User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 6

Tcaudilllg ban length
Hi, I noticed you indef blocked. According to the arbcom case, they should be blocked for only one year. If there is some other explanation for the longer block, it would be helpful to note this on the users talk page. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Miss Globe International

 * Please check the article Miss Globe International. The article was created by the organizers and being maintained by 7 people from the Miss Globe Organization, as per statement of the owner. The owner, Rasim Aydin, and his staff have continue to edit the article despite the issue of Conflict of Interest. They have been warned several times. The article do not meet the general notability guideline since no reliable and secondary sources about the topic. The article and the pageant has no notable third party references other than official pageant website. The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The winners of the pageant have no (or barely) any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and personal non-notable websites. The content of the article is based on original research as claimed by the organizers. They are not even sure of the history of the pageant and its previous winners. The list of winners seem fictitious and unverifiable. Please look at the article and nominate for deletion if possible. Thanks.--Angel Clinton (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the Wikipedia User Talk of the president of Miss Globe pageant.--Angel Clinton (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I need clarification from you
In this edit here: You mentioned this edit of mine:. I asked the drafter wizard, nr 6, about edits in violation of collaboration/consensus/mediation and I cant revert it, and he responded "If there was a collaborative consensus on it, then someone else will revert you don't have to worry about it."

During the arbitration case I stopped editing the articles in the scope of the case, Arab Cowboy had edit warred against what was agreed during the previous mediations. So the article right now is in several ways in the "wrong version". In the wrong version of what was agreed repeatedly between several people that tried to mediate between us and what the sources are saying. Every single time something was agreed, Arab Cowboy edit warred against it and this is why I requested the arbitration.

Now, I have a restriction and a topic ban. I am not allowed to change the ethnicity. But, am I not allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at some corrections that I pointed out at the talkpage with sources? Nothing in my restriction or topic ban says that I'm not allowed to do this.

Several of these points of corrections are the very same that there had been mediations and agreements over before and that the drafter Wizard told me that if there was a collaborative consensus it would get reverted, even if I myself couldn't revert it.

I never told that person what to do, I asked him to get involved and take a look at the corrections I would present at the talkpage and that it was totally up to him what edits he wanted to make. The person I asked is a neutral and respected editor at wikipedia and he is also an Egyptian. He had seen the arguing between me and AC and left this post at my talkpage when I first requested arbitration: he tried to help and fix this dispute so this is why I contacted him and asked for his help.

So am I not allowed to ask a neutral person to get involved and take a look at corrections I point out at talkpages? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I need reply.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)
I am a bit surprised that you closed this one as no consensus; my impression is that there was a rough consensus was for "delete" there. A number of "keep" !votes were explicitly stated as fairly week (User:Kotniski, User:OlEnglish, User:Alex Bakharev) or essentially procedural (User:Abd), while the "delete" !votes were by and large better argued and more policy-rooted. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that considering all the circumstances, that the no consensus closure was a good call. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Lankiveil! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neil Turner (Australian politician) -
 * 2) Rob Borbidge -

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)
I'm just wondering why you closed this as "no consensus". Every keep argument but one only asserted that he was notable. Notability is proven by sources, not assertion. The sources provided by the one keep vote were extensively refuted to be insufficient. Why did you see this as no consensus despite this?  Triplestop  x3  18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is my interpretation. While there were plenty of WP:JNN votes, significantly more delete arguments actually addressed the sourcing. Obviously there were many distractions, however if a article is not notable, it must be deleted, period.  Triplestop  x3  18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, many distractions, but no clear consensus to delete, as you can see in this nice table you have gone to the trouble of creating, as far as must be deleted goes, the only thing that must be deleted are things that are libelous, derogatry or some kind of attack article, this BLP is none of those things. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is shown by sources not assertion. And by your logic, any non notable page at all can be kept as long as they are not defamatory.  Triplestop  x3  18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a dispute that this person is borderline notable, I agree with this but that doesn't mean that there is some desperate need or even any need at all for the article to be deleted, there clearly isn't and the community has gone along with that position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. If there is a legitimate dispute that the person is notable, surely there are sources to back that up, beyond mere assertion?  Triplestop  x3  18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there are BLP problems as the subject himself repeatedly complained about BLP attacks, and on several other pages I am to lazy to find right now. Pantherskin (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This DRV debate may also be relevant. Even though the vote count was 8 to 3 in favor of keep, the article was deleted because the keep votes were either refuted or amounted to mere assertion. In this case, the vote count was clearly in favor of delete (20 to 10 I believe), and the keep votes were either refuted or mere assertion.  Triplestop  x3  19:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am about to head off to work, and don't have time for a detailed review right now, but I have to say I disagree with some of your rationales in the table above (particularly Abd's). Also, closing any AFD as "Delete" when there is clearly no consensus (ie: multiple votes for Keep) is a course fraught with danger.  I'll try and have another look at this tonight, but I'm reasonably happy at this point that I made the correct call.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Alright, but that does not change the fact that only one vote actually makes a good argument defending whether the page is actually verifiable, an argument extensively refuted by others. Rough_consensus states that "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."  Triplestop  x3  22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am amazed at your intense desire to get this harmless article deleted, I have a neutral point of view as regards this article and there are no copyright violations and it is neutrally written and I see no synthesis or original research also I see other neutral uninvolved editors that also see no issues with this article that require its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No issues with this article? Did you even read the discussion? I am just as neutral about this article as you are. Uninvolved editors have indeed agreed that this article is unverifiable. If we were to discount all "involved" editors' votes, I estimate the count to be around 10 to 4, still in favor of deletion.  Triplestop  x3  22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the whole lot, the East European arbcom case and the three AFD's for the article and many of the involved editors edit history and as an uninvolved editor I see no issues at all with the article that would require its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, we are focusing on the consensus of editors.  Triplestop  x3  23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, you are hardly uninvolved given your previous interaction with Poeticbent. I am amazed at your intense desire to keep this article. Pantherskin (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken the time to review the decision, and I think it must stand. You, as the nominator, have made an assertion that the subject of the article is not notable.  If an article does not meet WP:N, per that page, it may be deleted.  Notability is often a tricky thing to gauge, which is why we use a discussion process to delete articles, rather than just allowing an admin to make a snap judgement as to whether an article meets those criteria.


 * In this case, given the fact that a significant minority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the article's subject was notable, I determined when closing the discussion that there was currently no consensus among editors that the subject of the article fails WP:N. Upon further review of the situation, I still believe this to be the case.  It should also be pointed out that some of the "Delete" comments are of the "WP:JNN" type, and some erroneously asserted that there were no sources available despite User:Malik Shabazz providing some.  For what it's worth, I'll grant that it was leaning delete, but there doesn't agree to be consensus with your assertion that Tylman fails the notability criteria.


 * As such, I'm not going to overturn myself, but since I suspect that this request was but a formality before you take the close to DRV, I'm sure you're not surprised. Note that a "no consensus" decision doesn't mean that you can't clean up, trim, or otherwise improve the article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

I request the attacks on me in the table above be redacted. I made no "ad hominem" arguments, nothing to invoke "circular" etc. And the placing of similar ad hominem attacks on me in the DRV I find objectionable. The purpose of a DRV is to see if the closer erred in weighing the AfD. The DRV currently appears to be an atrempt at a second bite at the apple by making it into an AfD on its own. Collect (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Richard Tylman
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richard Tylman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit
Just as a heads-up. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thanks for the headsup. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

And it also removes my statement to the ArbCom which I was in the process of adding to and wasn't part of any threaded conversation. I'm adding it back in. If there's a problem with that please explain why. In general, please be more careful in the future. These sorts of situations create enough drama as is. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, your edit did the same thing.--Tznkai (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Joshua removed a statement to add his. I don't think he has any standing to be admonishing anyone at the moment about such errors. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks
thanks :) just stopped by to make a few edits. Roke (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of large section of work done by others
One question only. It'd be nice if you could answer. Could you tell me why you believe these issues are inconsequential? (a laundry list). "Over the top" is just rubbish rhetoric.


 * Sale of iconic Sandgate Post Office


 * Patronised sale of public parkland for private development


 * Closure of Sandgate Community Centre

Many thousands of dollars in FOI fees, notwithstanding time, was put in this.

I regard your deletion as an abuse of your power and grandiosity.

It's interesting that *after* you slashed and burned the whole section you needed to ask,

"Do you think this revision was over the top?" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orderinchaos

Otherwise, thanks for all your good work and I hope you can keep the "Gordon Nuttall" page current, since I and others cannot. Cablehorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablehorn (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lanky,

"I'm no fan of corrupt politicians, but pretty much every politician ... "

In my humble opinion, your specious comment betrays you as an apologist for corrupt behavior. It is a comment a rusted-on party hack would use. The Gordon Nuttall page is about a particularly corrupt politician who will continue to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for the foreseeable future. As one of Australia's most corrupt politicians, the prisoner's previous activities in his own electorate, based on verifiable information (e.g. Hansard, newspapers, FOI correspondence, property sales information), are of public interest.

Further, in this case, I believe the "laundry list" presented is only the tip of the iceberg. Criminals generate laundry lists; that is a common feature of criminality. Ironically, this local laundry list is relevant information because of the "laundry list of charges" the prisoner has been convicted of and the current laundry list of charges. Based on the events so far, there may be a further laundry list of charges once the current trial has finished.

Do not denigrate all politicians on the basis of Nuttall's activities. The "they're all the same" line is not a valid reason for your section deletion.

Lastly, his local actions were not simply "unpopular decisions", they were typically autocratic and covert actions. By definition, covert actions are neither popular nor unpopular.

Didactik (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1906
Looked in gazette. The only thing I can definitely confirm was that John Crase was the incumbent mayor in notices posted in both June and August 1906. I may know more when I see the 1907 gazette. Orderinchaos 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilf Barber
I noticed, when having a quick look at this article that you proposed a merger a while ago with Wilfred Barber. As this is obviously the same person, I wondered if there was any reason why they haven't been merged yet? I'm guessing that no-one really cares! Seems straigtforward though. The only thing I can see being an issue is whether to have the article called Wilf or Wilfred (he was known as Wilf).--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Italic text== Your deletion of a large body of work re: Gordon Nuttall ==

You say to me (09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)),

"If you think I'm being a bit harsh, I'll be happy to bring this up at the BLP noticeboard or another venue for another independent look ..."

Could you let me know what other venues at which this issue could be arbitratrated. Thanks. Cablehorn (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

................................

................................

................................

Dear Lankiveil

Your contiuing censorship of verifiable facts on the "Gordon Nuttall" page is becoming quite strange and curious. Your rationales to me are sophistic and confirmation-biased.

You say on my talk page:

"I suggest either WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. Either way, once raised, please let me know where. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)."

I asked you to point me to an arbitration forum other than WP:BLPN. Thanks for the WP:ANI direction, but I think it would be fairer for you, in order your not accussed of conflict-of-interest, if you directed me to an area more outside your sphere of influence. Could you?

Why do you say, “Either way, once raised, please let me know where?”

Nine minutes later you say,

"I'll also point out that I'm not the one who protected the article, and nor did I ask Rebecca to do so. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to communicate to me here. Do you mean I should appeal to "Rebecca", implying you are not able to unblock the page, or are you just attempting to lay blame elsewhere for some peculiar reason?

Your log,

"08:40, 4 February 2010 (hist | diff) Gordon Nuttall ‎ (→Issues in Sandgate Electorate: rm section - I'm no fan of corrupt politicians, but pretty much every politician makes unpopular decisions and this laundry list was over the top)

08:36, 4 February 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Roke ‎ (→Welcome Back!: new section) (top)",

indicates it took you, at most, four minutes to consider and censor an important ten years of history.

It'd restore my, and many others, faith in Wikipedia if you could, at least, respond to (all) my questions in a more logical manner than you have previously.

The simple, honourable, noble and courageous solution to this affair would be you replacing the censored piece of history and (if it's within your authority) unblocking the page.

Otherwise, I believe you have ruptured (corrupted) and poisoned the good name of Wikipedia. Cablehorn (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

............................. .............................

Your 'answer' on my talk page says,

"I have to say, I feel that I've been exceptionally patient with you, moreso than I needed to be, but I am no longer willing to abide these constant and unfounded character attacks. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong, which is why I suggested taking it to a third party, but I am not going to try and help if all I get is abuse for my efforts. Please feel free to take the matter up at a noticeboard or venue of your choice, but I am not going to restore what I (and others) view as a gross violation of our WP:BLP policies. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)." [my bolding]

Again and again and again, zero rationale as to why you censored veifiable facts on the Gordon Nuttall page.

You hold all the cards. I give up.

Please don't write to me again.

Bye

Cablehorn (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nundah
Dear Lanky

It is interesting that you are happy to have Mr Swan's electoral office listed as the "major attraction" in previous versions of the Nundah page but have removed reference to Mr Swan from the Gordon Nuttall page. I believe this to be the main reason for your section deletion on the Gordon Nuttall page. I feel sad for a community with an electoral office as their major attraction.

What irks me even more is your sloppy version of Nundah history. Leichhardt didn't simply "visit the mission". The Prussian Ludwig Leichhardt visited the mission during his historic expedition to the north of Australia.

Furthermore, they were not "German" Lutherans. One cannot emigrate from a country that has not yet been formed (Germany was formed in 1871). They were largely from Silesia i.e. Silesians (go to the Nundah cemetery you are so proud of and read some gravestones) and victims of religious persecution by the Prussians. See the Barossa Valley page for a more correct description of the Silesian emigrants. They were categorized as Germans by the British.

I congratulate you on your contributions to the Nundah page but this sloppy research by the Nundah history crew is often recanted by others. I'll let you fix the Nundah page.

cheers Didactik (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
Hello. In summarizing the results of the arbitration, you omitted FoF #1, "Locus of dispute". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You also forget to add the 'discuss this' links and set up the thread on WT:AC/N. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/The_Wordsmith
You've put your oppose vote in the support section William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent- tiebreakers for WikiCup round 2
Hello. As you may be aware, the second round of the WikiCup begins tomorrow, and you are one of five users on 20 points. There is one place remaining in the next round. As such, I have two questions- firstly, are you interested in getting through to the next round? If the answer is yes, then secondly, please let me know of any outstanding nominations (as in, ongoing nominations) of content, so that this may be considered, or any work you have done in review processes (GAC, PR, FAC, that kind of thing) over the last two months. Thanks. Please reply as soon as possible in this thread. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Houghton
I wrote about it at Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, 1960–1963 in the notes :) Orderinchaos 13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You thought that one was bad... try Electoral district of Albert :D Orderinchaos 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to a withdrawal, I've been able to slip you in to round 2 :) Sorry about the delay, and thanks for sticking with us. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For your information
I have now talked with the arb drafter of the Asmahan arbitration case. He has told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points I have posted at the talkpage. I am planning on asking either Nableezy again, or some other person. I am giving you this information in advance so that no future misunderstanding will happen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yan Katsnelson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Yan Katsnelson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Woogee (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for reverting the vandalism on my user page yesterday. Much appreciated. - Ping veno  06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating Admin Coaching
Hi, I see that you are listed as an active coach.

This is just a reminder to ask that you keep the entry at Admin_coaching/Status up to date - if you take on a new student, or a student stops being coached, could you update your entry?

Please accept my apologies if you have been doing this - I'm sending this to everyone on the current active list, and not trying to track down what coaching is being done!

If you are no longer willing to coach, please remember to move your name to the "Former coaches" section!

Keeping the list up to date means that any potential coachees can clearly see what the current state of play is!

Thank you for your attention... and now, I'm off back to what I was doing before!

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jbx gets hyped
A few minutes ago you speedily-deleted Jbx gets hyped. At the moment you deleted it I was tagging it for speedy deletion, and the edit conflict resulted in my accidentally re-creating an article of that title. Perhaps you would like to re-delete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign bond
Your recent edit at the Sovereign Bond article removed unsourced content that had been added by an IP which you then rightly warned, however in undoing their edit you reinserted unsourced content. Please do not add unsourced material as it contravenes Wikipedias policy of content verification. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
I think Huggle is experiencing some technical difficulties. You warned a user with the heading "May 2010".  Eagles   24/7  (C)  04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, just thought you might want to know.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  04:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Smearing
Hi, How is can it be smearing to state that they have economic ties to illegally occupied territory? There is no question that the land is illegally occupied, it is that consensus opinion of the world. I agree that one has to be careful regarding sourcing, but that is no different than Category:Serial killers. Unomi (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have tried to address your concerns, Best Unomi (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies
As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article on Anthony Venn-Brown
Nominated for deletion. I am curious as to why you came across my page at this particular time. Only asking because the article has passed without much comment for at least a couple of years and its only in the last couple of days that it has widely accessed. Have added material to address your concerns. frollus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frollus (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Lankiveil. Because you closed Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination) and participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zion Hill Mission
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

catch up? :-)
I'm hoping we can catch up about some schools outreach / WMAU stuff at a convenient moment for you, and in a convenient way (Skype? IRC?) :-) - I've left a couple of messages on the au wiki too - and I hope you're good :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Email
Please check your email. KnightLago (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Trespass (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)
, the main star wars episode guide is where the trivia and the "moral" section came from. The article's sister on wikia is where the plot came from. --haha169 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll note that in the future. --haha169 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because of your participation in Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). – xeno talk  17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues


Unomi (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Mental illness impact on NSW Judicial Officer
Not sure of your political correctness. We have a judicial officer suffering a mental illness which effects concentration and decision making (bipolar), and you delete that reference to their page. Surely this should be a discussion point - would an accused person receive a fair trial (as they are entitled to under the international covenant on political and civil rights) if the judge suffers such an illness - it was referenced to an article where the judicial officer admitted suffering this illness in a radio interview

I guess can't let the facts get in the way of a good story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticePreacher (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia
Hello Lankiveil, A few weeks ago, you deleted my article on Yodel Australia for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This was my first attempt at writing an article and I was unaware of all the rules and requirements in writing an article. Since then I have re-written the article, with some help of other Wikipedia users and would like to request you to please review it once again. The article has been written to be unbiased, well-sourced and provide genuine information about Yodel. Currently the updated article is on my user page User:Natkolk/Yodel_Australia. Could you please review, and let me know what you think. I am happy to perform the appropriate changes. Thanks Natkolk (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. Even though you did not support me I respect your opinion, and I have taken note of your comments. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thenaesh
Hello Lankiveil, It appears that you very recently deleted my article on Robert Poston. The content that you claim was "unambiguous copyright infringement". That website is owned by our lab, and we collectively maintain all rights to the content on it. Pranjal Desai (who is listed as the contact person for the website, and who I am coordinating this wikipedia article with) has stated explicitly that he wants this content available on a wikipedia article. We feel that this is an important article, as it provides information on one of the pioneers of robotic heart surgery. If you would like, I can have an email from Pranjal Desai directly with this information. Please let me know what steps would be necessary to restore the article.

Thank you, Thenaesh (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FolderPlay deletion
On FolderPlay deletion page there was a link "talk to me" pointing to this page. I do not know if it is directed to me or to the editor who deleted the article.

It is now 6 out of 6 consensus that A7 does not apply. Do you know who is supposed to un-delete the article and when? Am I allowed to do it now?

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative project, rather than competitive/fighting game? Please help.

m656 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR
Hello Lankiveil, I would like to get some clarification on the 1000 word limit. Should responses be included in the 1000 word limit as well, I thought they should not, since they are not planned for and are dependent on what other users have written. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My arbitration evidence
I thought I should let you know that I've replied to your comment here. I'd appreciate it if you could answer my question there. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
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. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD for List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza
I replied your arguments at AFD for Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza. The article is clearly verifiable, and banned items are notable. Check the notes section I added various links. The item list verifiable and factual by multiple RS, specific, notable by multiple RS news/HR sources, official by Israeli court.


 * Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_05_10_gazaimports.pdf
 * http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf

You may also help updating table with Gisha list. If we add 2 lists. No more major update required. Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk
Hi I'm interested in becoming a clerk, on the page it says to contact an existing clerk and ask about mentorship so that's what I'm here for.  Fridae&#39;§ Doom  &#124;  Talk to me  08:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD outcome
Hi, I asked User:JamesBWatson and then thought you may be the best person. This AFD outcome Articles_for_deletion/Lex_Coleman was affected by multiple sock puppets, could you userfy it for me so I can have a look at it, with a regard to merging or recreation? Off2riorob (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been done so no worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly reduce revision visibility further?
Is it possible to redact the name of the editor if it's an IP address? I bring this up because both edits at Perry High School (Gilbert, Arizona) triggered the "Nonsense characters" abuse filter. mechamind 9  0  06:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible, although in this particular case I don't see what purpose it would serve. I'm sure that the 'nonsense characters' filter was tripped by the random-looking key that was posted.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC).

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I have you to thank for some of that "great content" and reviews "of a universally high quality" - you were one of the first people to review an article of mine at GAN! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey :)
Hey, can you please check your email? Thanks. Orderinchaos 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapse
Not convinced by. In fact there are important issues of case management being discussed. Yes, you could say, they should be discussed outside the case. But no, it won't happen William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps not. Given the history of the talk page, and the nature of the comments previously, I closed it.  If you have issues with the conduct of the arb cases, I suggest either posting on WT:RFAR or contacting the arbs directly.  That page is for discussion of that individual case only, and that thread was way, way, of topic.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I suggest either posting on WT:RFAR or contacting the arbs directly - waste of time, as you know. As for OT: you might think so. But why is your judgement superior to RD's? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not. I concur with his capping. The OP was only partially on-topic and the thread swiftly veered right off-topic. For what it's worth, I'll probably hold a workshop after this case is closed to set what lessons can be learned from handling huge cases.  Roger Davies  talk 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what the topic was. If the topic was "arbs blaming the case participants for all their troubles", then yes it veered. If the topic was "discussing problems with the case, including that of arb conduct" then no: it remained quite on topic William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the topic was: hey guys, cut down on the volume of posts and cut the incessant warring.  Roger Davies  talk 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that is what you meant, but it isn't all you said. You mentioned partisan. I replied, on topic. You've ignored that, presumably because you have no answer. But that is hardly to your credit William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence about an editor's partisan stance, please just post it as a proposed new FoF, with supporting diffs, clearly illustrating the problem, on the /PD talk page. It will get looked at.  Roger Davies  talk 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. Please, read what I wrote. The section, since I've found it and you haven't even looked, is . Only one arb bothered to reply, and that one (Risker) said that partial evidence was fine. So your subsequent complaints of partisanship are hollow. And as for further evidence: if you really haven't worked out by now who is partisan and who isn't, there is no hope for you. Since you haven't yet produced a FoF on JWB, the answer to that implicit question is all too clear William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'm sorry to monopolise your talk page, Lankiveil, I've copied this thread to mine and will respond there. Roger Davies talk 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange Deletion of Sandemans New Europe Tour
I attempted to add information to Sandemans New Europe today only to find out that it has completely disappeared. More oddly, it's stated that this was done by you:

""07:38, 13 March 2010 Lankiveil (talk | contribs) deleted "Sandemans New Europe" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)""

A quick look at your contribution history does not register any events during this time period on this day. The article was supposedly deleted a A7 (lacking indication of importance). Oddly it's well accepted amongs multiple within the service industry that Sandemans has transformed the landscape of the tour guiding industry, which I believe was part of the page. I think that you work for Sandamens. I believe that you deleted the page on the 13th because on the 10th a rather biting criticism of Sandemans hiring and payment practices was published.

I'm curious as to why you would hide this deletion, having published so many of your other deletions, if what I have said is not the case. If what I have said is not the case, I firmly believe that you should restore the page that you deleted. If this does not occur I will report you to other administrators with the evidence I have gathered. Talonxpool (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user has brought this up here where these bad faith and absurd accusations have been responded to, though I see more brought up here that were not raised there. Your lack of familiarity with with how Wikipedia works doesn't allow you to see just how nonsensical your reasons for suspicion are.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my response here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Silver seren RFA
Can you clafify your oppose better. Thanks Secret account 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatting, again
I appreciate you have a difficult job but


 * Ha, you should complain. If you look at the BLP-busting diffs against me, most of them are form more than two years ago, and one removes the word scientist from Tim Ball even though the current stable state of the article is happy with that. Because, he isn't a scientist. So, making A BLP more accurate is now an offense against BLP. Many of the diffs in this case are junk - Rlvese threw them together to tar people with very little care and attention. R is gone, but the poison lingers on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

was actually an attempt to get that diff discussed. Are you ruling discussion of FoF diffs out of order? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in
Like WMC, I appreciate that you have a difficult job, and I appreciate the irony of thanking you for hatting an off-topic section shortly after being challenged for hatting something, but I agree with you - the clerks have allowed too many off-topic conversations for too long. If we can keep the discussion narrowly focused on the PD, it will be helpful.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that additional hatting is needed.

 * Tony's proposal is an interesting concept, and deserves a thorough discussion, but is not solely or even especially related to CC, and is arguably not the province of ArbCom (although I recognize that TS is making the point that it isn't but should be.) However, Roger Davies clearly states "This won't fly as a remedy: it's purely about content and ArbCom don't do those.". Time to close it.
 * Randy is a tougher call, as it clearly is of interest to those who read this page, but unless we declare that this page has become the bulletin board for discussion of all things CC, it should be shut down, possibly with a suggestion for a better place for discussion.
 * Suggestion My position was blunt and to the point, but even if one thinks the idea has some merit, I don't think the discussion page of this PD is the right place to start a brainstorming session for outside the box options, especially ones that are in conflict with fundamental principles. I suggest shutting it down, possibly pointing the editor to the Village pump (idea_lab) if they want to propose new ideas.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AGK
I've had quite enough lies from AGK, thanks, and don't really appreciate his cowardice either William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not a good idea and I advise you not to follow through on this without making sure first that you have a consensus for doing so. (At the same time I advise WMC not to bring you into this situation.) Some things to consider: Under these circumstances your warning to WMC is hard to distinguish from a deliberate attempt to poke the bear. Hans Adler 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC's action was not very grave in itself.
 * WMC's action was on his own talk page. (=> reduces gravity)
 * WMC's action was a reaction to an administrative action by AGK. (=> reduces gravity)
 * AGK had justified their administrative action with a claim that turned out to be false.
 * Instead of apologising and reversing the action, AGK then claimed without further explanation that there was another justification for the same administrative action. ("I see that you haven't been explicitly warned; that's a shame, as I thought you had, and it makes my action look as though it was misinformed. It wasn't." – That's not an explanation, that's cheap rhetorics.)
 * Several editors who are not strongly involved have already pointed out that they think AGK's action was a mistake.

But why do I keep thinking of ? Collect (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you're an inveterate kibitzer with nothing to do but stir up trouble? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? I happened here because of another editor and thought this was an interesting comment.  I do, however, play duplicate - but never send in my points because I feel that being an equal of a grandmaster is quite as satisying as accumulating the points to be officially recognized as one.  This is true of other disciplines as well. I would have about 400+ points if I actually ever had sent them in.  Did you, perchance, read The Prince in college? Collect (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before it was "nothing useful to do" and now (rather than using a polite strikeout) you change it to "stir up trouble."  You really ought to make up your mind when remarking about a perfectly civil comment on my part.  As the quote can not be reasonably interpreted as "stirring up trouble" (what trouble could it possibly stir up, pray tell?) I dinna know why you made a second comment about it. Leaving it be would be your obvious choice. Collect (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough. I do not care whether WMC has caught AGK in a compromising position with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  It is not acceptable under the best of circumstances to belittle and insult other editors, much less clerks trying their best to keep order on an increasingly bitter and difficult case.  I don't care what page it happened on, I don't care whoever started it, and I don't care if anyone else is doing it.  All that is being asked is that all editors stick to at least the minimum required standard of behaviour, which to be honest isn't that big of an ask.  Lankiveil @ Alt (speak to me) 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Would you mind hatting a section?
Hi, I just want to ask if you would mind hatting this section? It's lost all usefullness if there was anything useful to begin with. I asked for it to be hatted in the last post made there but thought maybe it wasn't seen so I am bringing it to your attentions. Thank you in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded at my page but I wanted to make sure you saw it with you being so busy. Thank you for doing the hatting for me.  I appreciate it. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC
Please note that there's a new discussion at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganga
Hi Lankiveil, could you please have another look at the issue; I've posted some data re WP:COMMONNAME at Talk:Ganges. Cheers, -- JN 466  11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ping
I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  06:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Proposed deletion of The Boxing Lesson


The article The Boxing Lesson has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Self-promotion: The article seems to be updated anonymously by persons with a singular interest (refer to IP contributions and guidlines to insufficient notability).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cheezwzl (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote in WP:CRIC
There has been a issue in WT:CRIC that needs your vote. Thanks -- ashwinikalantri talk 06:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Craig :) On behalf of WMF I would like to thank you for your cooperation during the last fundraiser and we look forward for more fruitful and successful fundraisers over the next years. Thanks again : --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ANV/PA
I'm not reporting a content dispute there, I'm reporting repeated personal attacks, plus disdain for my warnings to stop. WQA says not to report stuff being discussed elsewhere. Where am I suppose to report PAs then? C T J F 8 3 07:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I endorse what they are saying, just that AIV is for open-and-shut cases of vandalism, which this is not. A forum like ANI, where the issues can be examined in detail, is usually the best place to get a good outcome rather than just applying kneejerk blocks.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Ok...too much work, so I won't worry about it. C T J F 8 3  07:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD:List of Spanish words of Italic origin (2nd nomination)
Hello, Lankiveil. If you have a moment, could you look at Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Italic origin (2nd nomination)? It's been open for about ten days, so I think it should be either re-listed or closed. I somehow bungled creating the page and User:Ravendrop fixed my mistake. In the process I wonder if we mangled something else so that it's not showing up in the main AfD list or something. Cnilep (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Earth edit
Hey, I just got your message about how I apparently edited this section. This now has me very worried, because it is the second incident in 2 days where I have been contacted by Wikipedia members regarding page edits, both of which I did not do. I am actually quite worried that someone may be using my IP address, do you have any advice on how to resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.87.211 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Multi Gaming Clan
Hi mate, You posted "The result was redirect to Clan (computer gaming). The article still exists in the page history, should anyone wish to include the information in another page." Would it be ok to add the info that I had created on "Multi Gaming Clan" page to the "Clan" page? I thought I would check with you first to be sure its ok to move it all over as I requested in the redirect/delete discussion. Thanks GSL-Nathan (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball
No worries. :) WittyLama suggested asking people and I figured I would go ahead and ask a few people, because the top of the list for sport dates back until early January. --LauraHale (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Analytic space


A tag has been placed on Analytic space requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sayantan (talk|contribs) 06:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Lewis Girls High School
Hi, I see you deleted this which I tagged for copyvio. I didn't delete it my self because a) Corenbot didn't pick it out, b) the creator has been claiming public domain on my tp. c) I'm no expert on copyright stuff. What do you think? Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deidre Willmott
Hi, I'd appreciate your view on my recent edit at Deidre Willmott, reversing an edit by User Talk:CJMorsey. --Design (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS request
Do you think you could expedite the processing on, permission for which was sent in by the subject of the photo? (I gather it is a self-take by webcam, and looks it) I'd really like to look efficient here, as Paul is a longtime acquaintance. Let me know as well if there is anything that needs doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anzac Avenue
Hello! Your submission of Anzac Avenue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to double check before taking action on the nomination, are you 110.174.224.43 who posted at Anzac Avenue? OCNative (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Undelete request
I'm adding this request because you're listed at Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles.

Would you please userfy this Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists to my user space? I'm trying to revivify it in the form of a list as suggested at the deletion discussion, while providing stricter criteria for inclusion to avoid being deleted again. I have discussed the rationale for this inclusive at Category_talk:Female_video_game_characters, which is used only for characters with whole articles and thus has limited coverage. Thanks for your attention. Diego Moya (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick answer! Diego Moya (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Welcome and thank you for your Gaelic contribution to the Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your evidence submission
Cross-check the IP address from the Commons deletion request with the IP address used to make the initial edits to meta. You'll see that the IP that initiated the deletion request is the same IP Racepacket used to make the report on meta, which he signed with his user account name.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct use of GPS data in a wikipedia page
Hi Craig can you please direct me to info on how to use GPS data e.g. -26.859763,153.129656 on a page? Thanks. Robertwhyteus (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for the barnstar. It's much appreciated. LordVetinari (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I believe your block of Delta is purely punitive at this point and needs to be overturned immediately.  N419 BH  06:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will second this. This is a very bad block and needs to be undone. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this was a single user on even their third incident, I'd agree. But this particular user was blocked for an entire year for this kind of behavior and was let back in only upon condition that this kind of behavior completely ceased. Given the multiple violations even immediately after a block for a violation of the same problem, I'm siding with the admin on this one: this is a clear-cut violation. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given you're the one who requested the punitive block, it's not surprising you're "siding with the admin on this one". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I request that we don't get engaged on a flamewar on my talkpage? Thanks.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I fail to see how this is a flamewar. We're being completely civil. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SP on this one, however, I have no problem simply continuing the discussion on either his talk page or mine (your choice SP). — BQZip01 —  talk 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not implying that it was a flamewar, just that editors (who are not me) being involved in vigourous discussion on my talkpage is probably not best practice. The word was perhaps chosen poorly, so I apologise for that.  Of course I'd encourage further constructive discussion to try and come to a mutually acceptable resolution of this issue :-).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I don't see a need to continue this, we're clearly on opposite sides and clearly neither of us will change our opinion on this matter, so we'll let community consensus play out at ANI. I'll take my leave from this page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind too much, I've reduce the block to 24 hours, since there was no consensus for the block at ANI after quite substantive discussion, and 24 hours rather than time served (which is 21h) more clearly acknowledges that a lot of people have concerns. PS Well you shouldn't mind too much, your block was unilateral in the midst of an ANI discussion in the first place... Rd232 talk 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lankiveil, I actually support the block on Delta.  First, he's been blocked over this before, second, he's been under sanctions (and is still under sanctions for this), he's a long time editor as well.   (*Disclaimer - I've had a run-in with Delta, so I'm not neutral on this, but I'm choosing to remain silent on the ANI board because of my lack of neutrality *).

Keep up the great work. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 12:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As per the precise wording of the sanctions, and as per a great many of the people supporting your block that RD232 has so casually ignored, your block was fully correct and in order. No such discussion was even required, and rather than be talked down to for placing it, you should be thanked for responding to such a blatant violation in the way the community expects, when it seems many other admins are already in a place where they don't even think it's worth acting on even blatant violations when they see them at the time, even though his talk page must be on many of their watchlists. That was frankly just one of many in the last few months. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg
Excuse me, but I'm puzzled about the speedy deletion that you processed on the above noted file. The rationale you provided was F5. F5 states:
 * "Images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain, that are not used in any article, may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days, or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article."


 * 1) it was used in an article until the person that nominated it for CSD also deleted the image from the article in this edit just half an hour before the CSD was posted. Therefore I dispute that the image wasn't in use.
 * 2) more than seven days - in fact, it was only out of use for barely three hours
 * 3) immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article - the article Spock is very much still in existence!

Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to this reply:
 * Not to mention that Spock is very much "alive"! :)
 * That's cool - I'd appreciate it going through whatever channels/processes it would have normally been subjected to - there was actually a fairly lengthy discussion in progress on the file's talk page, but seeing as how the only two participants were the uploader (i.e. me) and the deletion nominator, I'm thinking we probably need some third parties involved to get a proper consensus going.
 * Thanks! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just wondering if you could please also restore the talk page, as there was quite a robust discussion going on there before it was deleted. Thanks again! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anzac Avenue
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor spelling error
At

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=429030512

you used the phrase "Wikihouding at Commons." Did you mean Wikihounding? Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WWE Capitol Punishment
Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)

I think "No consensus" was the wrong decision.

Please could you explain the policy/guideline-based reasoning for keeping that article.

I think you've misinterpreted weight in numbers as valid arguments.

This is a very simple case - no reliable sources, no sign of notability. Yes, it will be notable, but it isn't now.

Please, please look at the recent DRV for Slammiversary IX in Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27.

Would it be stupid to list this one in DRV, when the event takes place in a week? Well, yes. But, it's also stupid that Wikipedia is advertising this non-notable event, and has been since 20 March, with no evidence showing GNG.

Thus I urge you to reconsider your closure.  Chzz  ► 11:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Chzz  ► 12:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be presumptive of me to assume you're just waiting, and avoiding the actual issue?  Chzz  ► 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
 * 2) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
 * 3) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
 * 4) Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your delete
I originally proposed the deletion of Dr Richard (Dick) Chopp (urologist). I have since discovered he does exist in Austen Texas and I had put the evidence on the talk page, which has now disappeared. Greenmaven (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

2greendollars
Hi there Lankiveil. Nice to have to know you in these unusual circumstances, but why was an article I was helping to compile deleted? Both non notability and a false claim that I have anything to do with subject (which I dont, just saw him in a huge gig in china) are completely and utterly false. I'm simply compiling a list of references online encyclopaedically from references such as baidu, google, bing, yahoo, even itunes (was the personal stuff)! False claims must be thoroughly tested before taking such rash actions such as deleting a group of peoples work and time and wikipedia is a public forum where things happend methodically and democratically. Could you please restore the article (and my faith in a democratic process)? thankyou in advance for helping out. Avatera (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I have just read the lengthy discussion on "Anthony Chidiac" (2greendollars) i said holy crap a few times too!. I believe your interpretation of the accounts to be one-sided, and ill explain why. I havent seen the original article but it seems from the discussion that it wasn't that the original article wasnt noteworthy it was due to a suspicion of fraud, which was not proven. I got in touch (for the first time) with Anthony on Friday to tell him of the shock decision you made and he was distraught that any of that historical information was made freely available to the public. Anthony told me that his lawyers requested on paper to wikimedia(?) that all information and material regarding this history be removed from this site as it was deemed to be defamatory, unless the editors could actually prove fraudulence, which they couldn't. I thought wikimedia complied to that request, as I could not see that history until now! As you read, Anthony used his own ID and didnt hide behind anybody if he had something to say, but it was inappropriate for him to really do anything really. However he is not a fraud or any of the false allegations described there and I believe that.

I honestly believe that had you not read any history of the subject then you would have probably debated over whether to add a reference to his real name on the article and highlighted any areas that needed citation from press or other sources. Had that have been discussed I dont think we would have the approval of Anthony due to the past, but as he said on friday to me he was happy to have a reference on the artist name as it helped with his charitable work and gave him some privacy which he was comfortable with. I was told by my mentor to never write about the person but the act or the place. In this case I wrote about the act and drew material from a multitude of sources that has published the material, so the information is legit as it was published by credible authorities (and those were cited inline). As far as I'm concerned I read the rules with editing here and stuck to them in creating this article. I asked the assistance of an admin to post the userspaced article into mainspace and for a long period of time (6 months or more) it had community consensus with at least a half dozen editing or modifying content, admins coming in and doing fixes and housekeeping, links added (some rubbish as per the ones in the discussion, but others were gold like the Age articles, pinnacle press releases, herald-sun, etc.) all in all, I thought we built a solid article stating facts and being true to being a reference of references and it had broad community support until you reacted. I'm sorry if I seem to have come across as plaigiarizing anything and cut and pasted portions of articles that existed online, but I got permission to do so and it made for a good article as per Jim Wales notes and discussion about constructing good articles.

This article seems to draw attention to parties close to DJ Havana Brown and a userspaced article in another editors space about the singer and an article on page 7 of the herald sun written by nui te koha a month or so ago about the public spat between her and 2greendollars (anthony). Shes not a DJ she uses the "DJ" moniker and she plays produced music - similar vein to milli vanilli. What else I know is that sources close to a former drug lord who has somehow landed a legitimate job in one of the worlds hottest nightclubs for the moment have been active in vandalising the subjects page. The article wasnt controversial, it was the people circling it that were.

Posting articles and following the rules in wikipedia should not be controversially nor speedily deleted and in this example you used a "speedy G6 rule" to do just that and based it on character and a history which should have not been made publicly available. That was really terrible and hurtful Lankiveil. I dont sit here and dwell on the site, I write casually and when i have time so I couldnt respond quick enough against your rash actions. I hope you can understand that somebody as notable as this guy will indeed bring about controversy. As a valued administrator here you shouldnt jump to conclusions about any allegation of fraud as none has been proven anywhere and you need to be careful because you did an action that lends to the same effect and that is clearly defamatory. I can reference what you said to remind you of that and have highlighted it for Anthony to see.

Could we reach some form of consensus where the article is reposted and an enquiry is held as to why the old history (at anthony chidiac) is made available to the public? Certainly smells like both you and I went about innocently doing what we do and now we've both been embrioled into a political battle between feuding parties and other questionable people to whom Anthony does not associate with. They have no expertise on the subject matter but others who have contributed to the article saw exactly what I did when I googled 2greendollars and referenced it here. All I wanted to do is to compile a reference of references for the musical artist, not the person himself. It seems the failing has been in cut and pasting "early life". How about cutting it back and it? It would be interesting to watchlist and see where it leads to and who views and edits it.

I dont have the time now but I've got the guy into this trouble so I have to do follow through. Now I'm going to have to find out why such history is made freely available to the public when the claim/allegation is false. My take was that it was just a over zealous lot of admins keen to get fame from bullying others who wanted to have a go. Back then, it seemed wiki was not as well co-ordinated as it is now and newspapers were reporting admins (and their names) being part of the former "wiki edit war" and the most notorious were famously published. I read those articles in the Age a while ago now. Didnt know this guy was one of those victims of that..

Im sorry in advance if any of the above offends, its not meant to but I'm time limited and thought id send you a quick (read: long)note back to ask if you could reconsider without prejudice and help with a stubbing instead of outright deletion. thanks Avatera (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

greg gumo
please check out this crp. Gregory Gumo utter rubbish. should be deleted. can you help?

written by the person himself. no refs anywhere, except criminal record in NYC. a. Avatera (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP QLD
Hi, I've made a list at User:Orderinchaos/QLD list of all articles which are not currently tagged by WP Queensland which fall under one of the sub-categories. Many of these may have nothing to do with Queensland, others definitely should be tagged. Could you do me a huge favour and have a look at the last list (the big one) and see if there's any articles there which are clearly within QLD's scope so we can move them to the "in scope" list? This is sort of the "five minute, by sight, relying on your general knowledge" check rather than anything more in-depth, just makes it easier on those taking on the article tagging by assuring them there is a list of definitely in-scope articles they can tag. :) Orderinchaos 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this helps but I noticed while doing the islands from that list that some Papua New Guinea and Coral Sea Territory ones appeared. I double check anyway so it doesn't bother me if there are some false positives. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there'll be plenty - I found some NSW and NT ones and even the odd WA one when I was doing it, and that's considering I didn't touch the biographies. (The plant ones *should* be OK as I used AWB to filter out any Flora of Queensland that were Flora of, but that's no guarantee as there's plenty of miscategorisation around the place.) Orderinchaos 09:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lankiveil - No worries :) It's not time-critical, and there's plenty of articles in the "in scope" list already for people to look at. It's more just to raid the huge pile of "unknowns" of some of their number. Orderinchaos 10:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)