User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 12

Creosite
Hi, I didn't expect the article to go through first time of course, but I have some problems with the response. Could you please help? What I got (with my interjections) was:
 * This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.
 * OK, but are you talking style, wording, subject matter or what?
 * Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research.
 * That is the theory, but how is that to apply to factual material that no one seems to write about? Very few articles adhere strictly to the principle simply because it isn't always possible to take it literally. For example, in this case the secondary reliable sources had to be collected from lots of places and exhibited (eg WWW search engine results open to common inspection). Why? because that was where the word was accessible and visible. Apart from that, could you point out any unsupported or unreferenced text in the article?
 * Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view
 * NPOV? There is no controversy involved here. How do I get more neutral than retrieving text and retailing it in context? Is there some place you could refer me to that is POV as you see it?
 * in encyclopedic style.
 * I was trying simply to write clearly; was the "non-encyclopaedic" style too informal or chatty?

Sorry to bother, but looking at the text I simply had no idea where to start trying to meet your requirements. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I declined the submission because of the article's tone, and because it appears that large portions of the article is unsourced. The article appears to be evaluating the subject, rather than just presenting information that can be verified in reliable sources. For example It is difficult to find clear examples of the use of the word creosite without the likelihood that it either is a typographic error, or used in ignorance by someone who did not realise that the word originated from an error.is not sourced and is likely derived from original research. The submission also presents reasons as to why the word should not be used. Unless these reasons are stated in a reliable source, they really can't be included. If the reasons are stated in reliable source(s), then it should be explained that the reasons were stated by that particular source. Another example is "...any chemist knows that there is such a word as creosote..." This statement is unsourced, and appears to be a personal observation. To sum it up, information that cannot be verified in reliable sources (such as newspapers, book, or magazines) needs to be removed. If an opinion is used by a source, it should be made clear that it is the source that holds the opinion. I hope that helps you. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

CODENI
Hello AQ, You recently reviewed the article CODENI, and I am preparing for a re-write. Before I begin this task, I am wondering if the following list of publications would be a sufficient and acceptable collection of sources for the article? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissawarp (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to the source list doesn't appear to be working. You really just need four or so reliable third party sources, such as newspaper articles, magazines, or books in order to establish the subject's notability. Sources do not need to be online, or in English. Once this is addressed, and the article is written in a neutral point of view, it can be accepted. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding User:Stephfo
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Pls. note I'd like to kindly ask you for explanation why I should be not allowed to learn 3rd-party expert analysis for my defence in anticipated arbitration. If there really is such policy (or in case it is deemed as more appropriate), then I'd like to ask you to perform such an investigation of WP:RSN of my resource used, details on my talk page. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi My name is Miranda R. Um why did someone delete actors encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.232.164 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

J. Hutton Pulitzer
Regarding your review of this draft article, I want to say "well done!" This encyclopedia should not be used as a vehicle to burnish someone's reputation. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TriTech Software Systems
I appreciate your message regarding the deletion of my addition. I neglected to fully learn and follow proper protocol when adding content to articles. If you can provide any assistance or insight, I would greatly appreciate it. Totally Rock (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sourcing you added was good quality. The only problem was that you copied the sources word for word into the Wikipedia article. As these sources are copyrighted, the information cannot be copied word for word. The content can be readded, as the information is relevant to the article. The information just needs to be written in a neutral point of view and using your own work. I had restored some of your changes, as they did not copy off of the sources and your changes added good information to the article. I haven't had the time as of yet, but I plan on going through the sources you added. They are good quality, and could can add information to the currently incomplete article. Thanks for finding the sources and for your work on the article. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Datavo Communications
Hi Alpha Quadrant, I wanted to give you a heads up that I've nominated Datavo Communications for AfD at: Articles for deletion/Datavo Communications. I realize you reviewed this at AfC, so I wanted to give you the courtesy of a notification. As I mentioned in my nominating statement, I don't believe the sources show notability for Datavo, but I'd welcome your thoughts on the matter. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Carl Eytel
Thank you, Alpha, most kindly for taking a look at my very first WP article. I am most surprised at the high ranking you gave in on the quality scale. Like Eytel, I am something of a desert rat -- I enjoy trekking across "barren wastelands" and stopping once in a while to enjoy the moment when I can reflect on or that I am a reflection on the Eye of God. After a while I will get up and trek myself to civilization. For my first WP article I was expecting a nice rating -- I was expecting a simple go/no-go on the article submission. So I am inspired to improve what I can properly link as Carl Eytel. --S. Rich (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback request on User:Timeport101/Verax_NMS
Hi Alpha Quadrant, first of all many thanks for reviewing my article. I've implemented your suggestions and added some additional references. In case of "worthy of inclusion" criteria: I wish to contribute to this great list Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems. I've checked almost every software listed there and I consider notability of my article as equal as those listed there. If you had a time please take a look at my article and tell me if it's ready for another review. (I wasn't sure if it's OK to add subst:submit text before consulting it with you.)--Timeport101 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had originally considered accepting it. However, I noticed that the article had previously been deleted three times as failing to demonstrate the subject's notability. If the article had 2-4 more news sources covering the subject, it would greatly assist in establishing the subject's notability. I think the article you wrote is well written. If you like, I can accept it for you now. However, that would run the chance that someone might nominate it for deletion as non-notable. If you want to add sources to the article, I can accept it after you do that. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alpha Quadrant, many thanks for your help! I've added another reference. I know that this article has a bad history - my bad, I was too eager to see my first wiki article up & running (I definitely won't do such a thing again). Is it ok for it to be accepted now?--Timeport101 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This username
Should I report User:Fuck the Yankees to WP:UAA, despite it being over 5 years after its creation and having never made an edit?--1966batfan (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Username violations are generally not blocked unless they have edited in the past two weeks. As the user has never edited, and it has been five years, if the user were reported to UAA, it is highly unlike they would be blocked. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I, being a huge Yankees fan, find it extremely inappropriate and want it blocked.--1966batfan (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the account isn't currently editing, and hasn't ever edited, it will not be blocked until it does. Per the UAA guidelines, the account shouldn't be blocked until it edits. WP:UAAI states: "Do not report a username which has not made recent edits (within the last 2-3 weeks at the outside). Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported." Blocks are used to prevent disruption or damage to Wikipedia. If an offensive username was created 5 years ago and still hasn't edited, then the account is not causing disruption by remaining unblocked.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

0
おつかれさまでして  Chzz  ► 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR
Alpha_Quadrant, I sincerely hope you will follow some of the posts DIREKTOR mentions in the ongoing issue here. He's not being truthful to you, and is attempting to paint me with some weird sort of reputation. We exchanged words and I defended myself.

I wish you to know I am grateful for your intervention and for not involving me by notifying me. Luckily I watch DIREKTOR every once in a while - without communicating at all - to see what he's doing. AQ, he's done this to other users! Djathink imacowboy  08:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stepped back from that discussion. Discussing the issues with him is fairly pointless, as he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he may be wrong. Alpha Quadrant (alt)    talk  16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your kindness and understanding is on full display, as always. Thank you Alpha_Quadrant. Djathink  imacowboy  03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal and Deletion of Images and Related Issues
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Virago250 (talk) 05:29, November 27, 2011‎ (UTC)

mischief by one user
hi, One user 175.106.57.124 (talk)) is continously puttin the wrong data in India national football team page.How to stop/block him? THANKS....Preetam040 (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetam040 (talk
 * It appears the IP is no longer editing. I am not sure any action is warranted at this time. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with editing reference list
Hi Alpha Quadrant, I wanted to make some changes to the reference list for the wikipedia article that I submitted for the Africa/Harvard School of Public Health Partnership for Cohort Research and Training, by adding hyperlinks to them and also noticed that the format of some of the references is different from what I had initially put. The reference list seems to have been condensed to just reflist|2 from an actual list of each reference that is included. How can I make the changes that I want to make, given that the references are not listed anymore? Thanks in advance. PaCtuser (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To add references to the article you can use tags. Add the tag at the end. The reference will automatically appear underneath the reference list. Referencing for beginners might be helpful. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek
AQ, what do you like best about "Star Trek"? I don't wish to pry about, but I have been an original fan and pretty die-hard ever since. My brothers met Leonard Nimoy. I may be the last to seem the type, but I even have an official Vulcan name.

We used to have a small internet group that discussed logic and Vulcan history. T'Chai is the username of my closest old colleague: she was a physician in London but is gone from our scene now. And my favourite fiction book of all time is Diane Duane's Spock's World. Second favourite is D. C. Fontana's Vulcan's Glory. Djathink imacowboy  03:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never really though about what I consider to be the best. I'd probably say Star Trek: First Contact. The film was well made and it tied elements from four of the six series together. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jonathan Frakes has always been too inactive as a director, through no fault of his own. My dream has always been to see Spock's World made into a film. Djathink  imacowboy  14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Asda store
Hi Alpha_Quadrant,

I am at the end of my tether regarding the Asda store saga - I have put my final position on the talk page. If the other two do not agree, I will be left with no option but to withdraw from mediation and to make a formal complaint regarding POV. The bottom line is that Defacto has been on an anti-metric crusade and he will not let go of the Asda "survey" which asserted that 79% of the Asda's customers were confused by metric units and preferred imperial units - he is either too stupid, too arrogant or too blind to acknowledge that this survey was built on sand, not rock. I don't know what your background is in mathematically-related topics, but to me it lacked all the hallmarks of a properly run survey. A large nubmer of other editors agreed with me, but they just did not have the tuime to argue with these two.

We now have the position that I have a reliable soruce that has produced the strongest possible circumstantial evidence that the Asda experiment is over. DeFacto has demanded a postiive statemetn to this effect, but I believe that he is too dumb to realise that there will never be a public statement because Asda will not issue one - who publishes their failures? Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alpha Quadrant,
 * Defacto has flatly refused to accept my position and I therefore cannot see any point in this mediation continuing. Can I thank you for what you have done.
 * Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration request
. Filing party still hasn't taken the hint and notified you, and the clerks seem to be on a long weekend :) As NYB says, I think all this needs is someone to explain our policies to the other editor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I was trying to figure out what the meaning of this talkback message was for. I have had a brief wikibreak the last few days, and I haven't been around to make replies. This is the first I have heard of this issue. All I did was remove several images tagged as non-free, as they failed NFCC 10c. I'll take a look and see if I can assist in resolving the issue. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotta love it. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

afc
You seem to have approved the creation of Ellis Hicks, from afc, moved on Nov 22. I've just marked it as a copyvio of http://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Knight-Ellis-Hicks/6000000009659982767 Was I in error?  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the site's terms of use, the information on the site is not copyrighted. It does appear that the site is also a wiki, making the information somewhat unreliable. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The site says the poster retain ownership, "Geni does not claim any ownership rights in the text, information, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials that you post to the Geni Services" not that the material is PD--so she'd have to donate it formally. (There's a confusing statement that they giver the site the license to do what they want with it, "solely on and through the Geni Services")/ If she objects, I'll tell her to start over.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that section 4 of their terms of service prohibits commercial use of content. Section 6 states that the site does not claim ownership on any of the content added by users, but does claim copyright on work created by the company. Section 9 prohibits the addition of copyrighted material. My mistake, it does appear that the content would be incompatible with Wikipedia's license. Thanks for pointing out my error. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

TriTech Software Systems
Hi there, I see that you deleted the multiple sections. I think they are needed because they are listed in history, so a chronological timeline makes sense. I will make them more generic and not too granular.Pumpkin Pancakes (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the events should be listed in chronological order. However, the events really don't have major notability. There are one or two mentions in reliable sources, however, the information doesn't really warrant an entire sub-section. We need to be careful in establishing proper weight for the information that is included. Some of the events now in the article don't really warrant inclusion. It would probably be best if we continued the discussion at Talk:TriTech Software Systems. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada Education Program: deletion?
Hello, I tried to post my mandatory contribution for the Intellectual Property project. The topic is "Introduction to trade-mark law in Canada; passing off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_trademark_law_in_Canada;_passing_off&action=edit&redlink=1). It has been deleted because there's already a page covering trade-marks in general... Any idea what I should do? Thanks a lot! Camiliac (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the subject already has an article at Canadian trade-mark law. The existing article is fairly short. You could work on expanding the existing article. If you don't have a copy of Introduction to trademark law in Canada; passing off, I can probably get you a copy of the article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  23:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban
I'd appreciate it if you would have a talk with Stepho and make sure he understands what a topic ban means and what he is allowed to edit, and what not. I'm not quite sure he gets it. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a big bunch! Hope that helps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was informed
on my talk page that I had a week to defend some (what I called) fair use images at Abraham Lincoln: The Hoosier Youth. Today - something like Day 3, I discover that these images are all orphans. I would have appreciated a note from you informing me of you plan to remove them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the images because they lacked fair use rationale. Per the non-free content criteria 10c, all non-free images must have a specific fair use rationale for every usage. If you did indeed take the photographs, then you would have the copyright on the images. According to the article the sculpture was created in 1932. The image may be in public domain. If it is, then you may release the image under a free license by changing the tag. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed take the photographs (located in Album 3 of 17 prints books in the carpchives) - but am not sure how to go to the picture page and change things over to Free License. I guess I need to think of it as being fun, and then go have some fun? Carptrash (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The statue was created in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. It is therefore in public domain. The image you took is a derivate work, so you are the copyright holder for the images. You can edit the file page the same way you can edit an article. Like a normal page, you can edit the license information with the edit button. Note that you can use any free license for |permission = .  is just the preferred license.

Can you remove all of the current license information and replace the current license information with the following.
 * File:Manship's Lincoln 1.jpg
 * File:Manship's Lincoln 2.jpg
 * File:Manship's Lincoln 3.jpg
 * File:Manship's Lincoln 4.jpg
 * File:Manship's Lincoln 5.jpg

If you need any assistance, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can sure try. I am an old guy, which means that my brain is already full.  To learn new things I need to dump out stuff already there.  But, do it without killing any more brain cells, which is the usual way to remove things.  Thanks again, I'm off to follow the Yellow Brick Road that you have laid out for me.  Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I have removed the deletion tags from the images. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Life is good. and the "nice work" really belongs to you. Carptrash (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks you yet again for your diligent mopping up of my messes. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hi, what's happening with WP:RFF? Defunc? I can't see any clue as to why it's unavailable to add to or review items, except that you hid it last, in the history. Please advise.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 08:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been quite a few feedback requests, but only one are two submissions are occasionally being reviewed. Over the past two weeks, there have been a number of requests, but no reviews. Rather than confuse the new user as to why they aren't getting any help, I thought it best to redirect the feedback process to the Help desk. There are a large number of helpers there that can provide feedback. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there always are a good dozen or so new RFF requests per day but only a couple of reviews per week. Possibly because a lot of those appearing on RFF are low-quality and often CSD material due to being promotional or not notable. I got very bored of them myself and looking for potential material to review in more depth. My main concern, however, is whether closing RFF off completely has been sanctioned so that the Article Wizard stops putting links to RFF atop new articles. Otherwise there is simply going to be a backlog of new articles and drafts that are not getting reviewed at all, simply creating a larger backlog for Autopatrol. I'm sure a lot of newbies won't know what to do if there is no clear and accessible process given. I'm not sure if the general Help Desk is a good place, given the "Are you in the right place?" link suggests not. I think WP:NCHD would be a better choice, if any. I'm concerned that RFF also has a backlog that is now inaccessible, including new articles added in the past couple of weeks. It might have been better to alter the page from auto-creating new dates in future to prevent new entries, but allow for older reviews to be processed as normal. Please let me know what the official line on RFF is. I've always been frustrated by the lack of RFF reviewers, or promotion of RFF on Wiki. I think cutting it off without warning may not be in everyone's best interests, though. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 01:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Request for feedback is a worthy project. The problem is, there aren't enough reviewers at Request for Feedback. If Articles for Creation wasn't so close to going under as well, I would be helping out at Request for feedback. I redirected the project for the time being, because very few of the review requests were getting replies. You are welcome to revert my edit. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, quite bogged down there.. 546, wow! Makes you wonder, when someone with idea 547 comes along, what makes them think they have a hope in hell of getting it this side of, well.. months. Might as well write it themselves if their idea is that good. Despite the backlog at RFF, most are easily cleared due to lack of notability or commercial content. Gets boring though. Might be worth keeping RFF closed until just after new year then reopen it and see what can be done with a fresh start.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually get about 250 submissions per day. There are nine fairly active reviewers, and we are able to keep it under control when all of us work on it. A reviewer can easily do 20 submissions in an hour. In some cases, I have been able to do as high as 35 submissions an hour. If any of us are unavailable, the backlog increases. Right now, the oldest submission is 6 days old. If we had 5-10 more reviewers, we would all be falling over eachother in order to get things reviewed. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, my fault, I didn't read the process and thought it was like an Article Requests feature. I didn't realise that they were articles started by fresh members. I see how it works now, more or less like RFF except you have a more defined procedure whereas RFF is simply room for people to comment anyway they want and can be a messy mix of drafts, sandbox and articles often published too hastily. A lot of RFFs get CSD deleted before RFF reviewers ever get a chance to comment because of this.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 04:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was a problem for RFF. We actually do have a requested articles process. It has a backlog stretching to 2009 though. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Email
AQ: Ready when you are. Djathink imacowboy  08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, your Special:EmailUser works. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Fastily
Hi Alpha Quadrant. Hope you're well. When you have time, could you look at the link above and and tell me what you make of it? Thanks,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Fastily, I believe Stephfo's concern is over the fact that several comments in the ANI cited information taken out of context. Several of the users who supported the topic ban had previously been in a dispute with Stephfo. He is learning from his mistakes. That is quite evident. Whenever he doesn't understand why a particular action is done, he wants to know what policy supports the action. If given the chance, I have no doubt he will become a good member of the community.

He needs time to learn and gain experience. As he is editing controversial areas, the editors there are much less forgiving of mistakes. He is improving, but he is still having a bit of difficulty with NPOV on articles where he holds a strong opinion. If an edit he makes is reverted, he wants to know specifically why, and what policy his edit violated. More often than not, the answers he gets don't directly explain how his edits violate policy. Then, if he doesn't understand the answer, he will continue asking until it is explained. He has consulted outside help such as the Reliable Source Noticeboard, when he can't get the answer. Several editors have viewed this behavior as disruptive. I believe it should be noted that it is quite possible that Stephfo is not a native speaker of English, which may have been an influential factor in some of the misunderstandings that have occurred.

The ANI discussion occurred because several editors were tired of explaining policy every time a dispute occurred. They felt that the behavior was disruptive. Stephfo does a fine job in areas where he does not hold a strong opinion. With a bit of experience, he will learn how to edit in a neutral point of view. Rather than blocking Stephfo, I suggested that if deemed necessary, a topic ban should be tried first. I am still not sure a topic ban was the best way to go about this. A topic ban would eliminate any areas where he has strong opinions. However, it also prevents him from making productive edits to the topic area. Right now, Stephfo views the topic ban as something preventing him from pursuing dispute resolution. I have been considering how to better explain the reason for the topic ban to him. I apologize for this long TL;DR post. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  06:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your automated edits are introducing errors
Your recent edit introduced serious errors into the Young Americans for Freedom page.

Here is the edit:   Scroll down to the bottom. In the Further Reading section, three kinds of errors were introduced:


 * 1) There were seven distinct books before your edit.  After your edit, two of the books (by authors Crawford and Schneider) were deleted, and replaced with duplicates of other entries.  Your revised list still had seven entries, but two of them (authors Andrew and Rusher) appeared twice.
 * 2) The capitalizion of the book titles was altered (incorrectly).
 * 3) The old list was an annotated bibliography -- it included the books and a brief description of each book.  In your edit, the descriptions were completely deleted.

I have reverted this portion of your edit (by cutting and pasting), and left the rest of your edit, because it appears to be valid. But please, please, please check your bot or your automated process or script -- whatever you are using -- because you might be introducing similar errors to numerous pages if you are using an automated process of some sort. (In case the script is at fault, I posted a similar message on its talk page.) Thanks! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That error is fully my fault. I use two scripts, AutoEd and the date format script. AutoEd makes whitespace and similar corrections. The date format script standardizes the dates. The problem was not with these scripts. In that edit, I used a tool that converts google books urls into the cite book template. I copy/paste each conversion into the edit window. I believe I inadvertently copied the same output twice. Regarding the other issues, I did not see a problem with the capitalization change. I had also missed the fact that it was a annotated bibliography. I sincerely apologize for my error. Thank you for correcting my mistake and bringing this to my attention. I will make sure I don't make the same mistake in the future. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  06:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! I just wanted to let you know the situation.  No harm was done -- the best thing about Wikipedia is that when a mistake occurs, it (almost) always is instantly corrected!  By the way, the font and color scheme on your Talk page is awesome. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Glacialfox and AWB
Hello Alpha Quadrant. I notice that you have been working with Glacialfox. He has applied for AWB. While he has enough edits, I am slightly worried at someone who has only been here one month using that tool. (When you are very new, you are not always aware of what edits are unusual). Do you think it is OK? If his AWB were approved, would you be able to advise him in case of problems? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He has done some great work in correcting typos and AWB would greatly assist him in this task. With that said, he is still fairly new and I am not completely certain he has a strong grasp of policy yet. I believe providing him access to the tool would beneficial though. If he is just doing typo corrections or simple cleanup, I don't believe there will be any problems. If a problem arises, I can most certainly assist him. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  06:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think mostly I'd just be using it for typos anyways. :3 Glacialfox (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems I'm already having issues though. xP I downloaded it and tried to run it and something popped up saying it failed to initialize properly and then I downloaded that .NET thing cause I thought that might help but then that keeps telling me that extracting the file failed when I try. :| Glacialfox (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So when you download AWB and attempt to extract it, the extraction is failing? Are you using the windows extraction tool to decompress the zip folder, or are you using another program? Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to extract the AWB but none of it works, and the .NET won't extract. Glacialfox (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what operating system you are using? In order for AWB to work, (I am assuming you are using Windows XP) you need to download and install the .NET framework. If you are having difficulties, you can try running Microsoft update and install any .NET related updates. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally got it to work =D So now, how do I get this like, set it up for typo fixing or whatever?Glacialfox (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I know on AWB you can have all your stuff marked as minor but is their anyway to have everything automatically marked as minor when you do manual edits? Glacialfox (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There used to be a user preference to do that. About a year or so ago, it was removed after a discussion (see also: 24313). Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To set AWB up for typo fixing you need to do the following. You can then start using AWB to do typo fixing. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Login: To login go to the file menu in the top left corner of AWB → Select Log in/Profiles... → Type in your username and password
 * Create a list: In order to fix articles, you need a list of articles you want to check. On the bottom left corner, you can select a list method.
 * Enable Regex Typo fixing: Directly left of the "Create list" box, there is a box with "Options", "More...", "Disambig", "Skip", and "Start". On the bottom of the "options" tab, there is a checkbox that says "Enable Rexex TypoFix". This enables the typo fixing tool.
 * I have determined that manually fixing typos is probably more efficient. :P Glacialfox (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I improved Template:AfC talk even more. come back into the IRC...mabdul 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your offer of help with undeleting images
Hi, Alpha Quadrant. You offered to help Virago250 retrieve some images from the bowels of Wiki deletion. Virago is on vacation for a few days, but I would be honored to help restore those images. What can I do to get started? Best regards,TheBetty1921 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS -- In case you're wondering, I am absolutely NOT a sock puppet. (My use of 21st century English should tell you that straightaway.)
 * The first step to restoring the images is asking an administrator to restore the images. The next step would be correcting the license tags. Virago250 said that several of the images are in public domain. So if the images are indeed in public domain, we would need to replace the current copyright tag with the following.

Summary
For each image, the description, source, date, and author would be different. We might need Virago250's help in filling the information in. If you could create a list of deleted images you would like restored, I could track down an admin, and make an undeletion request. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  08:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Grazie, Alpha Quadrant! I'll pull the list together this evening (my time) and get it right back to you. Thanks for being so gracious about this. I know that when Virago returns s/he will be much relieved.TheBetty1921 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deny recognition
You are correct. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

John Hulley
I see my article has now been accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hulley

But why has it been changed to mdy dates? This article is about a UK subject, so dmy is more suitable and readable IMHO, particularly with the 60-odd newspaper references. Please could you change it back to dmy. Or tell me how I can change it back to dmy.

Thanks, Eriboll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriboll (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the style to dmy per your request. I had originally changed all of the dates to mdy because there was two date styles in use. Per the date style guidelines, an article should use a single standardized date style. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it so quickly. Eriboll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

User talk:152.33.66.242
Wait! wait! Are you implying GW is NOT hot? Think carefully! (I've protected her talk page for a week, and I know you'll send her a nice bunch of roses to make her feel better.) Drmies (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, no, I was not implying anything. In IRC earlier today she said that, due to her presence on the fundraiser banner, she has been the subject of harassment. With that in mind, I have been keeping an eye on the talk page, removing comments that were obviously intended to harass her. Thanks for protecting the talk page. It is a shame that various non-wikipedians have decided to harass her. She does great work here. I would really hate for her to leave as a result of problematic editors causing problems. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree absolutely. Now, a reliable source tells me she likes yellow, but nothing less than two dozen will do. Jimbo has a collection of crystal vases to choose from. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd say this image has about two dozen (if you count the background). As for the vase collection, I thought Jimbo sold those for the fundraiser, in order to get his image off of the banner. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Well played! Drmies (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Beat me to this, AQ. Ha! Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice work on the article. I don't think it can be considered a stub anymore though. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sectional Dedication Award
You have been nominated by User:Joe Gazz84 for this award for your constant contribution to WP:AFC. Thank you for your constant dedication to the project. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Smilespam
 Hello Alpha Quadrant, has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just so you know
When I'm reading things fast I pretty regularly confuse you with Delta Quad - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom with outside discussion at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom
I have been asked by MedcabBot to comment on the absence of action at the Mediation Cabal case for this article.

Firstly, thank you for taking on this case. It's a generally thankless task.

My position has not changed since I wrote at the very beginning "I have made my points many times already, having been forced to because some editors seem to have far more time to spend on this than I do, and keep repeating their invalid logic. Right now I don't have the time to do it again. This does not invalidate my points. If the points I have already made many times are ignored because of this demand, it's a failure of process at Wikipedia".

I have a life away from Wikipedia. It's clear that de Facto, while he may have one, places more importance on stopping what he mysteriously sees as the evils of metrication than almost anything else in this universe. There never was any point in trying to negotiate with him. There is even less point now. (Yes, I know that might sound silly, but I always have hope that some people will learn. This time I have been let down.)

I must move on. So must the world. Sad about de Facto and this article. And Wikipedia in this case.

Thanks again for your efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the rosary help needed
AQ, I wonder if you could oblige me. I added significant fact to this article with H. G. Wells as my citation. Apparently an ignorant editor dislikes Wells because he was "just a science fiction writer" and cited some stupidly inapplicable rule after he twice reverted the edit. This wasn't edit warring: he re-edited it first, then went back immediately and deleted it all, so I would not be able to undo the edit except manually. Does a scholar like Wells need a source to vouch for him as this editor remarked in his edit summary?! Djathink imacowboy  00:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like he reworded some of the information you added and moved where it is located. I think his wording is a bit more neutral in tone. It appears the other editor is requesting that you add page numbers, and if possible, another source. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AQ, would you examine it again? In History of the rosary I added a sentence about H. G. Wells' contention that the Christians borrowed it from the Buddhist tradition. I backed this with citations of both of Wells' "Histories" as we call them. Wells was the first scholar to address that issue specifically, and I added no POV or OR. I think you are being overly generous with the other editor's meddling.

Here and here is the original edit. It shows in its reversion the immediate knee-jerk reaction to my edit.

Here is a correction, User:History2007's 1st revision. It shows his edit summary, quite absurd.

Here is what appears next as the "next edit".

Here is that user's next revert.

Here is that user's final revert, which I did not alter as you see.

I ask that you examine this and see the talk page here noting the snotty reply History2000 posted - and tell me whether or not that user is violating both POV and OR by repressing my edit. Djathink imacowboy  11:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a final humble request, would you have a word with this editor about his tone and language? I did not come this far to have it start all over again by a baised editor who wants Catholic revisionist history. Djathink  imacowboy  11:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for this excess of verbiage. What I want you to comprehend is this: 1. User:History2007 simply ended up deleting the edits I made - he didn't "move" them as you think. 2. In an attempt to own the article, the editor is deliberately obfuscating the difference between the rosary prayer tradition as developed over centuries and the history of the actual physical rosary beads. The editor know this very well, but as I indicated, is simply trying to muscle out anything disagreeable. There is an abuse of Wikipedia rules in his arguments, AQ! Djathink  imacowboy  12:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You will note that I reverted the edit, only I was careful to fairly reword what I originally wrote. It has the same citations. I don't see anyone else being held to the standards User:History2007 is attempting to impose in bad faith here. Also I wish you to note that History made edits along the lines of edit warring but made them in such a way that no one could easily re-edit. Now he's wrongly calling for a consensus he knows will never happen. In any case, I am through with this nonsense. Let History2007 do whatever. It is sickening when editors are treated the way I have been treated by History2007. Djathink  imacowboy  13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a brief comment on your talk page regarding the issue. I will try and take a look a the dispute, and see if I can offer any suggestions. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, your comments noted and appreciated as ever. I will strive to follow in action all that you advised. Djathink  imacowboy  13:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

AQ, I will impose up front: I really need you to at least have a gander at this horrific development. These two new people somehow caught a whiff of this and are sticking their oars in - because their shenanigans yielded them nothing in the Erikeltic case they have now dragged into this. Please come over and lend some sane comment!! They want to see me go down, and editor MikeWazowski is lying by reporting that he has been "following" my edits and seeing "disturbing" things. The edits and talk comments are an open book, as always. This smacks of a personal attack from both those new editors commenting over there. Djathink imacowboy  04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AQ, I wish to apologise for seeming to have embroiled you in the issue. When I listed you as an involved editor, I made it very clear that whilst you were involved in helping and solving trouble, that was all. User:Chzz in his wisdom removed you from the equation and I'm glad of that. Just wanted you to know, I did not want to be accused of canvassing and therefore listed you in the appropriate place of editors involved. Knowing you'd seen the fracas already, I hope you understand. The decision and advice has been given and I have agreed, bowing out of it altogether. Djathink  imacowboy  15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN: Wilhelm Busch (pastor)
Hello AQ, FYI, I just would like to inform you as my mentor that in hopeless situation related to content dispute at and in an effort to do my best to provide references and a version of the article acceptable to other user, I could not at  the end find any other way out than trying to go for mediation via WP:DRN process. The thread is Wilhelm Busch (pastor). Thank you. --Stephfo (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for TriTech Software Systems
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

question
why when you use twinkle to rollback something and you mark it as vandalism it makes the edit minor? I'm pretty sure vandalism reverting is not supposed to be minor. O__o Funny thing is the just rollback and good faith one aren't minor. :P Glacialfox (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Help:Minor edit, vandalism revisions are a valid reason to mark an edit as minor. Not many users are that interested in checking an edit that is just maintaining the article's integrity. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I vaguely recalled on something that it said that wasn't allowed. Well, thank you. :D Glacialfox (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For all the excellent work you do in helping new users. :)

LauraHale (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 

Ted Lesley
Thank you for your help!

I fully understand your opinion on reliable, third-party sources, but regarding the article and it´s contents I do not understand which of the sources are not relaible enough... The sources are original.

I would be thankfull for a hint and a few more statements.

Thanks for your time, Robert --Robert Lock (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: If you mean that the sources for topics like "Gold Star Member of the Inner Magic Circle from the Magic Circle of London (1999)" are insufficient, I understand you point. The source for this topic is undergoing a present research.


 * Could the article be published, if I temporarily take out this topic until a veryfied source will be found?


 * Regards,
 * Robert


 * --Robert Lock (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources one and two appear to be reliable sources. Sources three through six don't have enough information for me to determine whether or not the sources are reliable. If these sources are offline, Template:Cite news or Template:Cite journal may be of help. In the editing window, there is a editing toolbar at the top of the screen. If you click on the button that says "Cite", a dropdown menu will appear. On the far left side of the dropdown menu, there is a button that says "Templates". If you click on that, you can choose a template, and a form will appear. You can fill out as many of the fields as you can, and the toolbar will do all of the coding for you.


 * As for source seven, it cites IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. Source eight cites an organization affiliated with the person, meaning that the source is first party. In order to establish the subject's notability and keep a neutral point of view, articles should use reliable third party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or other media published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. As with the above, sources do not need to be online or in Enlgish. If they are offline, we just need enough information so that other editors can verify the information by looking the source up. While offline sources are more difficult to retrieve, there is no problem with using them. As this article is on a biography of a living person, extreme care must be taken with the information in such articles. All information in the article should cite a reliable third party source. Information that cannot be verified should be removed. I hope that help you. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alpha, a friendly advisement:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "History of the rosary". Thank you.
 * It is presumptuous, but I ask that you take a moment from your busy schedule to comment at the thread. It is almost a requirement because it will assist everyone in the matter. This, I believe, is the real way we improve Wikipedia. Djathink  imacowboy  15:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll need a bit of time to review the dispute, but I shall comment. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AQ, FYI . Best,  Chzz  ► 11:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AQ, I wish to apologise for seeming to have embroiled you in the issue. When I listed you as an involved editor, I made it very clear that whilst you were involved in helping and solving trouble, that was all. User:Chzz in his wisdom removed you from the equation and I'm glad of that. Just wanted you to know, I did not want to be accused of canvassing and therefore listed you in the appropriate place of editors involved. Knowing you'd seen the fracas already, I hope you understand. The decision and advice has been given and I have agreed, bowing out of it altogether. Djathink imacowboy  15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo redux
See follow up Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828 --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Reminiscences (film)
Took me a little while to get to the stub first nominated, but the article is now looking far better. My thought here is that we have a film and filmmaker from Peru, and the difficulties of finding coverage for a Peruvian film. The film has been screening since 2009, and while only now getting wider attention as it hits the international documentary festival circuit, most of what I can find is non-English. BUT the film IS slated to premiere at the Museum of Modern Art in less than two weeks... an accolade in and of itself for a piece of art... and with Indiewire having it as among "10 Films To Watch From The Guadalajara Film Festival", we have a reasonable expectation of additional coverage being IN English after its US premiere.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with Article Creation: Brixton, Apparel and Accessories
Hello,

I submitted an new article, "Brixton", but was declined. I am unsure of why this was, because my sources are reliable and I am not trying to sell anything with the article. Please let me know specifically what is wrong with the page if you can.

Thanks TaylorBrixton TaylorBrixton (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello TaylorBrixton, I declined the article because the submission did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. In order to establish a subject's notability, the subject needs to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or books. Sources do not have to be online or in English. I hope that helps you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for Birthdate...???
Hello. Have question about my article on Ed Robison. I'd made a mistake on the birthdate on the infobox and corrected it (unfortunately I wasn't logged in and so it came up as an IP address for the edit). Now both the birthdate on the intro and for the infobox have been removed with the notation that citation is needed for the birthdate? I've looked at a great deal of other biographical articles and have found many do not have citations for birthdates. The only citation I'll be able to find is the one from the county seat of records for Bellingham Washington. Is this going to be OK? What can I do?? Don't mean to bother with trivial question but as I'm a rookie at this I just want to make sure that this article is as good and as complete as I can make it. Thanks again for your time and patience.Stickville (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'd be more than happy to assist you. Birth dates for biographies of a living person should be cited using a reliable source. I believe that the county records would be considered a reliable source and should suffice in verifying the dates. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So for the citation, do I list the address of the VITAL RECORDS Department for Whatcom Country? What about the internet service they use when one wants to get a copy of a Birth Certificate? I assume that I don't actually have to show a copy of his birth cert, right?Stickville (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the source is publicly published, then it may be used as a source in the article. It is considered a first party source, but it shouldn't be a problem if it just used to verify the date of birth. Sources do not need to be online. Template:Citation may be used to cite offline sources. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A glance and a comment...
...is all I ask. If you do not reply to me, I will accept that but please look. There is a pending attack page, or something odd like that, under construction here, even though that editor is asking for its speedy deletion. I object to the entire abusive action by this editor, who has shown a proclivity to spy on my edits and spread insults about me. I think the archive name is a good example. And the editor is no stranger to trouble. He is attempting to delete the entire archive of my posts on his talk so that diffs cannot be consulted later. Djathink imacowboy  02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah...that is a major policy violation. Especially considering he is doing it to avoid scrutiny. I have an admin looking into it. It should be resolved shortly. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alpha, I just want the guy to stop harassing me. I have since this edit  and yet, he seems incapable of controlling himself.  I simply don't understand his need to drag me into his nonsense when I've had no recent interaction with him--that is, until nasty comments directed my way on another editor's page.  It's a pretty simple request...  Erikeltic ( Talk ) 03:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it feasible for User:Djathinkimacowboy and User:Erikeltic to agree to stop interacting between each other? Would probably solve a lot. Or at least, if interaction is necessary, limit it to article talk pages as such, and focus the discussion on content rather than behavior? I think all of us can agree that nothing fruitful will come of further interaction on these lines, right?  Snowolf How can I help? 04:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds great. I would appreciate it greatly if he would stay off my talk page.  I will certainly continue to stay off his.  Any interaction between us should happen on an article's talk page (period) and hopefully even that will be at an absolute minimum.  It would also be fantastic if nobody was accused of anything or left nasty messages on other editor's talk pages about the other editor.  I'm happy to say I won't be doing that.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 04:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowolf and AQ: thanks for seeing to this. May I just point out that my appearances on Erikeltic's talk page have been to try and defend myself. Of course he has almost always stayed off my talk page. He seems to take great pleasure in following my edits, posting things about me on the talk pages of others, then erasing his tracks. He says, "It would also be fantastic if nobody was accused of anything or left nasty messages on other editor's talk pages about the other editor."

It would be nice if he believed that, but his actions show he does not believe it.

He is also not entirely forthcoming about other things that are occurring. Of course I have openly promised on my talk page to walk away from all this. I will not post anything on Erikeltic's talk page ever again. Is my word satisfactory? After all, unlike Erikeltic, I am defending myself and trying to alert the community to what he is doing. Djathink imacowboy  15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can all agree on a satisfactory conclusion, many thanks to both of you, and good luck in your editing endeavors :)  Snowolf How can I help? 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In thanking AQ, I neglected to thank you, Snowolf. Also I am grateful for the best wishes. If I am noted for anything here, I want it to be that I struggle to improve and I keep my word. Djathink  imacowboy  20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "After all, unlike Erikeltic, I am defending myself and trying to alert the community to what he is doing."  Right.  These comments were made a full two weeks after our last interaction, so I have no idea how you can call nonsense like this "defending yourself" when you're dragging me into whatever new problem you have with yet another editor.  Do me a favor--hell, do us both a favor--and forget my name, especially from messages like the one I just referenced.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djathinkimacowboy  (talk • contribs)  15:40, 13 December 2011‎ (UTC)

AFD repeat
Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination) An AFD you participated in last month is at AFD again.  D r e a m Focus  00:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA nomination
I've been thinking about this for nearly a week; although I've never interacted with you, your contributions show that you're helpful, insightful, and patient with other users. Cheers,  HurricaneFan 25  01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind offer. However, I declined a nomination last month because of an incident back in October. While there has now been two months since that incident, and I have not repeated the mistake, it would probably be best if I waited at least another four. In addition to that concern, although I have written a few articles, I don't have any good or featured articles. These two points are more than likely enough to cause any RfA to fail. I thank you for the offer, but I feel I must decline at this time. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

strictly a technical query....
For my work on Fedora, I found a couple of famous images that I would like to add to external links. It is an example of Max von Sydow wearing a Borsalino-brand fedora in The Exorcist. The images- which I'm sure we can't use- are here and here. Would you look and see if I could use them? Not for an inline citation because it's inappropriate, but as external links. A lot of people have asked about fedoras, Borsalinos, and I want references to a Borsalino-made fedora. Thanks Djathink  imacowboy  19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)