User talk:Hemlock Martinis/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 a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

ménage à trois
Thanks for helping in stopping the censorship on the article. If you can keep an eye on it and help out reverting to keep the image that's appreciated. Also, any opinions on the RfC are welcome. Thanks, Atom 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA question
Hello, may I ask you a question about your recent comment at the RfA? You of course have every right to offer your opinion unchallenged, but I was curious about something, if you have a moment. If you would rather not discuss it though, I understand. --Elonka 04:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind at all! What is your question? --Hemlock Martinis 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was curious what harassment that you were referring to? Could you please supply a diff?  Also, I was wondering if you had had an opportunity to read my answer to question #3?  Thanks. --Elonka 05:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read your response and while DreamGuy's actions may be questionable, I do believe that monitoring him like this was unfair and that another time you reacted in a very snarky manner  when the situation did not call for it. I'd vote strongly against DreamGuy as well if he was up for adminship because these kinds of conflicts ultimately do not benefit Wikipedia. If a resolution to your conflict with DreamGuy is achieved in a civil and judicious manner, I will change my vote.  --Hemlock Martinis 05:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, even though my last actions in the matter were back in January, you are saying that as long as DreamGuy maintains his stance, that you could not support me for adminship, is that correct? --Elonka 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, failing an actual resolution, can you provide examples of any attempts by you to peacefully resolve the dispute and his refusal to do so? --Hemlock Martinis 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried multiple times to engage in good faith communication at his talkpage. My messages were usually immediately deleted, often with antagonistic edit summaries. --Elonka 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll look into it a bit further. --Hemlock Martinis 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(followup) The RfA has been closed. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I do thank you for participating. I do intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: vandalism on Rugby World Cup
Hi there! I think that you might be mistaken. I actually attempted to rollback the vandalism. Cheers  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at your change, it clearly shows you had inserted the "IS PLAYED BY HOMOS" part. --Hemlock Martinis 01:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe that this was unintentional. Admins have access to a "rollback" feature which allows them to revert all edits by a vandal. It seems that Hoopydink inadvertently reverted back to another vandalized edit. It appears he did not actually insert the vandalism. - Mike | Talk 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I apologize. --Hemlock Martinis 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries mate.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stub → Category:stubs
Redirecting Category:stub to Category:stubs is a good idea (although I've never made that exact typo, I probably will eventually), but it created an unforseen technical problem: category:stub appeared on its target page as a subcategory of category:stubs. For next time (if there's a next time, as categories aren't redirected very often), when redirecting a category, it is necessary to use this text: #REDIRECT : Category:stubs, with a colon before the category, so as to avoid that problem. Picaroon9288 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ack, I can't believe I didn't catch that! Thank you very much for the tip! --Hemlock Martinis 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffusion - Extrajudicial prisoners
Go you! Thanks for all your hard work. Yonmei 09:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :D --Hemlock Martinis 09:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Autodidact
How was Nikola Tesla an autodidact? He had a fine high school (U.S. terminology) education, then a superb math and physics education at the Technical University of Graz, Austria, although he left without graduating. Then he took graduate courses at another university, again without graduating. I see Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin and Michael Faraday as well known autodidacts, and Nathan Stubblefield as a lesser known autodidact, but can't see how Tesla qualifies. Regards. Edison 18:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the category there to begin with. I've just been diffusing them based on nationality so that there's not so much clutter in Category:Autodidacts. If it's not appropriate, then it should be removed. --Hemlock Martinis 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just stopped by to say thanks for the work you've done with Special:CrossNamespaceLinks. Keep it up! -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCabal
Hi, we have a heavy backload of cases at WP:MEDCAB and since you are on the mediator list I thought I would request your help. Thanks! --Ideogram 10:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Law in Star Trek
Thank you for your recent edits in converting episode citations to proper references. The article was a mess when I did my re-write, but I didn't have time to go back and wikilink the refs. Wl219 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PopeofPeru's userpage
Hi Hemlock. I don't see how a list of messages congratulating the user on some awesome vandalism is in any way helping the encyclopaedia, and it falls foul of WP:NOT a webhost, amongst other things. Am I missing something? Proto :: ►  07:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You will have to go through Deletion Review; I don't agree with your view of the situation so further community input might be required. You may also want to note the discussion on WP:AN/I. Proto ::  ►  07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Deceased Wrestlers
I don't know why it's a problem. There is an extraordinary number of wrestlers who have died from steroid use, suicide, etc, usually before the age of 45. I grew up watching wrestling as a child, and I'm intrigued/shocked by this fact. Wikipedia contains all sorts of quirky lists (All Nintendo games featuring Mario, or All things Bart Simpsons has written on the chalkboard, etc), why should this be subject to such ridicule? - wfresch
 * The list as titled is too broad; a narrowing down to "List of professional wrestlers who've died on the job" or "List of professional wrestlers who've died from steroid use". The way it is now, that list could theoretically include every dead wrestler no matter the cause, and that is simply unencyclopedic. Plus, note that the two examples you cited are especially specifc: for example, while a list of every Nintendo game ever would be unmaintainable and useless, the Mario list is certainly specific enough to be useful and yet broad enough to be encyclopedic.

Star Trek Userbox
As a fellow Star Trek watcher, I found your Star Trek userbox to be hillarious, thanks for the laugh :) 216.64.125.78 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressional subcommittees
I like the work you're doing with the categorization of U.S. Congressional subcommittees. However, I disagree with specific categories for each committee. See Category:United States House Appropriations subcommittees. I think this is over-categorization.—Markles 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'm not giving each committee a category, just the subcommittees. It's easier to group them that way because their lengthy names can be quite confusing to the casual reader. --Hemlock Martinis 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that it would be sufficient to put all House subcommittees, regardless of their parent committee in Category:Subcommittees of the United States House of Representatives.—Markles 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be sufficient, yes, but by my count there are 104 subcommittees within the House of Representatives, and although not all of them have articles, enough of them do have articles to justify making subcategories for each committee. If I simply dumped them all in Category:Subcommittees of the United States House of Representatives, that category would be too large and too unwieldy to be of any practical use. --Hemlock Martinis 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would 104 be too large and too unwieldy? I like large categories because it has a use: it allows the user to see more at a time. Why not put some proposal on the Project talk page and see what other people think?—Markles 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea. I've temporarily stopped the diffusion in case the consensus disagrees. --Hemlock Martinis 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whee!

 * Thanks very much!! --Hemlock Martinis 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Super League Dream Team
Categorised, can't see a reason for this officially sanctioned award to be removed. Londo06 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Brokken
Hello, feel free to delete Bruno Brokken as it's about some Belgian athlete with little significance outside Belgium. The original article is Bruno Brokken. This Dutch text is very suspicious: "Gelukkig vondt hij 20 jaar geleden zijn grote liefde -Christiane Bolders- welke hem als een echte bourgondier door het leven hielp, dankzij haar goed kookkunst." translates into something like "Luckily he found his true love 20 years ago -Christiane Bolders- who helped him (being a burgundian) to cope with life, thanks to her good cooking skills". In my opinion this is more suitable for a weblog than for Wikipedia. Alternatively, you might want to replace the text with something like "Belgian Sportsman Of The Year in 1975".

08:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please follow process
Please Read the criteria for speedy. I've excerpted from CSD: These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended. This page contains the criteria for speedy deletion and a list of helpful templates that can be used to tag a candidate for speedy deletion. Articles that do not meet the speedy criteria may be nominated for the alternative deletion processes Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
 * From CSD G7:

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. --- You will find nowhere in the page that articles can be speedied because they are unreferenced. If you think there is such a criteria, where is it?DGG 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please indicate which article you are referring to? That might help me better understand what your advice is specifically about. --Hemlock Martinis 06:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blazing Violets
Hey, Hemlock. I noticed you previously speedied Blazing Violets and then rescinded the nom and decided to wait. I was flipping through Uncategorized categories and noticed this article, so I nominated it to AfD. The debate is at Articles for deletion/Blazing Violets and you're welcome to add comments if you want. <3, Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your editor review
I reviewed you. YechielMan 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot for your recent support at my RfA. I am now an admin! J Milburn 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your promotion to Admin! Now, don't go deleting the main page or banning Jimbo! ;) Kntrabssi 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see I got beaten to it, but congratulations, you are now an administrator. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Administrators' noticeboard. Oh, and Jimbo's been blocked before.... Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Congrats! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! I look forward to you doing a great job as you have in the past! JB Evans  22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations as well, and thank you for the note at my talk page. Enjoy your shiny new mop! Don't hesitate to ask me if you need any help with the admin tools. --Slowking Man 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, congratulations! Good luck with being an admin, thank you for talk page note. Camaron1 | Chris 10:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Hemlock! (love the name). Now go get them there backloged WP:CFDs! -- Jreferee 00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Going fine so far, just one teensy gripe, for mass nominations, sometimes all of the entries will have been tagged with cfd tags. The Terrorists by nationality one was a case in point: bleh!. It's not a big deal if they are missed as they'll be picked up in the monthly cleanout of Category:CfD 2007-03 or whatever it is. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed passing you congratulations on gaining adminship from downunder - even though I opposed your RfA - my congratulations are sincere - enjoy your new tools.-- VS talk 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Thanks
Thanks, just remember that WP:POINT is not subjective, just look at what the hemlock did to Socrates (I'm not saying that you would do that, of course)!! My support was that of the one who thought you already were one, but was too lazy to check Special:Listusers :P  ~  St ep  tr ip   01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD adopting AFD/RFA-style transclusion
Hmm. I don't feel enthusiastic about this. The per-day log pages just aren't big enough to make it necessary, and if it's not necessary I wouldn't bother. AFD style subpages means that anon editors can't nominate categories. Not that they nominate a lot not, but they won't be able to nominate any. What I was thinking about was changing speedy renames to some sort of archived logs, perhaps monthly. I'm not sure how many there are in a month, but the way things are now it's difficult to track back speedy nominations. Then again, does that matter? What I would like to see is UCFD merged back into CFD. There's hardly any UCFD stuff, so it wouldn't add much to the load at CFD. Let me know what you think. We can always start a discussion at CFD talk. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi! Like the other person above on your talk page, I would like to know your opinion on a subject, more specifically this edit. I would like to know whether you think it is against some policies or you think it is OK. And if you could give just some sort of brief explanation as to what is the reason for your opinion, it would be even better. Sure it's OK if you don't want to say what your opinion is, but I would really appreciate it! A.Z. 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am HemlockMartinis on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/HemlockMartinis. Thanks. --Hemlock Martinis 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings
Hi, Hemlock. You deleted the above category. I wasn't aware you'd done so, and when I saw it's Cfd was 'keep', I went to add it back to an article. I saw several articles already listed there, but no text on the page, so added some - which apparently counts as a re-creation? In any case, another user has flagged it for speedy deletion, which I am contesting - please see the talk page. As a matter of interest, in your deletion, you referred to a consensus to depop/delete. Could you let me know where this consensus was reached? Thanks, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it again, but without prejudice to recreation, and added an explanation under Category_talk:IRA_killings, but feel free to act as you see fit over this. Tyrenius 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV category
I knew my RFA !voted for you would come in handy. Category:Systems presently is at DRV and needs some expert comment. Normally, I just review the CfD closer's actions and post accordingly at DRV. In this case, the close states that the 'delete' arguments are backed by guidelines, whereas the 'keep' arguments are backed by WP:USEFUL. However, the DRV nominator makes some strong points. This category deletion matter would benefit from someone having a good overview of the whole category system. I would like to invite you to comment at the Category:Systems DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of people by sexual identification
I have a question about a comment you made here that seems to contradict itself. Grammatically, it sounds like what you meant was this:
 * "Unless she flat-out states it, we should not use it as a categorization method."

Is this correct (and if yes, would you fix it)? If this is not correct, would you explain? Thanks! Joie de Vivre 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack, my bad. Yes, your version should be the correct one. Thanks for catching it for me! --Hemlock Martinis 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually just wrote a thorough reply with the thoughts I've been considering on this matter, it's just under your comment.  I'd be very happy if you were to read it and share your thoughts.  Thank you!  Joie de Vivre 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

EFILE
You corrected the title from EFILE to E-file which is not correct. The source data can be found here. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/eservices/tax/individuals/efile-ind/menu-e.html barry123 Barry123 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I'm not totally back yet, but I'm halfway. I'm in #wikipedia almost all the time I'm on Wikipedia now. --Rory096 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot
Hi, we have discovered information that suggests ADC to the King was not a significant a role as we thought- please check the debate to see if you still want to keep. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Giano
Can you please explain this? Blocking this user is likely to be very controversial, I strongly urge you to post a report on ANI, and cite you reasons and evidence, so that others can review it.--Docg 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please comment here. And note I'm urging everyone to keep cool and listen to your reasoning.--Docg 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the AN/I page. Thank you for the notification! --Hemlock Martinis 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That reply does not appear to be up to par. Since when does calling someone "a menace to the project ... implies malicious intent" on that someone's part except for in bad faith land? Could someone not be "a menace to the project" inadvertantly? El_C 07:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pfagerburg

 * You will certainly not unblock before the user issues a comment (above). El_C 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't even realize that you were the same user, my apologies. But the Giano block is a resolved matter. I've moved on. --Hemlock Martinis 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The last user to have left you a comment? Why yes, yes I am (what are the odds). Interesting how you chose not to comment. Anyway, I reiterate that you are not to overturn anything before the user responds (above &mdash; no, not above here, over there). El_C 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Small encyclopedia, innit? Anyways, I didn't feel it necessary to reply to your comment here, seeing as how my block was overturned six hours before I was able to explain myself. Your block of Pfagerburg is still in place however, and therefore up for debate and overturning. --Hemlock Martinis 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not to overturn that block before s/he comments. Feel free to debate it, however. El_C 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Before Pfagerburg responds to your "No comment" comment? --Hemlock Martinis 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, above that, where I do comment. El_C 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! Well, you really buried it in there, didn't you? I'm still not sure about your reasons for blocking. If he is using multiple accounts, then what are the other accounts? --Hemlock Martinis 09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No comment. El_C 09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is enigmatic. That is textbook enigmatic. --Hemlock Martinis 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, you claim there are multiple accounts, but you refuse to say which accounts. Unless you can provide an actual reason for the block, I'm going to overturn it first thing when I wake up tomorrow morning. --Hemlock Martinis 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you overturn the block, I will treat it as wheel warring. I do not consent to you reverting my administrative act. El_C 09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've overturned the block, since it was 1) made with a false block summary and 2) for actions not requiring a block, and certainly not an indefinite one. --Hemlock Martinis 09:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You wheel-warred, which you'll be held accountable for. Next time, patience. El_C 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) Hemlock, you saved me doing the same thing. Neil   ╦  09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have both discredited yourselves. El_C 09:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am supportive of your actions, Hemlock. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nick, now you're discredited too.  Neil   ╦  12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These provocations reflect poorly on you, Neil. El_C 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat peculiar that Hemlock Martinis, who otherwise has very few recent contributions, chooses to overturn my block (of all the one of two edits he could have made for Jul 12), seeing how I recently chastized him for another questionable use of admins tools. Certainly noted for future reference. El_C 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been busy offline, and I'm heading out on vacation for two weeks starting tomorrow. Your necromancy of my closet skeletons is irrelevant; as I noted above, I didn't even make the connection until you mentioned it here on my talk page. --Hemlock Martinis 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't believe you. It was not that long ago and you have not done that much since. Anyway, your practice of doing something highly questionable then dissapearing into the abyss will ultimately prove self-defeating. I'm unsure how you got the echo chamber above to time their presence here (IRC? AIM?), but the ordeal reflects poorly on them, too. El_C 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was posted on the noticeboard. People typically notice notices posted there. Not my fault if almost all of them disagree with you. --Hemlock Martinis 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You truly have disgraced yourself. El_C 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. --Hemlock Martinis 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done speaking to you. El_C 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union
Hello, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush and Turkey
I suspect you don't appreciate the extent that Bush excites hostility here in Europe. Even tho I would hav voted against Bush, when he comes up I find myself defending Bush. By defend I mean I'm the one trying to say he is merely incompetent so I doubt that he would thank me. Most people's opinion of Bush is that he is a war criminal or worse. In short the hostility goes far beyond any, IMO, rational assessment. It seems to me, that for most people here to know that Bush is for something is a good reason to be against it. Dejvid 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's a horrible person too. That doesn't change the fact that he's a world leader. I put the quote back in because it's appropriate for the article. --Hemlock Martinis 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was slightly different. Whether I think he is horrible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that Bush has rubbed up public opinion in Europe to such extent that if he is quoted it is pretty certain that the purpose is to convince people of the opposite point of view. Part of the problem, for me, is his inclusion in a list of "fors" without context. In a section on the wider consequences of Turkish accession mentioning him might well be appropriate.Dejvid 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, public opinion? We shouldn't be taking that into account when we add comments by world leaders. That introduces an element of POV in an article already suffering from it. I do agree with you about context, however. Let's tackle the big issue here: how about we diffuse all the quotes and supports up into the actual article body? That would add legitimacy to the for/against positions and help shift the article away from an opinion farm and towards an actual article. --Hemlock Martinis 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

^^
Thanks for that comment on AN/I. I see people calling themselves idiots all the time, but the bluntness you had with it was just hilarious. -- L augh! 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Hemlock Martinis, you are not an idiot! It is a common mistake (possibly perpetuated by the conflicting messages, "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here" and "But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department") that AN/I is no place for complaints.  I just wanted to clear things up.  :)  Cheers, Iamunknown 05:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You arrogant!
You arrogant! Why did you blocked my account User:R-1441? I am not devraj5000!! I am Ravi. Unblock my account right now. I made that comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. It seem to me that you are here to block people from making a comment. Who made you the administrator? RaviJames 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked User:R-1441 because it was a block-evading sockpuppet account for User:Devraj5000. You were originally blocked for 24 hours as Devraj5000 for the 3RR violation, then after the sockpuppeting I lengthened your block to one week and banned your sockpuppet. If you wish to contest the block, please go to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and post your argument there. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to get that account unblocked, you could, as the messages says (when you try to edit a page), try to appeal the block by posting:  (but replace "your reason here" with your reason).  --Iamunknown 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I don't endorse the approach being followed by User:RaviJames. However, you have no email address set. Charles Matthews 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I thought I had. Fixed, and thanks for the heads-up! --Hemlock Martinis 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis, first, you block editors form making comments. Then, you accuse people of 'sockpuppet'. What kind of a person you are? You are an American. Really? You don't behave like an American. Have you been to the Mid-West? Indiana? West Lafayette? People in the Mid-West are friendly, cool and they do not like gratuitous slandering. You are different. You are making a very serious charge against me. And, please, unblock my account User:R-1441. RaviJames 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How dare you wrote :'This user is a sock puppet of Devraj5000, and has been blocked indefinitely.'? The evidence you provided was so bad. You block people from making a comment and then, after reading such a BC evidence block people from editing. The Report was submitted by Chubbles and based on that one report, you blocked User:R-1441 and also blocked User:Devraj5000 from editing. How arrogant was this? RaviJames 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not unblocking it. It made the exact same disruptive edits as Devraj5000 shortly after that account was blocked. If you want it reviewed, post something at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Hemlock Martinis 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I made that comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. Devraj5000 and I are different individuals. I am not interested in the ‘great atheism debate’. I am not an atheist and my interests are different. Hemlock Martinis, if X made a comment on your behalf, is it fair to block X from editing? I am not disruptive at all. In fact, I don’t like to involve in controversies. RaviJames 03:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if I assume for a second that you are two different people, how do you explain registering an account and performing the same disruptive edits as Devraj5000? --Hemlock Martinis 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Devraj5000 and RaviJames are two different individuals.
Devraj5000 and RaviJames are two different individuals. Previously, I edited articles related to Indiana as an anonymous user. On 9th July 2007 I created the account R-1441 and made that comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. Devraj5000 left the computer and I got involved in some other things. Later, I found out that your blocked my account R-1441 and also blocked Devraj5000 for a week.

Devraj5000 is interested in atheism and articles that are related to atheism. He interests are different. My interests are different. I am interest in articles related to Indiana. I am also interested in Sociology, Psychology, etc. I am also interested in sports like Tennis, Golf, Cricket, F1, etc. Once this controversy is over, I will be making contributions in these fields. Many users share IP address: 202.52.234.194. Devraj5000 is one of them. Unblock my account R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. Ravi. RaviJames 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only contributions made by that IP address are for either atheist topics (which "Devraj" is supposedly into) or Purdue University topics (which "you" are supposedly into). I'd say that links you closer together, not further apart. I will not unblock either account; Devraj5000's block ends in a few days, and I see no reason to shorten that time. As for R-1441, I'm still not convinced that that account isn't a sockpuppet. --Hemlock Martinis 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hemlock Martinis, once this controversy is over I will make contributions to many articles. I am not an atheist and I am not interested in atheism. I am not 'supposedly into' Purdue University topics. I created this account on 10th July 2007. This account is only '1' day old. How can I convince you? Devraj5000 and I are two different individuals. My e-mail address is ravi-141@hotmail.com. You can e-mail me. I created R-1441 on 9th July 2007. RaviJames 04:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a complaint about me, post it on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That page can be used for complaints about individual administrators. If the community thinks my block was in error, then I will undo it. Until then, the block stands. --Hemlock Martinis 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a new user. You blocked User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. You should unblock them. Tell me, why did you block User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000? Give me one reason. RaviJames 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing this with you anymore. If you have more concerns, please take them to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I will be happy to give an explanation of my actions there. --Hemlock Martinis 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to discuss. I have my own identity. I want to make contributions. You are wasting my time, Man! Come on! Unblock User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. I just want this controversy to end. Unblock User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. RaviJames 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law
We have a winner! (And Mike Godwin works for Wikipedia now, too.) Ravi's a bit persistent. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest telling Mike Godwin at User talk:Mikegodwin, but I bet he gets that lot. :P  --Iamunknown 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe in playing by the rules
Yesterday, I made a mistake by attacking you. I believe in playing by the rules. The rule says: No personal attacks. Today, I will not repeat those mistakes. Devraj5000 will be back on 19thJuly or 20th July. I will not say anything on his behalf. Unblock my account User:R-1441. RaviJames 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
For all this sludge regarding the Devraj5000 block. I didn't realize it would wrap you up in so much WikiLawyering. Chubbles 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mrfod1.jpg
I removed the CSD notice from the image as it isn't proper per WP:CSD criteria, the image needs to be tagged with frn first (for 7 days), before speedying it. feydey 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)