User talk:Latish redone

RFA
Thanks so much for supporting me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwith talk   04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on finding my secret page! I started out with this one, and will make a harder one in the future, and have them get harder as I go on ("secret page 2", "secret page 3", etc.). I'll let you know when "secret page 2" goes into effect. Cheers!
 * My second secret page is in effect. Better get looking! =) hmwith  talk  19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/hmwith 2
I removed your vote, please wait until it's listed. Giggy Talk 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Real World: Austin
Sorry, I apologize for that. I should've looked more closely at the specific season being cited. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Benito Giuliani
Don't ever do that again. east. 718 at 04:40, December 17, 2007
 * Attack pages are strongly frowned upon. east. 718 at 22:55, December 28, 2007

U-N-I-T-E-D
I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with your removal of the PROD from U-N-I-T-E-D. The article is just a boorish chant and isn't notable. Fine, it being offensive may not be a good enough reason to get rid of the article, but it's deliberately targeted against Manchester City and is needlessly offensive. I'm not convinced it should be part of wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Virtual Console
Just in case you're interested, I nominated Microsoft Virtual Console for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Microsoft Virtual Console. Dreaded Walrus t c 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of All That Money
An article that you have been involved in editing, All That Money, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/All That Money. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Duel II
Just so you know, I updated the article that you nominated for deletion ( The Duel II ) and want to know if the changes alter your opinion of its status. Actually, it was rewritten from scratch and moved to a different title (being there is no such show as The Duel II currently in production, but there is a Summer Challenge being filmed.) Zredsox (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Contested prod on AJ Walsh
It would be of great benefit if you would explain on the article talk page why you have contested the deletion of this article. The prod template explained quite well why it was nominated, which is essentially that after doing some research, there is nothing to support that anything on this page is truthful. There are no listings of this person having been in the shows which are purported on the page, and the MySpace page that supposedly referenced the claims in the article is set to private. Ther is one other MySpace page that is just some high school kid's personal page and the "songs" he supposedly has recorded was done in his bedroom. Why then is this person notable? Will you be improving and adding references to verify the claims in the article? If not, then what purpose is there in the page's retention? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Island
Let me get this straight. You decide that an article is a recreation and in need of speedy deletion after I spend an hour updating it, but previous to that it was fine (being you made edits yourself.) I am very confused. Zredsox (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Issue resolved. Zredsox (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd please stop stalking me around wikipedia, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Zredsox (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop it with the holier than thou posts on my talk page. We both know what you are trying to do. Actually I'd appreciate it if you didn't post at all on my talk page. Thanks.Zredsox (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like no further communication. I ask kindly that you refrain from contacting me in the future.Zredsox (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN/3RR for violating the three-revert rule on the Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) article. Zredsox (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Toon05 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

AfD nomination of Elsayed
An article that you have been involved in editing, Elsayed, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Elsayed. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seat configurations of the Airbus A380
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Newton
I've been helping out at WP:BLPN today, and you're more than welcome to join the discussion there about Newton. I agree that ESPN seems to be a reliable source, but Wikipedia doesn't report everything in the New York Times much less everythng that ESPN reports. Instead, Wikipedia has policies like WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS which say that we should wait awhile until things develop and get finalized before including them here.Anythingyouwant (talk)

WPGUNS vandalism
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:WPGUNS. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.


 * link to incident

I do not know why you felt the need to add that map to the talk page template for WikiProject:Guns, but I have obviously since removed it. Please refrain from edits of that nature. I would expect better out of a distinguished member such as yourself. Thank you. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hello. I have just closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Thank you for volunteering as an admin candidate. It often takes several attempts at RFA for folks to be successful and the key to success is to take the advice from the folks who opposed your candidacy and apply it to your editing. If you would like to reopen your RFA, please let me know. If you would like additional feedback from the community about your editting, consider WP:Editor review. Please don't let this stress you out or change your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Good luck and happy editing.--v/r - TP 04:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Discussion moved from my talk page.--v/r - TP 04:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My rfa was closed after less than three hours active. I would prefer that it remain open while some comments I have made have not effectively been received by the "!voters", and I also reply to further comments made. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in)  04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you reconsider. I'll of course reopen it, but I'd really like you to consider two points first.  1) Generally folks who are successful at RFAs have around 4000+ edits and at least a solid 6 months of consecutive editing and have no blocks.  2) That if you really want feedback, the appropriate location is WP:Editor review.  If you consider both of these points and still would like to proceed, I will promptly reopen it.--v/r - TP 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I need feedback as an editor, just as to why I would be unsuitable as admin. Although if one really needs 4000 or so edits, I guess there might be no point in continuing since I don't expect to ever reach that level of editing WP --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in)  04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 4000 is actually on the very very low end of the spectrum. I had 5000 when my RFA passed and I'd consider 7000 on the low end too.  Most folks with successful RFAs have 10,000+ edits and years of experience on Wikipedia.  I might be able to dig up hard statistics if you're interested.--v/r - TP 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with someone with 2000+ edits, but I do expect a decent amount of recent edits (at least, say, 100 per month for the last 6-12 months) and having worked in admin areas. I definiely need to see recent evidence connected with the areas in which they say they want to use the mop (eg someone who says they'll do page protection needs to have spent some time submitting valid pages at RFPP to show they understand what they're getting into! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the statistics here, if you're interested.--v/r - TP 04:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the issue is not about the edit counts, but about demonstrating a history of using the many tools available through Wikipedia. It seems apparent to me and I presume to anyone else who examined your proposal that you seem to be much less experienced than all current administrators. Please do not be discouraged, and enjoy your time using Wikipedia. If your relationship with this website changes then apply again in the future.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC) x2

Cam Newton article
You are making a mess of the Cam Newton article. You have repeated references 13, 14, & 17, to where they are (in your version) both 6 & 16, 7 & 17, and 8 & 20. Do you know how to reuse reference links? If it's not already named you need to name the reference by beginning with >ref name="WhateverNameYouWant" ref<, and then after any other uses of the reference, simply type >ref name="WhateverNameYouWant"/< (or just use the Named references tool). As someone who has made hundreds of edits, you should know this, or were you just being really sloppy?

Also, the cited article about allegations of academic cheating links to the original FoxSports.com article that it itself cites, which reports the allegations of an unnamed "source". Both articles clearly state the allegations cannot be corroborated by official sources, but you have written them as fact, as well as citing them as the reason for his transfer. These are violations of the WP:NPOV policy.

It appears you may have a NPOV problem regarding Mr. Newton (witness your "$cam Newton" redirect, which does not even redirect to his 'Eligibility controversy' section, but the article as a whole). As a UF alum and Buccaneers fan from Florida, I personally do not like Newton, but as you well know at Wikipedia that does not matter. If you believe his problems at UF belong in the introductory paragraphs as well as in the University of Florida section, then write them in a way which is has a NPOV. Please do not write unconfirmed allegations as fact, and then link to an article that states they are unconfirmed allegations. I'm reverting to the old version until you can come up with something better. If you can't, please just leave it alone. Thank you --72.186.190.220 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious redirects
In addition to the $cam Newton redirect mentioned above, I have deleted Benito Giuliani. There is no indication that Giuliani is known by that name, and under the circumstances I can't muster enough belief in your good faith to consider it anything but an attack with reference to the late duce. Your use of the blatantly false edit summary "Adding/removing wikilink(s)" when creating the redirect doesn't help. Don't create any more such redirects, or you will end up being blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cam Newton
I have started a discussion about an issue that you are involved in at Talk:Cam Newton. Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment request
Since you were interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, I feel you might have an interest in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Basically, there are three issues. 1. Should we have rivalry navboxes for conferences; 2. Should we have a policy to make each conference's navbox include non-conference rivalries and/or non-football rivalries; 3. Should we have individual school rivalry navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Benito Giuliani as well as numerous articles and WP:Coatracks related to Cam Newton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Cam Newton eligibility controversy was created only as a coatrack to support your comments at DRV related to Scam Newton. See WP:GAME. A quick look here shows a disturbing pattern - with a final warning for the same article (Benito Giuliani) dating back to 2007 (see above). Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's awfully hard to view that article as neutral given the blockquoted prominence you gave to the monetary quotation, and your misattribution of it to Cecil Newton Sr. when we only have Kenny Rogers' word that he actually said it. Splitting directly from the relevant section of Cam Newton or Cecil Newton, Sr. would have been a better idea. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And whether you get unblocked (seems unlikely) or you sit it out, please don't read what I just wrote as a suggestion to go ahead and re-create the article, even as splits from the existing sections, or you'll just make everyone's reblock-button fingers twitch. Let someone else create it, if they think it's warranted. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion - you are User:Rhinoselated who is indefinitely blocked.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Airways listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sydney Airways. Since you had some involvement with the Sydney Airways redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)