User talk:Rotten regard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Rotten regard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Bastion Road

I have undone your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) since it is really a closure that should be performed by an administrator. I'd suggest that you stick to content areas for a while before moving into the maintenance parts of the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have undone your re-closure. Please do not revert again. --Rschen7754 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Past account?

Hello, I noticed from your edits that you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. Have you edited under any other username before? Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, although I can't currently access that account as I've misplaced the notebook in which I wrote down the password. I therefore created this new account. I'm now going to have a thoroughly good search for that damn notebook. --Rotten regard (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If you disclosed what the username of that account was, that would be a step towards compliance with the WP:SOCK policy. --Rschen7754 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course, but I can't prove it was my account unless I can locate that notebook. Even when I could access my old account I'd often just edit as an IP, not for nefarious reasons, I just didn't see the need to log in. --Rotten regard (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • The IP isn't the issue (as that's a privacy policy violation), but disclosing the name at least would be helpful, as that lends credibility to your story. --Rschen7754 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, it's User:General announcement. --Rotten regard (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
            • So, now that you've retrieved it, why not use it?—Kww(talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
              • I haven't yet located the notebook that contains the password, but I still have hopes of doing so. --Rotten regard (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                • If you agree to let me note the linkage on your userpage and not use that account again, I'll unblock this one.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • If I do locate the password to my original account can I then drop this one and resume that one? --Rotten regard (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Only by asking. I'll keep the unused account blocked, but if you want to change back, I'll swap the blocks.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                      • OK, I can understand your caution. Please unblock this account, and if I find that pesky password I'll let you know. --Rotten regard (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being an improper alternate account. I can't say with certainty exactly what editor this is an alternate account for. However, it was created during the first AFD for Flat Bastion Road, left dormant, and spun up to autoconfirmed immediately before edit-warring a close on a second AFD for Flat Bastion Road. Your edits in the meantime demonstrate a familiarity with Wikipedia that makes it quite clear that you are not a fresh account. Alternate accounts are not permitted to edit in AFDs or anywhere else in Wikipedia namespace, making this a violation of WP:SOCK.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 04:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I concur with the conclusions of Kww that the likelihood of this being an improper account is exceedingly high. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rotten regard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't believe this is an "improper alternate account", as I've explained above in my reply to Hersfold. Rotten regard (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Blocked User:General announcement, making this no longer an "alternate" account. Please note that your behaviour at the AFD for Flat Bastion Road was highly problematic, and what drew all of this attention in the first place. Non-admin closes are only acceptable when the disposition of an AFD is completely uncontroversial, and the fact that your close was reverted means that it couldn't possibly have been uncontroversial. Don't repeat behaviour like that.

—Kww(talk) 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You agree to disclose your other account's name but didn't actually do so, so this unblock request isn't reviewable right now. I'm leaving it up for the next admin. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Khalid al-Masri

You reverted a lot of changes without giving an adequate explanation. I just performed some changes at the article please do check my edit summaries and please do provide edit summaries and explanations in case you are going to perform further changes. Nobody has a clue what are the reasons for your changes. Please also note that there is not a single reference that says that this individual is an Al-qaeda member. I do not have an opinion about that it might be true or not, the point is that all information especially in biographies must be verified by sources. Anyway. In case you disagree with one or more of my changes than please start a thread on that articles talk page and we will work. Have a nice day Madrid1976 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fleming

Thank you. As I'm sure you would appreciate we spent a long time writing it so please excuse our ruthless reverts. Thanks for the ref! -- CassiantoTalk 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Perfectly understandable. Entirely my fault, I should have added the reference with the initial edit. --Rotten regard (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion Removal

Please DO NOT remove any Article for Deletion proposal, that's why there is a discussion on the proposal, so if you do not agree with this AfD proposal please state so. By simply deleting AfD that is considered vandalism and you risk having your editing privileges revoke. Thank you for your time. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You did not list the article at AFD, you PRODed it. Once a PROD is removed, it should not be reinstated. I have undone your revert. Ryan Vesey 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

PROD removals

Hey—I noticed that you removed (reverted over) a number of PRODs today and before without giving any edit summary or other explanation. There's no rule that says you must, but I personally would really appreciate some feedback on what you disagree with when you remove my own PRODs. czar · · 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Usually the reason, if I don't specify in the edit summary, is because I think there's a reasonable chance that the article would survive an afd and therefore shouldn't be deleted via a prod. Rotten regard Softnow 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
then allow it to survive. 186.107.79.228 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, an explanation would be appreciated. Also, this is not a reliable source. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Great American Group, Inc.

Was there a specific reason you removed my PROD here? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything before I send it to AfD. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think they could well be notable as one of America's major liquidation companies. Rotten regard Softnow 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding PRODs

As you are aware, and as is visible in the messages above, numerous editors are concerned about your removing of PRODs without giving any explanation. I also notice that you never, as far as I can see, do the courtesy of informing editors that you have contested their PRODs, while on the other hand at lest once you did take the trouble to inform an editor who had removed a PROD that the article has been taken to AfD. This one-sided informing of editors seems to be very much in the spirit of what is referred to at Wikipedia:Canvassing, even though the circumstances are not identical to those envisaged in that guideline.
There is, of course, a wide range of opinions as to what articles should be acceptable in Wikipedia, ranging from those who believe we should have very high quality standards to a tiny handful of extreme "inclusionists" who actually think that Wikipedia should have no inclusion criteria at all, and allow anyone to post snything they like here, no matter how bad. It is clear that you are well towards the "inclusionist" end of the spectrum, and that you see as perfectly acceptable articles that a more average editor would see as unsuitable. You have, of course, every right to take such a view. However, the concerns which various editors have expressed suggest that you might reconsider how you deal with this issue. While there is no requirement either to give reasons for contesting PRODs nor to inform editors that you have contested their PRODs, doing so is helpful to other editors, and naturally I trust that you do wish to be helpful to other editors. When several editors raise the same issue with you in a short time, it looks as though there is a consensus that you are not handling things in the best possible way. In addition, even when you have been asked about this issue, you give at best very minimal responses. An editor has suggested that what you are doing could be regarded as disruptive, and that you are failing to try to build consensus. The canvassing-like activity that I mentioned does seem to look, on the face of it, like a failure to try to work via consensus.
I strongly suggest that you think carefully about these issues, and consider whether you might make more of an effort to communicate with other editors with whom you disagree on deletion-related matters. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello James, I'll attempt to answer the points you raise above.
From now on I will always explain either in the edit summary or on the article talk page why I'm removing a prod. I shall also inform the editor on their talk page that I have removed their prod.
As to informing User:DGG about the afd, I did this because I thought he would be interested in participating at the afd. I myself wasn't concerned whether the article was deleted or not. I only removed the prod because the article wasn't eligible to be prodded. Editors often fail to check an article's history and prod articles that are not eligible to be prodded, e.g., already having had a prod removed previously.
I wouldn't class myself as an inclusionist, I seldom participate in afd's, I just think that all too often a prod is used inappropriately on articles that really would be more suited to an afd.
I hope my answers allay any misgivings. Rotten regard Softnow 17:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Talk:Arvind Singh, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What a sad picture

Sad user picture. THanks for the notice re Mr Singh. I have removed the deletion proposal as I believe he is notable. Odd uncited stuff on his user page. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny how we perceive things, that picture always makes me smile. Rotten regard Softnow 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rotten regard. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to your message on removal of my PROD nomination TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lipstick Prophets prod

Hello, and thanks for letting me know about your prod removal. Judging from the previous discussion on the article's Talk page, there was no real consensus and the previous prod had simply been removed due to an editor's interest in fixing it a few years back...which never quite panned out. Although even I am not sure that the article should be deleted, it's not useful at all in its current state - including only uncited statements, along with vague mentions of having been covered in print magazines which I do not currently have access to to check (although I will see if I can dig any of them up). What do you think should be done? Is an AfD appropriate in this scenario? Thanks, Feather Jonah (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Afd is definitely the way to go if you believe it fails notability, in my opinion it's probably not notable. Rotten regard Softnow 00:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I just went ahead and nominated it...if you'd like to contribute to the discussion, here it is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lipstick_Prophets Feather Jonah (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Waterbeach F.C.

Just so you know that the article has been taken to AfD. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterbeach F.C.. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Favorite Chicken

Ack, I did look through the previous revisions but missed that it'd been prodded before! Thanks for letting me know, I'll take it to AfD. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes sometimes they can be difficult to spot, and downright impossible if no indicative edit summary is used (my bugbear). Rotten regard Softnow 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rotten regard. You have new messages at RockMagnetist's talk page.
Message added 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RockMagnetist (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested CSD at Transformers 4 (film)

Hi. I noticed that you challenged my speedy deletion template at Transformers 4 (film). I'm aware that the article appears to go into greater detail than Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014) does, but if you look closely, the majority of the article is directly copied from that section, and the rest is re-phrasing of information presented there. I respect your right to challenge and remove a speedy deletion nomination, but I was wondering if you could elaborate as to which content you feel is present in this article that is not present in the main one. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • After I read the A10 criteria I don't think that the article comes within its very limited remit. At the very least it could just be redirected to the main Transformers films article. Rotten regard Softnow 02:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz45

Perhaps it was not your intention, but you warned Special:Contributions/Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz45 3 times for edits before they had a chance to read the warnings. ⁓ Hello71 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If it's vandalism then it gets a warning. You'll note I ignored their first edit and AGF. Rotten regard Softnow 19:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing Wikilinks

You go too far in removing links in the Most Massive stars article. Some of the stars that you redirected to that article were previous directed to articles that contained the relevant information about that star even if they weren't specifically or only about that star. An example would be the R136 group which are all referenced in a single article about the R136 cluster. I have no clue how to fix this other than simply reverting all your changes, which is obviously undesirable, so I'd rather you sort it out. Or should have been. I'm finding it difficult to check what the old versions were since the current redirections show even in those. I'm getting tied in knots chasing this. Lithopsian (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I only removed the ones that were redlinks, nothing that had an article was delinked. Rotten regard Softnow 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do. If I have star R136c and I want it ti (until an actual article is created) point to R136, should I change the redirect page for R136c->R136? Or create a link like [[R136|R136c]]? Lithopsian (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure you can change the redirect to another more apt article. R136 would be better for the stars listed there. I'll change them now. Rotten regard Softnow 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I see what you've done with R136. I'll sort out any others that need the same treatment. Lithopsian (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll have a much better idea than me if there are more suitable articles to redirect to. Rotten regard Softnow 23:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Love your name

Everytime Clayton Cohn pops up in my watchlist, I have to smile. I love your name. I can't decide to call you Mr./Ms. Rotten or say regards to rotten. Hmmm, I guess you know your mentally not alright when you chuckle at rotten regard. My favourite username is User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Just call me Rotten. Your RfA is going very well, the burden of the mop will soon be upon you. Rotten regard Softnow 17:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Darby O' Gill and the Little People (band)

I understand that you removed the PROD, but clearly you can see that this page needs to be deleted. There are no citations to verify any of the information, it's promotional in nature (the only link points to their MySpace page with "purchase" links all over it), the notability of the subject has not been established; they don't even have a website. If this page exists, anyone should be able to make their own band page. Sal Calyso (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis

Hi Regard,

Thank you for letting me know that you removed the prod template from Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis. All Wikipedia articles require citations from reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the corresponding subject's notability. At present, the article in question has no such sources, as Amazon.com is not a valid source. I have looked for sources for this article, but have not been successful in finding any. Do you know of any? If not, I will likely start an AfD for the article. I would appreciate any help you can provide in this matter.

Neelix (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello Neelix, I quite agree with you about the sources. I found this mention in an academic book here. By and large though sources do appear thin on the ground, but maybe someone might find something if it goes to AfD. Rotten regard Softnow 02:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Also when it comes to comics I'm rather unsure which websites are regarded as reliable sources. Rotten regard Softnow 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Download, Read & Feel

Thanks for the heads up. I've sent it to AfD here instead. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rotten regard. You have new messages at [[User talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...?|User talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...?]].
Message added 07:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your notice--it's only fair to notify you as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Partizani New York

Thanks for letting me know, I missed that in the history. I'll take to AfD. GiantSnowman 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Solemnavalanche#Menippeah

Hello, Rotten regard. You have new messages at Solemnavalanche's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Point of Origin (Allele album): PROD rationale

Hi, I noticed that you placed a speedy tag (A9) on this article. I had considered speedying this as well and wanted to explain to you my reasons for PRODing it instead. Though the band no longer has an individual article, I felt that the album article still "indicate[s] the importance or significance of the subject" by claiming sales exceeding 150,000, a handful of reviews (albeit in questionably reliable sources), and containing a song that was used in a video game. In any case, we seem to agree that the article is not needed, and that's the main thing. Cheers!  Gongshow Talk 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with you about that claim, if it had been referenced I definitely wouldn't have added a speedy. I thought it a borderline speedy deletion so gave it a punt. Rotten regard 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Re:PROD removal

Hi Regard,

Hello. I put the tag there not because of it's notability, but because of it's terrible grammar and citation style. I have replaced the PROD. Cheers! Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 02:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes I know you did, the grammar isn't so terrible, the article is understandable and citation style isn't a good reason to delete. Please remove the prod, it should not have been restored. Thank you. Rotten regard 02:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, done. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 02:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I removed the prod. Per WP:PROD, if an PROD is removed, it needs to go to AFD. Legoktm (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Taekwanjetsu

Hi RR. Just curious - you raised this AFD with the rationale that it was a "contested PROD" - but it was your yourself who removed the PROD tag. Since PROD and AFD both take the same amount of time (and PRODs are, argueably, a lot less effort for both admins and the community at large), I just wondered what your rationale was? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello Yunshui, An earlier prod was added by Kudpung on 3 November and contested on the 5 November by the article's creator. Therefore the prod you added wasn't eligible so I sent it to AfD instead. Rotten regard 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, good call then. That's twice recently I've missed a previous PROD tag - I really should know better, and should check the histories more carefully. Thanks for pulling me up on it. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Victory College

Fine, thanks for letting me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tas Pappas

No worries mate! Didn't realise. I will AFD it. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually ended up re-writing it (or just writing it, really, given it was previous just one line). Glad you removed my prod - made me think twice about getting rid of it! Cheers, Stalwart111 00:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Reply Malaysian Africans

It's ok. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

re: Martyrios Bagin

All right, can you AfD it then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm reluctant to as I really have no idea if he might be considered notable. By all means send it to AfD yourself if you're fairly certain he isn't notable. Rotten regard 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. 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! KTC (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

File Rationale

I have corrected the description of the file Allu Arjun Trivikram film shooting.jpg which was tagged for deletion due to a disputed rationale. Please do check and let me know whether i did the right thing. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Please stop adding notability tags to articles without doing the research. They will be expanded in due course, so stop wasting your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Please stop creating a bunch of crap stub articles about non-notable films. --Rotten regard 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you review your own participation on Wikipedia, especially at RfA, before criticising an established prolific content contributor such as Blofeld. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ha, there was precious little civility from you in your response to my polite oppose vote at RFA, so please take your hypocrisy elsewhere. --Rotten regard 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you should be grateful to Blofeld and his ilk for writing up those stubs. You may not know that non-English films aren't exactly overrepresented on Wikipedia, and every article has to start somewhere. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This guy actually made it to RFA? Yikes!! Well, the films all star well-established Czech actors. That a lot of them are still stubs isn't an accurate reflection of actual notability. In fact Jan Werich even auditioned to play me one time... That the films are Czech rather than American of course has nothing to do with it. I'll try flesh some of them out today and get the director article expanded. If you'd actually seen Czech films you'd realise there's some real gems and Czech and Polish films often have a certain character quality to them you often don't get with others, There's a gaping hole in coverage. A lot of these films should be mentioned in books on Czech cinema, I'll have a look. Hell, even the author of The Shop on Main Street, one of the greatest Czech films was missing until a few days ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Occam's razor

I'm not saying they defintely are socks, just that the intersections on very obscure articles are very suspicious.

No, the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is that they are (or rather were) both active members of WikiProject Food and drink. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the high numbers are due to Northamerica's already famous style of piecemeal editing. Divide everything by 30, as per TP's calculation. Kraxler (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello, sorry to have to close this in this manner but the consensus was clear.

Per overwhelming consensus here you are banned from posting on any page or talk page starting with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship including the base pages themselves. This ban is indefinite and remains until the community overturns it.

There does not seem to be a consensus to prevent you from discussing RfA or candidates in other forums in an appropriate fashion. There is some sentiment that discussing these things in other venues in an appropriate fashion may be productive. The purpose of this ban is to prevent disruption to RfA and should not act as a gag on the subject unless the community comes to another consensus.

If this ban is violated any admin can block without warning at their discretion. Durations will increase if violations repeat. Chillum 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for delivering the verdict in such a polite way. --Rotten regard 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As with my comments I do feel there are other locations that you still can enter that you can use to show that this topic ban is no longer needed. I certainly do commend your reactions and hope that you will be able to return to RfA in the not so long future.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope

Best of luck!
I do hope that you will try to follow the guidelines more properly and become an asset to the community, and that your t-ban be lifted one day. Best of luck! --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 02:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Fictional Stories set in Vatican City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Silva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rotten_regard/Archive_1&oldid=1168307649"