User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 07

Unspecified source for Image:Kigb_icon.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Kigb_icon.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

68.40.253.199
Hey David, just wanted to say sorry about the mess with this user - I tried to go about it the right way, but apparently I just couldn't get through to him ...-- daniel folsom  17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy crap - no I didn't, sigh, can you give me the link?-- daniel folsom  17:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
So many editors are violating policy here - many are becoming incivil, and many are becoming just plain illogical. I'm hesitant to say this due to a potential backlash, but I'm thinking that it's just not worth it to have all these editors drag themself through the dirt and violate multiple policies just so one (this one) can be satisfied - especially on this small an issue. I mean editors have let a debate over something meaningless (it's what, like six words?) turn into a massive warzone. I think we should use WP:IAR and vote. Thoughts?-- daniel folsom  19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the two sides are so divided I don' think a consensus should be reached - I know votings the easy way out - but given how long this has streached for I know I'm ready to take the easy way out :D. Ehh either way, I don't think many people would agree - may the war continue ...-- daniel folsom  20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rar! WikiProject Halo?
Dear David Fuchs,

Wondering if you'd like to write a short blurb about WP Halo for the Oracle Newsletter this week...I think I'd also enjoy investigating the possibility of a collaboration between WP:Halo and HP...what say you? ;-)

Cheers,

 R R   [ iTalk  ]  06:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hello! It's been quite a while (three months) since I've been on - but I've found more time to come and edit and work towards my goal of being an admin (eventually :D). Soo... few questions for you. I recently (as of three minutes ago) reworked the VundoFix article. How is it? I plan to keep going with it. Also, could you help me find and/or start a WikiProject on malware? I find it to be quite interesting. Thanks :) Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. I greatly appreciate it.  Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oblivion
I only get migraines when others make bad decisions. I've nothing against you, but your deletion nominations are quite ill-reasoned. I'd suggest you change your vote to one of "keep", since no policy or guideline supports your actions. Might I remind you that WP:CIVIL is policy, and that it does advise against giving people headaches. "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." You're causing me stress with a series of personally targeted acts. Please stop. Geuiwogbil 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're personally attacking me; I just said you're causing me stress. That's the difference between WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I'll be ignoring the unsubtle threats you lodged in your last response, and the incivility evinced by the "Whoop de doo" comment. Now, please tell me, (as we've spent far too much time discussing behavior, and far too little time discussing content) what are your remaining arguments against the retention of the two articles you have nominated for deletion? Your initial complaints of "too detailed" have no grounding in policy, and are at least in direct violation of the spirit of WP:PAPER. 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you, for example, provide commentary on the currently open peer review of the "ESRB re-rating[...]" article. It's not getting much commentary as of yet, and I'd much appreciate it! ^_^ Geuiwogbil 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, you could review the development article for GA candidacy! I'd love that! Geuiwogbil 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll stop bugging you now. Sorry for the...um...bad faith. Geuiwogbil 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really just...baffled. I never thought Wikipedia had any restrictions on detail. That's what WP:PAPER's all about, right? If people don't like that detail, fine, they can read the Oblivion article and skim over it. If they want greater detail, they read the subarticle. I just...I just don't really have any hard sense of "What should be in an encyclopedia", I guess. If I limited it to 10,000 pages, sure, I could trim down the list. If I limited it to certain varieties of content, again, sure. But...if the info's well-organized, well-sourced, and well-written....The more limits there are to what type of content we should have, the more uncomfortable I am in editing. "Unspoken" rules, I'm really uncomfortable around. Here's what PresN said to me before I broke the article out: "As to Oblivion, I've been noticing those sections get longer and longer, and they definitely need something to happen to them. I agree with summarizing the downloadable content section and moving the details to the development page, which I think I saw you do this morning....I'd also recommend that you do the same with the ratings change—right now that section is huge, and it should really be about one paragraph, though like everything you write, it's so hard to cut it down because it's all so interesting and well-sourced. I think the details could have a place on the development page as well, though." I mean, I was really enthused while writing it, and it seemed like PresN agreed in some sense. When the AFD came, I was surprised and angry; AFDs are just so bitter-tasting. I guess there was some, um, irritation, condescension and indignation on my part. Thanks for the softer tone; I feel...calmer now. Really, really, thanks. All the tension is gone now. I feel much better. Geuiwogbil 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. People get obsessed, I guess, and it all just begins to seem so compelling to them, while anyone else looking in is just baffled. "How can you care so much?" I like what Deckkiller and the WP:FF crew have done with the stern redirections to external Wikia. "Sure, the content's good, but not here." A good pointer in the direction of Iris (Halo 3 ARG) Wiki for that kind of thing seems sensible. It's what I tried doing to one Doppelsoldier when he started adding a "Heavy armor" section to the Oblivion article. "Heavy armor". Can you imagine such a thing? Thanks for the comments on the Dev. article, btw. People seem to dislike the "wall of text"-style of article. On everything I've written, it's just "my eyes gloss over". I'll get to work on it. Thanks again! Geuiwogbil 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I Would Like to Know

 * Hello, my name is Todd Barnes. I would like to know what you consider 'vandalism' and 'personal attacks' and why you keep harassing me on my discussion page. - Alterego269 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes.
Thanks for the speedy assessment &mdash; it made my day (or night). I've now tagged everything with dates and removed the "In-Universe" tag. Any reference that doesn't label the author means that the author hasn't been stated in the source itself. Thanks. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing, when mentioning the In-Universe thing, did you mean remove the section or remove the heading? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help on editing issues
Hello. I was wondering if I could ask for your help in settling an editing matter. One editor proposes character name changes since he/she don't seem to agree with the official english version and prefers what he/she deducts as the right translation. For instance: english publication says Rubel, Japanese phonetics say Ruvur. Said Editor prefers to spell it as Louvr. Debate is on going at: Claymore Discussion. Thank you.-Mickey

Wow
Hey David, hope your summer has been nice - I thought you might enjoy this User:Magnus_animum (click on "edit this page" then try to copy and paste the seemingly unreadable writing into your address bar) (spoiler warning: idk how but all of the edit text is backwards and then when you copy it out it's normal again).-- daniel folsom  03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request
Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Smile


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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AFD for List of people with epilepsy
You may have noted that I broke apart your group nomination List of horror film killers (2nd nomination) due to a consensus to split up the group and relist the articles individually. All the articles are now listed separately. The article List of people with epilepsy was on your original list, but you did not place an AFD banner on that article, nor did you create the discussion page for that particular AFD. I placed the banner and created the discussion page because the article was on your list. Had you intended to nominate that particular article for deletion? If it was not your intention to nominate that article, I would suggest that you go the page Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy and withdraw the nomination. If you had intended to nominate it, then no further action is necessary.

On a further note, it would be better in the future to list all articles in a group separately, especially when the articles are not closely related. A group nomination really applies only when the subjects of the articles are all closely related. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 16:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD closed for separate nominations
I have closed the nomination debate that you posted for List of books by title. Please break up the group and renominate the articles separately. When you renominate, please add a link to the previous group nomination. Unrelated nominations should be listed separately. In the future, please do not make group nominations of unrelated articles. Group nominations are not for convenience of the nominator. They are intended only for very closely related articles, such as all the characters in a single film, or something of that nature. Please note that this is the second time that I have notified you about this subject. Thanks for your cooperation. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Covenant-war.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Covenant-war.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain at ANI
Yeah, I saw the main article was being discussed before I deleted the dead end redir... I just really didn't/don't want to get into a possible WP:WHEEL on a meme article... especially when I live in a black hole devoid of pop culture and have never heard of it.--Isotope23 talk 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Diemacher‎
O MY GOD THANK YOU SO MUCH! Sox 23 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I will- I was just so aggrivated that he wouldn't stop! It went on for over a half hour! Sox 23 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how but Diemacher isn't blocked anymore... Sox 23 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients
Hey mate, I've placed the GAC on hold - it just needs a small lead fix, some image rationale changes, and a bit of link fixing, but it's really, really close. I'm going away in two days, but I reckon you can fix it before then (or I will, and pass it). Get back to me ASAP :) Giggy  Talk 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Passed. Giggy  Talk 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of good faith editor
Can you please review your block of ? It appears that you blocked him for violating the "3 revert rule" but he was never notified in advance that there was such a rule. Given that there was no advance warning, the 48 hour block seems rather harsh since he was evidently making edits in good faith, removing what he believed was either mis-information or vandalism. Burntsauce 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I remove the "request for un-block" template from my talk page? Sox 23 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Airlines
Hey, your edit to Spirit Airlines broke the info box because the '|' character is at the end of line. Thanks --Matt 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so you know I never knew he (Diemacher) was the CEO of Spirit Airlines and I didn't try to play him off as a vandal. I truly thought he was a vandal--I mean he even did some edits that are just what a vandal would do. I still have no respect for him. All I was doing was trying to preserve the Spirit article and I don't see why I was punished for that. Also, I was just wondering if you ever called the phone number? I'm curious about it but I don't want to call a -900 number. Sox 23  22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm investigating a bit the whole claim of Diemacher being the Spirit CEO, I'm neither for or against his claim, but at the moment I have not seen any edits made by the user claiming he is the CEO, where did you receive this information? --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon/accused sockpuppet of Diemacher is also making many odd claims about the airline which may possibly deem him or her as nothing more than a disruptive vandal wanting to get his way, though we cannoy discredit his claim as we have no real proof to call him a true vandal seeing as Diemacher hasn't really done any vandalism, and instead there's just been a lot of content dispute and good faith rewordings of paragraphs that are unagreed to by either party (Sox23 and Diemacher). Still, the anon has made many strange claims (including the airline having no connecting traffic when they clearly connect everything through Lauderdale as can be shown by simply booking most routing through their website) which can be deciphered as original research seeing as their airline website itself counters every claim made by the anon. I still have not found any edit where the user or anon has claimed being a CEO or legal action, though this may need to be brought up to arbitration if it escalates further.  Get back to me with your thoughts. --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find your blocking of a good editor without a warning possibly in violation of assuming good faith, and somewhat troubling. Yes, they shouldn't have been edit warring. Yes, Sox23 should not have fed a troll and waited for Diemacher to sign off to revert it. Yes, Sox23 was in blatant violation of the 3 revert rule. But Sox23 is a good editor, one who has even been up for adminship, and I feel is owed good faith. Can you explain why you punitively blocked Sox23, when WP:BP clearly states that punitive blocks are not kosher? Sox23 is a good wikipedian, and I feel his block is an undeserved blemish on his excellent contributions. --Matt 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, to answer everyone... yes, Diemacher is Ben Baldanza, CEO of Spirit Airlines. (Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but he contacted me via email, that's how I figured all this out, so don't bother looking for diffs Smith). I called him, and he's (somewhat understandably) pissed, seeing as the Spirit Airlines wikipedia page is the fourth link in a google search, and he's concerned about being misrepresented... to quote part of an email he sent me:


 * "He [Sox] uses terms on the page that do not relate to us, such as "hubs" (we operate no hubs) and "focus cities" (that term has no relevance for our business model), and he aribtrariliy has chosen what parts of our history are relevant and which aren't. All day I have been trying to fix this and started with very calm discussing with him, but now twice I have been blocked only for trying to make the page about Spirit accurate and not misleading."


 * First off, Sox should not have reported him to WP:AIV, even though considering him a vandal is understandable (if I missed the fact that is was a content dispute, he sure as hell could have). I prolly should not have blocked Sox either, but I shouldn't have blocked Diemacher either, so chalk it up to mistakes on my part; I'm sorry. However Sox and Baldanza need to come to some sort of understanding about this before I will unprotect the article. David Fuchs( talk ) 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses, still, I'm finding it very hard to believe this claim as the CEO. This type of behavior doesn't seem like something the Chief Executive Officer of a major International Airline would resort to. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, i suppose it is possible that he gave me a duped number where he recorded a custom message saying he was a CEO... however after speaking with him I find it unlikely. Any user is prone to doing stupid things, off-net occupations aside. David Fuchs( <small style="color:#cc9900;">talk ) 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it be possible he gave you a listed number for the actual CEO knowing you'd get the recording? All I know is that what he's claiming counters the website itself... we really have no problem putting his information in the article, it has nothing to do with that, but it needs to be verifyiable, and as of right now, the most accurate source... the airline's public website, counters most of what he has said.  If he really is the CEO, he can have the company update our source, or make an official statement or something similar to that but it has to be official. Arter that, then we'll gladly restore the article to the status he preffers, otherwise, he could just be anyone adding any sort of information with a bogus identity used to keep it his way, we can't just go by random claims and threats, we need proof otherwise there's no point in keeping up this project.  If you speak with him again, let him know this.  --  SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Diemacher still blocked? He hasn't responded since...have you talked to him? Sox 23 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure I unblocked him entirely, as he isn't showing up in any block logs... and I haven't heard I peep from him either. Last I talked to him he was talking about having some people from the company check over it, but either way I haven't heard from him in three days. I unprotected the article, so feel free to edit it now, although sourcing every little thing is a good practice... :) I would rather have had this go through WP:DR or at least have come to a mutual understanding, but for now take silence, I guess. David Fuchs( <small style="color:#cc9900;">talk ) 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Halo series GA
I think once we copyedit the article, add just a few more references, the series article would be GA status, and that would make the halo games a featured topic! Judgesurreal777 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I'm not going to add to the size of the already groaningly-huge Wikipedia talk:Spoiler but I have made my opinion on this known here (Click this link to contribute while it's still live). A reasonable archiving period and general agreement that older discussions can be revived would be beneficial. Inflicting huge page sizes on a discussion page, even though the discussions are obviously not ongoing and are never revived after restoration, is unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Eve of the Apocalypse
Why did you delete Eve of the Apocalypse? I can't seem to find any policy or whatever that got it deleted. Discombobulator 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adopt Me!
Hello. My name is Marine954, and I would like to be adopted by you. I love everything related to Halo (it seems that they're not many of us here :(} I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Please get back to me ASAP. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine954 (talk • contribs)

Okay, Let's Do This
Let's make a barnstar and userbox for the Cruft Eaters. I have a design, but don't know how to make it in accordance with WP - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the barnstar to here, so we can tinker with it. I am going to remove it from my Talk Page to My Archive 23 area.
 * Okay/ Have a safe trip, and I'll fiddle about. I might have to import bone and skull images - which I am not sure how to incorporate into a barnstar. I might have to assemble the whole thing offline with Photoshop. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status and Wikiprojects
I'm not entirely sure how this works as my understanding is that the GA nomination is a formal process whilst the Wikiprojects assessment is not, but once an article - in this instance Characters of StarCraft - passes the GA nomination should the Wikiproject templates on the page be updated to match this? I noticed you already did this for the Wikipedia Strategy Games template for the article, should it be done to the Wikipedia Video Games template as well? -- Sabre 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish space school
Hi, following the rewrite of this article, with plenty of reliable sources to underpin notability, I should be grateful if you would revisit your recommendation at Articles for deletion/Scottish space school. TerriersFan 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter
It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question About Deleting My Article
I recently created a Wikipedia page for myself, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. I knew Wikipedia opposes autobiographical pages, and I thought about asking others to submit a page for me in their own names, knowing they would gladly have done so, but that seemed not quite honest to me, so I submitted my own page in my own name. I was new to Wikipedia, learning everything from scratch, I made mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and I ultimately included substantial citations to credible outside references which supported what was included in my article. In response to the concerns about the article being autobiographical, I offered to ask others to rewrite the article and add to it, a compromise several editors seemed to view as satisfactory.

Shortly after submitting my article, my websites, boards, and blog were targeted for attacks by "not420/chan", "Anon," "Legion", the "Internet Hate Machine," aggressive internet hackers, in other words. My boards were hacked and spammed with racist, misogynist rhetoric and pornography, e-mail accounts of board members were hacked and violated, and my sites were subjected to "gigaloader" attacks over many days which ultimately forced them off the internet. My life has now been threatened many times in e-mails and via comments to my blog, and I have also received many rape threats, as have my commenters, colleagues and supporters. I am still receiving murder and rape threats.

My personal information, address, telephone number, and other information was published on "Encyclopedia Dramatica" alongside ongoing strategizing as to how to destroy my websites and web presence, harrass me and my family in an ongoing way, and cause me real life harm. The reason for this targeting and harrassment is that I am an outspoken radical feminist.

As part of these attacks, persons were urged to come to Wikipedia and to vote that my Wikipedia article be deleted. Iamcuriousblue, who has evidently written for Wikipedia at some point, was the first advocate for deletion and continued to press for deletion for days and probably weeks. During the discussion of deletion, my article was repeatedly being vandalized, filled with links to racist, misogynist pornograpy, my interracial children were called "mud children," and the most vile speech imaginable was included as "edits", in part by those sent to vandalize the site by Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Iamcuriousblue, who again spearheaded the drive to delete my article, has a long history of attacking my writings and political activism because he is opposed to radical feminism and anti-pornography activism and is, himself, a pro-pornography activist.

I followed some of the discussion of deletion and noted that fair-minded, intelligent, credible and, most importantly, objective, Wikipedia editors voted not to delete. One editor noted that among certain populations, my name is a household world. He's right, it is. I am cited as a credible outside reference in at least one Wikipedia article. The discussion, however, continued to be spammed with anonymous deletion votes which in fact were part of the internet attacks against me. My sense is that the vote to delete may have resulted more from a desire to end the ongoing, very toxic and hateful vandalism of my page and ongoing flaming and conflicts than because any sort of consensus had been reached that my article should be deleted on its merits. I ultimately cited to many independent, outside references which are, in fact, thoroughly credible.

I do not see how what happened to me here can be consistent with the community ethos or values of Wikipedia. I think what happened to me here was wrong. The deletion of the article is now being touted as a "victory" by internet thugs at Encyclopedia Dramatica and elsewhere, as well as by those who oppose my long history of anti-pornography, radical feminist politics. And it is a victory for them, but I think it compromises the credibility of Wikipedia's editorial policies and processes.

I would ask that you give what I have written here your serious consideration.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff "Heart" Heartsees2 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

--

And I've responded on my page to the slanderous (and serious) responses and ongoing attacks by iamcuriousblue, here and all over the internet, in the interests of taking the first steps in Wiki's Dispute Resolution process. My issue with iamcuriousblue is his conduct, which I think is in violation of Wikipedia's User Conduct policies and guidelines. I posted this here because according to the Dispute Resolution guidelines, we are first to go to those directly involved in the incident that gives rise to the dispute. Thanks for your time. Heartsees2 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

--


 * I've responded to the slanderous and petty attacks from this user at User_talk:Heartsees2. If this user has a problem with me personally, let her take it through dispute resolution. Iamcuriousblue 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Spartanomegahalowars.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Spartanomegahalowars.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)