User talk:TallNapoleon/Archive 1

Thanks for removing trivia from Empire State Building.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Empire State Building

Hello, thanks for the comments. In reply, because i don't know a lot about the Empire State Building in general i'm not going to get into a major dispute over it. I will only add 1 cultural reference back. This is the instance of the building appearing (starring) in the 2007 Doctor Who episodes "Daleks in Manhattan" and "Evolution of the Daleks", in which, the building is one of the two main settings. (Infact its the Daleks base!). Doctor Who is the worlds longest running and most successful sci-fi show ever. (and thats a fact, not an opinion). So i see two whole episodes of it revolving around the Empire State Building as very very notable. Anyway those are my reasons. I wont re-add all the "trivia" like i did last time. But the Doctor Who appearance is one cultural reference i must insist stays in the article. Thanks for your time and patience :-) TheProf - T / C 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on AfDs

Dear TallNapoleon (nice username by the way, as I study Napoleon), I noticed you have participated in a number of AfDs today. Please allow me to offer some advice so that you do not run into problems with other editors. First, many do not like to see rapid AfD posts. Please consider yours for today:

• 21:28, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb‎ (→Interweb) (top)
• 21:20, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran O' Donnell‎ (→Kieran O' Donnell) (top)
• 21:20, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys & Girls Club of Lancaster‎ (→Boys & Girls Club of *Lancaster: Sig) (top)
• 21:19, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys & Girls Club of Lancaster‎ (→Boys & Girls Club of Lancaster)
• 21:19, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGS Teamcenter‎ (→UGS Teamcenter) (top)
• 21:18, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Doherty‎ (→Mary Doherty) (top)
• 21:17, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olav Harald Ulstein‎ (→Olav Harald Ulstein) (top)
• 21:16, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McGinley (politician)‎ (Sig) (top)
• 21:15, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McGinley (politician)‎ (→John McGinley (politician))
• 21:13, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim O'Leary (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillor)‎(→Jim O'Leary (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillor)) (top)
• 21:12, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talal El Khoury‎ (→Talal El Khoury) (top)
• 21:11, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-Zero Z‎ (→F-Zero Z: Adding Sig) (top)
• 21:10, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-Zero Z‎ (→F-Zero Z)
• 21:10, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.tv.game-shows‎ (→Alt.tv.game-shows) (top)
• 21:09, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Thompson (pastor)‎ (→Kevin Thompson (pastor))
• 21:08, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies of Pakistan‎ (→List of companies of Pakistan)
• 21:05, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wallace Records‎ (→Wallace Records) (top)
• 21:01, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date Records‎ (→Date Records) (top)
• 21:00, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Trettner‎ (→Heinrich Trettner)
• 20:59, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Trettner‎ (→Heinrich Trettner)
• 20:55, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 11‎ (Adding AFD)
• 20:54, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford College of Arts, Business and Technology‎ (Undid revision 204999357 by TallNapoleon (talk))
• 20:53, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford College of Arts, Business and Technology‎ (→Lucian Pulvermacher)
• 20:51, 11 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Pulvermacher‎ (Beginning AFD debate)

Generally, speaking, editors should take more than a minute (and in some cases above you posted in two AfDs in under a minute) to examine the article, look for sources/see if he or she can improve the article at all, and then comment in the AfD. Secondly, "per nom" (which you did in many of the above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12], and[13]) is consideredan "argument" to avoid in deletion discussion. The main thing is that AfD is not a vote, but a discussion, i.e. participants are expected to offer something new to the discussion by which we hopefully come to consensus or agreement. Deletion is also a last resort (usually reserved for libel, hoaxes, and copyright violations or instances in which a redirect location does not exist). If the article itself is unworthy, but a redirect location exists, then we just redirect the article so that editors' contributions can remain public. Also, if you do believe the article should be deleted, you'll be much more convincing if you provided evidence that you attempted to find sources or to improve the article. Anyway, please do consider the above advice and observations as they are from my own experience and I do not wish to see other editors encounter any headaches that I did. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself." Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, but I came here to point out what he pointed out. Nevertheless - welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Jobjörn (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical elements in popular culture

I don't know a thing about classical elements, so I doubt I'd be of any real help there. I did categorize the page at least.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

TallNapoleon is there anyway you can contact me by sending me a Wikipedia message or an e-mail here: franciscantertiary@gmail.com? Thank you. - Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we just delete the 3 articles? I want them to be deleted too - no debate needed. bay17832Bay17832(talk)

It'll be 5 days at least tomorrow. Will they be deleted? bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What more consensus is needed? We're the only ones interested, and we both want it deleted!bay1783274.78.96.11 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedandNater.com

Can you please point to a source which proves that this website is notable? Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your response, but we'll have to disagree, I guess.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember me

It's me. I was trying to write an article about JG-E well you might as well delete it. I don't care. You might already if you read my Talk page. or the JG-E talk page. Anyway go ahead, delete away.--Anfish (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, TallNapoleon/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

A while back you nominated my page on JG-E to be deleted. It has been excepted to not be deleted. Did you have anything to do with it Not being deleted?--Anfish (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. You got a point about that. Someone keeps editing it. Earlier today it was gone. Can you try to keep an eye out on the page and inform me if it leaves. It would help if you responded to JG-E's talk page. I don't want you to get into an edit conflict because I am editing my talk page 24/7. --Anfish (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh by the way. I saw that thing you sent me on my talk page. I will start working on this. By the way. You are free to delete that page already. Delete it! Just do it!!!. I don't care if you delete it. Go on and delete away. This conflict is over!!!--Anfish (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand, but as you probably know, I'm new, can you send me a link so I can get their easier, and report all of this so they can delete the page already!!!--Anfish (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! . . . . . I did it!!! My article is finally up for speedy deletion. I couldn't of gave contact to them if it wasn't for you!!! I thank you every last bit. Now I don't have to worry about ten million people on my shoulder yelling Don't vandalize!!! I'm FREE!!!!!--Anfish (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's deleted!!!! No more worrying about the JG-E page. So no more talking about it. At least we can talk about other subjects later. I will actually miss all this rucuss. *(If that is spelled wrong inform me!!) Here take a look at the link! JG-E See it doesn't exist!!! That's why it is red!!! By the way I like adding (!!!) to the end of the sentence a lot because I am an eager person!!!--Anfish (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Impro-Visor?

Sorry, I'm new at this, but what sort of scholarly recognition would qualify to prevent deletion? The work has appeared at one international conference and an international workshop, both of which were refereed (I can provide links). Would this help, or hurt (because it would then be claimed to be "original research")? Also, there are about 1200 users in the Yahoo! group. Can I see if any of these want to provide an unbiased testimonial? I'm just not sure what is fair, but I do think the software is noteworthy (and I realize that must be considered a biased opinion).

Thanks.

Rmkeller (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an independent, unsolicited, review: [14]

Here is a refereed paper from an international conference: [15]

Here is an article from Science Direct: [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmkeller (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put links to two of the papers and one to the review in the article.

Rmkeller (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Random Subject-Signbot

I don't know about you but I am completely annoyed of signbot. He always sends you a note about signing when you clearly made a mistake. I now he is just a bot but seriously. He really gets on my nerves. I think he is controlled by another user. I have a bone to pick with that guy. What do you think about it? By the way you're right about my grammar! I had to re-edit this because of it. It isn't me it's just I type way to fast. Anfish (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't censor the talk pages

Hey, I can't stop you from censoring Edward, but if you try to censor anyone else, I'll revert your censorship. Bad form. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made my point. What I was curious about was whether you'd do the right thing and move my message to the bottom of your page, or the wrong thing by censoring it. You failed, as expected. 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

bishops

good job to get them out of here, but I hope you're checking each to see if by any chance one might have something special.DGG (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed Page

I just wanted to inform you that my talkpage will be changed as said here-->User talk:Anfish By the way how do you type the word "here" and make it a link?--Anfish (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

?

OK you delete the other two, but not Vezelis? Why? Just have it deleted like the others then!bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #1

I have a secret link on my user talk that will send you right to a secret page!!! I thought of just doing this becuase I have nothing to do. Also I will have stuff like this happen later but harder. Another thing is that the link doesn't go anywhere. So If you click on it it will go to a page but it will say something about creating the page. Well, it won't let you here i will show you right here.--Anfish (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Sorry  :( :[ :{man I have been really childish today. I'll be better tommorrow--Anfish (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

--As a reminder at times I can be a little childish so don't give me personal attacks about what I do!!! I also have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and my Anxiety might effect my usage of the talk pages so remember don't give personal attacks!!! I don't like when things get a bit too personal.--Anfish (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rand Anon IP RfC

Looking at the dispute resolution protocol, I've made an RfC regarding one of the anon IPs who's trolling this article. Since you've been involved in a dispute with this person please certify it and post your observations here[17]. Idag (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on talk Ayn Rand

Hi Napolean, Edward put a rant amidst your comments on talk:Ayn Rand. It broke up your comment and cofused things. I fixed that as best I could while leaving his text unchanged. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please contact me by email immediately at spinoza1111@yahoo.com concerning your abominable conduct at the Ayn Rand talk page. You removed my contributions and now are using the ideas and corrections I supplied at some risk. For example, it was I who pointed out adjective overuse.

I will not touch the page as promised. However, I want you and the other editors to insert a section on the talk page containing two acknowledgements:

(1) That I did not troll the page because trolling is insincere and anonymous posting and I posted under my own name and I meant every word.

(2) I also want credit for foregrounding and focusing upon the main problem while being called names and putting my offline reputation, the sales of my book. and possibly my job at risk. The consensus is becoming that my analysis of why Rand is not a philosopher, an analysis I am preparing to submit to Philosophy Today, an offline and refereed journal (as some of you recommended), is the correct one, and if it is used to change the article, I want this credited to me. By falsely labeling me a "troll" you have done civilly actionable harm to my name and reputation based on a misuse of the term "troll", and this may include financial damage to sales of my book, so please give this serious matter your full attention.

(3) I want this section to contain an apology for the abominable way I was treated.

If this is not done by the end of the month, I will initiate legal action against you and Ethan A Dawe, because your conduct is roughly equivalent to misconduct under wikipedia's own "biographies of living persons" policy, which was designed to protect wikipedia against libel lawsuits. I am aware that you have even eradicated my edit records, but this is futile on your part under the laws of the USA, and will simply make more work for you and your attorneys in the discovery phase.

By using incivil language such as "rant" to describe essays from which you subsequently steal content, not only are you engaged in libel, you also initiate a violation of "be civil". I am well aware that this wikipedia policy is consistently misused, throughout wikipedia, to exclude dissenters, and only rarely, if ever, does anyone do due diligence to find out why a person is being incivil in a man's response to the initiation of incivility, the "rule" being merely a tool to exclude people in a crypto-racist fashion, but your constant incivility, while not expressed as creatively as I would, shall compound your legal difficulties.

Because I am sick to death of you people, I am restricting my wikipedia activities for the foreseeable future to helping Herb Schildt, author of the Complete C++ Reference, defend his good name, as an internet anti-bullying activist. I will not visit nor will I alter the Rand content.

This is a very, very serious matter. I will pursue all avenues open to me in this. Please give this your immediate attention. To discuss it and resolve it before it goes further I need you to contact me at spinoza1111@yahoo.com.

Edward G. Nilges, Yung Shue Wan, Lamma Island, Hong Kong —Preceding unsigned comment added by203.218.232.185 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pay no attention to Edward. He does this on lots of internet sites. I doubt he could raise the resources to hire a lawyer and would have these things tossed out of court if he did. Ethan a dawe (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to to Edward G. Nilges:

NUTS!

— General Anthony McAuliffe.

TallNapoleon (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He's back

FYI, Nilges is back as 116.48.168.154. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nilges

So I'm completely confused about Nilges' argument. Nilges, a white man, has taken a deep offense at (very arguably) being called an African-American. Wouldn't this make him the racist one? Idag (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pay no attention to him. Attention is what he likes. His statements here and all over the interent speak volumes to the type of person he is. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I understand being offended at having his name changed, I should have been more careful with the edit summary.TallNapoleon (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishops?

Why are you only interested in deleting Bishops. I kind of got this in my head by random. You have been deleting lots of bishop pages why don't you delete other pages too. Like I have started to delete pages too. I focus on stubs but that is just because they are unuseful. Well atleast some are. Do you have something against them because it's kind of confusing. I mean aren't you a catholic. I'm not so I don't understand what it is. I am going to search right now. See ya!!! Well I guess I won't actually see you. Well I will meet ya later. Of course not in person. Bye!!!!!!!!!--Anfish (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that. Not to be offensive. Thanks, oh yeah and thanks for letting me know this. The minute you sent that I was about to delete a page. Your really making contributing to wiki alot easier than it has been much recently. Keep up the good work. Oh yeah and I almost forgot that you were Roman Catholic. Well nice chatting with you!!! Or discussing with you. Ugh!!! --Anfish (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

new user

By the way, the fact that a brand new user would immedietly go to talk:ayn rand and comment on the mess there and do nothing else anywhere is very telling. I wouldn't concern myself with it. They will most likey end up in the fourth section of my user page. Ethan a dawe (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a CheckUser should be submitted on lilith. She sounds very much like Edward, or Bert trying to sound like Edward. Given the number of Socks that regualarly poop up on Ayn Rand (see my user page, section 4) it isn't suprising that it would happen again. What do you think? If they aren't, then that's fine, I'll appologize, but I'm fairly confident we are seeing old block freinds return with fresh insults. I've seen socks argue with socks who turned out to be them. Are you up for filling the reuest out, or shall I? Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Huge orphaned category"

A link or two to the appropriate pages might help a little here. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing from the histories that they are most, if not all, the work of User:Striver, one of the more active Islamic editors, who has only had one edit so far this month. My personal opinion would be that the categories and contents are probably mergeable, but it would probably be a good idea to get a response from him first. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He has complained several times in the past about how his unsourced articles get deleted. My guess would be to leave him a message and then wait, say, two weeks. Then, if we get no response, we can raise it to the Islam project and see what response we get there. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit

So I asked some of my friends who are still in academia and apparently no one has heard of this Nilges fellow. He's either lying about being a professor or he's a teacher at some community college in the middle of nowhere. Certainly explains a few things about the way he tries to set himself up as superior to everyone else. Idag (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, TallNapoleon. I've noticed your interest in articles relating to Objectivism and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One Question

Hey it's been a while. I gotta question. How does sock pupetry work? How do they figure out that you are a sock pupeteer. Lets say I made another user page right now. How would they figure out we are the same person?--Anfish (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, Now leaving off from there. If I were to make another account that was not for my benefit would that be oka? (For the record Im not saying that I am making another account.)--Anfish (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a high constitution!

I see the moron of the century is back filling the site with crap for his own amusement. Thanks for deleting it! Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

another world domination article

You might want to see this if you haven't already: World domination in the future. This appears to be againstWP:NOCRYSTAL. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Graves

Eh... there was a Mike Graves in A Global Threat, but that wasn't this Mike Graves. At least the full length article[18] never mentioned that band anywhere. As far as I can tell this mr Graves isn't notable at all. Which is why I speedied it.    SIS  00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NullofWest/Thingsyoumayconfusemewith

Yes, that was supposed to be in my user space. In future if you see something like that of mine and it's obvious, could you userfy it for me (and tag for deletion if still inappropriate), I have moved it myself this time and marked the redirect as a speedy g7 (author request). —Preceding unsigned comment added byNullofWest (talk • contribs) 08:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

DELETION: Tangent between two circles

if you consider it as such an easy problem i would like you to solve it using the 4 simultaneous equations.the result you get is not only lengthy but hard to express in any programming language.i faced this problem while trying to compute a suitable path for an automatic rc car, and the solution proposed is elegant because it is simple.also i just put the page up today it needs more depth and editing. --Rabi Javed (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Rabi Javed

deletion:tangent between two circles

i edited the page a bit so do see if it is good enough? and let me know if it is still up for deletion.i would appreciate if my efforts were not put to waste and hopefully someone will find the content helpful

yes but its such simple math, it explains it self try to go through it you will understand.also very useful. but of course you are free to edit the content as you like after all that is what Wikipedia is about.

sheesh ok ok remove it don't be mean and call me a Crank_(person). do u have anger management issues? lol its just a page and i put it there so others might find it useful .thats it!!

--Rabi Javed (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Rabi Javed

Route choice (orienteering)

I note that you tagged this for speedy deletion one minute after its creation. This is excessive, I believe. I support the idea of new page patrol, and would encourage you to speak with User:DragonflySixtyseven about ways to do it most effectively. He is constantly looking for new team members whose focus is on ensuring that every article is reviewed before the end of the 30-day cutoff period. Risker (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also (since the original author started a small discussion at Wikipedia Talk:CSD#Speedy delete a stub because it is a stub?) can I ask you to review the criterion for A1? I know that Twinkle lists it as "Little or no context" in its short description, but the long story is actually quite a bit more restrictive, and I believe thatthis version provided enough context to identify the subject. I know that I tagged my fair share of it incorrectly because of that. :|
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedys for vandalism=

Apparently vandalised school articles usually have an acceptable version in the page history, and we revert to that, not speedy the article, as with Shekou international school.DGG (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fosh

May just be a neologism... I'm not convinced, so I've PRODded it. —  X  S  G  05:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you did right to unPROD if you're confident that it's notable. Next step is to tag it with needrefs, or whatever that template is... —  X  S  G  05:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Applicability of CSD G4

Hello TallNapoleon. Thanks for the newpages patrol. Regarding Maddog blues band which you tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, I just wanted to drop by to tell you that CSD G4 only applies to pages previously deleted after discussion, at an XfD forum such as at AfD. It does not apply to pages that were previously speedy deleted. I have deleted the article again but as an A7. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for "List of sciences ending in -logy"

The list was part of the article -logy. I just split it out (see Talk:-logy#Split_proposal). Please tell me if I should put it back in the -logy article. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any ideas how to include this list(s) in a better way are welcome. I wouldn't like to remove them completely from Wikipedia, they are quite useful. (At the moment I'm going through all the Xlogy pages to check the etymologies; so I'm a bit non-NPOV about the matter...) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

List of sciences ending in -logy has been challenged by a second user (see Talk:List of sciences ending in -logy). I informed the people who had part in the original splitting discussion. Perhaps you would care to enter the new discussion (if one ensues) on Talk:List of sciences ending in -logy. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Water Fuel Museum

thanks fot the heads up re: possible malware. I seem to be OK. Nothing triggered an alert for me either. Hmm. TravellingCari 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cine TAM

Cine TAM is a division of TAM Airlines, which IS a notable company. So, maybe the Cine TAM could be merged into the article about the parent company, but since TAM Airlines and its parent company are notable, Cine TAM is notable.WhisperToMe (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC) BTW there should be no question whatsoever that this is connected to the airline: http://www.cinetam.com.br/ has www.tam.co.br at the bottom of the page. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• You said: "The company is notable, but notability is not inherited. Why is this particular cinema notable?"
  • The reason why I created the article is because of the company that operates the cinema (the airline) - However I also created the article because I found two independent news articles about Cine TAM. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says:
    • "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content."
      • Even though from what I see there is only one Cine TAM location in Brazil, that location is in Sao Paulo, a wealthy and influential city. Therefore this theater is more likely to have newspaper articles and press coverage and the theater is more prominent for Brazilians. - BTW Both of the sources I cited for Cine TAM have been found on Lexis-Nexis. I'll see if I can find more sources in Folha de S. Paulo and other Brazilian papers. Now, if Cine TAM is judged to be not independently notable "Cine TAM" can redirect to "TAM Airlines" and the theater could be mentioned or covered there. Regarding whether notability of a subsidiary is inherited from the parent company, I would say that the subsidiary would be notable due to the connections to the parent company. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through the Folha de S. Paulo archives and I see plenty of instances where the newspaper mentioned "Cine TAM" - the problem is that for me to see the whole article I will have to register. What I'll do is see how many sources I can find that substantially refer to Cine TAM and cite them accordingly. I'm also going to go to Wikipedia's Portuguese channel and see if I can find more news articles about the theater. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 Baltimore Orioles season

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#2009 Seasonal articles.   jj137(talk) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

almost-empty articles under construction

When an article has just been added, and has any potential at all for improvement, it is usually not the best idea to place a speedy tag for no content or other factors that may be in the course of improvement--simply put on an{{underconstruction}} tag and revisit 7 days later. Warn the author, of course. And no context can not be used for deletion if it is clear what the article is about, no matter how short it is. "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."
While no content cannot be used if there is an informative infobox. ", this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information."
Policy is quite clear on the use of those tags--see WP:CSD--I quoted the key parts

Incidentally, the easiest way to deal with clearly inadequate articles on fictional characters is to propose a merge to the main article or list of characters article. If no objections after 7 days, merge. In extreme cases, or if there is already full information somewhere, a redirect is appropriate--I often do that when I encounter them, for example, on prod. They may be reverted, of course, and then you need to make a case for it on the talk page & get consensus. If you have difficulty in getting a merge or redirect on an obvious case, I'll help. DGG (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthurium Solutions

You enforced a speedy deletion of this article according to section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The time between the deletion proposition and time of deletion was inadequate to review the article. Therefore, an indication of possible notability was not available to the article's authors. You also failed to articulate prima facie evidence indicating why the article was not notable as suggested by deletion argument guidelines, though not required for content proposed for deletion under A7, and did not give ample time to indicate notability, as required by section A7. The IP litigation surrounding this company could make this a notable article.Mojodaddy (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Dude, that article should not be deleted. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and have seen article's A-LOT shorter than that. It has sources, and it's notable please close the AFD. SteelersFan94 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Dude, that article should not be deleted. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and have seen article's A-LOT shorter than that. It has sources, and it's notable please close the AFD. SteelersFan94 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding RacePro article deletion

Deletion? How is the RACE Pro article nomitable for deletion? Literally ten minutes after I published it, you nominated it for deletion. How so? Everything listed in the article is sourced and referenced. You can clearly follow the links and see that it's legit.Beem2 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More credible sources? Have you even followed the links provided on the page? There's a direct link leading directly to the game's official site. I don't know how much more credible you can get. Besides, what does it not being a longrunning franchise have to do with anything? If people are skeptical on an article's validity, that's what references are provided for. There isn't a vast amount of info on the title, as it has yet to be released. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia in which don't even have references, yet are deemed credible. I really don't think you have clear understanding of what articles should/shouldn't be nomitable for deletion. I'm not convinced you even followed any of the provided sources in the article, much less attempted to read it. I could understand if the article was nominated for deletion due to lack of sources or references, but this is plain ridiculous.Beem2 (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're clearly failing to acknowledge that there is a source link directly to the sources "Official" website (the game's publisher) which defeats your argument. You keep claiming that there's no valid proof to shows the game's existence, yet I posted a direct link to game's publisher's site showing it's existence. I could write a twelve paragraph article ranting on about the game, but without credible sources (which I've provided) that would be pointless. By your logic, practically every game article here needs to be nominated for deletion.Beem2 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bratya Grim

Bratya Grim is one of the best known and most influential bands in Russia. If you check the source, you'd see that only the most well known bands are included in the list they provide. The source is from The School of Russian and Asian Studies. And I just started this article minutes ago, I'm still obviously working on it.

You need to actually think about why an article is being created before you try to get it deleted.ElmerBront (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DOSTRES

Yes there is a rivalry between the Dodgers and the Mets, think of it the Dodgers, a team who has been in Brooklyn in almost their entire existment, leave and move to LA, meanwhille four years later the Mets were created to replace them, heck the Brooklyn Cyclones have alot of Dogers history in their park than they have of Mets, all that I se is a Mets logo on their arm. Please don't delete the article Mets-Dodgers Rivalry. Oh, and besides, if walter o malley did not move the team to LA, i would have a blue hat with a white B on my head, instead of a blue hat wth an orange intersecting N and Y. BOOM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOSTRES (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Law

Thanks for your message on the Lex Cincia. I am currently trying to expand the entries on Roman law, or more specifically, on particular Roman laws. It seems to have been a badly neglected part of Wikipedia. RomanHistorian(talk) 09:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be more careful with speedy deletions, please

First off, thank you, TallNapoleon, for speedily removing your speedy deletion tag from my new page, Colorado Mountain Club.

I read your talk page with great interest this morning, after fighting last night to keep my new page from being deleted. You clearly have a great interest in deletions, as well as a history of this practice.

I cannot speak to the other pages that you have either deleted or nominated for deletion, but for my new page, Colorado Mountain Club, extensive research was done to determine need for the page, as well as to determine content and structure.

My constructive suggestion to you is to be very thoughtful, as opposed to being speedy, when placing speedy deletion tags on pages. Further, offering concrete suggestions to users after thoroughly reading new pages would be very helpful and move us toward creating a better Wikipedia for all.

My argument for keeping the Colorado Mountain Club page, though hasty and incomplete, is laid out on that talk page. I encourage you, TallNapoleon, to carefully consider existing pages that do not have citations, before nominating well-written, carefully crafted pages that clearly are about noteworthy topics and have credible citations from third parties. You noted on the talk page for Colorado Mountain Club, “That said this article needs to cite some more sources.” Yet, the existing page for Appalachian Mountain Club, which is very similar in content and scope to mine, and also applies to a club, has one citation. Also, the noteworthy page for American Alpine Club which clearly has a need to exist, being about a national club that has existed for over 100 years, has zero references. Finally, Adirondack Mountain Club, also similar in content and scope to the aforementioned pages, and with a clear need to exist, serving 35,000 members, cites no third-party references.

Please use your experience and power here on Wikipedia more carefully, particularly with pages that have an obvious need. Please also take this note to heart, copied from New pages patrol, "Throughout the entire process of NP patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals,trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicatethat newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content."

Indeed this applies to my case, having demonstrated less than one week of experience helping improve the content of Wikipedia. In sharp contrast to your giving me a speedy deletion tag, I received an actual welcome from another user. I applaudPharaoh of the Wizards for such appropriate response to my early contributions.

Also for your reference, and from New pages patrol, "Speedy deletion is a tool which can be easily overused. Since speedy deletion removes a page without discussion, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete if there is any plausible reason that the article should be kept. In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion). Consider using a Notability tag instead of a speedy delete tag. Also, an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion if it's possible that it might be improved into an article which should be kept."

There are many more hints for you and other users, regardless of their level of experience, on New pages patrol.

If you have read this far, TallNapoleon, I heartily welcome further discussion and constructive criticism. Thank you again for removing your speedy deletion tag.

Johnnyonthespot18 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

I appreciate your welcome message on my talk page and your note about speedy deletions. Thank you.

Johnnyonthespot18 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: warnings

(Sorry it took a while; I was answering another user's question) I would probably use {{uw-create1}} or a higher level for that one. You could also use the standard vandalism warning ({{uw-vandalism1}}) if you don't think that one fits the situation. btw, here is a complete listing of template warnings if you ever need it in the future. (I put a link to it on my userpage; it's very handy to have there) Hope that answers your question. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepalese film actors

Nepalese and Nepali means a same thing so it doesn't matter if it is called List of Nepali Actors or List of Nepalese Actors.(NepaliBoy7 (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)).

Delsy

Smell s like a copy vio - i have to get off - I would appreciate if you could hold off for a bit some indonesians eds go quiet for a bit and never respond to tags :( SatuSuro 10:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Very tricky i couldwaste much of your space over newbie indonesian eds - they dump and go - usually and leave behind a mess :( - maybe just leave it for a day or two - i need to find time to check it isnt a straight copvio and then - whoosh its off - unless someone else or something else takes it out - thanks for responding by the way - cheers SatuSuro 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugger its gone - and I have no way tracking down the copyvio issue - please if you find indonesian arts from low edit newbies even if they are blatant - please make a note of them at the Indonesian project if at all possible - as we need to keep a tab where possible - cheers SatuSuro 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah dont worry - an admin checked it and found it was a copy from wikipedia indonesia - where it had been - and before that it was a straight copyvio anyway - so no harm done - and please dont feel the need to go to any lengths - I just remembered I have Indonesia recent changes and new arts at my user page - I dont have to ask anyone to do anything for me - its all on my user page if i use it right - cheers and thanks and sorry to have bothered SatuSuro 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Water Fuel Museum

Hello! To answer your inquiry: for starters, that entire section on the exhibits has to go -- none of the sources tie to the museum. I would need to do some research to get proper references that tie to the subject. As it stands, the article would be better served as a stub (nothing wrong with that). What kind of a timeline are you looking at for the fix-up? And are you planning to renominate it for AfD if it isn't scrubbed up? Thanks for thinking of me and asking for my input.Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLoveand hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding{{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for your invitation. First, I think we need to be clear what "water fuel" actually means. I initially thought it meant using water directly as a fuel, which is clearly ridiculous. Having re-read it, I think it's about producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water, which is quite possible but might not be economical. What is your interpretation?Biscuittin (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Me? I just left word that the article needs to have that exhibit list cut, unless the entries circle back specifically to the museum. Don't worry about an edit war -- the article's creator cannot claim ownership of the piece.Ecoleetage (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my message was intended for TallNapoleon and he has replied on my talk page. I think it would be better if we put all messages at Talk:Water Fuel Museum. Biscuittin (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hello. I noticed today that you were doing newpages patrolling but are not marking some of the pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian/Jordanian Dabkeh

Hello, I guess I've been hit with a speedy deletion on this article. I put the "hang on" attribute on the top of my page. I was trying this subpage thing out and I wasn't sure what it does. But I do want to create this article and want to expand it even further which I've done after I clicked save just to get my article going. I added more information, so what can I do in order for my article not be deleted?

wikiraw31 (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

At first I was actually adding information in to the article Dabkeh, but I wanted to create an article on Palestinian and Jordanian Dabkeh aside from any other dabkeh by other countries/people. Only to make it focused the palestinians and jordanians. If it's a problem I guess I can merge and make subtitles. I am new to wikipedia so I need all the help I can get wikiraw31 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Once a year radio show, with no evidence of notability

What do you mean no evidence of notability? I put on the link with Dave Fanning...if you bothered to read about him i am sure you would agree he is noteworthy enough in our country and for bringing U2 to the world...

Thank You

Believe me...it is something that people are interested in in Ireland. I requested the lists on discussion page for old results...appreciate the work you are doing...its been my first shot at writing a wiki page, give it a few days anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryadams(talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kerri Louise

What is the process for removing the notability tag on the Kerri Louise article?Gchuva (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Images

Hello, ok now I am trying to upload an image and I am a little confused about what images I can upload. For instance, I have uploaded an image of me and a group of people performing a dance for an event. A photographer took a picture and uploaded it in a public website for everyone to use, but the picture doesn't exist anymore on that website. What do I do? I also have face book and uploaded the image there a couple of years ago so I was lucky to save it and upload it today in wikicommons. Can you give me some feedback on that.

Thank you

wikiraw31 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia hate maltese people.

Alan Tabone is notable, and meets WP:ATHLETE, but because he is maltese and not English he is targeted by deletionists. That is the real vandalism here. Soulfruits (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington Mall

I added some references to Washington Mall. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Mall. --Eastmain (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, but...

Yeah, I've been watching his contributions. Thanks for putting together the sockpuppet case. Wronkiew (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,Rich Farmbrough, 19:27 22 October 2008 (UTC).

Removed section from Ayn Rand talk page

Its not very helpful to descend to his level by leaving notes for him on talk pages he patrols. With people like him, we use the WP:RBI principle. He knows exactly how everyone feels about his sort of editing, long diatribes like this only serve to stoke the fire. He knows what he has to do if he wants to be allowed to edit again. He doesn't want to do it, so he getsWP:RBI-ed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a new message

Here. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another new message here. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pls help

Hello TallNapoleon,sir, I try to collect all the facts about this indian cinema actor deepak dobriyal.if u can correct spellings ,then it wl be a great help.pls try to correct it instead of delecting it.thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoddal (talk •contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

pm5 article

i do not agree with your descision to take away the pm5 article. pm5 has a large impact on many southern appalachians aand you have no right to take it away —Preceding unsigned comment added byPm5commander (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Radical skepticism

Could you please create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical skepticism or remove the deletion tags. Thanks,MrKIA11 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical skepticism. Your comments there would be appreciated. Please remember that Twinkle sometimes fails to complete AfD nominations. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Pafos Aphrodite Festival Cyprus

Hi, As the Pafos Aphrodite Festival Cyprus was already on the List of opera companies in Europe, before I created this article (I just corrected the official name) and it IS a major cultural event in Cyprus and IS listed on the world event guide site which I included in the reference, I cannot see why you added a company notability tag ... perhaps a stub tag would be betterKaktus999 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tufts OCW

Please clarify your judgments on the issues with the article and/or the language. The material in the article is referenced. Tufts OCW exists on it's own right as an open courseware provider and offers course materials separate from MIT's OCW program.

If Tufts OCW were to be deleted/merged, then wouldn't other school entries need to be as well: - Berkeley Webcast - Notre Dame OpenCourseWare - Open Yale Courses - Tufts OpenCourseWare - Stanford Engineering Everywhere

Please help me!!!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! Urgent!

Hi Napolean guy, im Jordan and I made a thingy on a book called the Secret sSupper, and its come up with a thing saying its gonna be deleted or something. I dont know why, and please help me edit it so it doesnt get deleted and that I dont make any inappropriate pages in the future. Please help, you seem quite nice, From Jordan. Thankyouu = } (Happyjord11 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Blatant POV rm

Thank you for removing the POV reference to some insider information which none of us hard working taxpayers have heard of before, during, or after CPA occupation. Ronewirl (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi UFOs" in New Swabia article.

The info you removed is unsourced in the New Swabia article, but more detail and sources are given in the article on Nazi UFOs. Those conspiracy theories are about as bogus as it gets, but they do exist as theories and as such should be mentioned in this article. One of the authors, the pseudonymous Jan van Helsing, has drawn some attention in Germany in the past as his books were ruled illegal propaganda and removed from the market, giving him a good bit of notoriety in German "kook circles". -- 92.230.11.111 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiang Ching-kuo

Hallo, may I ask you why you deleted the following sentence?

"Chiang Ching-kuo. although he was still a young 14 years old boy, he already developed a certain sense of critics and independence."

This sentence is needed for the next paragraph. Thanks! --antonio.napoli (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand

Good luck --Snowded TALK 10:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Good luck changing the article. J Readings (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the original debates on renaming Objectivism (Ayn Rand as Objectivism and the spin off debate atList_of_schools_of_philosophy are also interesting and indicative of the general issues around this subject. --Snowded TALK 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Trade Ideas

Hi. I was hoping to improve the trade ideas and alpha capture system articles by merging them together, but didn't want to do that while the AfD discussion is ongoing. If you wouldn't mind striking out your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade ideas, the nominator offered to withdraw their nomination and I will then work on improving the articles. Once that's done, I'll let you know and you can nominate it for deletion if you still believe that's the correct option. thanks.GDallimore (Talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll see I've now redirected trade ideas to the newly expanded and sourced alpha capture system. Feel free to weigh in and improve it! GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, you are doing great work on the Rand article. However, the introduction has been damaged a lot, mainly because the continuous reversions since my rewrite yesterday have left footnotes in the wrong place, sentences removed because apparently out of context after poor edits and so on. I have not attempted a reconstruction, but I have left some notes on the talk page. There is one person there (I am sure you know who I mean) who tends to insert poorly-thought and poorly-worded edits without regard for overall meaning or flow. Best (PS like your user page - Catholic, exclusionist, the St Exupery quote, loved it) Peter Damian (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please work with the Consensus

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war.Kjaer (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated the Wikipedia rule against 3 reversions of the same edit in one 24 hour period. --Steve(talk) 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

that rule does not apply to vandalism and you and Kjaer have a history of tag teaming --Snowded TALK 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked, its more than three. Don't worry, I shan't revert again today. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you are out of line calling me a vandal. Niether Kjaer or I deserve that kind of accusation. --Steve (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 7:5 Steve. --Snowded TALK 03:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)