User talk:Fran Rogers/Archive 2

Shock site
I'd like to hear an explanation of your decision on this AfD, specifically, to what degree you considered the strength of the arguments. Mango juice talk 18:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument by you and others that reliable sources are difficult to come by and have not been added in this page's long history was a strong one; I would have voted the same way. However, there were strong arguments for keeping as well; for example, one pointed out a bunch of possible sources on Google News. Personally, I agree with you 100% and think this article should be deleted as unsourceable, but even discounting the flimsy "Keep per ___" and WP:USEFUL votes, the consensus of the debate still seems to lean towards a keep. Krimpet (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you could add some of that as a closing explanation in the debate. I think it's a pretty reasonable call, but it would be nice if there was an explanation there to make it clear the delete arguments were taken seriously, as a message to those who next time (hypothetically) would say things like "Keep, notable" et cetera.  Mango juice talk 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 7

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Nomination for adminship
Hello CattleGirl (you may remember me from commenting on my editor review a while back)! I have been looking over your Wikipedia efforts and past contributions, and I would like to heartily endorse you as a candidate for adminship. You show all the qualities Wikipedians look for in an administrator: strong contributions, dedication to chores and vandal fighting, friendly user interactions and a strong desire to help the project. Would you like to accept this nomination? Krimpet (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Krimpet- sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been considering your offer, and I'd like to accept. Thankyou for offering to nominate me!
 * I should mention- I'm going away for an agricultural show this weekend, so would you possible be able to create the page on Monday? I don't want to miss any of my RFA.
 * On the note of RFA's, congratulations on yours! I'm sorry I missed it, but once again, well done, it was well deserved!
 * Thankyou again-  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll work on the RfA over the weekend and have it ready for you to sign on Monday! Krimpet (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds great- thanks again!  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 07:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/CattleGirl =) Krimpet (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers- I've answered the questions, and added it to the main RFA page. Thanks again :)  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Krimpet on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Krimpet. Thanks. --Krimpet (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! Much appreciated :) Glad to see you weilding those administrative tools so well! – Rianaऋ 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks! The fact that your page is such a big target for revenge-seeking vandals reaffirms how great a job you're doing too =) Krimpet (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Aerican Empire and formal tone
I saw that you've tagged Aerican Empire as insufficiently formal, for which I can't blame you. I and the other main editors have all read the style guidelines but, as you can see, few changes have gotten implemented. Rather than merely tag it and move on, could I persuade you to try making some constructive changes yourself? Timcrow 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I know virtually nothing about the subject; the article is written from a joking, semi-"in universe" POV, rather than from a historical, encyclopedic tone and context. I tagged it in hopes that someone more familiar with this context would be able to better rewrite it. Krimpet (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's written "in universe" because it's happening in this universe. It's a functioning political organization, not a movie or roleplaying game. I've spent a lot of time reading through the style guidelines and have to find a way to make it seem mor eencyclopedic because... well, it's a bit of a silly topic. You can see why we've been stuck with the tone the article's got right now, I guess. I'm always very hopefull when someone says it needs a re-write because the hope is they've got some idea how to... well, re-write it. Timcrow 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
Back to the chicken shack. You adjudicated "no consensus" -- which I hope doesn't mean "no majority". I've put the page up for a review -- here. Pablosecca 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I closed the debate as no consensus because there was exactly that: no clear consensus, with plenty of arguments, convincing and unconvincing, on both sides. The purpose of DRV is to review deletions that may have been improperly closed; if you feel my judgment was incorrect, feel free to continue this DRV, but as stated at WP:DRV, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome." Krimpet (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations
Hi. I'm wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that there was a consensus to delete the above article. There were 8 votes to delete and 7 to keep - which is clearly no consensus to delete anything. If you factor out the 2 editors who I informed about the AFD because of their longterm interest in the subject (incidentally, I do not agree that this is "canvassing" - but I'll go along with this for argument's sake), who voted to keep, we have 8 to delete and 5 to keep - which is still well short of a deletion consensus. Accordingly, I'd appreciate it if you could review your decision and restore the article. --Gene_poole 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I detailed above, I feel the arguments to delete were stronger and more diverse. AfD is a discussion, not strictly a vote. Krimpet (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity couples
Thanks for your advice. I thought it might have met the biography criteria but wasn't sure. Thanks again! Neranei 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Stoopid Monkey Logos
As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT)

Thanks
Krimpet, thank you for your kind description of my editing and your support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Londinivm article
I understand the reasons behind the deletion of Londinivm's article (wikipedia isn't a fan of browser games).

However, why on earth did you redirect it to Roman London? Did you even read the comments on the vote for whether it should be deleted or not?

Roman London was called LondiniUm, not LondiniVm. A U is not the same as a V.

Morthy 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In ancient Rome, "u" and "v" were written exactly the same; they did not start to become distinguished until the last few centuries. See Image:Arch.of.Titus-Inscription.jpg for an example. Krimpet (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Morthy 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's over! Thanks
Phew! Thanks for nominating me for adminship, Krimpet- the nomination went better than I thought! I hope I'll be able to contact you with any questions I might have :). Cheers, and thanks once again-  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem: I knew you'd pass with flying colors. =) I'm certainly open to any questions you might have! Congrats again! Krimpet (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Devil Wears Prada (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Joebengo 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Coat of arms of micronations
7 keep votes to 7 delete votes is consensus to delete? I realize there was a complaint of canvassing, but "many of the keep arguments appear to be skewed by canvassing" is unfair. Less than half (3 of 7) of the keep votes were labelled as canvassed, and at least two of those (my own and Georgewilliamherbert's) would have been cast the same way anyways (we haven't heard anything from Kitia). I think "no consensus" is a fairer characterization. And I object to any insinuation that my vote was cast in bad faith, as I discussed in the AfD. I'm sure Georgewilliamherbert would feel the same way. Please consider at least extending the AfD for another five days (which is encouraged when AfD results are unclear)? PubliusFL 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of the keep arguments were an argument of "Keep, notable, sources exist." This is not a particularly valid argument; yes, there are sources of which each individual micronation is the subject of, but there are no sources cited of which the coats of arms themselves are the subject of. On the other hand, the delete arguments were more diverse and brought up other valid concerns. This, in addition the fact that the canvassing may have attracted more keep votes than otherwise, is why I closed it as a delete. Krimpet (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I please have this article userfied? - I'm going to merge the coats of arms into a bigger list article that is notable and documented by sources. Thanks. JRG 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, done =) Krimpet (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's entirely wise, as some of those images are copyright and not eligible for inclusion in list or gallery articles. --kingboyk 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have the flags article userfied as well, thanks. JRG 13:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I please have the flags article userfied? I can go through the proper channel if you want, but that's usually a waste of time when you can do it yourself. JRG 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, done, but please watch your tone... Krimpet (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for noticing, Krimpet! I appreciate that :) Glad to see you settling into your new tools well. Take care mate, – Rianaऋ 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Hogwarts layout
Hey Krimpet, you closed the AfD of Hogwarts layout. I agree that the consensus was for delete; however, I feel my alternate suggestion was made rather late into the discussion and might have changed some people's opinions. Do you recommed I take this to WP:DRV? Best, Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, reviewing my closure, there seems to be a fairly strong consensus to do so after you introduced your argument. No need to bring it to DRV; I've gone ahead and made the move for you. Krimpet (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Blinking
Your blinking reply really doesnt help the discussion, or the page as a whole. Please be kind and remove that. Thanks. --Quiddity 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My reply was just a little light-hearted irony, showing how annoying animation and blinking can be, backing up my opinion, relevant to the discussion, that animation should probably be be avoided. What's wrong with a little lightheartedness? Krimpet (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is your reply uses images that are irrelevant to the discussion, which is concerning images that are encyclopedic, those containing informational content. The blinking images you've used are obviously worse-than-useless in an article (or even a normal talkpage discussion), and are just going to provoke an obviously negative emotional response, potentially clouding any rational debate. The blinking text itself is completely irrelevant.
 * I'm not a humourless fool, I just don't believe the opponents of animated images within articles have made any particularly valid points yet. And I think those images you added are a distracting red-herring.
 * Make sense? --Quiddity 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...
Thanks for the nice welcome message you left me, but I have in fact been here for over six months... Don't see why I got it... Extranet talk 06:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You showed up in the new user log in VandalProof, so I pressed the button to welcome you; only after it was posted did I realize you were an established user with a long talk page. Sorry =/ Krimpet (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I'm creating accounts for people at WP:ACC, so it may have shown 'Extranet created user X' for example, so you may have mistaken me for the created user, but usually User:AccReqBot will leave them a welcome if it is created through the request system. Extranet talk 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's it. VandalProof must not be coded to recognize users creating other accounts, and it showed up in the list as if you were creating your account for the first time. This, along with all the random crashing and freezing, I'm starting to suspect that VPRF is a pretty shoddy program. =P Krimpet (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a try of AutoWikiBrowser if you want to. Extranet talk 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for dealing with the nuisance who was pestering me. :D -- Will2710 |Talk! 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Krimpet (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Why did you delete List of celebrity couples by nickname? It is a much needed article, as there are so many celebrity nicknames. hmwith talk   23:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags of micronations
Please explain your justification for deleting the above article. There was nothing even remotely approaching an AFD consensus to do so. --Gene_poole 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I specifically stated in my closure: I ignored the keep arguments were simply accusations of bad faith towards the nominator, your vote being one of them, as they have nothing to do with whether the article should be kept or not; the article itself must be judged, not the nominator. Discounting those irrelevant votes, the debate leans towards a delete. Krimpet (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. As an administrator you should be well aware that ignoring votes with which you do not agree is not sufficient grounds for article deletion, particularly where there is a clear lack of consensus supporting your actions. I note that you seem to have no concerns about such votes as "delete. fake flags from fake countries", which actively misrepresent the article content and character of the AFD debate - whereas you simply ignore such considered responses as "keep, the above votes are all full of dismissive language about the legitimacy of the countries, when what's at issue is whether an index to them should exist." I'm afraid you apear to have allowed your bias to influence your judgement. Aside from all of this, whether the AFD "leans towards" delete or not is irrelevant - there is nothing even approaching a 66% delete consensus, so you have no grounds whatsoever for deleting the article. --Gene_poole 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no specific threshold, 66% or otherwise, that determines whether an article is kept or deleted; AfD is not a vote. I invite you to read Deletion guidelines for administrators, the standard I and other administrators are advised to follow; rather than simply counting votes, we are required to weigh the arguments on both sides, and use our own judgment. In particular, there were two main points being debated here: whether the nations themselves are notable, and whether a gallery of their flags is worth having. While the keep arguments sufficiently backed up the former, and several of those advocating deletion even agreed on this point, most of those advocating a keep did not address the latter concern, while many of those advocating deletion did argue this point. So, yes, I feel the debate leans towards deletion. Krimpet (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming article
Hi there, I noticed you've put this as protected.. The version that was reverted is basically an edit war by SlimVirgin and a couple of others against extensive evidence on the discussion page. There seems to be a desire to keep pushing the page back to the one it is on now which has Original research (as per numerous and extensive discussions, references etc). If you're going to protect it: please undo it back a version before protecting as the material on there is dangerous to have hanging around (e.g. it is original research, and the ones doing the (what I would call vandalism given it's unjustified) disruptive editing have offered no evidence to support the need to keep reverting (other than to retain a POV in the article and Original unbacked up research).

So if you can, can you please revert the page from the one that insists factory farming is equivalent terminology to intensive farming etc to the one that makes no original research claim and has had numerous other fixes that have been summarily wiped by the disruptive editors (SlimiVirgin, Crum375, LockalZuk..). They've not bothered to give any evidence to suggest why it should be reverted other than "they think so".. NathanLee 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As the protected template explains, protection is not an endorsement of the current version, whether it is correct or not. WP:PROT specifically states: "Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version." I have no intention of getting involved in this content dispute; please work it out on the talk page. Krimpet (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask for a revision is that the person who made the last revert (after the matter was somewhat settled down) was the one who then immediately requested the page to be locked. Surely that's not how the locking process should work? e.g. user did the revert over a bunch of new changes then created the request to lock that version here. NathanLee 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; I'll admit it's pretty apparent that the guy who requested protection was trying to get his favored version of the article locked in place. Nevertheless though I don't want to stir up things further by reverting to a different version as I don't know enough about the subject to judge which revision is correct or not, and I don't want to get embroiled in the content dispute. Sorry =/ Krimpet (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, fair enough and nor would I wish this battle on anyone else.. There's enough involved as it is trying to argue against the reverting.. Just seemed like the latest in the bag of "let's use wikipedia policies to make this more painful". Thanks anyhow, if those users on "the other side" ever decide to listen to the requests to join the discussion we'll maybe sort this out. NathanLee 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How would you feel about simply removing the disputed "lead" section until the controversy is resolved? (i.e. don't put up what anyone wants - simply remove the section altogether until it has been decided.)  Jav43 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jav43 - in the absence of any meaningful contribution or supporting evidence: I don't see why we should be having to bend over backwards to accommodate what just seem to be relentless POV pushing. It's not just the lead, it's the crop additions/other fixes etc.. I'd just move that we remove the block and then if any more reverts without evidence or contribution on the discussion page: it gets flagged as vandalism or disruptive editing (as it should have a long time ago). Senior/established or not: the rules apply to everyone. As I've said: if this was an ip address doing this rather than some supposedly untouchable editors: it'd be well and truly blocked by now. We've extended incredible civility and effort to give them every chance to provide any evidence: but none has been forthcoming.. Although plenty of time on their hands to revert other changes though.. NathanLee 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

zOMG!!!

 * My first barnstar! Thanks =) Krimpet (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Miss Martindale
As you are a member of the category "Administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles", please furnish a copy of the Miss Martindale article. Joie de Vivre 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I have sent it to you via email. Krimpet (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Warner
So, granted the overall score was in favor of delete, over the last five days it was 4:2 in favor of keep. Of course the fanatic "delete everything because it is the fastest way to become an editor or admin" guys are always the first to respond, and the keep guys are always much further behind. How can you decide to close the discussion early when it was just starting to swing in favor of keep? Shaunco 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Upload. Dragons flight 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. 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 GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA
Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

THE award for THE closing line on that AfD

 * I dunno, I was going to pass along a hearty chuckle for this one, myself - but that one's good too! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I saw that one and laughed so hard I had to come here! (Sure enough I wasn't the only one!) -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 07:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was funny. But why did you close it so quickly?  I didn't have a chance to weigh in... minus half a point for poor form.  As it is, many comments on that AfD were misdirected.  A list of exceptions to general rules about use of the definite article before proper nouns would be valid, finite, and of interest -- two different conversations in a day required finding such a list, which led me to start one -- but perhaps Wiktionary is a better place to begin, as the use case data is already there. +sj + 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * full disclosure: I have a yen for definite article precision... and a pet peeve about references to the Wikipedia. +sj +

Commons Help
Do you still know how to transfer photos from wikipedia to commons? --  JA 10  T · C 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! See Moving images to the Commons =) I also have a user script called CommonsHelper Helper that can make the process easier. Krimpet (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --  JA 10  T · C 11:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * see this. --  JA 10  T · C 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV Daimonin
Hello! I thought I would inform you that Daimonin, DRV Link has been sent over to DRV (with a somewhat vitriolic diatribe.) I've been talking with the Daimonin community at their forum. I wonder if userfying the page would be possible at the moment? (Or at least a copy of the last edit that they might be able to transwiki if they're willing.) Anyway, just thought that since you were the closing admin I'd let you know.  Laughing Vulcan  Laugh With Me /  Logical Entries 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And again

 * Thanks! I like to keep things a little livened up =) Krimpet (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming
unprotect please. Haber 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking on the talk page, I'm not seeing much of a consensus to remove protection just yet. Krimpet (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. Haber 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.185.140.166
I have shortened the block on 71.185.140.166 from 1 month to 1 day per typical blocking procedure... well, actually, typical procedure calls for a few warnings first, but the vandalism was egregious and it dosn't sound like this is this user's first experience with unblocking procedure. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit the block was a bit on the IAR side; if you think it should be shortened, OK. I just have little tolerance for blatant hateful vandalism and name-calling, but I guess we can just keep an eye on him. Krimpet (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop closing DRVs in which you participiated
Stop closing DRVs in which you participiated. This is not an "admin action", but a partisanship.  Grue  08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your opinion is no better than anybody else's and you are already involved in the debate. Also, closures are supposed to reflect consensus. Prolog 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. If people insist on slavish devotion to process over a private woman's desire to maintain her own dignity, hell with consensus. I'm not going to get in a wheel war over this, since I'm a strict adherent of 1RR, but I want to state this: anyone insisting on process in this case is a sick human being with no empathy whatsoever. Krimpet (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IAR can not be used as a tool to enforce one's view on the project. Clearly at least half of the editors would have disagreed with a claim that your closure was improving Wikipedia. See Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision for a related incident. As for this woman being "private", once a person becomes news in LA Times, CBS, as well as hits the front page of Washington Post, she's not very private anymore. And we only write from reliable sources, after all. Prolog 09:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got a perfect AfD for ya
It's begging for you to close it (because I know you'll make it funny Whsitchy 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww, someone got to it before me =/ Krimpet (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know... what would you have said? Whsitchy 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

300
Stop removing 300 from the Internet Phenomena list. It's more suitable than almost anything else in the list and additionally, it's currently about the most famous. As to the references you said were blogs, some are and some are not. You need to realise that even some blogs may be appropriate considering the subject matter in question. I could post well over 100 blogs and I've posted 3 news articles to the effect additionally. I've posted 2 blogs that also provide the information. I have looked at your history and notice you're a deletionist, so your conduct doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean that it's right. If you keep removing it, I'll raise it for a third opinion. -- linca linca  10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only removed it once. However, countless others have removed it before for the same reason: these websites you are citing are not considered reliable sources, whether they are "appropriate to the subject matter" or not. This isn't because I'm a "deletionist," or any other divisive label, but because verifiability is of utmost importance. Krimpet (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should you read the information about reliable sources you'll note that it states in its own boiler plate "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The sources I've provided may not fall under the specifics set out in RS, but are reliable in the sense that they're of a journalistic nature and tone and not simply Paris Hilton's jailcell ramblings or a 14 year old fanboy having a wetdream about Star Trek. The content of the source dictates its reliability. People often cite WP:RS as advising no blogs to be cited. The page states nothing of the sort (search it for yourself). I'm not going to bother adding it again because I really can't be bothered, though, to be honest. To put something in an article only to have it removed based on eroneous and inaccurate statements is disappointing to say the least. -- linca linca  03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Afd
You are over the top! --Infrangible 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I came here to congratulate you on that gross but very funny addition!  Adrian   M. H.  17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming
I would like to request that you remove the lead from the current version of the protected "factory farming" article. As I mentioned on the talk page, I feel that having the lead support a particular POV in this dispute is not facilitating movement toward consensus. Removing the lead is contrary to everyone's wishes for the final product, but it will remove the disputed text from the article. Thus, removing the lead would not sponsor a request to "remove The Wrong Version", as it does not choose any version as "right", but rather would simply remove all disputed text from the article so that everyone may move forward equitably and on equal footing. Jav43 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible I guess, but have you discussed this proposal with the others in the dispute yet? This dispute is looking pretty bitter here, and I want to make sure there's a consensus to go ahead with this first. Krimpet (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on "State Terrorism by United States"
Hey, just wanted to let you know that a brief vote on the "State Terrorism by the United States" page would be welcome. Just a "Keep" is all that's needed -- the nationalists on the page are taking an up-or-down vote on whether to rename it.

Suffering thru the Taiwan summer -- SFT (chinese for "Stone put to sky" ^_^) Stone put to sky 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon
Is this article on a fixed lock? I'd like to do some edits to this article that dont concern the image dispute. Can you give me an idea of when I'll be able to? SqueakBox 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I locked it because of the ongoing image controversy and the constant re-adding of that questionable lascivious drawing; now that it's blown over a little, and both images on the Commons are barred from this wiki via MediaWiki:Bad image list, I'll go ahead and cautiously downgrade it to semi-protection. Krimpet (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I don't understand this edit summary. The image licensing appears legit and there's no deletion discussion ongoing, as far as I can tell. Could you make a null edit clarifying or add a section to the talk there? I don't see how it falls under the purposes of the list, especially as it does not have exceptions for the ongoing content dispute. Thanks, BanyanTree 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That image is of similar questionable legality in the USA where Wikimedia's servers are located due to the PROTECT Act of 2003, which criminalizes obscene drawings of minors. IANAL, and I might be wrong, but I think that picture would be considered obscene, since the sexual overtones are extremely obvious; I figured it would be best to err on the safe side and block it from WP. Krimpet (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

re: my RfA
I've replied more thoroughly on my talk page, but again, I wanted to express my thanks for you supportive comments.  Ark yan   (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Bad image list
This listing is specifically for images used for vandalism, and one of the major concerns about its introduction was exactly this use of it to censor images with which one disagrees. If these images truly have no legitimate use, have them deleted. Also, do not edit war on a protected page. You should also actually read Wheel war rather than blindly citing it. Repeating an administrative action when you know another administrator disagrees with it, is wheel warring; reverting the first action of another administrator who is thought to be mistaken, is not wheel warring. —Centrx→talk • 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities (2nd nomination)
Best close ever. No exceptions. :-) 81.104.175.145 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I-476
Peer review/Interstate 476/archive2 ( [ →] zel zany  - review) 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Lolcode
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lolcode. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. HymylyT@C 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Deletion of List of Dragon Ball special abilities
The result of that debate was not a delete, only four people voiced their opinions, how is that consensous? DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I must concur. Also the page was only up for 4 days. Was it even listed anywhere?--Marhawkman 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Here is the new discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_14 --Marhawkman 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'' Lord Sesshomaru''

Deleted text of Joel Hayward
Hi, you're listed as an admin who might provide me with the contents of a deleted article. May I have the deleted text from Joel Hayward please, and would you kindly respond on my talk page? Thanks, Groupthink 06:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please disregard, the admin who deleted the page just informed me that the subject of that page's blp complained to WF, so I'm not going to recreate the page. Groupthink 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing Articles for deletion/Inner
Hi, you recently closed Articles for deletion/Inner. While I have no problems with the result there is some things I have issues with. You did not delete the page Inner, and Inner was deleted as a result of CSD R1. Since Inner was never a redirect page I fear that someone is making a point. Taemyr 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like Inner was actually moved to Inner (disambiguation) halfway through the debate, leaving Inner as a redirect; I'll admit that I didn't notice that it had been redirected and only deleted Inner (disambiguation). It looks like Natalie Erin caught the stranded redirect and deleted it as expected per CSD R1; I don't see any POINTmaking going on.  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought things had gone the other way, eg. discussion was closed since page already deleted. Is two days long enough for an AfD? Taemyr 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you also did the same for outer, But here you did not close the discussion. Taemyr 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did close both early; both had an overwhelming consensus to delete, and it's usual for a debate to close early as such when the consensus is clear (WP:SNOW).  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Articles for deletion/Outer is not closed though.  I'd do it, but I nominated Outer for deletion in the first place so if you would close the discussion. Taemyr 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like I forgot to save the page when I closed it! Thanks for the heads up, it's now closed =)  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PASH newsletter - Issue 001

 * Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it transcluded next time? – It's all here.  J A 10 Talk • Contribs 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Liquid breathing
Hi, I saw you closed this article as keep following the AFD discussion. All agreed in the discussion that the copyvio sections had to be removed. No one bothered to do it, including the closing admin. For the next time could you remove the copyvio sections or warn an admin who deals with copyvio's about the article. Garion96 (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 23:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing section discussions
When closing discussions at WP:TFD, WP:UCFD, and places where each discussion doesn't have its own separate subpage, could you please place the top template below the section header rather than above? This makes it so people editing the section directly above don't see all the substituted code in their edit box. See Deletion process. –Pomte 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)