User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/5

Deletion review for Natalia Fowler
I has asked for a deletion review of Natalia Fowler. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gh87 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2011 Ohio exotic animal release
It's probably best to only non-admin close AfDs as "SNOW" if there is unanimity in the comments. There wasn't in the one you closed, so I've re-closed it. Also, Articles for deletion/Shelby Ford should've probably be closed as no consensus (2 vs 3 and weak arguments). Whilst NAC closures at AfD are useful, it's probably best to steer away from anything that's not completely obvious. I was pointed here by a WP:ANI thread that you don't seem to have been informed of, by the way. Thanks, Black Kite (t)   01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with black kite WRT Shelby Ford but the the first one was borderline NACable. However, you didn't use a very good closing rationale. Quoting WP:SNOW wasn't needed as the AFD had run the full 7 days and it also strongly suggested that you counted !votes and that makes a lot AFD participants see red. A better closing rationale would have been something like ''There is a strong consensus here that this event is more then routine and therefore the subject passes WP:EVENT". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk
May I make a request of you since I am going? - please look in on the doings at the article. Two editors there are bullying and dictating like mad. I see they've been at it for at least a year or so. They are the types who make Wikipedia a living hell.75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Talk:Steampunk.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk
I have no intention of responding to the hysterical claims of an editor who began by making demands that other editors change the Steampunk article, who then made repeated personal attacks against myself and other editors, and who repeatedly forum-shops looking for editors or admins to take his side. I said everything I intend to say on this matter at Orangemike's talk page, where I received no reply, other than more comments from the anonymous user. I am done with Steampunk, and all related articles, which I suppose the anon. can take as some sort of victory. Life is simply too short to repeatedly deal with this nonsense. Today, the anon. left another provocative message on my alternate talk page. An editor cannot repeatedly make personal attacks and then expect other to assume good faith and take him seriously as an editor and contributor. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the whole thing is nothing to do with me. I just replied to an IP and got caught up in all of this.  Rcsprinter  (shout)  16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too many people have gotten caught up in it. I made the decision to extricate myself by removing the article from my watchlist and moving on to other things.  The anon. simply will not let it go.  I understand that you were not ill-intended, but I strongly suggest you not get further embroiled in this.  Thanks for your message, your attempt to help, and your civil tone. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Republican Jacobite. Help me with him, I beg you!
Hello. So sorry to pop over and bother you, you've been kind and helpful.

Republican Jacobite has now gone whining to an admin username Neelix, to screech about getting in trouble. Let me remind you that RJ attacked me the moment I posted at Steampunk - and he's not stopped screaming since then.

Please, grant me this assistance and take a gander at Neelix's talk. RJ posted a comment under the title of my IP address. RJ is creating a real tempest in a teapot, but he's vindictive, childish and paranoid now.

I told everyone I was leaving activity - I did not say I'd take my eye off this character! I tell you, RJ is trouble and has been for a long time.75.21.113.40 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the additional help, Rcsprinter.75.21.113.40 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User talk:Neelix. Please do not come here again, because although you have my deepest respects, I would rather not be involved in the matter any further.  Rcsprinter  (articulate)  16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk dispute
Hi Sprinter,

I just received your message on my talk page. Are your comments directed towards the IP address user involved in the dispute or to me?

Neelix (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of everyone. Telling you, telling off the IP and just kind of continuing the conversation. Wouldn't be involved but see two sections above to find out why I am :).  Rcsprinter  (talk to me)  16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stupid of me to think you might have helped in this - which by the way is all over, except I have to keep chasing all the garbage RJ has spread round all Wikipedia. So glad you sided with RJ, I thought you might.

Say, if you really want out of this, how about you stay off the other talks where I am in discussion with the editors? Like Neelix for starters? What is between them and me does not concern you. How/why did you track me to a totally separate editor's page where we were having a discussion that totally did not involve you to put your two cents in? You know who I mean!75.21.156.42 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on my talkpage
What is going on with this IP? Do you have reason to believe they are the same person as the blocked User:99.70.66.43?  Spinning Spark  18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They might be, but I'm nothing to do with it. What is going on is the IP wrote some stuff on Steampunk, RepublicanJacobite reverted it, they edit warred, I stepped in, we spoke on a million different talkpages, for some reason ending up on yours. And I'm not a she.  Rcsprinter  (Gimme a message)  18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairly unlikely. The 99 IP geolocates to California, whereas the 75 IP geolocates to Illinois. The writing styles, as well as their understanding of Wikipedia is vastly different. The 75 IP clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia's process, whereas the 99 IP appears to be new to Wikipedia. Both IPs are in a dispute with RepublicanJacobite, but on two different content disputes. Based on the fact that he often reverts non-vandalism IP changes, it is quite conceivably possible that he got in a dispute with two different IPs in a similar time period. The 99 IP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I am not sure why JamesBWatson put a week long block on that particular IP. A range block would be needed to keep either dynamic IP from editing, as both of the IP addresses change about every 6 hours. At this point, I believe this issue can be resolved fairly easily, without the use of blocks. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  14:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dayewalker
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dayewalker

Hi - your support is totally unexplained - please make your reasons clear - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions about recreation of John Albert (fighter)
A couple months ago you closed Articles for deletion/John Albert (fighter) to redirect the article to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller. Yesterday the article was recreated (or rather the redirect removed). The contents of the article compared to prior to the AfD is the same except now there is actually prose in the article. I don't see anything that changes the notability of the individual in the last couple of months. If the AfD result were delete, I'd simply put this article up for speedy deletion under criteria G4. Since it was redirected, I'm unsure what to do. Does it need to go up for AfD again or is there another route to take? Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bacon Challenge 2012 Update
Hey! It's been a good few months since the Bacon Challenge 2012 kicked off in June, and I'm pleased to say that decent progress has been made. While we were a bit slow to start, bacon-related contributions have been picking up again, and scores have been rising in the Bacon WikiCup. Here's a quick rundown of the overall positions as they stand: Currently, only a handful of participants have reported contributions: to those who haven't, remember, there is still plenty of time left to contribute and rise up in through the positions, as the Challenge and WikiCup run up until March. Just like last year, all participants will receive a shiny medal which they can place on their userpages, or use as a self-esteem booster if need be (just joking...sort of). If you need ideas for what to work on, a list is available here.
 * 1st : Silver seren
 * 2nd : Worm That Turned
 * 3rd : Rcsprinter123
 * 4th: Doh5678
 * 5th: Cirt

One last thing! Per request, we are bringing back territory representation into the WikiCup! Editors can now represent nations, states, or provinces, just to add a bit of fun and Olympic-flair to the event. Simply reply to this message with the territory you wish to represent, if you choose to do so.

Thanks for reading! Good luck! ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Skyline 199
Template:Skyline 199 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Chatham, Kent
rv- Just nonsense- Lloyds of London is Insurance- not a high street bank. (Second time- dab solver is wrong). Can you educate the little bot that in Medway - Lloyds means Lloyds of London not LloydsTSB! It really needs to get over its fixation! :)--ClemRutter (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD close
I think your close of Articles for deletion/Bundle (software distribution) was premature. This deletion discussion should result in some consensus about the topic of the article. I just rewrote Bundle (software distribution) based on the definition I assume the "keep" !votes wanted. When I finished the second version I started to move it to Bundled software and discovered that page already existed as a disambiguation page, which now suggests a redirect with possible merge. Seems inappropriate to do that right after an AfD. Would you consider undoing your close so consensus on the rough definition can be reached? – Pnm (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have undone the close.  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  20:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you please update the article and talk pages too? I'm hoping some of the keep votes weigh in. – Pnm (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Rcsprinter  (talkin' to me?)  21:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)