User talk:Mayalld/Archive/4

Re: Speedy deletion of STAR Group
I'd like to discuss the deletion of the STAR Group page (been on holiday, did not respond in time). I can't say that I found any blatant advertising about it. I did take care in making it encyclopedic. I understand that not every company in the world needs to be listed on Wikipedia, but since I have been making a few additions lately regarding the translation industry, I thought it strange that such a major player in the industry was not mentioned. Especially when I see that it's competitors are allowed to have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDL_plc. a similar wiki page]. What would I need to do in order to meet your standards for such a page? (And yes, for the record I used to work for them once.) --Daha6439 --Daha6439 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no recollection of the article. If you could get an admin to restore it to your user space temporarily, I might be able to comment Mayalld (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

G12 speedy of Puerto Del Rey Marina
You tagged [:Puerto Del Rey Marina]] for copyvio from epa.gov. Work of the U.S. federal government is in the public domain unless stated otherwise. Puerto del Rey is a major marina in the Caribbean and I am working to clean this one up. I've taken the speedy tag off. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MBB FAC page
Gah, you are quite correct. Well spotted, I shall unscore that entry and work on it. It doesn't help when the people you email for sources don't reply :/ There are only two anyway, I'm sure I can replace them both with other references. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Medical degree
Hi, I notice you've picked up the WP:MEDCAB on this article. They listed it on WP:3 also and I picked it up from there. You could still be really helpful in the final stages of the negotiation. It's almost complete, but there's a snag with the final layout. Perhaps you could take a look? We are going to reconvene tomorrow. Fr33kman talk APW 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW: I see that you're keeping an eye out, thanks! Could I also ask you to actively critique my performance as an WP:3O or perhaps even from the standpoint of a potential informal mediator? I greatly value feedback and have just started doing this sort of task on Wikipedia (finding mainspace less interesting for some reason). I'll leave you with links to my 3O's so far and you can review those also if you wish. I'd really value another opinion. Thanks! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you closed the case. It was my first time "mediating" on Wikipedia so if you'd like to say how I did, I'd appreciate it, if not; no worries. Thanks! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete link
Please change in this archive (I'm blocked from this operation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greek_alphabet/archive_1#A_different_opinion_worth_noting.3F following non-working link: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language/archive0" into http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language that works, because new link is closest equivalent to old link, thanks. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Archives are just that, an archive of what went before. You should not be changing them, and I will not do so. Mayalld (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete this redirect nor request its deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language/archive0 it solves problem with archive pretty well. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the archive. The link is dead, but nobody cares about the link. You editing here is becoming extremely disruptive. Please stop. Mayalld (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Banned user
Please delete this talk (I'm blocked from this operation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikinger It belongs to user that is banned indefinitely, and contains only bot messages, thus is unneeded at all. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so I cannot delete. In any case, the page contains much useful information in its history about the antics of that user. Mayalld (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Googol
Please change in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol (I'm blocked from this operation): "10( 10 100 ) " into "$$10^{10^{100}}\,\!$$" to avoid bad rendering of this power tower. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it an appropriate change, you will be able to do so once you're account is 5 days old Mayalld (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinger / CBMIBM
Thanks for your message, although "(diff)(hist)User talk:Gb‎; 13:31(+251) Mayalld(Talk | contribs | block) (→Wikinger/CBMIBM: new section)" is, with no disrespect to you, a line I hoped never to see in my Watchlist! I'll have a look through the contributions and see what I reckon. GbT/c 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - When are you going to run for adminship? I'd be happy to nominate you... GbT/c 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was certainly a blast from the past! I'm going to be a bit busy over the next month (getting married), but I think I may run for admin in late October. Mayalld (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Both are surprisingly nerve-wracking, but the admin one won't cost you a dime. GbT/c 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and quack / blocked . GbT/c 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Glad to see that my Wikinger detector was working well after all these months Mayalld (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced mine - it's very sensitive, but still picks up IPs...GbT/c 09:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's beeping furiously....GbT/c 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)#
 * Did it not twitter at Special:Contributions/99.237.82.93? Mayalld (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's going mad - going off left right and center...GbT/c 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Want me to semi-protect your talk page? GbT/c 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be good! Only for a short time though. He will get bored soon enough! Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done for 1 week. You might like to add a link to a scratchpad (see my talk page as an example) - that way non-vandal new users and IPs can still message you. Remember to add the scratchpad to your watchlist, though. GbT/c 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deaths in February 2008
If you've noticed the headline, i put Jesse Burns on that very page. --Veraladeramanera (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did. I removed him, because he isn't a notable person. Mayalld (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You destory my work
Why you have done that ? The tables look so well.

I built that, that people can see who-is-who.

You are so rude as User UpDown. You work together against me. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits for two reasons, both noted in the edit summary;
 * The tables did NOT look good. There were spurious extra columns.
 * The tables were very badly coded. Unless there is some compelling reason to use html markup, you should use the syntax at Help:Table rather than html markup


 * Your comment You work together against me. is a blatant assumption of bad faith. I am not in league with anybody against you. I am trying to ensure that the article is improved, and I see one editor (you) having a temper tantrum, and flinging WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF out of the window on any occasion where somebody disagrees with your edits. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I correct the tables in the right from. I know the right form from other tables here.

I hope, it's clear and you can read the cast from UpStairsDownstairs better.

I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you STILL got it wrong. You ended up with a bodged table with a narrow blank column down the side, and some poor English in the body. Please, until you understand tables properly, restrict your use of them to the sandbox Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope, it's allright now. I made a lot of tables here, without the help from a sandbox. But I know, what I sandbox is.

English is not my mothers tounge, it's Austrian.

Please forgive me the mistakes in the tables. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya
Just to let you know, the WP:3 on Medical degree worked and the MEDCAB case can be closed. Do you want to do it, or should i? :-) Fr33kman talk APW 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Tourism Queen Nepal
Y are u trying to delete it. It is a nepali pageant and the winner goes to Miss Tourism Queen International(NepaliBoy7 (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)).
 * I have proposed it for deletion because it isn't notable. You appear to on some kind of crusade to include every single tin-pot beauty pageant in Nepal. Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne reincarnated
Pretty obviously as User:NORD74. He is just getting up to steam but I am sure in coming days he will become more assertive. JohnInDC (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at User:XXVI. Willing to go up against my $10 wager that it's him again?  JohnInDC (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI - WP:Suspected sock puppets/AlexLevyOne(2nd). JohnInDC (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He just can't seem to help himself. I've put the page on my watchlist! JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at User Italik. JohnInDC (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI - Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th) JohnInDC (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(5th). JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi Mayalld. Why do you think NORD74 may be a sockpuppet?


 * New account, but obviously experienced editor
 * Similar interests, in terms of obscure French Actors
 * Several edits to articles last edited by AlexLevyOne before his block
 * Same tactic of blanking his talk page without comment
 * There isn't one single thing that screams "sock", but there is a build up of little things that seem too big a series of co-incidences (although I freely concede that they may not be obvious if you haven't dealt with him before.
 * Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've already checked it... plus user:VingtSix. See Suspected sock puppets/AlexLevyOne. He still has his main account and that's okay. Just let me know if you suspect him getting back with other accounts.  --   fayssal   / Wiki me up® 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rules of engagement
Remove my comment? Then you should remove his, too. You clearly stated no response to each other, he pretended not to realize that (typical of his style). It should be removed or my comment should be reinstated. Even playing field, no? Prince of Canadat 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, even playing field! Give me a couple of minutes to remove all the various stuff that was outside the rules!!Mayalld (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How should I deal with this sort of nonsense? Quite apart from the fact that both he and G2 clearly have a personal issue/vendetta against me (one notices nobody else singled out in Gavin's archives, and only one in G2's--someone he also has a personal issue/vendetta with), how on earth does an editor get away with "compiling for possible future use"? How is that not an incredible breach of AGF? Prince of Canadat 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is something that we will come to as the second phase of the mediation. Mayalld (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * G2baminbo will use the mediation to stall. After an agreement is reached, it will be ignored and PrinceOfCanada will be faced with the same frustration. --Lawe (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, a possibility. However, in agreeing to act as mediator, I intend to assume good faith on both sides of this dispute. If either goes back on an agreement later, there isn't much I can do about it. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A big assumption. Well at least you'll try. --Lawe (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a big assumption, but I stick by it. Clearly we haven't reached agreement (and we may not do so), but I don't equate that to any lack of good faith. Mayalld (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Mayalld; as you seem to be aware of, more good than bad came out of the exercise. Much more, I'd say. Have a happy, internet-free homeymoon, and hopefully you won't be completely absent from any future proceedings about this matter of images. --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, a good deal of credit is due to both of you for the way that you stopped bashing each other and engaged. I really hope that you can yet find some kind of compromise where you each give just a little more, and I hope that your fellow editors will be able to help find that compromise. Good luck! Mayalld (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you're still around, could you please drop by and Images (x3)|clarify?  Prince of Canadat 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of STAR group; article recreated
One of the editors helped me restore the article to my personal pages. Please take a look and let me know what else needs to be done to fit the guidelines for inclusion and notability. I ask you to please refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDL_plc. this article] to see a similar article. --Daha6439 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, referring to another article isn't relevant (the other article should be deleted in any case). The decision as to whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia is made by reference to guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles.
 * The relevant guidelines here are WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS
 * The problems with this article are;
 * Nothing that appears to satisfy WP:CORP, so far as notability is concerned.
 * A lack of reliable sources
 * I should add, so as to avoid confusion, that the following are not reliable sources;
 * Blogs
 * Entries in business directories
 * Incidental mentions in articles about something else
 * Material published by the company itself
 * Press releases
 * Other wiki sites.
 * Mayalld (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, the article does not meet the criteria you refer to, and neither did the other article I guess, since it was deleted. Not that many independent sources on the web (that is not translator's blogs, forums and magazines), so I'll see if I can locate any other printed sources and return to the subject someday. STAR and SDL are among the biggest translation companies in the world, and their respective CAT tools form two different industry standards since they have different approaches to recycling. I think the subjects should somehow be covered in Wikipedia, but I have yet to figure out how to write articles with content verifiable by anyone who has not been in the localization business. --Daha6439 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User UpDown
He destory my work again. I put the links to the dates in the articles for example about Princess Helena (daugther from Queen Victoria), but he remove them. Thats very rude.

I leave him alone, but he don't do the same.

Please help me. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst you are clearly upset that your work has been undone, Wikipedia policy is clear that the dates should NOT be linked.
 * You clearly think that it looks better with them linked.
 * The fact that people can't always agree on what looks best is the main reason that WP:MOS exists. Where there is a disagreement about what is best, WP:MOS settles the argument.
 * Sorry, but User:UpDown is correct. The links are contrary to the manual of style, and should be removed. It is unfortunate that you spent time putting them in but we don't work on the basis that if somebody put a lot of effort into getting it wrong it gets left alone.
 * You really need to calm down, and stop flinging abuse and accusations about.
 * Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for fixing vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it! Pip (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lando247
Just an FYI, your SSP report has been resolved by Requests for checkuser/Case/Lando247. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi I am HammyBot and I am new to Wikipedia! Any advice on stuff to do and users to avoid and to greet? Please Help! Thank You sooooooo much!  HammyBot  --HammyBot (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Much appreciated.Mr T (Based) (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America MedCab and User:45Factoid44
I'm quite confused as to what's going on here. Despite saying he wanted nothing more to do with this User:45Factoid44 appears to either intentionally or unintentionally using other accounts to comment and spread word about the MedCab. He responded using his previous IP address, 96.5.66.240, (without accepting or rejecting the rules) and violated your rule about responding to other comments and far exceeded the 30 word limit. And I notice he has been going around to people who agreed with him during the debate lobbying them to respond, re-signing his posts as User:Harvyk. Also, how is he able to quote sources from 2004, when the airline hadn't even been launched yet? NcSchu ( Talk ) 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite a few issues there!
 * To be fair, you comment in that section also exceeded 30 characters. In the circumstances, I have decided not to be too pedantic about the 30 character limit (but if we start getting diatribes...)
 * I cannot be certain that 96.5.66.240 is 45Factoid44. If you think he is, and you believe that he is using a good/bad hand here, WP:SSP is the way to go. I have invited him to disclose whether he is in fact a named participant.
 * I have now struck out a number of comments for commenting on others, and for being second comments contrary to the rules.
 * Whilst I expect those whe are named in the medcab to explicitly sign before commenting, I am prepared for other interested parties who were not named to participate without signing. I will still hold them to the rules.
 * I will monitor the lobbying. It isn't a major issue, because this is a mediation, not a vote, and I am unmoved by force of numbers over policy.
 * Whilst I understand your frustration, it would be better if you left laying down the law to me!!
 * Mayalld (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did try to keep down my comment as much as possible, but it was a bit difficult. I also didn't see that you put 'one comment'. As to possible sock-puppetry. It was just an observation that when 45Factoid44 registered he claimed that he used to edit as 96.5.66.240 as you can see in Talk:Virgin America ("45Factoid44 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Previously < 96.5.66.240 (talk) >"). Now, yes, it's an IP address, but I just find it unlikely that two members of the same school district would have very similar interests in editing airline articles. When I was investigating that I noticed that seven minutes after 96.5.66.240 made a comment on somebody's talk page, 45Factoid44 re-signed the comment as Harvyk, which was odd. NcSchu ( Talk ) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this being a shared IP Address, I am not the user noted above but rather someone else at the institution who owns it that frankly doesn't even know the user and noticed this in the contribution history. Since that user has withdrawn and the commentary on the talk page showed that there was only one side of the dispute involved in the mediation based on the poll they took, I decided I had an interest in getting involved. However, if that is not allowed because I am not a named party I would understand. Could I become an involved party? Is there someway you could make me an addition to the list? Just in one swoop I think I have found better sources to represent the other side of the argument than those who were before. Of course, I included theres too though as that can't hurt right? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize then, but you can see why I was probably a bit confused given 45Factoid44's use of that address and your similar opinions. Perhaps you'd like to register a user name? NcSchu ( Talk ) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please accept the new sources that I provided to try and show that LAX doesn't fit as a focus city as my voicing dissent and go tell Aviators99 that he is subject to the same rules about one response that we are and that he isn't the co-mediator here either as he seems to think he has some kind of buddy buddy connection with you which is not fair to the other users in the dispute. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't do buddy buddy connections. It is open to anybody to raise an issue with the mediation direct with me here, and I will respond accordingly. Where responses on the article talk page contravene the strict letter of the "rules", I will take each case as it comes. The request to re-state was technically out of order, but it was not an unreasonable request to make, so I let it stand. We are here to resolve the issues, and the rules exist only to support that. If we start arguing about the rules, we aren't discussing the issues! Mayalld (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More than one response was unacceptable in terms of your rules and should not be a privilege granted to some and not others which strictly speaking is what you're doing if you allow more than one to stand for him and not for others. Also, saying that he thinks you should just call for dissent and that he doesn't think there will be any appears as if he is attempting to be buddy buddy and hurry you through the mediation without considering the new side that is being presented so that it why I was concerned about that. I wasn't accusing you of giving in to it, but at the same time I wanted to express to you my concern about the fact that he was trying to do so. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing about my asking Mayalld to restate the dispute is that it favored you (45Factoid44), at the expense of my side of the dispute! If the dispute was stated as it was, it would have been a decision between a hub and a focus city, *none of which are acceptable to you*.  I asked the dispute to be restated in order to give you a chance to state your case.  For you to complain about it is odd. Ron Schnell 06:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ^^^Too Funny! I don't know 'em but talk about ironic. As posted on the article:Where is the reputation for this airporthelper.com? Not exactly the USAToday. It also says Quantas is hubbed at LAX but Quantas's wesbite(the airline does need to play a roll when you start calling it a hub) does not include it in the list and VX's doesn't either. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck your comment from the sources section of the Article talk. As I stated when I started this mediation, it is important, in order that we get somewhere, that all participants observe a set of rules that constrains how discussion goes.
 * The basic principle that we have adopted is that of a meeting, with a chairman (me). Everything must go via the chairman, and if the chairman invites contributions, people must stick to the subject in hand.
 * I have invited the submission of sources, and undertaken to review any sources that are submitted, to determine whether they are relevant and whether they are reliable. I have not invited a free-for-all on whether people agree with my classification of the sources.
 * In due course, I will invite comments as to whether I have it right on the classification of sources.
 * I would comment at present that it is true that this website is not USA Today, but that WP:RS does not require that all sources be of that calibre. Having reviewed the source, it was my view that it is borderline, but that it is a reliable source. Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the source has explicity incorrect information with regards to another airline then how can you trust it to provide correct information regarding the one which you are discussing in this Medcab case. Also, you must recall that I filed the mediation request so this isn't a free for all. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with your mediation. You've been biased and careless with the sources since the beginning. This encyclopedia is definitely not of the caliber of Brittanica, Encarta, or getting your information from the companies themselves. It's no wonder that everyone on my side of this argument has gotten fed up and left the dispute. This will not be over when this particular mediation session is. I intend to file a "formal mediation" request as soon as you all conclude. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not fair. I've been involved in a MedCab case (as a disputant, with Mayalld as the mediator) and have looked at his actions in multiple cases. He is extremely neutral, makes decisions on facts and evidence, and is far from careless about anything. It's your right to seek formal mediation, of course, if you feel the need to do so. But accusing Mayalld of bias and carelessness is not only rude, it's also incredibly wrong. [ roux  ] [ x ] 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He started the mediation having only recieved acceptances from those on the side of including LAX, allowed parties on that side to post more than once and have extra wiggle room in the beginning, immediately said the dispute was whether LAX was an FC or a hub rather than whether or not to list it as anything which was the real dispute, and per above remarks is trying to seal the conclusion based on a source whose inaccuracies and unreliability are painfully obvious. Because of all that I will not accept the outcome of the mediation and the dispute will continue regardless of the outcome. I don't know how you can call that dilligent and neutral. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the specifics of the case; I am suggesting that your characterisation of him is dead wrong. This is where you need to go if you feel informal mediation isn't working. Bear in mind that the only step after that is the Arbitration Committee which issues decisions that are binding on all participants. It's usually best to try and work things out before they get to that step. [ roux  ] [ x ] 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Factoid44 is now editing the Virgin America page, despite the progress of the mediation (which he started). Ron Schnell 06:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dislike the fact that Aviators99 thinks he's above the rules and is obviously completely ignorant to all the above the commentary stating who I am and who I am NOT. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are or are NOT, stop your editing to remove the focus city. I get that you disagree.  You called for mediation.  You don't like the mediator's conclusions, and have vowed to ignore them.  Your comments on your edits and reverts lead people to believe I am vandalizing, while you are the one doing so. Ron Schnell 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, I think the revision history of the SSP page is enough evidence by itself that something incredibly screwed up is going on. Sorry that this whole thing has kind of escalated out of control. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mayalld on where we are with this mediation
Well, that was quite a flurry of comments overnight. Whilst mediating from a different continent has some advantages (you are more detatched from the issues), it does have the problem that a lot can happen whilst you are asleep!

Several issues have arisen above, and I would like to answer each of them in turn;

I came to this mediation with no preconceptions about the issue, and have tried to familiarise myself with the issues. Where I have made errors of fact, I have been happy to accept that I have gone wrong. A mediation is about reconciling two sharply contradictory points of view, and it is inevitable that both cannot be wholly correct.
 * My neutrality as mediator.

The fact that a mediator doesn't agree with you isn't evidence of bias, and statements that suggest that I have shown deliberate bias are a pretty flagrant breach of WP:AGF. I would like to thank Roux for his kind comments on this point (particularly as he endured my wagging finger a couple of times during his own MEDCAB case).

However, if you are not prepared to accept that I am a neutral mediator, I must offer to withdraw from the mediation. Likewise, if you are saying that you will not accept the result of the mediation before it is concluded, the mediation must be regarded as failed.


 * Mediation is not a free-for-all

Very true. It is a process that the mediator controls. I have attempted to set ground rules, and to apply those rules with a light touch rather than a heavy hand. In applying that light touch, I have shown no bias, and have shown latitude to both sides.

The comment above seems to imply that as 45Factoid44 filed the case, he should have some say in how the mediation is run. I'm afraid that I must utterly reject this concept. The whole idea of mediation is that one party in a dispute decides that they aren't going to be able to work this out together, and invites a neutral third party to manage the negotiations.


 * My starting the case without unanimous sign-up

I concluded that this was necessary. 45Factoid44 had stated that he was leaving Wikipedia, and one of the parties was an IP that had only edited once. In the interests of keeping as open a mind as possible I didn't try to assign the participants into camps before the mediation started, so I was unaware which side those who signed up to the rules came from.


 * The identity of participants

It was raised early on that 96.5.66.240 was the IP address that 45Factoid44 had acknowledged as having been the address from which he edited before obtaining an account.

96.5.66.240 refuted any claim that he was, in fact, 45Factoid44 and we were assured that it was a coincidence that two people accessing via the same IP address had very similar views. This was accepted in good faith by myself and other participants.

Indeed, assuming good faith would seem the only thing to do here. If the two were in fact a single person, it would be one of the most spectacularly stupid and inept attempts at sockpuppetry ever seen on Wikipedia.


 * Reliability of sources.

Throughout, my approach has been to put forward points that the participants can agree or disagree with. Where a point is disagreed with, we can discuss it further. Hence, if anybody disagrees with my assessment of the sources, they can add a comment under the comments heading in the sources sub-section to explain why they disagree. We can then look at taking the proposed source to WP:RSN for more outside input.


 * Conclusion.

The mediation is unlikely to achieve a sucessful outcome, unless 45Factoid44 is prepared to give it a chance. Deciding that you don't want to carry on if the result isn't going your way isn't the way we do things here!

Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from aviators99

Mayalld: I'm sorry that you wasted your time with this. It is thanks to people like you that Wikipedia is a useful resource for the world. You approached this problem with logic and reason, and all but one of us was willing to accept your recommendation. Unfortunately, as you know, we are now back in the middle of an edit war, which seems to have escalated even more than when we started. I believe we are dealing with a child (or child-like personality) who lacks logic and reason, and will not abide by rules when things don't go his/her way. I would like to personally appeal to your reasonableness to at least give us some advice on how to deal with the issue of the rogue editing. My experience with Wikipedia is small editing here-and-there, and have no experience in "situations". Thanks again for your time. Ron Schnell 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please come back and help us get this over with. If 45Factoid44 is a sockpuppet then he is not worthy of saying he doesn't like your mediating. AirlineNerd (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point NcSchu ( Talk ) 05:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirlineNerd (talk • contribs)

User:45Factoid44 has become active again and had assumed bad faith on quite a few people and had unreasonably threatened at least User:Cashier freak. It's time to escalate this and due to the complicated-ness of this matter I'm appealing to you to take action instead of reporting to other general admin pages. (from one of the signers in the mediation) 75.19.39.142 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping.
Hi. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... check your email, pls :) — [ roux  ] [ x ] 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A note about your advice to G2bambino. See the bottom of the RFC: Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. It's a learning curve for you both I guess, so I hope it clears it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As a very infrequent participant in RFC (I prefer resolving things more informally), I knew that the process was designed to avoid the whole thing descending into arguments, but wasn't quite right on how to achieve that. I am now better informed! Cheers Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock
I'm checking in on the Virgin City dispute that was rejected by the Committee. I saw that you are involved in informal mediation, is that going well? --Tznkai (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is slightly stalled due to some unexpected busy time. I hope to progress it today. Mayalld (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of NEC ExpressCluster article
My artile on NEC ExpressCluster did not include any promotional material. It just simply stated that ExpressCluster is a product in HA clustering, there after I explained about genral clustering concepts. I dont know on what basis my article was recommended for deletion. Pleae let me know the shortcoming of my writing. I want to know the exact issues in my article, so that I can improve it. I saw many other articles about similar product on wikipedia, I think they are promoting their product but still they are there on wikipedia. Kindly refer to Veritas Cluster Server, Microsoft Cluster Server. All these pages are simply promoting their respective product. Kindly give me some solid reason why these pages are here and why my page is deleted although my article was totally generic in nature.

Looking forward to your response on my talk page. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravd05 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have previously explained why I regarded the article as suitable for speedy deletion, but will restate it;
 * There was no evidence that the subject was in any way a notable product.
 * The article consisted of no more than a brief description of HA clustering (already available in a far better article), and unsourced assertions that this product was, in some way, slightly different to other similar products.
 * It isn't particularly the way the article is written, more the fact that your objective seems to be to gain "placement" by having an article.
 * Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, and what constitutes “fannishness”? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN
For your information, a thread has been started in which you are mentioned over at WP:AN. GbT/c 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of NEC ExpressCluster article
Hi Mayalld, I hope you are doing good. I am expecting your response on my earlier post on your talk page. It would be nice if you can reply to the same. I am in talk with thingg (administrator), who delete my page on our recommendation. As per thingg, article was not notable and there was no issue of promotional material in artcle as suggested by you. My article was very simple and only explained about high-availability clustering in general. I was supposed to update that article with more information but it got deleted very soon. Looking forward to your kind response.--Gauravd05 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My response is above, on my talk page. If you start a conversation on my talk page, that is where the conversation is conducted. I do not participate in conversations which are split across multiple talk pages, making threading impossible.
 * I note your converstaion with the deleting admin. It remains my view that repeatedly creating an article without establishing notability is a promotional act, seeking to gain placement in Wikipedia.
 * The article was indeed simple. As I told you at the time, unless you can show that the product is notable, it will be deleted. Devoting half of a very short article to a general description of HA clustering doesn't change the fact that the product failed to demonstrate notability. Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indie Spotlight
I think your move for deletion of article Indie Spotlight was uncalled for. The article was created and not bothered until it was vandalized after asking for help in protecting the article so it can be worked on properly we were told to step back. We did that and the Vandal changed the article to make the toy line fictional which is untrue as part of the line was sold at SDCC 2008 show in San Diego. So it seems the vandals original plan was to have the article seen by editors who would not do any research and delete it. --JMST (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is one of the perils of complaining. The article had fallen under the radar, and nobody had spotted that it was a puff-piece to promote a company. You brought it to mass attention, and suddenly it was on the radar, and people started to realise that there was nothing notable here to keep. Mayalld (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that but the company is noteable and it was brought to attention to stop the Vandals which worked against us. --JMST (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the company is notable, create an article about the company. You don't create articles about a product to talk about the company! And I ask again, why do you say "us"? Is JMST a shared account? Mayalld (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry my english is not the best I mean me not us I am just one account. I have started a Shocker Toys article and hopefully it can be fixed up nice and have Indie Spotlight redirected. If you can please help or correct me if I make any mistakes along the way.--JMST (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock
re : an apparent sock (host, edit pattern, targeting me) of. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, spotted his deletion of a sock notice, and reverted him on that. Waiting for another bit of vandalism before going to AIV Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd already got him there. Now blocked. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Help.
Talk:Monarchy of Canada [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much help I can be. I have tried to give G2 an honest opinion, without becoming embroiled in the dispute, but I get a sense that anybody who disagrees will get nowhere with him. Mayalld (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, that's always the case with him. Should I add the recent exchanges there to the RFCU? [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest not. There is ample information there already, and those who contribute properly to an RFC/U will review more recent contributions themselves in any case. Mayalld (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for trying. This is really going to wind up at ArbCom, isn't it? [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

 * A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The RfC/U discussion continues about G2 in particular. Is this a reasonable addition to the restrictions? . I'm just wondering of this behavior looks familiar to you and is part of a pattern. --soulscanner (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not intending to be drawn directly into the debate, for the simple reason that I find G2 to be thoroughly exhausing to work with on anything. It is my view that G2 will not agree to anything that he hasn't already seen a loophole in, and that even if he and Roux accept identical restrictions we will, within the week, have G2 doing something that is clearly outwith the intent of the restrictions, whilst claiming that there is some policy that can be read to support his actions, whilst simultaneously crying foul over some non-existent breach by Roux. G2 has a mission, to push his POV, and will engage in any amount of disruptive editing and wikilawyering to get there. Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your bias, and the way in which you express it, Mayalld, is very disappointing. The above has, unfortunately, just wiped out the last of my initial good impressions of you. Let's hope, then, that, if we interact again in future, we can at least be professional. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't bias, it is a considered view of the way in which you choose to interact with people. You wear them down, you stonewall until they give up. If this was a game of who blinks first, you would win. Clearly, you no longer have much regard for me, but that is fine, because I don't seek your high regard.
 * You have won. Roux has been driven from the project, and will no longer be an obstacle to you. I hope that it makes you happy. Mayalld (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But, the resulting view seems to imply bias in your preceding considerations. For instance, you've assumed I wanted Roux gone, when there's never been any such expressed desire from me, either im- or explicitly, neither before nor now. It also seems that you've excused Roux for some of the behaviour you admonish me for (not to say I feel I should be excused from anything I've done).
 * If I may express my opinion, Roux is a good editor, but generally only when working alone or without opposition or critique; yes, I bear my own biases, but I come to that conclusion having seen his interactions with others in addition to my own experiences, and recent events seem to only support it further. It is my sense that in these circumstances he genuinely believes himself to be a victim, and, seemingly sensing some threat, responds to the most gentle criticism with the most vicious vitriol. While that can cause some problem in itself, the preverbal shit hits the fan when thrown into the mix are stubborn individuals who don't buy his claims of innocence and casualty, after which the intensity of the conflict increases exponentially. If it wasn't already obvious: I am one of those stubborn persons, believing we alone are responsible for our own actions. Thus, I honestly don't for one minute buy that Roux was "driven" to do anything; he chose to participate here in the manners that he did, both good and bad, and he chose to leave; just as I chose to participate in the manners that I did, chose to leave, chose to come back, chose to leave again, chose to come back, and choose to admit much of my editing habits were the wrong way to go about things. I like the idea of Roux no longer being an obstacle, but do not feel comfortable about the way in which it came to be; I'm not sure that anybody's actually won in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinions come from the conclusion of the Medcab case onwards. As to whether Roux felt driven away, I have an honestly held opinion of that, and I have an e-mail from him about it. He hasn't as yet given me permission to share what he has written, but I think it fair to say that if I made somebody feel like that, I would feel a pressing need to examine my own conduct.
 * It is certainly true that Roux did things that he shouldn't have, but the stark facts are that his interactions with other editors haven't given cause for major concerns, whilst you seem to have quite a collection of editors that you can't get on with. You really do need to face the possibility that it isn't necessarily everybody else that is in the wrong.
 * Think about it. Mayalld (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the old cliché: "it takes two to tango". However, those users who were on the receiving end of Roux's reprehensible behaviour certainly were given cause for concern. I find the general dismissal of their concerns and the excusing of the bad behaviour to be undamirable in itself. --G2bambino (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shocker toys
The more I look into it, the more I become convinced that no RS exists, or doesn't exist to the level that provides notability. All of the sources provided so far seem to be smoke and mirrors that *suggest* that products are just around the corner but.. never seem to make it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

user and talk page

 * Actually didn't mean the protection tag to be fake. I really thought we could protect our own pages. My problem is you removing my retirement message. Leave the tag if you want. I made my good faith case and won't be here for the result anyway. It's a shame you have to try and make accusations against me because someone from my school followed me into a case and took your invitation to say they didn't like your mediating but if thats the way you feel like you have to be then more power to you. Just speaks poorly of yourself. 45Factoid44 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AndreaMimi
Hi. While I really, really appreciate your support there, I did say to her she could write in German if it was easier. I wonder if you could withdraw (strike through?) that warning? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not prepared to cut her any more slack. She repeatedly breaches WP:MOS, has huge WP:OWN issues over "her" articles, is incapable of civility, and the instant that somebody picks her up on something pretends to be unable to speak English. Mayalld (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Crown copyright
Hello sir. I have just been reading the OPSI guidance on Copyright in Public Records and I noticed that Paragraph 5 ends with the statement: "The reproduction of images, including copies of documents, is not covered by the waiver". I am concerned that this means images such as this and this are not covered by the Crown copyright waiver, although it appears to contradict the earlier statement "users may copy, quote, index, transcribe, publish and broadcast the text of Crown Material in all formats and media". As the creator of the Crown copyright template, perhaps you could advise. Thank you, Labalius (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Certainly! What they are saying is that if they supply something as an image, rather than in its original format, the waiver doesn't apply. Basically, as long as they didn't create the image, the waiver applies. Mayalld (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Labalius (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about birthyear from Rosemarie von Trapp
Rosemarie von Trapp is born 1929, but some sourches (like the national archive in boston) say 1928. How can I put this information correct in an article about Rosemarie ?

Eleonore is born 1931 and Johannes 1939, that's ok.

Rosemarie never married and had no issue. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Look here
Miep Gies - this article use the firstname about her and not her surename. Miep turned 99 in Feburary of this year and his still alive. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, OK, you've found another article that doesn't follow the convention.


 * But what of it? Do you imagine that either;
 * The existence of one article that doesn't comply means that the rule no longer exists
 * "Your" article shouldn't be fixed until every other article has been fixed.
 * Neither makes sense. We fix articles as we notice that they are wrong. We block people who deliberately try to undo these fixes.
 * Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's & G2bambino's departure
I hope they decide to return. It's tough to see any registered editor packing it in. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of G2 and Roux, I think it might be a good idea if we all (myself included) stopped running around various pages saying who was to blame for what and who did this etc etc... Let us forgive and forget, and when they both come back (which they will I am sure) it will be a nicer atmosphere for all if we RIGHT NOW bury the hatchet. Gavin (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ((That was not aimed at GoodDay btw) Gavin (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace
I didn't get this term. Now I understand. Do you want me to undo my removal of the tag or just agree with you at the RfD page?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way would be for you to ask for speedy deletion of them all, by adding to each of the redirects. Cheers! Mayalld (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the prod tag from Noted player, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! From WP:RFD: However, avoid deleting such redirects if:...  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links....  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. 6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form. --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Hi! Just a note about your mass-requesting of protection. In the future, try only to report articles which are heavily plagued by vandalism, and maybe ask an administrator to review them if you're going to submit so many? :D Thanks for the contributions though! Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh! It is all a question of degree, and how many people are reverting vandalism. Here we have a single user, who has a long history of tenditiously editing the articles contrary to WP:MOS, was blocked for a week for it, immediately returned as an IP to make the same tenditious edits, was indef blocked for block evasion, and is now back on a daily basis, with a different IP every time, to make the same edits. There is only one editor reverting her vandalism (me), and I'm having to revert each of the articles every day. The volume of vandalism on each article isn't huge, but taken over the set of articles that are being vandalised in a single batch, it does seem to be a "heavy plague", and we really have no other effective means of dealing with it, because wack-a-mole blocking the IP will do nothing.Mayalld (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at those there seem to be two IP ranges being used. If this continues I'll see about a rangeblock of those. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I was rather wary of asking for a rangeblock of an entire university. I think the best way to proceed is that on the next incident, I will warn her that she is in danger of getting the whole university blocked from editing (to the IP, and her blocked acount), and if it happens again, I'll ask for a rangeblock. Mayalld (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my comment
When I saw what was written by G2bambino, I saw the need to defend some important values. If you see that there is more harm than good in what I wrote, then I will respect that. --Lawe (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst it wasn't a particularly severe personal attack, it is my view that regardless of the merits on either side of the Roux/G2 issue, no good will come of people closely associated as allies of either side fanning the flames.


 * Both parties need to work damned hard to avoid further problems, and they will do better if left alone to do it. Mayalld (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am confident that Roux has learnt some valauble lessons. --Lawe (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming G2 will return when his Block expires (Dec 4), I hope Roux chooses to stick around. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
When does the Sockpuppet tag go away now that the case is closed and my block has expired and we are moving on?? VandalismWatcher3533 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You may remove the tag now. However, given that it was established that you were playing silly games (because, like most, you tripped yourself up, and claimed to be the IP user whilst logged in), it remains to be seen how soon people will move on. You are now known to have used sock puppets in the past, so people will watch for you playing the same game again (and changing user name won't alter that). Mayalld (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing a reputation may be challenging but I have right to and intend to try regardless. They'll also see that I got a Barnstar before the Sockpuppet case came about which didn't just come out of clear blue. I'd really appreciate it if you'd help me work to be a better editor and focus on the future rather than dwelling on one poor decision and telling me why I'm not likely to be successful. I'm only interested in those who are out to be friendly and helpful right now and not those who want to challenge or criticize me at every pass and will walk away at a moments notice if all I get is the latter. Which one are you going to be? VandalismWatcher3533 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (Please respond on my talk page if you choose to do so.)


 * Responding here, because I dont do conversations over multiple pages Yes, you have a right to try and rebuild your reputation, and there are many, me included, who will support you in doing so. My concern at this juncture is that, having made a serious error of judgement (and make no mistake, telling deliberate lies so as to make it appear that there was more support for a particular POV than there actually was counts as a very serious error of judgement), you seem to be intent (by your WP:CHU request) on expunging the history as soon as possible, to give yourself a clean slate.
 * Personally, I reckon that rebuilding your reputation would seem more sincere if you didn't try to obscure your past.
 * Also, I must say that your first spell of Vandalism Patrolling was not a huge success. You made too many mistakes, and you need to remember that having an automated tool like WP:TW is not the whole story. You remain responsible for your edits, and you must take sufficient care to get it right.
 * In general, you can put the past behind you, but you must remember that should you foul up again, it will inevitably be brought up. The best way to ensure that it fades in people's memory is not to foul up again. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you sure haven't done a whole lot to be supportive so far. You've disparaged my attempts and continued to criticize me without giving me any actual advice at all. My user name change was denied for reasons which you can go look at yourself if you so wish, so my user name won't be changing at least for now and I've ceased using the new name in my signature. Also, once this discussion is over I'll initiate future conversations on my page and they will be carried out in their entirety there instead. 45Factoid44 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't think I'm being supportive or that I haven't offered any advice. I believed that I was offering advice, whilst necessarily setting that advice in the context of what has gone before, because the advice takes you from there to where you wish to be. For what its worth, I was rather surprised by the decision at WP:CHU. Anyway, you wanted advice, so here goes;
 * Stick with the same username. People are quite happy to accept that you have reformed, and will believe it all the more if you don't obscure your past behind username changes.
 * If you have had any other usernames in the past, disclose them now. Show people that you are making a new start.
 * If you are doing recent changes patrol, remember that so are many other people, and that in many cases somebody else will beat you to the button in reverting. This can lead to a temptation to rush to a decision as to whether an edit is vandalism, so that (just once) you get there first. You must resist this temptation, as it will lead to erroneous vandalism reverts.
 * Whilst poachers turned gamekeeper are welcome, it may be better to spend a couple of months exclusively editing articles before starting to criticise others for their edits.
 * The normal convention for user talk page conversations is that if you wish to initiate a conversation, you do so on the other person's talk page, and continue there. Insisting that you will initiate conversations on your own talk page could appear arrogant, and I would advise against it.
 * I hope that you find the above advice useful Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your advice. That's what I was looking for. I don't have/haven't had any other registered user names and I never used any other IP's but the two that are already out there. I also won't pursue any further a change of my current one until my reputation has been fully repaired. Now I have some questions:
 * What are the least controversal projects and/or ones going through the most growth right now that I could edit?
 * How do I make the talk page archive code I copied(was obviously junk...will never copy someone elses attempt again...lol) work in a reliable consistent fashion?
 * 45Factoid44 (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason why you're refraining from answering my most recent questions? 45Factoid44 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the subject of talk page archiving, it was simply because I'm not particularly familiar with making auto archive work, because I don't use it. As to uncontroversial areas, I was assembling a list of things that you might get involved in as I noticed them, and intended to post them once I'd got a fair selection for you to select from. However, you really need to look at how you relate to other editors. If somebody doesn't respond to a question as rapidly as you want, accept it and move on. They may respond later, they may not respond at all. Getting testy with people just because they don't do what you want when you want them to do it is NOT the way to build a reputation as a constructive editor. Mayalld (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P
I see you reverted my removal of a comment on the Baby P talk page (although it has since been put back by someone else). I fully agree that there was a good reason to keep it but, ultimately, it has already attracted some flippant comments and, stuck at the top of the page as it was, could only continue to do so. Fortunately, there are other arguments for not adding the names to the article that are still there on the talk page and I think the point has now been well enough made that it's not necessary to keep this flame magnet on the page. Happy editing. GDallimore (Talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see that the page is attracting irrelevant content, but I would assert that the reasoning behing a continued blackout on the names is important.
 * At present, the names of the Mother and Boyfriend are easily available to those who care to find out, but are not otherwise known to most people. As such, any putative future trial would not be tainted. It is, however, important to consider that as the mother's name becomes common knowledge, the names of the older sisters will also be likely to emerge (as far as I am aware, their names have not been revealed, although they are easy enough to find)

Waterways DYK
Thanks very much for your contributions to the portal. I added a new page to the random DYK section and quickly discovered I needed to edit it. Could be difficult to find in future, so can I suggest we add edit links to Portal:UK Waterways/Did you know/List? I added one to line g3/31. If that is ok with you and I haven't done anything that will affect your coding, I will go ahead and add it to all lines. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I spotted that just dumping a load of transclusions in and using the redlinks made it hell to edit once you had added an entry. So, in the interests of making this page easy to use, I've created a wrapper template (Template:UKWDYK) That either adds a transclusion and an edit link, or adds a "create this" link according to whether the page exists already. Had to wait for the morning, because nesting curly brackets in templates takes a lot of caffiene!! Mayalld (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of rotating entries is a really neat one & I'd like to use it on Portal:Somerset we have loads of DYKs listed at WikiProject Somerset, but I'm wondering how complex the code is?&mdash; Rod talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The main rotation code isn't particularly complex. It assumes that Groups 1 and 2 are fully populated, and allows for groups 3 and 4 to be partly empty (and puts up messages encouraging people to add more). You could copy the relevant pages and it would work just fine. The code that helps with the editing (Template:UKWDYK) is slightly more complex, and would need to be modified as well. Give me a couple of days to try and make the code a little more portable, and to write some documentation :-) Mayalld (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm happy to wait for "portability" & documentation - could you drop me a note when you are ready I'll then have a go.&mdash; Rod talk 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Waterways news
Dave, I just created a template for formatting news items (Template:UKWN), and tested it on the Slough Arm item Portal:UK Waterways/News/2008/12. I pushed the publisher and date to a new line and in small text. I think it looks cleaner that way. Any comments before I roll it out to all the past news items and documentation? Derek Andrews (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks absolutely fine to me!
 * I altered the code this morning so that last months news drops off 5 days into the new month. It isn't what I would like as final state, but it is a step forward. Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will go ahead and roll it out shortly.
 * My original plan was to do the drop off manually. I was going to keep maybe three full articles, then maybe 6 headlines only, linking to the archive page. I'm not sure how that could be automated. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting challenge... Mayalld (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

UKW portal
just saying also well done for fixing the portal. Simply south (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One-Name Studies
Thanks for your vigilance in protecting One-name study from ill-advised edits. I am not entirely clear though why the weasel template was applied to the article. --JB Piggin (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The template applies only to the ethics section, and could equally well have been a NPOV template. I applied it, because that section does not present facts. Rather it represents the authors view of the correct ethics, and presents them (without substantiation) as the view of most researchers.
 * In actual fact, some researchers hold to this position, whilst others hold an opposing position, and others hold a position in between.
 * The section as it stands fails to represent all major viewpoints, and misrepresents a single viewpoint as being held by most people Mayalld (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer Controversy
Please could you explain why you accuse me of making a misleading edit summary. Ros0709 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary didn't mention that you were turning the article stub into a redirect, which I believe it ought to have done for clarity. I should perhaps add that whilst I don't think making it a redirect was the right thing to do, I do believe that you did so in good faith, and that there was no intention to mislead. Mayalld (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I tried to cram as much as I could about the reason for the edit into the summary. I maintain that the event is much better addressed in the article itself - it contains a lengthy section about the cover and the controversy around it. I am not affected by any restriction; if you are, a small section of the article says:

In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release. Nevertheless, the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK"). In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity that runs Wikipedia, stated, "We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world." Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which had the side effects of degrading performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.


 * I see no benefit in the duplicate article and maintain that changing to a redirect is more appropriate.

Ros0709 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion, but I have to say that I don't share it. The current controversy, whilst triggered by the album cover is not about the album. It is about a supposedly democratic society censoring Wikipedia, and needs to be spun off as a distinct article. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As of 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC), Virgin Killer Controversy is also blocked (via Eclipse Internet); as is Virgin_Killer_dummyURL and other variants of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer* Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, not only are they censoring content, they are attempting to censor discussion of censoring. IWF are playing a VERY silly game here. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, they are; but it's more likely ISP incompetence, in this case. The article is now at Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia, BTW. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Medical Degree
I'm sure your edit was made in good faith, but please read the ongoing discussion on the talk page of this entry before deleting chunks of it. To sum up: An osteopathic medical degree, despite its qualifier, is still a medical degree--its holder is eligible to diagnose and treat patients. In the same sense, a naturopathic medical degree, whose holder is licensed to diagnose and treat patients in 1/3 of the United States, is also a medical degree. The consensus we've reached on the talk page is that in order to offer the most clarity and least POV to users, we should include any degree whose holder is eligible to diagnose and treat patients somewhere in the world. Lamaybe (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be what a vanishingly small number of editors who still have the energy to engage in the ridiculous debate think. The simple fact is that most editors have long since lost the will to live over this debate, and have moved on. The fact that those who wish to push a particular POV are prepared to stick it out until hell freezes over doesn't mean that there is a consensus. It means that some people have a remarkable dedication to pushing a POV. The article is about a "Medical Degree". Anything that uses the words only with a pre-modifier is not a medical degree.
 * The article used to be a redirect, and has been totally disputed ever since the POV pushers tried to get CAM in.
 * Why they do it is a mystery to me. If CAM is the equal of conventional medicine, why on earth do the feel the need to ride on the coat tails of conventional medicine by trying to attatch the kudos of conventional medical terms to themselves. Mayalld (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1st Circle
As you have been prodding these "Nth Circle" articles, a note for you that all these are at AfD; you are welcome to comment there. I thought a single AfD would be more efficient that 8 prods. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've commented there, although the AfD does need to be totally explicit that the other articles are up for deleteion, and the Afd header heeds to be added to the other articles Mayalld (talk)

Nonsense
Cowtipper is not nonsense by any strech of anyone's imagination. That CSD is used for complete gibberish. Instead, try AfD or PROD for such articles. Wily D 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You also tagged Been There, Seen That, Done That. as nonsense, and it was also not nonsense. It failed A1 (not enough context to identify) and a second (A11? The album by band where bad has no article), so I deleted it anyways.  But please familiarise yourself with the criteria for speedy deletion before nominating things. Wily D  12:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I still regard the contents of both as complete gibberish, but if you don't regard them as such, I accept that your opinion is just as valid as mine. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but that's completely impossible. If you don't know the meaning of the word gibberish, wikt:gibberish may be a worthwhile resource.  But a drink recipe can't be considered gibberish - an article that read "Ynnngth AMAMA 77&$ words eats eats eats feets.  Beats like beets. Aether gimbles and aether gambles." would be gibberish. Wily D  14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * speech or writing that is unintelligible, incoherent or meaningless
 * needlessly obscure or overly technical language
 * The definition doesn't require random strings of letters. A drink recipe can be incoherent, unintelligible, or needlessly obscure, whilst still using words that are individually recognisable. Mayalld (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can be, though is definitely not so in this case. I could make a cowtipper without difficulty (I wouldn't, because it'd be disgusting).  That's because the article is entirely coherent, intelligible and meaningful.  It's just not notable. Wily D  14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall keep in mind that CSD requires a greater than average standard of gibberish in future!! Mayalld (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

psst,(speaking so nobody else will hear so I don't get scolded also) that article is nonsense, imho of course. Happy New Years! --Tom 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson‎
I see at least 3 "last warnings" on that guy's talk page. How many "last warnings" does someone get before "this time we really mean it"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the first "last warning" was back in May. The one that I've just given him was a direct response to his attempt to claim that the more recent warning wasn't valid because the user issuing it had some history with him. Mine is a confirmatory last warning! Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence a "this time we really mean it". I was amazed he got away with that obscene personal attack last May. Presumably its target decided to take no action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add another comment to this page under the heading of Ton O'Bricks, but I see the topic is already open. You might want to scale back your warning and just add a confirmatory comment to the previous section on Jeffrey's talk page. WLU left his final warning only about four hours prior to yours, and as far as I can tell there have been no problematic edits since then (to Talk:Insanity or elsewhere) which would justify a further 'final' warning. A warning should be just that; I'm concerned that he'll interpret a bunch of repetitive templates as nothing more than a goad to drive him off the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He has effectively stated that the warning from WLU is void, and requested that another user deal with the case. I will clarify though. Mayalld (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His latest commentary on his talk page reminds me of a scene from Duck Soup, but I'd just as soon not elaborate at this point in time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Real Estate edits
You've followed behind me today, undoing all of my edits, and I'd like you to reconsider. I work in the commercial real estate industry with online commercial property exchanges. Wikipedia's content in this area is lacking, and I was making efforts today to fill in gaps and connect related items. I also strove to keep my edits objective and unbiased. Please take another look and either revert your changes or let me know exactly what it is you are taking issue with. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brockzilla (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It became apparent that you were engaged in a determined attempt to promote your company on Wikipedia. As is normal in such cases, I looked at your recent contribs, and found that you had in fact been attempting to insert mention of your company onto as many pages as possible. This is known as linkspamming, and isn't tolerated. I am satisfied that my actions today are supported by Wikipedia policy, and would point out that you are currently on a final warning for disruptive editing. As such, I would advise that you don't try to push it any further. Mayalld (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your policing of Wikipedia. I mentioned this elsewhere already, but I also apologize for my deletions of the speedy tags -- I hadn't encountered them before and neglected to read the instructions.  I can also see how some of my edits today might be labeled as linkspamming, but I urge you to reconsider each separately.
 * The entry I added for Catylist is, I believe, very objective -- if it's to be deleted it should be due to lack of notability (not linkspamming).
 * Adding a list of competitors to Loopnet's entry. I do believe the list I added was complete and added value to the article, but can understand you excluding it if having a list of competitors isn't valuable for the article.
 * A Commercial Information Exchange is a legitimate technology used by the MAJORITY of commercial brokers in the country. It's not some product being promote by a particular company.  Again, I've tried to be very objective with the article and have included half a dozen citations.
 * The changes I made to Real_estate_investing, Commercial_property were centered around linkage to the CIE article.
 * So while I understand your concern about linkspam, please take another look. What is it that's problematic?  Is the tone too promotional and not objective?  Do you understand commercial real estate well enough to think that the content isn't accurate?  Let me know.  I don't want to linkspam, but I many of the edits I made today do add value for those reading up on commercial real estate.  Thanks. Brockzilla (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of WP:AGF, I accept that your removal of the speedy tags was not deliberate (although I would point out that you really ought to have realised sooner, given the warnings you were getting on your talk page). The entry for Catylist was proposed for speedy deletion because it was promotional and lacking in notability, and I note that an admin has now concurred with that view and deleted the article.
 * Whilst this article lead me to examine your contribs, and that examination lead me to believe that your edits to other articles were linkspam, that doesn't mean that the Catylist article was linkspam.
 * Sorry, but I stand by my initial view that your product does not warrant inclusion. I note that you attempted to write neutrally, but would respond that it is nigh on impossible to write neutrally when you are too close to the subject. That is why WP:COI discourages you from writing about your own company.Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for talking through this with me. Brockzilla (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pearland Town Center
So, why did you decide to delete what I had written so far? Luckily I saved it. Sheesh. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed it for deletion, because the article has no funclion other than to promote a non-notable mall. Mayalld (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nutbrook Canal rating
Hi, thanks for re-rating the Nutbrook Canal article from B to C. I do not know how it got a B in the first place. I have now expanded the article considerably, and referenced everything, and wondered if you would have a quick look to see if it is now a proper 'B'. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)