User talk:One/Archive 5

Before Archive 5: Archive 4  After Archive 5: Archive 6 

'''These are the next fifty messages after Archive 4 that appeared on my user talk page. If you'd like to respond to any of these messages, please do so on my current talk page.'''

Peer review for Myanmar
Hello, I have begun a peer review for Myanmar. Please express your opinions at Peer review/Myanmar. Thank you. Hintha 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign
Hi SushiGeek, you forgot to sign your oppose vote at Requests for adminship/Kylu. I have added an unsigned template for you. Yours, Rje 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my RFA
I feel that the fact that you have not produced any actual evidence against me weighs sufficiently severely for me to withdraw my nomination. I am happy for you to oppose me if you disagree with anything I have done, but I will not stand being accused of something unspecified, especially not including personal attacks, as in the case of one opposer. I urge you to closely review my contributions and respond on my RFA, or I will withdraw. I regret that this is happening so close to the deadline.

Yours sincerely,

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
Sorry to see you falling from faith, though!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case
had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by and  blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Comments on RFCU itself


 * Other Admins contacted


 * Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply


 * GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance until the talk page was protected. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Spam that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." 


 * GoldToeMarionette Contributions


 * Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts


 * Example post to 66 article contributors


 * Example post removal from 66 article contributors


 * HereToCleanup's Contributions


 * No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. GreenAnkletMarionette 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies
I would like to extend my apologies to you for my vandalism and personal attacks. Some time ago I obscenly attacked your political affiliation- and although I do not agree with this party, it was simply uncalled for for me to attack you because of my own affiliation- and once again I am deeply sorry. I will be working with user:GangstaEB on a vandal-clinic program, and look forward to dealings on a much more possitive note with you in the future.Betty Yves 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on User:Kylu's RfA
Hi! I took the liberty of correcting your formatting at Requests for adminship/Kylu as I'm assuming you were voting there and the formatting you'd applied wasn't counting it as a vote. I do apologise if I was wrong and you were merely making a comment. --Guinnog 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since leaving this message, I now realise you are one and the same as Sushigeek. I apologise again for trying to fix something you obviously intended. However, I wondered if you might consider in future only participating in a debate like this under one user-name, to avoid situations like this recurring. Thanks. --Guinnog 10:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No ads template
Hi, I've just joined up, having seen the template on your page. But it doesn't seem to work on my home page. How to do? Tony 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mogaeft.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mogaeft.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved comment found under redirect from User talk:SushiGeek. --WinHunter (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya
Hello,

I've recently added Libya to the candidature for Featured Status. I've been the main contributor to the article. The main opposition against it becoming featured seems to be copy-editing. The article needs to be copy-edited by fresh eyes and I, unfortunately, have been looking at it for the past 10 months.

I know it's a long article so I only ask of you to copy-edit what you can or whatever interest you in it.

Thanks a lot,

Regards

--Jaw101ie 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Denver 2008
Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for your support, 1ne. If you wish, you can help the campaign further by promoting the template, and the category; Wikipedians for Denver 2008. If you've got any questions, comments, etc., I can be reached anytime through my talk page. Anyhow, thanks again for your help and support! Editor19841 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A few notes
When closing RfAs early:


 * 1) Please use the correct templates. Users look for the background colors and are confused when they don't see them.
 * 2) Change "Ending [date]" to "Ended " so the time you closed it shows.
 * 3) Don't close ones you've voted in, even if they're obvious failures; determining consensus and voting are not compatible.

Thanks. Essjay ( Talk )  00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User page case
Thanks for trying this, unfortunately in my browser (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060425 SUSE/1.5.0.3-7 Firefox/1.5.0.3), it doesn't render properly so you can see the top 3rd of the old text still, same here with your userpage. --pgk( talk ) 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks
(Never mind, I found it...) :-) Grand  master  ka  07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I thanked the opposers too, not just you. Grand master  ka  07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes/Beliefs
It saddens me that your actions will have the effect of ensuring the deletion of Userboxes/Beliefs. Consensus on userboxes has not been achieved, and taking actions such as these seems premature, considering that process is important. I'm content that this will be a case where I'm not in the group that prevails, but I wanted to share my feelings with you. Thanks for your time. --Ssbohio 04:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe consensus does exist, though. Also, Jimbo himself said that subpage and all of the userboxes on it were going to be deleted "shortly" way back in March, and then two weeks ago he prodded that page. The writing's been on the wall for awhile now. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been clear for a while that we are both sincerely on opposite sides of this issue. To me, Jimbo's expression of opinion on the matter is just that, an expression of opinion.  I respect him & his opinion, just as I respect you & yours.  However, unless & until he speaks ex officio, his opinion is just that.  In my view, the userification of userboxes per WP:GUS has not become policy, as consensus on it has not been reached.  Because of that, I see the deletion of Userboxes/Beliefs and the userboxes listed thereon as (at the least) a reaching beyond what consensus supports, or, at worst, an attempt to create a fait accompli & effectively short-circuit consensus.  That's tempered by my strong feeling that this is one of the least productive situations I've witnessed here, with each side contributing to my view.  I know what Wikipedia is not, and I understand the logic behind the German solution, I have my own logical analysis that I'm working from.


 * I would ask either Cyde or 1ne to undelete & restore Beliefs and place it at MfD, if the belief is that consensus supports its deletion. Clearly, from the logs, consensus among admins concerning this deletion can be questioned.  Process is important.  --Ssbohio 05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuck process. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the discussion, Tony. I'm not sure there's enough in your comment for me to understand where you're coming from.  In this instance, why should process be fucked?   Is the concept universal?  That is to say, if there were a page I sincerely believed shouldn't be part of this project, would it be advisable for me to "fuck process" and delete it?  My view is that process is important because it insures that the community's values are protected.  I'm sure it's a concept you've seen & used in your experience as an ArbCom clerk.  For these reasons, I'm just not sure I understand your position from an (albeit colorful) two-word phrase.  --Ssbohio 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you saying things have been done outside of process? I think WP:TGS is the process now. At which point it's understandable that as soon as all of the userboxes in a given category are userfied its corresponding userbox subpage is deleted as maintenance (no point in keeping around an empty page). -- Cyde↔Weys 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  If someone would like to have this page german-ified| to their userspace to maintain the index, preserver the history, and/or work on box replacements; let me know and I will restore it to your userspace. Emerging consensus (in many places, including the last mfd on that page) are to userfy all of this stuff.  I disagree with the last speedy deletion, but not to the point of reversing it.  (The last time I reveresed it it was still full of active boxes, this time it was links to box soft redirects).  Any sysop can overturn the speedy deletion, and then anyone can relist this on MFD, (although it was there recently, it has signifigantly changed since last time). —  xaosflux  Talk  14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde, the deletion was made under CSD:G6. To the best of my knowledge, the page was never tagged for CSD, and it is difficult for me  to comprehend such a deletion as being noncontroversial housekeeping.  To my understanding, that's at least two ways in which the deletion was out of process.  Add to that the evidence of controversy, in that the page's deletion had already failed to gain consensus at MfD, and that previous attempts had been undeleted by other admins, and a claim that this fits under G6 doesn't seem reasonable.  I'm not saying the page isn't deletable, but that it isn't speedyable, as the deletion is prima facie controversial. --Ssbohio 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may need to read up on the deletion process if you think something has to be tagged first before it can be deleted ... and I say it's non-controversial because there's nothing controversial about deleting an empty page, you can't try to manufacture a controversy over something like that. By your logic I can just get into an argument over any random userbox and then delete it because it's divisive.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only can you, I believe you have, in previous userbox deletions. But, that's beside the point.  It's clear that the deletion of that page is controversial.  It was proposed once, with no consensus to delete.  Then it was deleted twice, and undeleted twice.  Its contents were removed once & reverted back.  Then you & 1ne eviscerated its contents & then you assert that it's a noncontroversial deletion because it's an empty page.  That's like killing your parents and asking mercy from the Court because you're an orphan.  It strains credulity that any deletion of a userbox page could be considered noncontroversial.  That this particular deletion could be considered noncontroversial strains the bounds of reason. --Ssbohio 04:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to how you think this is some "gross process violation" as there is no such thing. Additionally, if your opinion is that the wrong thing was done here, then it was wrong regardless of process. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why you feel this particular move was wrong (without making any reference to process). I don't know if 1ne can provide redress if it turns out his actions were mistaken, but I'm sure he'd be grateful for the learning opportunity. -- Pilotguy (roger that) 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to address the points you raise. However, I'll confess that I'm not fully clear on what you're saying.  If you're saying that there is no such thing as a violation of process, then it'd be hard for me to accept that premise without a strong argument to convince me.  Clearly, process does get violated, in my estimation.  Such situations end up in dispute resoultion all the time.   In this case, it's a question of testing for & building consensus.  When a deletion is made as CSD:G6, the requirement is that the deletion be noncontroversial housekeeping.  This page has been deleted & undeleted twice before, and its contents have been removed & restored before.  That appears to make deletion of the page controversial, and therefore outside G6.  Using G6 on a controversial article subverts the process that ensures consensus on page deletions.  That is what's wrong here.  Process is important explains it well, with reference to shortcuts around process:

In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply "fix" the problem as one sees it. Often this is technically possible on Wikipedia. Sometimes many people will support it. The problem with yielding to this temptation is that it damages the overall structure of Wikipedia. It throws sand in the gears of the project. When people see others acting outside of process, they may be convinced that they ought to do the same; or they may be convinced that their individual voices and views will get no respect or consideration. If everyone acts outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a collaborative project; we have an anarchy.


 * Saying that the wrong thing is wrong regardless of process doesn't comport well with the consensus-building nature of Wikipedia. It's not enough, for example, for a change in an article to be objectively correct, it must also be supported by consensus.  Deletions work the same way.  This deletion is either a noncontroversial G6 or a controversial candidate for MfD.  Had I the ability, it would surely be wrong of me to speedy delete a page when I had reason to believe that such deletion was controversial.  As the page was emptied to facilitate its deletion, then deleted despite the manifest & obvious controversy about its deletion, it isn't reasonable to paint this as a noncontroversial deletion.  Being right -- even if this deletion were right -- isn't enough.  A consensus has to exist that the decision is right.  --Ssbohio 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CONSISTENCY? NPOV?
How is the inclusion of a notice that "This user supports the U.S. Democratic Party" or has a particular sexual orientation any less an "ad" or advertisement than a notice that a user supports the ONE campaign "Make Poverty History?" (which this user's "redirection" of that user template (MPH-ONE) altered on my talk page; it probably should have been on my user page, but now the redirection of the notice makes that not feasible). See 1ne's own user page for all the notices (and ads) listed. Scroll up for discussion of the inclusion of support for the U.S. Democratic Party.

[NB: This query is not based on any particular political disagreement, as I support the U.S. Democratic political party too. Rather, it is a query re: lack of consistency (and even hypocrisy) in redirecting a notice concerning support for "Make Poverty History" by a user who includes a notice for supporting the U.S. Democratic Party, etc. (including the sexual orientation notice).]

If this user (1ne) is "opposed to ads" in Wikipedia's users' pages, then a notice of support for a political party and a notice of having a particular sexual orientation (a highly political issue these days) do not belong on this page. See the other items included as well from a similarly consistent position. What do all these notices "advertise" about this editor and his/her neutrality or lack of neutrality as an administrator/editor in Wikipedia? Ironically, if one is "against ads" in Wikipedia, why are there so many of these notices included on this user's own user page? Such notices also call into question users' ability to have and to achieve NPOV.NYScholar 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I misinterpreted the redirection of the Make Poverty History ONE campaign notice that led me to this talk page. The idea of being opposed to ads in Wikipedia misled me, since I interpreted that to me throughout Wikipedia, including such notices on people's own user pages.  I've replied on my own talk page and added what appears to be the proper tag to my user page (on a trial basis). I still don't quite understand the purpose of redirecting the ONE campaign notice, however.  It's confusing.  I think it was an easier tag to post the way it was originally. NYScholar 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Eluchil404's RfA
Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructie critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. Your expressed rational in the RfA was per Tony. If you have the time I would appreciate some suggestions on what specific actions I can take to remedy the problems I dentified by Tony Sidaway. If not, no problem; I still appreciate the feedback. Eluchil404 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bogus warnings
Perhaps you should pay closer attention, "dude". MSTCrow's previous "warnings" were removed by (whom he called a liar), and he's has already been warned about how the so-called warnings are bad-faith nonsense. This is a user who's wracked up 4 blocks since March, so check out his contributions on Talk:National Public Radio and Requests_for_arbitration for a taste of whom exactly it is you're carrying water for. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me for thank you
I too am from Wisconsin, I was born in Milwaukee. Hopefully, we don't section titles that are even more recursive! Being an admin is cool, I just closed my first AfD! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your support opinion on my RfA. With a final vote of (62/0/1), my RfA passed, and I am now an Administrator. I will work hard to ensure that the tools entrusted to me will not be abused, and will wield my mop proudly. Happy editing! -- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

G4 does apply to Mountain-stub because....
...it was designed to serve an identical purpose to Maoririder's stub - that is, as a template to mark mountain stubs. Grutness...wha?  00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Gulam Moonda article
I think your deletion of the Gulam Moonda page was inapropriate. The Moonda murder case has recieved national attention, as you can see here: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gulam%20moonda%22&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wn Trilemma 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Authorized! :)
I am delighted to have you as co-nominator, dear SushiGeek, Wikifan, 1ne, and no matter any other names you wish to choose, you'll always be :) I would be honored if you restore it... please...? :) I was afraid you were mad at me because I declined your original nom, it was such a relief and a pleasure to see you co-nominating me. Have a great weekend, and thank you so much for your kind words at my RfA, dear - they really, really mean a lot to me. Hugs,  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 22:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Please do feel free to restore, it's just that some commenters tend to hold multiple noms as a sign of a problem (I got an oppose over it) so separating the post acceptance noms (of which there are many) is a way to defuse that problem. I'm glad to see your support is so strong that you wanted to nom too... So please consider putting it back. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Fantastic Four #1
Hi, I noticed you closed Articles for deletion/List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs. Apparently that's something you do. Given that there was equal votes for delete and merge, I was wondering why you closed the debate without contributing to the discussion. I would have liked the opportunity to rescue some of the text before it was deleted. Regards Journeyman 04:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there an archive of deleted articles somewhere, or is the entire history lost when an article is deleted? Thanks. Journeyman 04:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Found an archive via answers.com Journeyman 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!
  Open your card! Dear Sushi Geek (you'll always be SG for me! :), thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best. Dear SG, it is great that our paths have crossed again, and to see that you're doing fine. I hope the little misunderstanding between you and Lar is cleared up, and please know that, as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing, nothing wrong between you and me. Your extremely kind co-nomination and support meant incredibly much to me, and I'll cherish them forever. I look forward to talk to you more. Please, visit me any time you wish, it'll be my pleasure to keep in touch and see how you're doing as often as possible. Take good care! :) With a big hug, your friend,  P h a e d r i e l ♥  tell me  

GHe's RfA


your recent wave of deletes
Hi. I am looking at the newpages and I see that you're going around creating deletion notices for a number of wikispecific terms to avoid (I suppose) recreation. That's all good of course but wouldn't it be preferable to have some sort of redirect to the Wikipedia namespace? After all these terms are likely to be searched for by editors with little or no experience trying to understand how things work around here. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am aware of WP:ASR. All I am saying is that you could have a sort of redirect saying "hey this term you're looking for is not deserving of an entry in the encyclopedia but if you're looking for its meaning then go to the Wikipedia namespace". I don't think it's helpful to have a dead end instead. Pascal.Tesson 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bell System
On the opening day video for EPCOT Center, it says "congratulations to the Bell System on the dedication of Spaceship Earth", so shouldn't the sponsor for 1982 - 1984 be Bell System? Or am I missing something here? BTW Ray Bradbury was a huge part of Spaceship Earth's creation. --blm07 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you


Current mac project collaboration
The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Poloyoe
Poloyoe was voting twice, one of the votes being User:Stif1e, which was an imposter of User:Stifle. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki User Wiki
Dang, with all the name changes and wiki breaks and such, you aren't an easy man to track down. Anyway, I'll get to da point. What's happening with the Wiki User Wiki? I (or another Fanstuffian) would be glad to take the data and do something with it, but the important thing we need to know is: do you have the data, and if so, are you going to do anything with it? If you don't have the data, it's okay, but if you do, it would be preferable if something is done with it, be it by you or me or another person. Cheerily, Super Sam 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have the MediaWiki files, please send them to me (ericmanal@hotmail.com), because I already have a temporary host. - 20eric06 from the fanstuff wiki

Dude! Redux
Why did you bother to leave a comment on my (Apostrophe) talk page, 8 days after I ceased using it for personal reasons? There was nothing recent to attract your attention. Regardless, I've clearly explained the reason of the omission of "the" in several summaries, if you'd bothered to read them: Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Please do not contact me again unless you have an actual problem with me. I have no desire to be an active member of Wikipedia again. 65.29.167.251 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request
{| style="background-color: transparent;"
 * class="boilerplate" class="metadata" id="protected" style="width: 95%; background: #ffffdd; border: 1px solid #aaaa88; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; text-align: left;" align="left" |Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Wikipedia as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC) PARC User Interface Research Group

user:Betty yves
this is user betty yves- but i'm not signed-in- i do highly regret this, but i must beg you to please delete my account, because i am having a serious internet security issue because of it- you may leave a message about this on my (Betty yves) talk page if you must, but immediate deletion would be preferable- i am 100% serious about this and the fact that i stupidly left my name and age on the account in the past has caused me to be seriously susceptable on google and i may be being stalked because of it- so i ask you- please please delete my account or at least the page for it if that is possible- thank you

thank you sincerely for your speedy action- it has saved me much trouble

sorry to bother you about this again but it isle on very serious- the personal information i left on my userpage is still availible on google when i do a searchunder my name (see this)http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+heraty - why is this? and is there anyway to prevent this material from showing-up under a search since stalking may still happen because of it

PESWiki delete
According to Articles_for_deletion/PESWiki, you were the one to delete PESWiki.

I put a lot of time into updating that site today to come into conformity with WP:WEB, citing references to PESWiki in mainstream press articles, including Wired, LA Daily, Provo Daily Herald (top 10 news in Utah). I did not save the most recent version because I thought there were seven days of review before a site is deleted. You deleted it before 6 days was up.

Could you send me a copy of the code for the version prior to deletion?

I have a working email link on my user page.

Sterlingda 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been taken to DRV, BTW. --jam  es (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria Dracula
I'm confused. You closed the AFD as keep, but deleted the article. Was this just a case of "wrong button"? Not that I'm overly attached to the article, but the result was kind of strange. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Broad Street Licensing Group
You closed the AFD as delete, but the article seems to have survived so far. Does it have 9 lives like a cat? :-) Brianyoumans 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your asinine Pat Riley edit
Regarding this

Why did you undo the alterations I made?

Among some of my edits, I rightly shifted the "immaculate tan" sentence from his "==Biography==" secion to the physical features discussion, I added a "==References==" section, piped the "trademarked" and "Byron Scott" link, moved the Miami Heat discussion into the "=Miami Heat=" section, streamlined the prose, removed some unnecessary overlinkings, and you have gone and reverted the whole lot - apparently all because there was one small change you disagreed with. You are a sloppy editor. That was sloppy editing.

Explain.

--Downwards 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)