User talk:Cube lurker/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Harry Duiven Jr. AfD
You stated earlier that you were keeping an open mind on the AfD, to see what arguments others made. I think mine answered your question about boxer's notability. Still willing to review?Horrorshowj 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I understand what you are saying about Wikipedia being edited by volunteers, but I think there is a big difference between tagging articles as unsourced, non-notable, etc., versus tagging or nominating them for deletion. I'm in the position that I don't always agree with what Gavin.collins says, but have to defend his right to say it. The proportion of articles he nominates for deletion out of the ones he just tags is low.

I don't have anything against role playing games (I've outgrown them) and I like SF a lot. But, we mustn't forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, not a compendium. The Internet is the compendium; users turn to Wikipedia for insightful criticism, and as a way to parse the Internet for what is important and what is not.

If I (as a community) had a bunch of articles under attack, and they didn't have easy fixes, I would strategically withdraw most of them into my userspace or my Farscape wiki (what a luxury), and tactically reinforce the strongest articles. Fighting tooth and nail with the nominator over every tag and every article is risky, with a poorer outcome for all concerned. SolidPlaid 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good on ya
Thanks for handling it well. I understand frustration, it's best just to try to prove that the nomination is wrong rather than to attack the nominator, that rarely does any good unless you can prove that the nomination was made in bad faith. Corvus cornix talk  00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion will last for five days. In that period, you can provide reliable sources and explain the team's notability, and that might convince other people to suggest keeping the article. Corvus cornix talk  00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As a long-time Recent Changes patroller, I can tell you that it's virtually impossible to keep track of the articles you've noticed that need work. My Watchlist would be thousands of articles long. It's not that people are trying to jump on things just to show that they're on top of things, it's because if you don't do something early, you're going to forget about it, and bad stuff (not saying your article is bad) will wind up just sitting there for months before somebody stumbles on it. It becomes a "way of doing things" that, I wish, there were a better way of working. There are just too many articles. Maybe I should create a subpage of my User page and list links there that I want to revisit after a couple of days. Hm. That sounds like a good idea. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ormskirk Heelers
Thank you for the advice. How shall I proceed now? Leave it and keep your advice in mind for the future? Strikeout my nom? Billscottbob (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no hard feelings at all. I'm open to advice. You were very civil about it. My nomination was out-of-line. Billscottbob (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFd: James Barker
Hello Cube Lurker,

First off, congrats on you Sawx and Pats! It is a special time to be a sports fan in Boston.

I noticed your last comments on the AfD page, regarding what you thought was some kind of a beach head ... aggressiveness on the part of people supporting deletion, etc.

I can only speak for myself.

My original thought was that there was a beachhead being formed by people supporting "keep" .... that it was so clear that this person was non-notable, and that they were using this AfD for some kind of point.

As it has progressed, I have moved away from that belief. My personal belief is that there exist a great many articles that do not fulfill a number of WP policies, but they end up sticking around because group X gets enough people together to fight to keep it because they like it. I'm not seeing that here either. I feel that articles like that hanging around encourage more articles like that.

I think it has come down to this particular article fitting into a potential gray area (I don't see it as gray, but I can see that some people do.) I think that arguing out the points is educational (I was originally sent over to AfD by an admin who encouraged me to get involved, really learn policy, and learn how to argue for/against deletion using policy properly ..... that it was a good way to actively learn what are otherwise pretty static "rules".

If I've come across as strong, its because I truly believe in what I do. If I've been uncivil, then I apologize. I try very hard to stay civil while being passionate about a stand. It can be difficult.

I felt I should take a moment and explain. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Hi Cube lurker - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It's especially gratifying to receive support from an editor such as yourself who has apparently seen me in action (even if it was not my finest hour - I don't think many of us came out of that sorry episode looking good). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats, i'm sure you'll use it well.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More on objective criteria
Could I get you to edit your statement a bit? The header reads ''For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that TV episodes do not inherit notability from being a part of a notable series. This is a contentious issue, but this page is not the place to discuss it. Comments indicating that the discussion is useless because the notability is obvious will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted. That is different than saying that comments from people that disagree will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted ... it says that comments intended to defeat the discussion'' will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted. I see them as quite different.Kww (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Thanks.Kww (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Seresin
Please don't judge the nom or the other supporters by Dorftrottel. I don't want to say anything incivil or provocative about him, but he does not speak for the rest of us. I for one am neutral except for thinking the non's OK. It's just a pity that he feels the need to flame people he disagrees with on this RfA. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm just appalled at what Dorftrottel has done. I shouldn't be apologizing for him. <> We may well see more opposes because of it. Such is the nature of RfA. I appreciate and respect your opinions. Who knows, maybe the opposers have the nom pegged. One must always trust to consensus. It will be what it will be, and I should not have gotten as involved as I did. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

/>If you have no other, better reasons to oppose the excellent nomination statements, I can only hope your oppose (and all other, similarly weakly justified ones) will be thoroughly ignored by the closing b'crat. Moreover, I think you didn't even try to see the point I was trying to make. I freely admit that it is not easy, but it is possible, iff you give it a shot. You see, there's always two things involved: The tone and the message. The tone of my postings was indeed questionable, esp. the ALLCAPS comment (which albeit was partly meant as an ironic quote of the diff cited by one opposer) — but the point I was trying to make is there, and in my opinion it is also very valid.Both AfD and RfA are increasingly being treated as a vote by inclusionists and opposers, respectively, and nobody in charge seems to mind this. Both AfD and RfA are still ostensibly discussions, and comments should be judged solely based on the validity of their reasonings. But many seem unwilling or uncapable of understanding and embracing a culture of consensus-building by policy-/guideline- and common-sense- based reasoning and treat both as if it was a simple matter of personal choice whether to delete and article or promote a fellow user to admin — it is not. Either there are intersubjectively communicable reasons, or there are not. The galopping egalitarianism of giving all comments more or less equal weight does imho considerably hurt the community and the general well-being of Wikipedia. And FWIW, most of the time, it is the rabid inclusionists (not the more soft-spoken intelligent inclusionists, but the Star-Wars-fan type) who throw around accusations of deletionism whenever someone is trying to remind them that Wikipedia articles must follow minimum standards. Likewise, it's an often made invalid argument made in RfAs by a certain crop of opposers (again, the type who just enjoys opposing, not those with valid concerns) that the supporters are not presenting rationales, either: But they don't have to. They simply mark their agreement with the nomination(s).To conclude, I don't know where you stand wikiphilosophy-wise, but some of those who oppose are far more off the acceptable mainstream than Seresin as far as XfD is concerned. And the reason I vocally supported (the fact aside that I largely agree with the nomination statements) is because I can relate to his being upset about people who just won't accept any encyclopedic threshold. If you've ever been in a situation where you firmly believe to perceive a bad social pattern emerging that nobody else seems to perceive as strongly as yourself, you should understand what I mean. User:Dorftrottel 16:43, February 9, 2008
 * For the record: I still firmly believe opposing per guilt by association is non-valid in this case, since I'm not at all a wikifriend of Seresin's. I have frequently supported RfAs of very different people in a very vocal way, and punishing Seresin should be totally out of the question for anyone willing and capable of assuming good faith, using common sense and playing nice and fair.<br


 * I'll reply in this section to not clutter your page with a new one. I must say, I was a bit confused as to why Dorftrottel's comments should be an incidator as to my merits. I also made note that I didn't approve of his manner. It is within your right to oppose as you see fit, and I respect that. I just share some of the confusion that several people have voiced about it to you. Thanks for the note, though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's okay
Its cool. Sometimes you just need a fresh set of eyes to see the problem. Glad I could help. -- saberwyn 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ideas for fluxus article
cleanup is a good general purpose tag. It could also stand some better referencing, like inline cites and stuff. Maybe refimprove too... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 05:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post in my talk page
YOu probably confused me with someone else and your message was not delivered where you wanted. Mukadderat (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. It was a joke. And I see it may be misunderstood. I will change the section title. Mukadderat (talk)
 * "melodramatic": yes, that was the purpose. As you may have noticed, I have no interest in this religious conflict. I even did not follow-up the page in question. It was the behavior of an admin which I find utterly appalling. He threathened me with block (literally: "to be dinged", an added insult to injury) after I clearly said that once I was pointed to the commonity decision, I will follow it. But he threathened to punish me for my past actions. Obviously, this is an abuse of power, and I don't intend to leave this without consequences, however small my powers are. Mukadderat (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

afd error
{reply to ) The easiest way to complete the afd nomination is to click on "preloaded debate" in the article (David Lee (trader)) and follow the instructions for completing the template. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, man - it's not a matter to take lightly! Take your time and review before making a decision one way or another. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester
User:Ziggy Sawdust has been, for the last couple of days, horrendously going overboard with Twinkle and speedying articles he claims are "non-notable", without bothering to do any research as to whether or not that is the case; and when his speedy is contested, he AfDs it, again completely ignorant of the actual subject. It's a real problem. He seems so excited to destroy everything in his past, and apparently has no interest in doing anything constructive. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

review me plz
plz review me.--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.182 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the Dario Poggi article and saving it from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic
No I didn't. I did it once and corrected it immediately. Dapi89 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello; Thanks (twice!). This has been a troubled week! Xyl 54 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh...
Your edit. Heh. I was kind of wondering what I said wrong. I thought, "does Cube lurker actually want me to have edited drunk??? Oh, maybe they object to the fact that I even like a drink every now and then. Hmmmm...". ;-) Thanks anyway. --Ali'i 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi Cube lurker, I had a look through your recent contributions, and found that you revert vandalism, and are effective at doing that. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights for you to use alongside Twinkle and undo? Tell me what you think. Best wishes. Acalamari 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollback granted. :) You're right that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism/spam, and as long as you understand that, you'll be fine. If you're interested in any practice or further reading, you may want to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck, and have fun! Acalamari 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Unfortunately, I'll be logging off very shortly, as it's almost dinnertime here (7:00pm). I may be able to help if it's a quick and simple problem, but if it's anything too long, I won't be able to help you. Acalamari 02:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which procedure that is, to be honest: I've not really dealt with this sort of thing that often, and I don't know the name of the particular procedure that verifies if a notable person is editing their own article (is it the people at WP:OTRS who do the verifying, maybe?). However, it would be start to place on his talk page, as that will give the person relevant information regarding conflict of interest. The person appears to be editing in good-faith for now, though. I apologize if I wasn't much help. Acalamari 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi User: Cube lurker! I'm sorry to write this on your user page, but there isn't really anywhere I can put this....My name is Soccer5525 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Soccer5525]], and I'm a fellow Wikipedian. I was looking at the wikipedia discussion page of the town of Franklin, Massachusetts and saw that you have been living in Franklin for over two decades. I as well live in Franklin, but I won't disclose my name, for security reasons. I just thought I'd tell you that, since it's a such a coinsendence! Well, bye for now! Soccer5525 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Soccer5525

Thanks for replying so quickly so quickly to my post! That was really sweet of you! Well, I hope we can still keep in touch, even if you don't live in Franklin anymore. But it was nice meeting you! Soccer5525 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Soccer5525

Hello again! I just wanted to say hi again, since we haven't chatted in a while. What's up? I've made some great changes to my userpage! You should defintely take a look! I also got a new signature. What do you think of it? I would have never been able to do any of those things without the help of some great people! I never knew so many Wikipedians could be so kind! See ya! -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb )

Oh my. Things in the school district of Franklin have been terrible these days. Since the overide passed, so many great teachers are getting laid off, the cost of the paid-to-ride school bus fee has gone up more than a hundred dollars, and so much more. I don't know how Franklin's schools will ever be the same! -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cube Lurker, it me again. I guess you haven't been replying to any of my posts, so I don't expect you to reply to this one. But I'll give it try. I understand by looking at your talk page, that you get the Wikipedia signpost. I'm also interested in having that be delievered to my talk page, but don't quite know how to do it. Do have any help? Thanks & PLEASE REPLY!!! -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here have a cookie!
-- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 15:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

quick question
Hi Cube Lurker, it me again. I guess you haven't been replying to any of my posts, so I don't expect you to reply to this one. But I'll give it try. I understand by looking at your talk page, that you get the Wikipedia signpost. I'm also interested in having that be delievered to my talk page, but don't quite know how to do it. Do have any help? Thanks & PLEASE REPLY!!! -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out of your busy work schedule to reply. It's nice to hear from you again. Your directions were easy and so were the ones on the page. It was simpler than I thought! Thank you for that! I also have another question about a totally diffeent subject, but I'll wait until you get out of work to ask you. If you could just notify me when you do get out of work, that would be great. Thanks! -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my question. I noticed that you're a member of the Red Sox Wikiproject. I myself am an avid fan of the Red Sox, since I'm from the Boston area. So I was wondering if I could join. Now clearly, I don't know how it works when you want to join. Can you join whenever you want, or do you have to be like invited or something? -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the Signpost. On what days of the week do that deliver it? -- Soccer 5525  ( Tk  •  Ctrb ) 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Jaysweet
Thank you for being a peacemaker! :) -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Afd of MIA
Thank you for your comment on Afd. However if you could read my reply, I'd appreciate a response. It just seems to me that it's the notablity of Mike Conley that is established with the reliable third party bio and trivial mentions of the band he was a part of on this. Seeing as it fails all criteria for WP:Band what do you think of an alternative like merging the article into Mike Conley with a mention of the band on that article instead? ShimShem (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at AFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've replied on there. ShimShem (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok thanks all the same. ShimShem (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick request
Until that debate is resolved, could I ask you to look at this talk page. I strongly believe that for now, the article should be moved to MIA (band), as that's what their label page, this review, this article and their album credits them as, but I'm in a dispute with editors that accept the veracity of moving it but are using flimsy reasoning to keep it as such. It would save confusion with other artists sure, but it also meets the WP:Naming convention for what a band is called. It's a straightfoward, non-controversial move to me for now. I've requested comment. Would really appreciate it. Hopefully you see eye to eye with me on this. ShimShem (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: RE your rfarb question
I hope you don't take this the wrong way. And I don't want to pick a fight with an arb. If you feel this is inappropriate, revert and i'll go away. But i'll be honest, your request baffles me. Are you saying that the question, did improper wheel-warring occurred, and was consensus violated, could be decided by an after the fact statistical analysis (possibly subjective), that none of the admins had access to when making their decisions?--Cube lurker (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No no, it's a good question. To give you the short answer, I don't know what an investigation into the distribution of sources of vandalism would turn up. It may be that it is impossible to tell when there are so many edits being made. It may be that such an investigation reveals that it was extremely obvious what the source was, and that may have some bearing on people's actions in this case (in terms of what they ought to have known, or ought to have done). It may be that we just end up with a useful tool for assessing whether semi or full protection is the best approach. Any of these conclusions would be a useful thing to know for the future. --bainer (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Hey no worries, thanks for the apology I really appreciate it. FWIW, I checked with several admins before taking that admin action, but as you saw all I did was tell him his block was over at that point. Hope we are all okay? Cirt (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok on my end, I just botched the progression of who said what and spouted off. Once I realized that I was reading the blocked users words as yours I couldn't hit undo fast enough.  What you did was fine in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay great. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for fixing Mock to Mach, I don't know how i missed that. Notheless though, thanks and happy editing.

Hairy Perry  15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the person that originally typed that had some poor grammer and puncuation and s/he left out some parts of the commercial, so I just went back and revised the whole thing and missed the mispelling of that word. Happy Editing!

Hairy Perry  15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you x 2
You are a good egg, I appreciate the advice sir. Eatabullet (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Wurzelbacher
I have read the keep votes; in fact the entire discussion. To assume anything related to notability other than what's occurring at this time is a violating of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, Joe is a textbook violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense! :-) It'll be great when Wikipedia invents tags. Well, as an admin I guess I have to keep a neutral point of view to some extent, but I agree that quite a few people seem to have a substantial misunderstanding of WP:BLP... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support in my RfA. Could you do me a favor and sign your comment on the page, because it looks like you forgot to. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

check out sherdog forums
heavyweights forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.231.15 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kramer.
Well to me, if it keeps going, than you'll end up having a history of two or three people reverting each other to death. I felt the best thing to deal with an unknown user who wants to keep the "rape|consequences" is to find something that will make him think twice before repeating the process again. Anyway, I hope it would stop or stall that unknown person from constantly reverting. If it fails than what ideas should I get. I hope you'll understand. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Oh if things cools down than you can relink it. It will be wise to cut down on having an edit war than to allow the editor to revert you to the end. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For a lurker you do seem to take a strong stand against trolling
-Your Only Real Friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Your Only Real Friend (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes the work day go by faster.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chris Leben
You're right of course, I saw the anon had deleted the section while going over my watchlist and just assumed it was vandalism. I corrected it now. Thanks for letting me know :) -- aktsu (t / c) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, no problem. If you add any diffs, you may have to do so in a separate comments section - not sure how that works. Thanks for your interest! :) BOZ (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct; you'd need to post additional diffs either on the talk page or in your own statement section. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of the diffs that were already presented, but if i come up with new diffs i'll keep this in mind.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted this on the talk page, but if you write a "summary" of the dispute or make a comment, you can feel free to include diffs just as you would if we were discussing it here. The "evidence" formatting is mostly for the beginning of the dispute in order for the admin opening the RfC to make sure it isn't totally baseless.  So no need to a separate section within your statement. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Frank Mir
Now that you mention it, I actually remember him saying something along those lines. I put it back in the article with an explanation. Couldn't find a source, but I inserted a hidden comment on where it appeared. Thanks for letting me know :) -- aktsu (t / c) 01:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)