User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive36

Please review Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Go get some air. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea I know, If the B-crat said a simple no, I would have lived on with it and likely requested the tools later via RFA. But instead it was becoming a lynching fest and I'm the victim. Wikipedia wasn't formed to be that way, too much drama and not enough article work. I'm worn out of all these issues, I don't want to forget about the past. I need to go. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I advocated, to no avail. Do you want anything else deleted or protected in your user space? Pedro : Chat  22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine, just tell A_Nobody to leave me alone. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if I'd simply said "no," there would be just as much discussion; specifically, about how I needed to justify my response. It's a lose/lose situation. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewardship and checkuser
Thanks for the support! :)

I've noticed a few folks misunderstanding the checkuser ability granted to stewards, so I hope you don't mind if I leave an explanation:

While stewards have the technical ability to grant themselves checkuser (or developer or oversight or whatever other bits exist) anywhere, they're elected to not do so unless it's both necessary and allowed by policy. The English Wikipedia has active checkusers, so until they're contacted for cross-project coordination, I would be unable to assist issues that affect this project.

Basically, while it's technically redundant, it is impossible by policy and politically to do so without local rights. I think the informal motto of the stewards is, "When in doubt, don't."

Thanks again! Kylu (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
I've restored your user page history per your request there. Best wishes as ever. Pedro : Chat  19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rube Marquard
I inserted a source for the article, like you asked. Not sure about the page # because I don't have a copy at the moment, but it's in there.

And FWIW, I really liked The Glory of Their Times. Read it many times when I was younger. PM800 (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resysopping
As I've stated in several places, I believe you are still entitled to a courtesy resysop since you didn't resign in controversial circumstances. If you wish to be resysopped please let me know. Andre (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do I'll request immediate removal of both your and Secret's rights. There was very clear consensus against resysopping. To ignore that is irresponsible and thoughtless.  Majorly  talk  21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will accomplish anything. Your hounding of this user borders on hostile. Let it go. Andre (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, I know I can request my tools back at anytime, but it's best for me to lay low and focus on schoolwork as now I'm going though math hell. Also Majorly don't cause drama please, there isn't no "clear consensus". Secret account 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I bugged you with that listing. Note 4 says simply "a bureaucrat has declined resysopping in light of 'controversial circumstances'," which I think is true here. It doesn't say anything about other bureaucrats doing other things. The top of the section, however, contrasts those turned down by bureaucrats with "former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing", and that doesn't seem to be an applicable distinction here. Dekimasu よ! 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

About my account being a SPA
Hello, Secret.

Here,



you have expressed the concern that my account looks like a single purpose account. I have posted a non-exhaustive list of the varied articles I have contributed to, here:



I have made editions to articles as varied as:


 * Maria Clara Machado
 * Mayor of Porto Alegre
 * National Renewal Alliance Party
 * List of Political Parties in Brazil
 * Carlos Lacerda
 * Gramado
 * Cristovam Buarque
 * Candomblé
 * Luís Fernando Veríssimo
 * Workers' Party (Brazil)
 * Belo Horizonte
 * List of Brazilian Writers
 * Literature of Brazil
 * Acela Express
 * List of Brazilians
 * João do Rio
 * Wladimir Herzog
 * Fernando Gabeira
 * Cipriano Barata
 * Revolutionary Movement 8th of October
 * List of active autonomist and secessionist movements
 * 1960s in Brazil
 * Roberto Burle Marx
 * Serviços Aéreos Cruzeiro do Sul
 * Portuguese language
 * Lumpenproletariat
 * Murphy's Law
 * Dichotomy
 * Eclipse
 * Petroleum Jelly

But I haven't further read of you on this subject. Could you please clarify what did you mean when you said that "Seems like Donadio is a Single purpose account looking though the contribs, if I was still an admin, I would have blocked indef."?

Thank you in advance. Donadio (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

gaining traction....
Looks like it was a good time to ask the question - I have thrown up a few ideas at Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, feel free to comment or nominate some others. I can't really coordinate this but tried to think about its value WRT FAC etc, and I think there is a very good niche for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali GA review
Your review took place a good 2 years ago, but as there are people currently working on the article to improve it, you mentioned trimming the bio section, which hasn't taken place, due to vandalism concerns. Specifically what from the bio section of article should be trimmed? And what did you mean when you originally said that the legacy section needed to be extended? Rumble74 (talk · 14:22 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It been over two years ago, articles change. Secret account 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your views
...are welcome at WT:RFA (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Velankani SEZ
Right, my apologies, I shouldn't have let the spam sit around that long. WT:INDIA has given me quick feedback in the past, but I'll either delete the article or edit out the spam before passing similar articles along to them in the future. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Britain
I just cam across that disambiguation. Seeing as it's been three months I thought it worth a try and unprotected it. I also wanted to add an entry. If they start up again I'll re-protect or block them. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugg's RFA
I wasn't going to comment anymore, but now I can't resist since I am too curious. :) Where exactly was I uncivil in my discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What I read, you were slightly uncivil to Baseball Bugs, and the editors who supported the list, littereally intercepting that they supported the list, thus were "stupid" so. And Baseball Bugs was also even uncivil (more uncivil than you though), RFA isn't a place for grudges. I told Bugs to withdraw his RFA, as it's a hellfestSecret account 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't agree but sort of understand. When I say a list looks stupid I don't mean people supporting the list are stupid though. Regarding the RFA, yes it should be closed since it is a hellfest. I also should have stopped earlier with responding there. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jason Lau
I am planning on re-establishing the page, Jason Lau. I wanted to let you know as you were the person who deleted the last copy (because it did not assert significance). I have attempted to assert significance more clearly, through citation of his status as a Wing Chun practitioner and his close association with Mitchell Werbell III, as you can see on my user page. The association is also highlighed here, for example. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I've nominated this article for deletion, Articles for deletion/Jason Lau. You're not obligated to comment or anything, since it's been 2 years since you last dealt with this article; just thought I should let you know.  Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Are you good at templates? What I had meant to do at Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive was to remove the deadlines from all the nominations, and change it so the rule was tehy were left there for three 'bites of the cherry' as it were. I was going to tweak the template but it looks complicated...and I need to deal with sekrit arb bizniz....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the worse with templates, sorry. Secret account 12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— raeky ( talk 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ill Na Na 2: The Fever
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ill Na Na 2: The Fever. 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. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)