neutral, but can be obscure at times), but if that is unknown or if the public greatly remembers it by some other name, then I think WP:COMMONNAMES might supersede. You might want to ask about this at WP:LAW. In fact, should this article also not fall into the purveyance of that project (i.e. should the WikiProject not be added to the article's talk page)? Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I hadn't seen that he was blocked

Heh, I hadn't noticed that he had been blocked. My bad for not checking it first :D --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Favreau GA

I'll just need a couple days at least before I can get back to it, if that's OK. My main computer is having a bizarre registry issue that I'm still trying to fix (hence my lower activity the past week). rootology (C)(T) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha! It works out even better then all around, since I think I just fixed my problem. :P rootology (C)(T) 03:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

House and Senate career of John McCain GA review

Yikes, I feel bad that you're finding so many copyedit issues. Feel free to either fix them yourself as you see them (must be faster than writing them up), or to put the whole review on hold until I do a better job of copyediting the whole article myself (I'll print it out and mark it up by hand, which often allows me to find problems that I normally don't otherwise 'see'). Or continue as you are, but I feel bad that you're doing so much work on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, however you like to do it is okay with me. And no rush, there's always lots of other things to work on here ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've now responded to everything at Talk:House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest round of responses on your GA comments are done now. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and the pass. Of the dozen articles I've gotten GA'd, it was definitely the most thorough editorial critique. My only suggestion would be to repeat what I said above, consider fixing some of the problems as you encounter them, especially in the "is it well-written" class. This is explicitly encouraged by WP:GAN, it's what I do in my GA reviewers, and what most other GA reviewers do. You said, "I've considered fixing issues myself in the past, but I'm concerned that if I did so I'd no longer be an impassive reviewer but a major contributor to the article." 95% of your recommended changes are something no editor would object to, and the rest can be discussed, so I don't think there's any danger there. But of course it's up to you ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ready-links.com

Please userfy. Note that I requested the speedy-deleting admin to undelete or userfy, this was his reply. The answer to my request was in his edit summary: "nope." A link to the whole discussion as it stands is permanent link.

Unfortunately, as you can tell from the comments in that discussion, they are circling the wagons even though they are not being attacked. I've been finding possible blacklisting errors and trying to act to correct them, carefully, without making accusations, but I'm starting to get responses from some that are a tad hostile. If you want to know more, I'll explain. So far, though, I've recovered an article that you helped me with, Lyrikline.org, so the userifications are useful and appreciated. Hu12 actually whitelisted the link to the domain so that it could be used in the article, which I thought was quite helpful. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier

Thank you for editing and improving in a minor way, the contentious paragraph in the Biography on me that has become so controversial today.

• On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, Cormier sat in the first row of the visitors' gallery wearing a gag over his mouth with the words "Fear of The Truth" written on it. Security guards attempted to remove him; Cormier eventually complied and left.

While this is better than the gibberish that was there, it still falls short of the reality that is contained in References 6 & 7. I still do not understand why you could not just leave it the way it was originally written.

Actually, combining what you wrote and the original, would be closer to the Truth and Reality as verified by citation References 6 & 7.

• On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, Cormier sat in the first row of the visitors gallery wearing a gag over his mouth with the words, "Fear of The Truth" written on it. ¨Security guards attempted to remove him.¨ He clung to the brass railing as several security guards punched him and pulled his hair and eventually he let go without making a sound. ¨Cormier eventually complied and left.¨ The video was not shown on National TV, but was witnessed by a packed visitors gallery.

I do not understand why you removed ¨The video was not shown on National TV, but was witnessed by a packed visitors gallery.¨ This historic day in Canada was because it was the 1st day of TV Broadcasting of House of Commons debates. This is the essence of the news reports.

What you wrote, waters the historical event down so much, a reader will not know what actually happened. I provided the link to read the actual newspaper reports which verifies the original detailed version.

I know you have offered limited, if not enthusiastic support as I stood alone in the face of so many detractors, and I truly appreciate that. Please explain why you did it the way you did? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• You said the fact that Boston University School of Theology has my Wikipedia Biography posted on it´s web site is insignificant because a bot does it. You made the change above only yesterday, and that change is already reflected on the Boston University web page. How can a bot do that so quickly? Is it a specially designed bot permanently locked into my BLP?

http://sthweb.bu.edu/shaw/anna-howard-shaw-center/biography?view=mediawiki&article=Ray_Joseph_Cormier

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• :) again Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• :) :) :) I do appreciate and value so much your message. Unfortunately, my computer crashed, but fortunately I made hard copies of the information, including all the scans of the original References. What I am using temporarily is a very small 7¨ ASUS notebook my next door neighbor loaned me, with my external 19¨ flat screen monitor.

To be honest with you, two other Editor/Admins expressed the same intention to try to improve the Article months ago. I e-mailed all the scans to both of them, but nothing changed. They are both very busy on their own Talk page. I expect to have a new PC in the next few weeks. I have no credit cards. I pay cash as I can afford things. Perhaps I can ask those Editors to e-mail you the scans if they still have them on their PC.

Peace and God Bless you. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Focus Magazine was distributed free in downtown restaurants and corner stores when I made my 1st run for Parliament in 1984. What inspired me to run was the symbolism from George Orwell´s 1984. Unfortunately, it hit the streets the day after the election. While there is no doubt it is an independent source, it is now expired, As a source, I don´t think it would have the prestige to meet Wikipedia´s higher standards. It is a good article though, and the election result would have better for me if it hit the streets weeks before the election.

There is strong meat in References 24 & 25. I discuss some of that content in the Article Talk. I am assuming Editors can take information from a Reference and paraphrase it in the Article. Is this correct?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Would you please take a look at the current article and the latest discussion on the edits made today by the Editor who nominated it for deletion. The consensus was for Keep, and from my POV, his edits are designed to convey a totally negative impression, making it as NN as possible. I will not change a thing, having to depend on other Editors to improve it.

The scanned References in my Facebook album are difficult to read with the naked eye, but they are readable with a magnifying glass. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109

Out of curiosity, the Boston University School of Theology website already reflects the edits of this morning. Is that bot permanently locked into my Biography on Wikipedia?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bash

Hi. It's not clear to me how the COI notice I placed on User talk:Jeremybash was "totally inappropriate". An editor with the handle "Jeremybash" created and edited what appears to be an autobiographical article entitled "Jeremy Bash". WP:COI, and indeed the template itself, cautions against "editing or creating articles related to you" and autobiographical articles are "strongly discouraged". The editor had blanked the page, and since he was the creator of the article I initially considered tagging it G7, but the article had existed since last April and several other editors had contributed to it, so it seemed an unsuitable speedy candidate. Moreover, the subject was possibly notable and may in fact have deserved an article, so nominating it for deletion, speedy or otherwise, seemed inappropriate. The only issue was that the subject of the article probably ought not to be editing it (unless there was something potentially libelous in it that he was removing -- I checked: there wasn't), so I placed a note on the editor's page reminding him that Wikipedia discourages creating and editing articles about oneself. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I've yet to discern what was "totally inappropriate". If anything, the vandalism warning might've been considered inappropriate, as the page blanking could simply have been the article creator's good-faith deletion request, whereas the COI notice was simply an on-point reminder about an applicable behavioural guideline. Care to enlighten me? --Rrburke^(talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem -- and apologies for the irritable tone. I have noticed this tendency as well -- and a related one: an editor who is a leading authority on a subject attempts to correct inaccuracies in an article by citing their own published work and gets their user talk page splashed with notices about soapboxing and COI. This sort of thing happened in the case of Sclater's Guenon, here. Turns out the editor Lynnerbaker is probably one of the leading authorities on the subject (there aren't many) and another editor thought she was trying to promote her own work. The whole bitey mess discouraged her from participating in the project, and her expertise would've been invaluable in something WP:APE. I tried to lure her back to the project both on-wiki and off, but without success. What compounds the problem is that new users often think editors putting cautions on their talk page are Wikipedia employees speaking in some official capacity and telling them to get lost. It's really unfortunate: I've seen a few losses to the project that came through this kind of biting. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

This is to give you a heads up. As I´ve stated, I´ve just been reactivated. According to the News Editor of a major Ottawa Daily with whom I have been speaking, they plan to do a feature story on me sometime next week. They are preoccupied for now with President Obama arriving in Ottawa Tomorrow. I expect that will be online when it´s ready.

While I have no control over what they write, I´m hoping they will include much of what is in the old version in the history. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: your last message in the article talk, if you wish to e-mail me your address, I will send you copies of everything. Then you can work at your own pace, and I won´t be bothering you any more. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You said the fact that Boston University School of Theology has my BLP mirrored on their web site was due to a bot. I´m not fully conversant on what bots are, how they work or what they do. Going there today,

http://sthweb.bu.edu/shaw/anna-howard-shaw-center/biography?view=mediawiki&article=Ray_Joseph_Cormier

it mirrors the horrific edits that were done just today. Is that a permanent connection just to my BLP? Do they have permanent connections to other Wiki articles under their own masthead? Is it possible they are doing a study on how Wikipedia works? If anyone else can answer these questions, please do. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I´m so Glad! I´Glad! I´m Glad! You have not answered my question on bots yet. Boston University School of Theology already mirrors the new version. How does this happen? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I´ve just finished scanning all the references and more. It is a big package. It will cost, but I will sent it Priority Post on Monday. I´m still waiting to hear an explanation on bots and Boston U. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviews

I just wanted to thank you for the number of thorough FAC reviews you've been doing lately; they are very helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

edit on Bertolt Brecht

Hi Sarcasticidealist, I've reponded to your message on my talk page. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fouldsy...

I have reblocked User:Fouldsythekingisbackagain. I thought the name sounded a little suspicious so I checked special:listusers and started comparing contributions. The edits of Fouldsy91 (talk · contribs) are similar so per WP:DUCK, I blocked. Hope I'm not stepping on your toes. —Travis^talk 04:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Bär FAC review

Thanks for your constructive feedback and copy editing. Please have a look at my latest changes in an attempt to address your concerns. Please let me know what you think. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

could you have another look an see if your last comments have been addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Shaw FA

You wrote that you were supporting my FA nom for Sebastian Shaw, but you said something about that you were "not satisfied" that it was ready for FA status. I was wondering if you meant NOW supporting (at least I'm hoping so, since you're supporting it; lol). Just wanted to check and see if you wouldn't mind rewording it, since if I did it it might look like tampering. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• lol, No problem. Thanks for your help with the article! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Block

I made a foolish error in the block screen. I was actually looking at someone else's block, and typed in Shalom Yechiel in the username part, as I thought he had been blocked for something, and I was using that screen to look at block logs. I mistakenly hit enter, and blocked him indefinitely with the settings of another user. It's a stupid error on my part, and should be ignored. Acalamari 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell, peer review

If you have a moment or two to spare, while we wait for Rutherford to get promoted, could you take a look at Benjamin Morrell on PR? All comments gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)

Just in case it gets lost in the middle of your comments for this FAC, I commented on your feeling that the Summit Series section was favouring a Canadian POV. I don't see it myself, so I am hoping you can expand on that so that I might address your concern. Thanks, Resolute 05:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Weigh in please?

Would you kindly weigh in on Talk:Mae West's new section re: photo caption & also possibly re: tagging? It would be much appreciated by several of us who respect you as an objective administrator. Some kind of progress is needed and your expertise will probably help avoid another major bruhaha. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS related this IP to User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be using a sock puppet during this RfC, after which the sock was blocked and EmilEikS resigned from Wikipedia rather than participate. The IP used sock puppets to try and vote-stack a consensus request at Talk:Mae West in order to coatrack the person in the crypt image into the article. The major "bruhaha" was of the IP's making. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Hi. Noticed you reverted one of WK edits. Thanks for the explanation. I commented this on talk page, which one day I will figure out how to put some sexy "dif" markers on. Wanted to give you a heads-up.Camera123456 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Feel free (obv) to change what I did, but I tried to follow your suggestions.Camera123456 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review of Rutherford

Hi, I am responding to your statements in the FAC. I appreciate your responses, and you have made me aware that you "disagree with [my] approach to the other images". I would like to know your thoughts. The model on this project is a "concensus" model, even though I have my doubts about it (how likely can all of the people agree on something all of the time?); even if we still disagree, just knowing other's opinions can help shape my "Wikipedia principles".

Regarding the deletion nomination for the Rutherford premier picture, like I said, there was a decided concensus on it and I am not going to go against it. However, I am not totally satisfied with its reasoning, certainly it could have been mentioned which pre-1946 publication the picture has appeared in. I could have left the whole issue alone, as I did before the article appeared at FAC (and perhaps one day, some other person would come and challenge the issue again, or an innocent printed it commercially, only to be sued by the Alberta government and coming here, find that the reason for keeping was "it must have been in some old publication I do not know of"), or I could constantly try to find if there was a truer reason for it to be a public domain picture; so, which route did I take and is it appropriate, especially since we are going to present it as part of Wikipedia's "best work"?

Edmunton, Edmonton; Napoleon, Napolean... sometimes I suffer brainfarts like that. I wonder if there is a medical condition such as this (variant of dyslexia, perhaps...). Anyway, let us talk. We might find some common ground, and change each other's view (for the better), or we understand each other's boundaries and agree to respect that. Jappalang (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That was clear. Thank you for your understanding. Jappalang (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sorted out the image issues, thanks to the PAA (they were friendly and helpful in their messages). Just a slight niggle, if you have the time, can you fill in the pages the photos appeared in Babcock's biography? It is not a big issue (more like only a trifle), but I think it polishes the image pages further. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall: MBisanz

Hi, I've selected you as a clerk for a recall action involving mbisanz. I noted that his deletion seemed arbitrary and didn't consider the deletion discussion. The topic he deleted was Davenport, Iowa African American history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrryce (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarcasticidealist - No, I'm comfortable with this. I want to proceed. My basis for doing so, besides my belief that this was deleted without due consideration, is the body of Wiki work contributed by mbisanz. I am particularly nonplussed by his bowling alley entry. If my entry is to be deleted, I want it deleted honestly and not based on the opinion of some guy who feels a bowling alley trumps an entire community of African Americans. Wiki has a terrible reputation among the African American people that I know, and this may be part of the reason. I want to understand this process and see what biases exist. So, game on. Brrryce (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• You would probably be wise to "speedy-archive" all the unproductive discussion. Maybe people will get the hint that drama isn't for sale there. WilyD 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, realistically none of the bottom three sections are actually relevent to the page content, so you could archive them as "off topic/discussion board-y". Certainly contraversial pages I'm involved with (mostly Talk:Muhammad) we're always quick to clamp down on off topic discussion. Support for MBisanz before a recall is inititiated isn't helpful or relevent. But if anyone other than the clerk tried to tidy things, I think everyone would go into full retard mode. (Heaven knows I am - nominally the rationale of Brrryce is correct - the closure was bad, though seemingly an honest mistake from a guy who closes enormous stacks of AFDs. The recall criteria don't really make it clear (as I recall) whether I'm supposed to agree with the nominating rationale, or that he should be recalled - certainly if it's the former ... ) That'd also be pointy, but there's no point in closing those barn doors now. Ah well, maybe something more interestingly show up, and distract everyone's attention. WilyD 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell peer review

Just to thank you for your review comments. Other editors have weighed in, and I am closing the review today. Your comments were most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip (MBisanz recall)

I don't know about tipping, but I would definitely sponsor you for a round (or two, or three, etc.) some of Wikipedia's finest brew!

I figure you deserve some for being a great clerk over at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Cheers! MuZemike 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions proposal

Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I will tell you when there is a final proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you helped me, I'm going to be bugging you forever

Well, not really, but just a bit.  ;) First, thank you for your review at the FAC for the 1967–1992 NHL history article. Your contributions really helped us pass that article. At this point, I also believe that the fourth article, History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) is ready for FAC as well, however if you have some time I would really appreciate you would be willing to give it a quick copyedit. It is very short relative to the first three, so shouldn't take long.  ;) Also, and even though he plays for your enemy, I'd love to get some outside feedback on Jarome Iginla as it is also an article I'd like to get to FA status eventually. Given how much experience you have with biographies, I can't think of many people better to give the article a good review. Thanks! (and yes, I'll owe you one, or two, if you agree to this) Resolute 00:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, sure didn't take long to call in that marker, eh? I will happily look over the FAC and the article. Thanks again for the copyedit. Resolute 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do not see any anti-Calgary bias in the Rutherford article. If anything, you really understated the Calgary-Edmonton divide that the placement of the capital and university caused, though it is very well stated in his biography (it occurs to me that, even as I contemplate a Battle of Alberta (ice hockey) child article, you could probably write an excellent Battle of Alberta (politics) article...) Tony is probably the hardest reviewer to please at FAC, but he always does offer good insight. I do tend to agree with you that the article is much closer to meeting 1a than he is willing to give you. I have to admit that I share your question about how hard it is to respond without much more specific feedback. As promised, however, I will follow up my initial review of the article with a very thorough read in a day or so. It is a good thing that I enjoy reading about history as much as I do hockey, or a political bio might be incredibly dull! Cheers, Resolute 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Three more articles, eh? I'm guessing one is the Brownlee sex scandal, which I find rather interesting given I am quite familiar with UFA. Send me the links, it always helps to have more eyes looking at these articles before FAC. Resolute 06:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The articles can wait as long as needed. Thanks! Resolute 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anticipation

DoDaCanaDa (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I regret suggesting you roll out Sections of the BLP like a strip tease. With the tantalizing teaser taste of your MoS, every passing day is like a week to me waiting for the next Section. Understandably, high quality work such as you have started does take more thoughtful time to perfect.

I think it´s wonderful your personal interest as you express it on your User page has coincided with mine. I have every confidence your work will become the Standard of Excellence in Wikipedia for all aspiring Editors wanting to create or improve a BLP. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

In lieu with List of officials of Valenzuela City, 2007-2010, which the article was merged to Valenzuela City because these people are not notable, do you want to consider the following articles in this page be an article here in Wikipedia? If you'll try to navigate on the pages, it will directs you into pages concerning Edmonton city councillors, and these councillors have their own Wikipedia articles, though they never need spin-out. Almost all of them are not notable. Please consider this thing.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message on my talk page, and for removing the edits from the others' pages, and for referring the issue to the oversighters.

I'm sitting here quite worried about all of this, so it's great to hear from you so quickly.

Again, my utmost thanks.

The Duke of Sarcasticidealist 05:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee

First, kudos on being so quick to notice that your last FAC nom was promoted (and congrats). Second, THANK YOU for one of the funniest FAC nomination statements I've ever read. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your wikibreak and come back refreshed at some point in the future. I've enjoyed your Alberta articles, and I hope to see more of them cross FAC! Karanacs (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Favreau

Heya... I'm not going to have dedicated time to set aside in the immediate/near future to work through it all for GA; schedule is a bit tight and I'm overloaded with IRL commitments, beyond these little windows where I hop on here to weigh in on and this and that. We can abort for now. rootology (C)(T) 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You will be missed.

per [24]. Best wishes. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You were always one of the good ones, buddy; hope you come back soon. GlassCobra 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Drat, good luck in the future Steve. MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have helped several people I know and have also been an important critic of the more obnoxious aspects of English Wikipedia that are giving The Wikimedia Foundation a worse and worse name with every passing day. Funny that no noticeable improvement is made. This is all available material so all anyone has to do is start another Foundation with a better attitude (less hypocrisy) and copy all this over. An idea? Hope you will come back and/or that your inspiration with bring out similar good qualities in others. I can't identify myself right now, but I have appreciated you very much. All the best! 217.209.96.233 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother

I just ran across Stéphane Émard-Chabot and was thinking how you could easily source and expand that. Oh well, another time. MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty for everyone!

BLP list

1. How about this? Semi-protection expired earlier today and it's being hit hard again. Enigma^msg 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Nancy Grace is an especially frustrating BLP. Can you review the recent edits and possibly semi-protect? It's difficult for me to sort out. Thanks. PS- If you don't want protection requests, let me know. I don't want to dump it on you. Enigma^msg 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Jay Cutler is getting hit hard. BLP that needs long term semiprotection. Enigma^msg 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
4. R.A. Thorburn - Not even convinced of his notability, and no one is watching his article but me. Please make a judgment call about notability, the content of the article, and if it is to remain, its protection status. Thanks, Enigma^msg 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. James Tedisco - I'm at a loss here. The material added over the past year+ was not particularly high quality, but I'm not sure if it can be removed outright. Enigma^msg 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Chuck Liddell is a frequent target of vandalism from IPs. Constructive contributions from IPs there is very rare indeed. Enigma^msg 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Andy Dick- Another BLP that needs semiprotection. Enigma^msg 06:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Rick James - Frequently targeted by vandals. I've removed perhaps hundreds of BLP violations. Enigma^msg 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lar/Liberal Semi

This little list ended up turning into a userproject. Would you consider watchlisting and/or helping out with protections? Welcome back. I hope you stay, even if it's at a reduced level of activity. Enigma^msg 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)