User talk:MarcGarver/Archive 11

Castlevania edits running rampant with an anonymous user
An edit war is re-occuring in the Castlevania: Lords of Shadow page with the anonymous IP:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.13.67.26. (formerly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.13.77.142) He insists on re-editing the page based on his misinterpreted understanding of the MoS, which he uses as a means to support his personal opinions. He also been known for blanking plot sections in other Castlevania games such as Castlevania II: Simon's Quest. Could you please resolve this issue? Ryu Heishin (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Ryu Heishin

Please could you block this user. They are making damaging and offensive comments about a mother and child
Please can you block user Lambourgenie they have been making damaging and offensive remarks on Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) page about his girlfriend and child. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desirrred (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail call
Just sent you an email. Worm TT( talk ) 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Received, replied - thanks QU TalkQu 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied once more, also, I've turned this into a blue link. Worm TT( talk ) 10:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't send you an email, but I will leave you this note: I appreciate the comment you just made at your RfA in response to my remark. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't mind which way it turns out - I've got plenty to keep me busy now! QuiteUnusual TalkQu 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's not going quite as well as I'd hoped. At least you've got a lot to take away from the process. If it does end as unsuccessful (which at the moment, I expect it will), I am sure you will sail through a future request, which I would be glad to (co-)nominate you for. In any case, I just wanted to say how impressed I am at you keeping your cool, and that you've done a good job surviving the process. Worm TT( talk ) 09:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite an interesting process, with some useful feedback so worth going through from my perspective. I'm only sorry that your nomination success rate has been impacted! I always thought I was a marginal candidate due to the relatively light content contribution, so I'm not overly surprised. I've been an interested observer in the debate around how awful the RfA process; I didn't find it so. I didn't struggle to keep calm but I think that if candidates can bite their tongue and keep calm it would go a way towards keeping the whole process more polite. That's a guess of course. Thanks for your help - QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd rather put through candidates that I believe in than dead-certs. If they've done enough to impress me, I'm happy to nominate. I don't mind too much about my success rate, but I'd be bothered if I wasn't reviewing people and helping them along. I'm glad to see you've reacted so well to the entire process, I hope you keep an eye on discussions regarding it, it's always nice to have someone with experience to put forward their views. Worm TT( talk ) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Very kind of you and much appreciated! QuiteUnusual TalkQu 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slaughter and May
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slaughter and May. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hello QuiteUnusual. I'm sorry to say I've closed your RFA as unsuccessful. The majority of the concerns seemed to be focused in one area, that of understanding the ideas and consequences of plagiarism, so I'm hoping you can address these in the next few months before reapplying. A large number of editors supported your application so I'm fairly confident that if you can demonstrably tackle the oppose concerns, the next RFA will be a success. Thank you for your time and effort on the project and for volunteering for RFA, please don't hesitate to give me a shout if you'd like to discuss this further. Kind regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and to anyone passing by to read this, thanks for all your comments and advice; I will be paying attention to all of it. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QuiteUnusual</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 19:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A second area that you might look at is in response to this answer "I'm not qualified to answer this for RfC, RM or DRV" - spend some time finding out how each of these are closed and why. RM is trivial - what are the criteria for moving an article to a better name and was it met? Basically as an uninvolved closer one is supposed to simply evaluate the strength of the arguments but I do see a small amount of voting by closing. That is a good question for you to ponder (no answer here is requested or expected) - Is it ever appropriate for an admin to vote by closing? In other words if there are 9 yes and 1 no votes, is it appropriate for a closer who would have voted yes to do the close in that direction? If it was 5 yes and 5 no votes? In the case of RM there are frequently no votes other than the nomination, or only one yes or no votes. RM's unlike RfC's, which the bot lets run for a month, normally run a week, and can be relisted if warranted, to automatically give them another week. Just so you know. RM also has a new RM close review process, but so far has only existed as a rubber stamp of whatever close was chosen. Hopefully the airport one will be the first that is overturned. Apteva (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to stop by with some advice, it's much appreciated. I'll be sure to do as you suggest over the coming months - thanks. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QuiteUnusual</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)