User talk:Johnleemk/Archive3

'Welcome to my talk page''; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.'''

You can add a new comment to this page here.

Archives:
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive2

Níðhöggr > Nidhogg?
I had hoped that we could settle the issue of Norse mythology names with the naming convention vote but now there is once again a request to strip an article title of diacritics and nominative ending. If you can spare the time your opinion would be valued at Talk:Níðhöggr. There are already redirects in place from every alternative spelling and there is a list of them in the article itself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Avengers
I'm going to ask a third party to look at the dab situation. I don't believe such a statement is necessary at all since a piped wikilink would only be created in the first place to send people to the TV show article who are interested in such an article. Anyone who just types in (or wikilinks) The Avengers gets the dab page. 23skidoo 20:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. There may be a case of seeing what the precedent is because if we do this for The Avengers there are probably dozens of similar cases out there (in essence every page that uses the same title as a disambiguation page). 23skidoo 20:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisted AfDs
Greetings:

I noticed that, last night, you relisted some AfDs which hadn't garnered much discussion. I have taken the liberty of removing those AfDs from the old AfD logs by commenting them out. This will keep the AfD listings in the new AfD logs while removing them from the old logs, so that new folks like me won't make the mistake of closing them out inadvertently.

Felt you'd wish to know.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Crusade (modern)
You state that it's a redirect for deletion nad that it should be kept. When the AfD was created it was in fact an article but someone turned it into a redirect. Chelman 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Francis Healy
About your cleaning up. I do not agree with you. I'd say that all pieces of information are important and therefore should not be removed. Whatever next?? --Fromgermany 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

American terrorism
Hello -- since the result of this deletion vote was "no consensus to delete," can you please stick around for a while ensure that the article stays in this spot? It has been redirected by vandals. Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks -- can you please redirect it to American terrorism? BrandonYusufToropov 14:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have made a start on NPOVing the text, but vandals keep moving this. Perhaps protect with this new text, and at American terrorism? BrandonYusufToropov 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me, John. I appreciate it very much. I will give consideration to everything you said. Sarah Ewart 06:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bogrolls
Hey I put up The Bogrolls and Nohl Grohl for speedy as well. I saw your revert of the Beatles edit... would you mind canning these two NN pages as well, if they haven't already been done? Thanks. -Parallel or Together ? 11:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to go ahead and AfD then instead. Thanks!  -Parallel or Together ? 11:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice on WP:FAC
Your concerns about the fair use picture have been addressed. I removed the live photograph and put in something better. Also, you were right about the Live section. It's a lot better now. In regards to your objection about length and comprehensiveness, I would like to note that "Dice" is not Imagine by John Lennon or Layla. It has no interesting story about it's inspiration and did not come to Jagger in a dream. The song's most notable point is it's status as a concert favorite. And that it kicks ass. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian invasion of ASEAN
I recall our conservsation concerning Malaysian-Singaporean conflict in the future, but apparently if you see some of the comments in Talk:Singapore you'll see that perhaps that such a conflict is irrational in the face of potential Australian invasion. Apparently we have face a lot of John Howard warhawks. Oh, they want to invade Indonesia too, bet Malaysia won't be spared. Just thought you would laugh. -- Natalinasmpf 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus vs community decision - Articles_for_deletion/Impaled_Northern_Moonforest
I noticed for Articles_for_deletion/Impaled Northern Moonforest you incorrectly stated that it was delete as consensus. It was actually 2 votes for keep, 5 votes for delete. Whilst this is an established 2:1 majority that is required to warrant a community decision, it is not the same as consensus. Just thought that I'd point that out. Maybe you could correct that? Presumably it was something akin to a typo on your part :). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe I misunderstood what he word "consensus" means. I thought that consensus meant 100%. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RFB
Hi! Your RFB did not receive the level of support required to gain b'cratship (~90%) and so I had to fail it. I hope it doesn't dissuade you from trying again at a later stage. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC comment
Hi. The concern behind the comment you left at Featured article candidates/The Waterboys has been addressed. I'd like to encourage you to offer any further feedback that you might have about the article. Thanks. Jkelly 07:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A random thought regarding some of your recent comments on User talk:Gmaxwell
Balles' Law: If enough isolated individuals pursue the same goal, the effect is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

Seemed relevant. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 20:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Satisfaction
Please don't take tis the wrong way. I'm just looking for some information. I'm not saying it's a bad article but: Were the FAC requirements less harsh when this was nominated? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me tell you why I ask. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction doesn't use all of it's references in the text. Those references are all web references. It seems like some kind of standard is the REF and NOTE tags which I think look awful (and I don't wanna have to learn. :P ) So, just frustrated that's all.

Paula Zahn reverted to your edit
Done. I don't have a war, but I do believe in the Sullivan SCOTUS decision; she's fair game, and her flacks have not done her good service; they should have just adjusted it and not omitted it. Pale Male rules, and Mary Tyler Moore has bitch-slapped Paula Zahn again. --FourthAve 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardly Athletic F.C.
Hi Johnleemk! Sorry to bother you. You've just closed the AfD on Hardly Athletic F.C. (thanks!) and I've just realised that I forgot to mention on the AfD that the article originally had a duplicate - Hardly athletic - that I crushed by redirecting it to Hardly Athletic F.C. at the same time as I put the other article up for deletion.

Of course, that redirection still exists, pointing at nowhere. Do I need to AfD it or is there a process for speedying dead redirects? .

Thanks for your help and apologies again for not listing it with the original AfD. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much again! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD: List of Caucasian Americans
Hi Johnleemk,

I am contacting you because I feel Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Caucasian_Americans was interpretted incorrectly. Here is my analysis of the 18 VFD and 7 votes to keep. There were also several votes to edit, as I did.


 * Caerwine and Durova voted to delete the article under the premise that Americans of the Caucasus region should only be listed (which they were not at the beginning). However, this is not the traditional definition of Caucasion as per Whites in North America.
 * mikka, Antandrus, Dentarthurdent, Calton, Tonywalton (the AFD nominator) and even my original vote were on the premise of WP:POINT. However, I took the initiative to heavily edit the article anyway.
 * 147.70.242.21 voted and commented that the article only had 5 entries, therefore it must be deleted. This was before copious edits on my behalf.
 * Haeleth and Andy Mabbett VFD with the clause only if the other "List of * Americans" were deleted.

The edits made to the article should negate the WP:POINT VFD. I had no bias in the editting of this article and I thought it was clearly encyclopedic. The VFD on the premise that the article only had 5 entries is also moot as I had over 100 entries added. Haeleth and Andy Mabett both had VFD that could have been interpretted as deletion but their context does not indicate so. There is also the business of a sock puppet voting in the AFD which is documented in the comments.

Thus I do not feel there was a consensus to delete. The majority of the VFD revolved around WP:POINT, article size and content direction were all negated by edits I made to the article over the course of the AFD.

Thank you,

HackJandy


 * Thanks for notifying me of your concern over the article's deletion. While consensus is not a supermajority nor unanimity, it is not strictly decided by votes per se (something I've learnt from WP:FAC). I noted several delete votes, such as Turnstep's, that cite rational and reasonable reasons to delete the article, and I took this into account instead of blindly counting (and discounting) votes. I do not feel there was sockpuppetry going on - sockpuppeting by definition has one user pretending to be many. Anon votes are not sockpuppeting, but they are discounted nevertheless. If you feel my deletion of the article was reasonable, feel free to bring it up on Deletion review. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I can understand some of Turnstep's position, I think some of his points were very off base. I do not mean to attack his opinion, but I think of his 5 bullets:
 * 1.) Even if we all descended from Africans, we are politically and culturally separated by thousands of years of history.
 * 2.) Races are not mutually exclusive. I am Chinese and I am British - I do not need to be one or the other.
 * 3.) This point is pure lunacy - WP only keeps track of those noteable.
 * 4.) I am not sure what point he is trying to make up here - having a list of German Americans would be a partial list of Caucasian Americans. It is implied that a list of Swedish Americans (for instance) only applies to Swedish Americans that are noteable.
 * 5.) This point merely iriterates point 1.).
 * I think that there was some good debate in general about the topic, but the majority of the VFD were before the major edits or under the (non-english speaking european) presumption that Caucasian means something different than what the majority of North America considers it to mean. Turnstep's points were actually the weakest ones I saw in the AFD -- I still think the WP:POINT was reason this article should have been deleted.  On the other hand, I think my edits to this article may have negated WP:POINT which is why I raise issue.
 * I would actually be interested in submitting this to the deletion review, but I am fairly new to WP and I am not really sure how to do so. Do I just edit the AFD onto the page? Or is there a specific tag I need to add like AFD?
 * HJ

Petals around the rose and your user page
I've added a solution heading to your user page. I also refer you to the article linked to above, specifically "Another integral part of the puzzle is the secrecy with which it attempts to hide the solution, urging those who have solved the puzzle to never reveal the solution to others." If you must describe this on your user page, please link to petals-around-the-rose solution. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 01:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cantemireşti
Hi. What I was trying to do was to keep title with diacritics (Cantemireşti) for the article, but make it so that it is available if you search it as "Cantemiresti" (no diacriticals). What should I do, if not this? Dahn 09:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.Dahn 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments in reverting vandalism
When you revert vandalism you leave a comment such as "Reverted edits by 199.199.227.66 (talk) to last version by 194.82.139.4" - is there something that does this automatically? Cheers. Run! 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

lol thanks
Now I get to go figure out who they were and what vandalism of theirs I reverted. :) --Syrthiss 18:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 18:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Deconstruction
Sorry for reverting your edit to this page. It's not exactly wise to remove so much content without giving any reason in your edit summary or discussing it on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, completely right, sorry for not discussing it, the intro to this article, however, reads as pure gibberish. --Jahsonic 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bankable star
Before the change to the article on 2005-12-01 20:21 UTC there were 6 editors who said that this should be transwikied. After that change, 3 of those 6 editors (including the nominator) changed their minds, one further editor (Gurubrahma) clearly didn't read the article and said that it should be deleted because of its potential for vandalism (even though the article had never actually been vandalized at any point during its entire existence, and even though, by that rationale, we should delete George W. Bush), one further editor said that we should delete it because "it is an article about a survey" (like the many other articles about surveys that we have), and one further editor simply echoed the rationale of an editor who had looked at the wholly different article from before the change. Is that really a "consensus to delete" based upon sound rationales? Uncle G 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Los Wages
Yes, you probably made the right call ignoring my sarcasm. But if you ever obtain a copy of the album, listen to the song "Show Biz Kids". &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits on Darth Vader
comment retracted DrKC9N 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! No, you're the first. :) DrKC9N 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The so-called bitter fighting.
Mr. Sauchny (sp?), a newcomer, was badgering me contstantly over a link I had on Template:Morning Musume for a mash-up album of that band's material, refusing to accept any answer I gave him, using bad faith while falsely accusing me of doing the same thing, and talking down to me despite his relative inexperience, "informing" me of policys I was already well aware of. I made no delibrate personal attacks against him/her/it (the complaintant has yet to expend even a fraction of the energy he used to badger me in creating his user page, so I don't know or care what gender he/she is at this point).

Against my better judgement, I removed the link that he challenged. I am more than prepared to put it back at some point in the future, quite frankly, because I am not about to let myself get pushed around any further by an arrogant newbie.

For the record, I am also prepared to file a complaint against him/her/it if said user harasses me again in the future.

I have been a loyal participant on Wikipedia for about a year, starting with a profile on Whiteberry that I had composed before I knew I could register on this service. Never before have I had anyone harass or badger me in this manner. -- Cjmarsicano 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The rv comment
That was an accident.

That message is usually directed, semi-facetiously, at anonymous vandals. I use Mozilla Firefox on a Mac OS X Powerbook when I do anything online. When I was reverting the complaintant's deletion, I was at work and I had started to type "rv" only when the rest of the usual vandal-salute sentence up. Before I could delete it, my attention had been diverted at work and in the process the rest of the sentence ended up there. I thought nothing else of it until the compaintant brought it up, and I apologized for the error at my next immediate opportunity. The complaintant did not seem in retrospect to accept the apology and may have used the unfortunate error as an excuse to further badger and harass me over the existence of the link in the template.

-- Cjmarsicano 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi,

I had done that subpage for my own amusement and as parody of the situation, and had added a disclaimer stating that it was such before I recieved your latest message. I'll rename the page to something funnier. -- Cjmarsicano 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Cjmarsicano 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to a few things
I noticed the apology and accepted it, but I felt that his use of that edit summary in the first place (even though the one towards me was a mistake) violates the official policy of No personal attacks. His response to this was that he will continue doing it. 

The parody excuse that currently is at the top of his user subpage that's still insulting me was added after I filed a request for mediation. Just like he conceded the link on the template after I made a Wikiquette alert, he grudgingly concedes or amends his statements after he is reported.

The discussion isn't properly archived at the subpage that the user has created. Among all the stuff he deleted from his user page, a few things didn't make it to his archive, particularly where I have tried to reason with him. ,

If you want, I can compile a list of diffs that show the full picture of the discussion that happened across multiple pages.

Re: I'm glad to see something of an agreement on the article has appeared- he states on his subpage that he's simply going to re-add it later. --Sanchny 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

?!?
As you can see, the complaintant apparently has nothing better to do than continue his campaign, which I still see as out and out harassment. The complaintant is trying to rewrite history to make himself look like a hero and me look like an asshole. A check of his user contributions reveals that he has concentrated not on normal Wiki contributions (as I have managed to have done during the past two days) but on trying to... well, quite frankly, I don't know what the hell this person wants anymore and I don't care.

I have the right to edit my user talk pages as I see fit and feel that I do not have to let an outsider dictate what I can do with them.

I no longer wish to deal with the complaintant in any way, shape or form because in my eyes, he/she is nothing more than an attention whore. I am trying to be a rational human being and walk away from a matter that he/she exacerbated. This edit war started with him/her, not with me. -- Cjmarsicano 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to the above

 * ...his campaign, which I still see as out and out harassment.

Despite being told by an admin that I don't think Sanchny could really be said to have harassed you.  If he really thinks I'm harrassing him, why won't he go through the proper channels for it?
 * The complaintant is trying to rewrite history to make himself look like a hero and me look like an asshole.

The history is very clear in the history pages.
 * I have the right to edit my user talk pages as I see fit...

User pages are still bound by Wikipedia guidelines. Community policies, including No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
 * A check of his user contributions...

My contributions to the rest of Wikipedia have nothing to do with this, thanks.
 * I no longer wish to deal with him and am trying to walk away from a matter that he/she exacerbated.

I walked away from the matter, but you exacerbated it by creating this page. --Sanchny 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to the baloney above

 * The history is very clear in the history pages.

I guess the holocaust never happened either, didn't it? Who do you think you're fooling? Not me.
 * My contributions to the rest of Wikipedia have nothing to do with this, thanks.

Oh yes they do. While I've been continuing to edit normally, you've continuted to cause or attempt to cause trouble.
 * If he really thinks I'm harrassing him, why won't he go through the proper channels for it?

Watch what you wish for.
 * I walked away from the matter, but you exacerbated it by creating this page.

Apparently you can't take a joke. I never expected the page to be found (it was hidden, which I admit to) by the complantant, which now suggests to me that I am being cyberstalked. -- Cjmarsicano 18:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sequence of events
Johnleemk: I have created a page showing the sequence of events that took place between us. --Sanchny 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Walking away
I have been trying to walk away from this matter for the past two days. I filed my own mediation request yesterday before I recieved your message. I intend to continue my Wikiactivities as normal. The ball is in Sanchny's court now. And thanks for your patience. -- Cjmarsicano 13:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

All it will take for me to walk away and drop everything is for Cjmarsicano to remove the personal attacks he has made against me on this page. --Sanchny 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I still see those comments ("dumb motherfucker", a "little smartass", a "no-life-having piece of shit", and a "little scumbag") as very blatant personal attacks, which I understand are not allowed by an official policy. The policy states that there is no excuse for them. No? --Sanchny 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an official Wikipedia policy, and he is clearly violating it. What's the point of having an official policy if we're told to ignore the situation when it's violated? I will continue responding to it properly. Like I said above, I will drop everything and walk away when he removes the personal attacks and stops violating that policy.

Thanks for your time and help. --Sanchny 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I will remove them on the following conditions: that Mr. Sachny removes his own subpage, and that he agrees not to monitor the Morning Musume template or any of my other Wikipedia contributions. --Cjmarsicano 15:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * Since we both agree and this is solved, can we also agree to remove both of our requests for mediation? --Sanchny 16:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
how do you protect a page from vandalism if you are not an administrator? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 220.247.253.61 (talk &bull; contribs)

Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Soza_2 redirect
Hi. I am confused by your decision. Votes were 2 merge, 3 delete. Why then do a redirect with the comment, "The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; merging an inconsequential actor was out of the question, so redirect made." I don't see why he was determined to be an inconsequential actor though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see his name in the article so that seems fine. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Pebbles_For_People_Foundation
Why was there consensus delete when the vote was 5 keeps/6 deletes? That's not consensus by any standards. There is no suggestion of sock puppetry so I don't understand why it was deleted. It looks like a no consensus one to me. Don't tell me I am going to have to go through the laborious deletion review again. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I did check and they were sock puppets, so that's fine then. I also checked the site and its now a 404 does not exist, so it was obviously a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Friday_Harbor_High_School
10 keeps, 4 deletes. Big arguments for keep, next to nothing for delete. No consensus? I thought consensus was a 2:1. If there is a discretion by the closer, that's another matter. But there was consensus to keep that one. Hrm. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Consensus and note this excerpt, "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:AFD". 80% is only for RFA votes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that you've been deleting articles that were 6/5, yet putting "no consensus" when it was 10/4 in favour of keep. You are not applying the same rules for deletion as you are for keeping. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. That is as good as saying "unless you're the closer, your opinion doesn't matter". Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey High School Hockey
listing so much individual all-state stuff is totally irrelevant and makes the article way long. I'm just taking out gratuitous all-state listings and keeping truly historical stuff. this is kind of my area of expertise. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Jyardley (talk &bull; contribs)

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence
Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Kmart & Kmart Corporation
I noticed you reverted my redirect from Kmart to the slightly better Kmart Corportation article. I was wondering why? I really have no preference but as of now we have two nearly identicle articles. 12.220.47.145 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking an article
I had created that article, which was flagged as for deletion, so I mistakenly thought that would delete it. Guess I'll leave it to a mod :D &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Alarchy (talk &bull; contribs)

What's with "test" warning?
I got on of those newb "test" warnings from you, and I'd like to know what, specifically, it's about, since I've made a LOT of edits lately, (although I am still a newb). It would be helpful if you'd take the time to explain more fully what the circumstances were, so that we can resolve this issue. -- 130.94.162.64 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits
I have added links to 3 different sites and none are commercial.

But your complaint that I shouldn't only be adding eternal links to all the pages I read is valid.

I will read more about protocols here and how to contribute. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 209.5.241.161 (talk &bull; contribs)

Succession of states theory
You best remember that wikipedia is an international endeavor and your particular dialect of English and associated Christian-derived norms are not necessarily consistent with others. My fucking language is ordinary to me--we don't have wikipedia indian english now do we? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.59.83.208 (talk &bull; contribs)

You are way to overzealous. Grow up kid. Just cus you don't know a few biblical words here and there doesn't mean that they're not used by English speakers round the world. Use fucking google and google wikipedia for any word you think is offensive. It's around more than you think. And I didn't put it in the text, only that's the way I talk. And by the way, you also didn't read the article or the comments carefully. You're not helping with Wikipedia's current controversy, I mean, just another example of some overzealous, uninformed sysop with power beyond his ability to edit. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.59.83.208 (talk &bull; contribs)

Talk:Book of Job (moved from main user page)
((Hey, what was that for? I didn't edit anything and you told me that I did!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.81.83 (talk • contribs)

RFC against KDRGibby
Well, I've filed my first RFC ever in my life. Please make a statement at Requests for comment/KDRGibby. I regret making this decision, but things have come to such a state of affairs that I have no choice. -- Natalinasmpf 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, sorry to bother you, I'm one of the network admins at a school - it seems one of our pupils has been vandalising Wikipedia pages (as we see "please stop" messages on the anonymous login home screen). If you could provide me with the exact times this has occurred I should hopefully be able to track down exactly who is responsible using our proxy logs and put a stop to it. Thanks.

I *think* our proxy is being seen by you as 217.23.225.120, but I'm afraid I can't be sure - our internet traffic goes through several layers upstream of us. :( Your messages to this addy were on 9 Dec at 10.31 and 10.32 if that helps at all. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 217.23.225.121 (talk &bull; contribs)

Moveapage
Please moveapage - This is a simple move. I'd do it, but apparently I'm too new. See the following sets of results from Google (over 10,000 hits) versus  (over 1,000 hits, top hits are wikipedia and wikipedia "syndicators").
 * Talk:Succession of states theory &mdash; Succession of states theory → succession of states – succession of states is the much more common and accurate way to refer to succession of states... not really a theory either Moveapage 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

62.6.139.10
Your comment re sandbox + vandalism on the 62 IP is pointless. It is a shared IP as the talk page says quite clearly. Refdoc 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think yes... Refdoc 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Article 153
The article looks marvelous at first glance. I'll take a closer look later this afternoon. The only thing that is immediately apparent is that the References and Notes need to be separated. I can do that this afternoon, or if you want to do it,that's fine. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Block
Hey - I am Doktorbuk, using lovely trusty old AOL, and I appear to have been blocked. I was trying to continue my edits to, amongst others, United Kingdom general election, 2009/10 and connected others, but find 195.93.21.33 has been blocked for vandalism.

I know the problems Wiki has with vandals, and I have been trying to root them out. Saying that, I am only here for good - I know the block was made for genuine reasons, so could you tell me when this block is expiring in case I can get back editing, or if possible could you reverse the block in this instance?

I am going to have to press "edit" every time I log in I think !! =D Many thanks, doktorb 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Johnleemk for your welcoming message to me, and for saving my time by the links you provided. I'm just getting started here with my shy little steps but would love to contribute a lot more and be called a Wikipedian like you. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Unbreakable MJ (talk &bull; contribs)

The West Wing is now FA
Thanks to your comments and constructive criticism, The West Wing has now reached featured article status. Thank you again so much for your input! -Scm83x 05:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Geoff
Hello Johnleemk. I see you have chosen to close the AfD on Geoff in favour of keep. Would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion, since there were only two votes to keep, and they were outnumbered at least two to one by the votes to delete? Were you simply expressing your own opinion? The article is frankly worthless, consisting only of a list of non-notable "famous" people lifted from IMDB.com, some of whom are actually called Jeff (even though there is already a seperate article of that name), and one of these "famous" people is just called "Jeff". Even if any of these people actually were famous, this would be no more than listcruft. The author has made no effort to improve the article by addressing these points, and nor has anyone else. The only argument advanced for keeping the article is the idea that it is a "notable name, shared by thousands [sic] of people". If the name is so notable there should be something to say about it, and if "thousands" is all it takes to make a name notable then every personal name in the world should have an article in Wikipedia. Compare this with the real article at James, or a proper disambiguation page like the one at David (disambiguation). As well as the basis on which you saw fit to contradict the consensus in keeping it, I would like to know what possible use you see in this article. Many thanks, Flapdragon 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Two of the delete votes cited the article as vanity and "nn-bio". However, it was neither, as you yourself pointed out. So, seeing as AfD is emphatically not a vote, I decided to close it as a keep. I have also substantially rewritten the article and chucked out everything that the AfD was voting on (so essentially it's the same as deleting it, except that the stuff is still in the history) and moved it to Geoffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply but you don't seem to answer my questions: why did you close to keep when there were (yes of course ignoring the irrelevant votes you mention, at least one applied to a much earlier article) still twice as many votes to delete as to keep, and what value does (or did) the article have? However, I suppose this is now academic, since having first kept the article you have now effectively deleted it by changing it to it to a redirect to Geoffrey. While I agree with that action, it does seem like a reversal of your decision to keep the article in the face of a two-to-one consensus to delete. First you imposed your opinion without explanation, then you effectively changed your mind on the basis of a message from me. So while I think you've done the right thing, I do respectfully suggest you should put a little more thought (and transparency) into the matter of closing AfD discussions. Incidentally, since you mention the page [|history], I don't understand why I can't see any of the previous edits there, before your edit changing it to a redirect page. Am I missing something? Have they been deleted, and if so why? That would mean no-one could see whether there was anything worth keeping in the old Jeff article or not. Thanks again, Flapdragon 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, the new article was moved to Geoffrey, where the original page history can be found. And while I agree that the AfD process should be more transparent, the fact that it is not a vote means there will always be subjectivity involved in interpreting consensus/community decision. Depending on how the discussion goes, different or even the same admins can make different decisions in different debates with the same number of "votes". So my interpretation of consensus in this case was "no consensus; default to keep". I know that's a bit shady, but I think for many people (or at least for me), like the famous US Supreme Court justice who discussed profanity, "I know it when I see it". Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

By "transparent", I wasn't referring to the AfD process itself, but to your actions in it. I fully accept that AfD is not a simple vote and that there will be some subjectivity involved, but I still don't see how a two-to-one majority in favour of deletion could possibly be interpreted as a consensus to keep, when it was in fact a consensus to delete. It looks as if you just imposed your own opinion -- but without explaining why you were doing something so strange and undemocratic. I thought at first it must be a simple mistake. Now you say it was "no consensus [really?]; default to keep". But you didn't say that at the time, or explain any of this until asked -- that's what I mean by transparency: being clear and upfront about what you are doing, and taking responsibility for your decisions. If people get the idea administrators just go around making whatever arbitrary decisions they feel like, the process will lose all credibility. There will certainly be no point in voting on AfDs, if the vote has no bearing on the result. Best wishes, Flapdragon 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)