User talk:IP69.226.103.13

To hell with wikipedia and deletionists.

Reply
See my talk page. --Muhammad (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA

 * One more reply on my talk page. Best, HJMitchell    You rang?   02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more reply on my talk page. Best, HJMitchell    You rang?   02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Naha
I refer you to Biographies of living persons: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."

Please restore the deletia. Bustter (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the deleted reference is not to Ed's blog, but to a third-party blog - http://www.itsdeadlicious.com/2009_03_01_archive.html.

However, this reference is valuable because the blog hosts the scanned image of Ed's 1966 artwork. I have confirmed with another reliable source, a collector of this title (Mister Stephen Bissette) that this image actually does appear in Modern Monsters #1. The reference refers to this utterly reliable image, not to text. Bustter (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SJP Bio
Where would you get a reference to someone's specific diploma from a given school? I can't imagine any source of such a thing, (due to privacy of information laws)and then you would create a catch 22, you have no degree after your name without a source and there is no source other then a copy of the degree, which we won't allow?Д-р СДжП,ДС  22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they're MY degrees! I earned them, so I know I have them. Thus I have a right to have them on my own website, and this is how the writer of my bio got to link to them for the bio. :) Д-р СДжП,ДС 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoaa.... I didn't write my own Bio. This was an effort that started that way, but I merely provide all the information, and OTHERS finally moved the bio to live space. DigitalC, Kelapstick, DGG, etc. etc., all had input on this, and Platiumphotographer moved the article from my sandbox, where it was developing to a page. I was ONLY speaking of the citations for the Diplomas. This is NOT self promotion or COI. There was information like the diplomas that only I had access to. Check before you act, please. It was not I who decided that I deserved that article.

LOOK at the history before you accuse me.Д-р СДжП,ДС 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, problem, I will be glad to look at your edit history, the article history, Platinumphotographer's edit history, including his user page which you wrote for him. Not a problem, glad to look whenever anyone gets nasty and invites me to. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am most decidedly NOT Platinumphotographer. I understand what sockpuppetry is. Are we clear now? Д-р СДжП,ДС 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Drsjpdc (talk)

John254 is back
Kudos to Alison and J.delanoy for their huge, immensely damaging rangeblock of all at&t DSL IPs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area. What was never considered at Sockpuppet investigations/John254, however, was that I can edit right through their rangeblock. Nice try :) StephenBrown167 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. You are one hell of a lot more fun than any other sock puppet I've encountered on wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

email
You have email, though I guess most of it is superfluous now. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gōjū-ryū
Could you look in at the talk page? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem concerned with the quality of referenced used in the martial arts articles of Wiki. Could I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts? Your input would be appreciated. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI
I started one here for Drsjpdc. Feel free to comment as I feel that this will be quite contentious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I hear ya on that one. I have a feeling though that this will get ugly, so feel free to add some more evidence. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already gotten ugly, his meat puppets are going after me now. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DigitalC seems to be related from the looks of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly he's here to add more meat to the article, at least. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to add him to the SPI if you think that they are that closely related. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the SPI will flush out however many socks there are. I seriously think that Drsjpdc and Platinumphotographer are sock puppets, and there may be others, but getting rid of the doctor means the article can actually be written as a clean BLP, and it will also warn him off of more sock and meat puppetry. Also, frankly, I'd have to look for the proof on DigitalC and I'm really tired of looking at Stephen J. Press's ego. Aren't you? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, my day's only begun. I've noticed less interaction between Digital and Sjd, but there is still a lot of Digital on Stephen's page itself. They both edit chiropractic related articles, but Digital is more diverse on what he edits here. I'm all for it though. I just got your e-mail, but as you said earlier on this page, they really are starting to get hilarious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, you have a sense of humor. I keep losing mine on wikipedia. That's not good. Especially when it's this funny. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Check your e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Phew, it's over. I was just about to add more evidence to the fire. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians are not as dumb as the good doctor and his sock and meat army think we are. It's not like it's the first time anyone has tried this set of ploys on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some new developments on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did you remove that post to? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He just copied some information from the dr's talk page, but it was evidence already considered by Alison, so I removed it. The case needs to just be closed up, the dr and his sock blocked, the article cleaned up, then done with, don't you think? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that he isn't blocked! He should be. The sockmaster is always blocked, but often for a shorter time, which is odd in my book. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually okay. It's a discretionary decision on the part of the blocking admin based on the events that have happened. With drsjpdc's behavior, he'll be getting himself blocked in no time, so don't worry about it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well, but I wouldn't remove the information for fear of starting an edit war. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably right there. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, Allison responded with support to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I couldn't explain it in the post, sorry. This is some really aggressive editing on the doctor's behalf. The only time I've seen anything this hostile was about a minor actress and her "movie," and that and her whole sock and meat factory were eventually closed down. This is just too much. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So could you explain it to me here or on my talk page? I agree with you, was just trying to help, and am still mystified as to why you and Alison objected.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Oops - my apologies - you have every right to make a comment and the indent was incorrect - as was my support of it - mislead by the discussion and not reading close enough. My apologies. Pedro : Chat  22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MWOAP (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I replied. : ) Tim1357 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I love what you are trying to do here, but I think you are missing the point Love, Kim

Your signature
It seems that there is no link from your signature to either your user page or your talk page. This is against policy. Please amend your signature to link to at least one of the above. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! At least you got a handwritten message and not a templated warning. Thanks for fixing the signature. Happy New year! Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express
Thank you for participating at Articles for deletion/Golconda Express. When you comment at an Articles for deletion, it is helpful to explain why you want to keep or delete an article, rather than just saying "Keep" or "Delete". Nonetheless, I am grateful for the "Keep" from you, since I was the one who added some references to the article. - Eastmain (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen J. Press
I agree that it's a lousy image -- it's just that it's lousy whether it's big or small, and if it's bigger at least it doesn't look like a postage stamp. I've got no strong feelings about it one way or the other and, like you, I'm not sure the guy is really notable anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll split the difference and see if we can both live with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much done all the cleanup I've intended to do on the article. At this point I'm just monitoring it. I'm rather surprised no one's brought it to AFD on notability grounds, but if it does go, I don't want anything like deleting his publications to contribute to the assessment, which should be based on whether he's notable or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue
Are you ready for ANI here? Also, thanks for defending my actions on my talk page, but he is starting to go to far here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that amazes me, but yet doesn't suprise me at all. Can you provide evidence of this, as this is rather shocking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I kinda just glossed over that part. Thanks for all the help though, if this doesn't go any further. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)
Hi IP69.226.103.13. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
MWOAP (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BRFA for American Broadcasting Corporation → American Broadcasting Company
Details at Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot 2 Josh Parris 06:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
MWOAP (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I confess I got, perhaps, disproportionately pissed off about the whole situation. I appreciate what you said. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

U R awesome
They may not like it, but I'm here to help. Their rules tie them in knots they cannot even see, and so they trap themselves. I try to help them see the trap. If they fall in it, I didn't push. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have aken YOU to ANI
for constant vandalistic harrassment at the SJP bio. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

SPI case
Feel free to comment here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

talkback
 smithers  - talk  05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies
I misunderstood it and thought you were the one swearing. My sincerest apologies. - Zhang He (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My RfA
I forgot to say thank you for the wonderful suggestions you made following my RfA. I am correcting that oversight now. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi IP69.226.103.13,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working  compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Jamie Barnes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie Barnes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jamie Barnes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Team physicians has been nominated for discussion
Category:Team physicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)