User talk:Retired username/Archive5

This is an archive of old messages. To leave a new one, see User talk:W.marsh.

CWGC cemetery skeleton
Marsh, regarding the newspaperman Adras LaBorde, I managed to fix links with Edwin Edwards, J. Bennett Johnston, Charlton Lyons, and Allen Ellender. I could not think of others right now. I took your sign off. -- Billy Hathorn

Hi W.marsh! You removed the "in-use" template from WikiProject Military history/Memorials and cemeteries task force/CWGC cemetery skeleton. This page is designed to be subst: into the main article space, then edited to create the article. If it were subst: as a skeleton, it would be speedy deleted as G1, G2, A1 or A3 in good faith by other admins.

Leaving the "in use" tag in place allows an editor to slowly create the article from the skeleton without finding it deleted (and then, depressingly, G4 deleted as people tend to think that speedy deletes are G4 candidates). In short, this is a useful template and whilst it may cause minor problems to have it existing in the skeleton page, it is a template that should be used more rather than less.

I've manually reverted the change; but if you feel strongly about this, please revert me back (and let me know your reasons on the skeleton's talk page?). Cheers! ➨  Я Є  DVERS  18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize its purpose. However, I do suggest eventually making that page a template, as you expect those to be used for subst'ing (and therefore, templates like inuse can be left on them perpetually). --W.marsh 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'm not convinced that page skeletons are a good idea per se, I just like the idea of other potential editors having a nice framework to use. A template just seems so... permanent?... and I'd like to maintain the option of dropping the idea when/if the project gets a flood of sensible volunteers (so far I'm the only one, and I'm not using the template at all but Wikipedia =/= me, obviously). Thanks for giving me something to mull over! I'll come back with something sensible as an idea in the fullness of time. :o) ➨  Я Є  DVERS  20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic Movement
I have some overall concerns about this article. Primarily the notablity of the subject matter. There are very few links from other sites to the external references, and often the primary links are only to each other. I am eliciting comments since you have edited on this page. See my comments on the talk page. Trödel 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of Dabljuh
Please rethink that block. While I agree he should not evade his block, I can very well understand that he feels treated unfair, as the original block was without any basis and the blocking admin refused to discuss it. Socafan 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said on AN/I, if he will just promise to stop evading the block, I will reduce it back to a week. So far he hasn't contacted me. I think my offer is reasonable, and as someone else pointed out on his talk, he can open an RFC against me or anyone else after the week is up. He was causing a lot of disruption before and especially after his block, so I think he needs some time to cool off. Of course if he said he'd stop the disruption and I thought he was being serious, I'd unblock him entirely. But again, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has blocked him without any basis. I do not think prolonging the ban will help him to cool down. It will embitter him and make him think admins support each other's unjust actions no matter what. Socafan 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He was unappologetically evading a block and causing disruption. There's simply no excuse for that. If he's not mature enough to realize that, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think I'm being reasonable. --W.marsh 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree he should not have evaded the block. However, the original block lacked any basis. I can understand that he is angry and I suggest he should apologize for evading the block, the admin for the block, and all sides calm down. How is that? Socafan 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and in fact, it's all I'm asking for... if he says he will stop evading the block, I will take it back down to the 1 week. Anything beyond that he'll need to talk to the admin who gave the 1 week block, not me. --W.marsh 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The one week block was done for evading the block by the same admin who had done the original block without any basis. Please note Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Socafan 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As he has been blocked for a whole month with an original reason of absolutely nothing I doubt he will look at his page and would like to ask you to email him to invite him to a reasonable discussion. Socafan 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi W.Marsh. You appear to have second thoughts on your own ban, and that is good. There has not been a reason to block me in the first place, and there has certainly not been a reason (or a provision in the policy) to prolong my block to a month. You consider my behaviour "Disruptive" before and after the block. I must point out to you that I have been at no time been disruptive (in the sense of WP:Vandalism). All my edits, before, and after the block, were done in good faith and as an attempt to improve Wikipedia in many ways. The problem is people opposing to my points of view, that try to construct a personal attack out of everything I say, and of administrators, that, for reasons I can only speculate on, block and ban me at a whim.

PinchasC has been questioned several times by a number of different people who figured the original ban was an overreaction. Me and others have requested him to unblock me, but he does not seem to be interested in that. The sheer stubbornness which which he adheres to his illegitimate block of me should give you an indication that something bad is afoot.

The problem is not you, and neither is it myself. The problem is on one side PinchasC, who refuses to revoke an undue ban. On the other side, there are numberous grave flaws in the policy to deal with undue bans. For example, a blocked user can not start an RFC or anything on Wikipedia without evading a ban! Also, the policy strongly encourages administrators not to remove bans by other administrators, regardless of the blocks being abusive or unfounded. Eventually the only alternative an unduly banned user has to "sitting it out" is to evade the ban. Another problem is that the policy does not deal with ban evasion at all - Without guidance from policy, the administrators tend to do what they at first feel is right - like you increasing the ban to a month - or others by vandalizing my additions and resorting to personal attacks. Only to later figure out that this is absolutely not the right venue to deal with someone who is evading an (undue or not) ban.

All of these flaws in the policies have caused a number of problems: Your one month block, User:Megaman Zero's declaration that one could freely vandalize me and my assets and resort to personal attacks, and still PinchasC's original block along with his stubborness to revoke it.

I would like to remove all three problems. For now, I cannot realistically propose changes to those policies, (like, proposing a hypothetical WP:EVADE) but I can ask you to revoke your block. It'll reduce the number of problems the faulty policies have caused by one and makes the situation already a lot more remediable - to the point where only PinchasC needs to be convinced for the situation to find a solution.

Thank you, User:Dabljuh 213.113.27.69 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I *promise* I will no longer evade any blocks once all blocks are revoked. User:Dabljuh 213.113.27.69 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, that's nice, but how could you evade a block if you aren't blocked? Sheesh. All I'm asking is that you agree to serve out the original 1 week block without trying to evade it. So far I see no acceptance of that from you. Even if you think a block is unjust, that doesn't justify evading it. Much like breaking out of jail isn't suddenly legal if I think I'm innocent. I can't forgive block evasion. But if you promise not to do it, I'll take the block down to the original week, anything else you'd need to take up with the original blocking admin. --W.marsh 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If an unjust (and irrevokable) block isn't legitimation for evasion, then what is? Note how someone who breaks out of jail and proves he is innocent of the original reason for being in jail, he doesn't go back to jail again but instead receives damages for the time he was in jail.
 * If you go on to tell me that there is no legitimate reason to evade a ban, ever, then I must simply respond to you with "There is no legitimate reason to ban, ever". Both statements are wrong. I can accept a ban or I don't, but this is at my leisure. If you ban me for serious misbehaviour, I accept it. If you ban me for no valid reason, then I must reject this ban, and evade it, for as long as I see fit - id est for as long as I am banned. User:Dabljuh 193.138.126.67 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I've lost my patience with this. Continue to evade the ban = the ban stays. Contact me on IRC or e-mail if you change your mind. But don't believe everything you see in movies - he'd go right back to jail until he was found innocent in a court of law, or the charges were dropped. Which is what's going on here. --W.marsh 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be glad if you treated the abusively blocking admin the same way you treat the abusively evasive user whose originally contested statement was no personal attack. Socafan 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In use removal
You removed my in-use boxes on three satellite articles associated with cell microprocessor. This wasn't a service to anyone, which you would have realized had you looked even a tiny bit harder. I've been heavily involved with the Cell article for two months now, as you could see from my edit history, I didn't just disappear into a puff of smoke because for one day I wasn't able to find time. There isn't much point going to all that trouble to set up the pilons if random do-gooders run off with them in the middle of the night. MaxEnt 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * all three satellite articles are at present mostly composed of lorem ipsum
 * I very carefully set a short time limit (June 15) on the message, which had not even expired in my time zone
 * the edit boxes warned casual readers that these articles were not yet in a good state of repair
 * the edit boxes pointed other editors wishing to become involved at the appropriate talk page, where I announced my intent to conduct this major edit well in advance
 * the nature of the structural edit I'm involved in is rather ambitious, as you might realize if you have ever had to wade through the documentation set created by IBM in the process of spending $400m
 * the main article (just below the TOC) also had a green box directing readers to a recently fully-intact version


 * Just great, now since my pilons are gone, people are coming along and posting clean-up notices to attract attention to a half-assed work-in-progress than no-one except myself is presently well placed to address. How did you possibly think removing those pilons 24 hours before my notice expired was going to help anyone?  Next time, would it be possible to find it within yourself to hold off another 48 hours?  Is that asking too much?  MaxEnt 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The inuse template is only to be used for a single edit session to avoid edit conflicts. It may be removed after 2 hours without an edit. Leaving it on longer to try to reserve articles, it was established through consensus, is too close to article ownership. Sorry, you're just going to have to deal with other people editting these articles (as you agreed to when you submitted them). --W.marsh 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to own the article, I was making efforts to coordinate people (and not confuse people) who came along to help while the sub-articles were in a state of disarray. Why doesn't the Wikipedia inuse template help contain a link to this policy, if this is agreed?  I only put the lock pilon on the new sub-articles I had just created (as extremely and incomplete primitive stubs), not the main article itself.  There was lots of text on the talk page about what was going on, but nobody had yet come along volunteering to contribute.  Perhaps I didn't pick the best template, I merely picked what seemed best from the template help page I found.  Why can't you bring yourself to make a note on my talk page before taking pre-emptive action with hardly any explanation?  Just because you think 'us regulars have decided'?  I don't think the policy was intended to prevent thought before action.  I had only so far moved content onto the subtopic pages that I originally contributed myself.  I was being very careful not to prevent others from contributing while I attempted to bring some order to the state of the article.
 * I just read the ownership link you provided. None of my actions implied that I was taking ownership of anything other than preventing a general state of confusion which I brought the sub-articles into an initial state of sanity. MaxEnt 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the notice I provided in the main article. I went out of my way not to include the main article in the lock set.  By the way, where it the policy about two hours?  There is no mention of two hours in the ownership link you provided.  MaxEnt 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is recently defined as two hours. I'm still looking for that consensual policy reference.  Am I completely crazy to interpret recently as soon after the stated lock period elapses?  `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
 * Recently is a relative term, but you are claiming it translates into a fixed two hour term relate to an event (most recent edit) that the sentence itself does not reference. MaxEnt 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link to the discussion was illuminating. Thanks for providing that.  I have a good idea now where you are coming from, and I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here.  I'm going to eliminate my use of these templates as a result.  I can handle this in a better way.  I think you are a little quick in acting on legislative authority, but that's a discussion for another time--when I don't have giant bleeding podlets to attend to.   MaxEnt 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
Hi. I've filed Requests_for_arbitration and listed you as one of the parties, since as filed it centers around his recent blocks and evasions of same. Regards, Nandesuka 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to policy suggested
As you were involved in the debate that later led to a block of me, I thought you might want to have a look at a suggestion I make regarding a couple of changes to the policies at checkuser policy site and the blocking policy site. Take care Socafan 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LSY inuse tags again
I have found a more suitable tag which I have now left on the page, due to the fact that, despite your assurances, there was an edit whilst mine is still in progress. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: my user talk page:
 * That is possible, but I have found in the past that there are often a few of these edits together. I am using the tag to stop these. Also, 5 days is the maximum downtime. I am predicting that 1960 will be done tomorrow, and 1961 by Monday. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the formats are incompatible. For example:


 * GW_Simulations |User Page 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

inuseuntil deprecation
I also added invitational notices to the Cell sub-articles to avert the sort of confusion I originally hoped to avoid when the inuse template struck me as the most suitable existing mechanism. To prevent future editors from becoming so struck, I also made this change:

.

As a result of our interaction, I spent quite a bit more time floating around in policy-space, especially concerning the admin subculture. I regard the primary flaw of these templates as having a negative orientation: Wikipedia notices should be biased toward positive instructions wherever possible, much like the traffic controls in Quebec that only indicate (in green) what you are allowed to do, which has been shown to encourage faster processing. I might actually go back and edit that template page again, to make yet more clear. MaxEnt 02:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a blurb up front. I'm not sure that commentary was intended for that page, but it will do more to avert future misuse that the notice here on your talk page that people only find after you kick out the struts. It was your own logic that set me off: edit conflicts are impossible here (because it was nearly impossible anyone would come along to edit those subpages rather than the main article, at least until the subpages gained a recognizable structure). I didn't regard those notices as preventing any edits from taking place, other than edits to mark incomplete sub-articles as fodder for the cleanup crews. What you failed to take into account, I think, is that the inexperienced editor can only think in specific terms, while you were reasoning instead from established patterns of use/abuse. In specific terms, in my case, the risk of having no notice at all was greater than the risk of having the wrong notice. I only put this template up in the first place because not 60 seconds after creating the first version with ipsum lorem text in place to assess the correct placement of the navbox template, someone came along and flagged the article for translation. General case reasoning against the use of a facility must be pointed out where the facility is first discovered, otherwise the inexperienced editor runs off with it and conducts specific reasoning as to appropriate use. MaxEnt 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One more small point, just to make it clear that understanding the larger picture, I am totally converted and in favour of your position. It was when I read the consensus debate that I fully grasped the situation between us.  I was not consensus that no specific appropriate use existed for these templates (many voices disputed this); it was rather a consensus that the general misuse outweighed any specific-case application.  It's just that I didn't get a sense of that distinction in your initial justification and the implication that I ought to be sensitive to the general case assessment that I couldn't possibly know was annoying to me.  MaxEnt 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot
I think the bot acts bad. It moves all the stubs and template stuff from over the category and places them under the category. -- Frap 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that's just how AWB behaves by default. Per stub policy, there's no correct place to put the stub, but since the stub category is the least important of the article's categories, some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. A stub can either be there or after the external links... anywhere else is awkward. I'm not sure what you mean by "template stuff". --W.marsh 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Template stuff would be anything that use the things. When viewing an article the category is at the bottom of the page, not the stub, so I think that the stub should be placed before the category. -- Frap 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's really something to bring up on WP:STUB's talk page to see if there's consensus to establish a standardized place to put the template. Right now, it's up to the editors discretion as far as I know. --W.marsh 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag
seems to have been doing good work for a little while sans flag. I've reviewed a few contributions and see nothing objectionable. Go forth and pester a 'crat. robchurch | talk 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Marsh. Absolutely, bot flag is granted.  Feel free to ask whenever there's something I can do to help.  It's a pleasure, and plus that's what I'm here for :)  Cheers,  Redux 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bud Whiteye
MarshBot: Your title (name) whatever, showed up beside a title of an article I put into the 'pedia. I clicked on every possiblity (link) connectable but can't find why your name is applied so. It is in the talk section of Bud Whiteye; the article is "Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Comunity Under Siege" (pronouncer for Aamjiwnaang = Awm-Jeh-Nong) I have no way of knowing if others will get to share my article. I've enjoyed many "articles" on the 'pedia that served to enlighten me. So far, I don't see anyone having a chance to read my article to improve their insight (on matters), what I mostly see is a few people wanting to improve or show off their editing prowess. While I appreciate that, I don't know if anyone will get to read the article for the purpose of being "well-read." Sarnia Ontario (where Aamjiwnaang is located)is almost certainly one of the most chemically polluted sites in the world - that covers a lot of geography. National Geographic is producing a major expose' on "Chemical Valley" as Sarnia is known, due out this fall. Their editors believe Sarnia could be the most polluted area in the world. Bud Whiteye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud Whiteye (talk • contribs)

Azythia, Idaho
Im sorry, but I am the mayor of Azythia and i don't know where you think you get off thinking that my town is a hoax!!! At a city council meeting, someone mentioned your name.

Well sir we have a city website for you information, www.azythiaidaho.bravehost.com so you just need to think first i mean no blogger can use the city for we have a copyright to the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.177.57 (talk • contribs)

Sadullah Khan
I tried to add a couple categories, and took off your "cats needed" template. I hope that seems right to you. I find the category system a bit bewildering, but I called him an Imam and a Religion Academic. I defer to you if you have a different notion. LotLE × talk 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An empty page
Articles for deletion/Old. Phew, I don't remember what it was like to see the Old page with no open discussions... *gets ready to collapse on the sofa* --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah... 3.5 hours maybe, but not 17 seconds. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing Dennis William Cashmore AfD
We're edit conflicting on the closure of the Dennis William Cashmore. Since you already cleaned up the article, I leave it to you to prettify the AfD if you like. Eluchil404 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see ehat happened now. Entirely my fault using an old copy of the AfD log page.  It's annoying that your  tag didn't show up in my preview, but I guess I should have taken a hint from your  .  Live and learn.  Eluchil404 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's just a hazard of closing AfDs... has happened to me a time or two. Generally you just revert yourself, but I've gone ahead and handled it. Thanks for pointing it out. --W.marsh 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

State Debate Associations on DRV
Hey buddy, I thought I could bring up the newly-polished Template:DRVNote, but alas, this DRV is for three different AfDs with a different name for a heading. Anyways, just wanted to let you know that three AfDs that you closed are up for review here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Winter Olympics calendar
Please program your bot to ignore the page 2006 Winter Olympics calendar. It is not an orphan, since it is transcluded. Thank you. blameless 03:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I will before the next time I run it. But you might consider making it a subpage of the main article, or a template outright, which might really be best. I don't believe that ariticles normally exist only to be transcluded, while templates very often can. But it's just a suggestion. Thanks. --W.marsh 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Livia Choice
Hi. You deleted the article and quoted the AfD as the reason for deletion, however you didn't close the discussion. I have closed it, and noted that you deleted it. Hope that is OK. Cheers TigerShark 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs. I do the same thing quite often, usually when I have previewed it and then, because I see the new version, forget to save it. :) Cheers TigerShark 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Billy Chandler
Marsh, I cannot get more links with the new LA legislator Billy Chandler without creating more comparable stories. There are many stories on state legislators that do not link to that many other stories already on Wikipedia. It would take some time to prepare other such stories.

The same is also true of the story on former Laredo Mayor Aldo Tatangelo. I have a new story up on the current mayor and could do another on the previous mayor, Betty Flores. That too will take some time.

There are just not many stories on Grant Parish, LA, or Laredo, TX, at this time.

Billy Hathorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs)

AFD question
Hello, W. Marsh. I had noticed that you were an admin that commonly closes and takes care of AFDs, and I had a question regarding authors of pages that are up for deletion who attempt to disrupt the process, either by making sockpuppets, or what have you. Basically, on the 20th, I nominated the article Bapudi for deletion, and the AFD went smoothly for a few days, then suddenly, several new users crawled out of the woodwork and began bickering and lawyering about policy to me. The article's subject has not been verifiably proven to exist, much less meet many of the criteria for inclusion, and has been at times described as having an "Untranslated canon", to be a musical artist, a style, an organization, etc. If you could let me know how best to approach the very prickly editors, you'd be doing me a huge favor. Thank you so much for your time. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the speedy response! Helpful, approachable administrators such as yourself are what make the encyclopedia such a lovely place to contribute. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, W.marsh! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. TBC TaLk?!? 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky
I think we were both editing the Louisville, Kentucky page concurrently. I am reverting the page to the subdivided sections I had written. I had moved the Future Plans from the History segment to Cityscape, and expanded upon it. I had planned on adding several additions to the Future Development projects and complete a project similar to what I did for Lexington, Kentucky.Seicer 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but as it's a featured article, it's better to have paragraphs of prose rather than bulletted lists with 1-sentence tidbits... generally stuff like that has to be rewritten into paragraphs during the FAC process. We'll see what happens though, your addition/rewrite is still brand new. --W.marsh 19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking behind orphan pages?
In surfing Special:lonelypages, I found a number of links from User:W.marsh/orphan articles.

Are you using this like I use User:Alvestrand/DisambigNoLink - to get things out of Special:lonelypages that people have already considered? Or is there a purpose I haven't guessed?

Just curious... --Alvestrand 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Special:Lonelypages only lists 1,000 pages at a time and I don't think that's going to change. So to get new articles to tag on the next refresh, I list them temporarilly on my user subpage... this technically de-orphans them, but realistically they are still orphans until actual articles link to them. It's kind of a crude method, but it works... eventually special:lonelypages should just list under 1,000 orphans at a time (less than 1,000 seem to be created per 3-4 day period, which is how often the page refreshes). If I can tag all articles orphaned in the last 3-4 days,the creators/recent editors will be more likely to see the tag and create links. If it's added 90 days later (which is common, given the state of the backlog) the creator will probably never see it.


 * Anyway, I hope that makes sense. My hope is to eventually move the list out of my userpage to the project space, and also to have the bot automatically remove the template (and thus, the listing) when any article has incoming links from other articles. --W.marsh 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, actually this answers a question I'd been wondering since I started doing this... "Where are all the dab pages going?" (from special:lonelypages) I guess I know now. Did you know that Links to disambiguating pages exists? That might be a better place to create links. --W.marsh 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - makes sense - and will move my collection into the common pool! --Alvestrand 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David aaron clark
You closed that as No consensus, which seems incorrect. The AFD had no consensus when it was relisted on 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC). Every single one of the three comments since then was a Keep, two emphatic: a Definitely Keep, a Keep, and a Strong Keep. If we are to take relisting seriously, then that would seem to be a consensus for Keep. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right... I was being a little more careful because of the new Speedy keep rule, but this does meet my criteria for a keep after reviewing it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --W.marsh 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I see you changed it on the AFD page, I did likewise on the article talk page. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD closing
I just double closed Articles for deletion/Minaret of Freedom Institute with you (reverted myself as you got there first). Are you doing a major afd closing seasion (i.e. shall I leave you to it) or you just do that one? Petros471 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll let you finish 21st page ('bout time I had some food!) and then I'll move on to the 22nd later if I have time. Cheers, Petros471 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Day Signs
I wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that The Day Signs article should be deleted. Please reply on my own user page. Thankyou.

- The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems
 * To put it simply, you were the only person wanting to keep the article, and 6 people wanted to delete it. We work on consensus here, usually a supermajority of 2/3 is required to delete an article, and that was easilly achieved in this discussion. Sometimes a very strong argument can overcome a lot of delete votes, but that's an unusual situation, and your argument didn't seem to present any verifiable sources for the claims of the article, which was the whole problem. See WP:V and WP:RS. If this has been covered in newspapers, magazines, etc. please feel free to recreate the article and cite them. Otherwise... don't recreate what was deleted, as that will just be deleted again, and doing it repeatedly could get you blocked for disruption. Thanks. --W.marsh 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles of America
This really isn't that big a deal, honestly, i'm glad that the article is slowly becoming something worthwhile, but did you really think that there wasn't a consensus to keep the 1921 book series? I didn't see a single delete issue for that series, i'm just curious if I missed something. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, I didn't feel like the 1921 rewrite had a "fair shake" on AfD, since most people were commenting on the other version, and presumably that's all most people saw. So there was no consensus to delete the 1921 version, and I guess looking at it from one perspective there was a consensus to keep it (in that there were 4 keeps to 0 deletes) but since it itself really didn't go through a full, normal AfD, I didn't feel comfortable reading that far into it. --W.marsh 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sensible close on this one - very unusual AfD where the subject changes midstream but we've certainly got a good outcome --Peripitus (Talk) 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

PGNx Media
Hello,

I resubmitted the article PGNx Media because most of the votes were before the article was extensively changed. Please let me know what you think. Should there be more sources? What do you suggest we add? Thank you! Thinkjose 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Luisa
hello. it seems like all the votes favoured delete or merge. if we re not going to delete it seems we should at least merge this bit of trivia. it appears the logical merge is into transformers i will do the work if you dont want to. let me know your thoughts. Joan-of-arc 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thanks so much for the support on my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad you considered me to be a good candidate, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me -- especially that part about clearing out backlogs. Let me know at my talk page any time if you have any comments on how I'm doing as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Day Signs
One other person wanted to keep it, a certain anonymous user known as "Zelda." Just to correct your "putting it simply" statement. I suppose we could discount him/her because the user doesn't exist, however, then there would only be five against me, becasue Ydam is non-existent too. Also if I was to re-create the article and others voted on that archived page would the page be allowed to stay up just because of a majority? -The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems


 * If you recreated it, it would be deleted as a recreation of a deleted page. The place to challenge a deletion is deletion review. --W.marsh 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Bother? I don't even know how to use the deletion review site. And, the most likely result will be a delete. -The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems

Car Fire
I don't get it. There was nothing profane about the entry. There was no original research. There were no mistruths, untruths, or any other flavor of falsity in the article. It was like any other stub I have seen in the past.

Granted, I might have added a stub tag, but what is the point in deleting an article about a subject that is encyclopedically relevant? Why are so many of you more interested in the elimination of knowledge, rather than in the creation of it?

It was TWO PARAGRAPHS LONG. Any editor with sufficient knowledge on the subject would have taken two minutes to improve it drastically. Why was deletion a respectable action?--ttogreh 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have had seventeen days to respond to this. If my arguments were so out of line, you would have responded, I bet. But they aren't out of line. It was a neutral stub of an encyclopedically relevant topic, and you deleted it due to popular consensus. You are without conviction, and your lack of response after seventeen days has convinced me that you are also a coward.--ttogreh 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of HRE's indef block
There is a posibility of hijacked account. It might be that HRE is not dead. I think his acc should be unblocked until this situation is sorted out. This way he cannot log in to say he is live and well. --Dijxtra 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If his account has been hijacked, all the more reason for it to be blocked (he wouldn't be able to log into it anyway). See also my reply on WT:RFA. --W.marsh 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images are disallowed in user namespace
You have several Fair Use images on this page: User:W.marsh/Sopranos. This is in violation of Fair Use. Please remove any fair use images that reside in you user space. __meco 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page... it was a temporary page I'd forgotten about. Thanks for pointing it out. --W.marsh 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Astaxantin, Please read Talkpage
Dear sir,

With regards to Astaxanthin a complete re-write was recently done by. This included a lockdown. In User_talk:Dr_Zak you'll see the copyright allegation. On my talkpage User_talk:Jessemonroy650, you'll see the upcoming resolution. Today, right, now I planned to issue b email and put a copyright notice need by wikipedia on my webpage. This will clear all issues and revert the page to the previous article. Not the current one.

Please note: DrZak did not tag the page. He simple started this spiral process. Which now has more than a dozen people involved in a copyright issue that could have been easy resolved.

The notice I placed was in an effort to get people to stop adding random information for 24 hours while I could get my "ducks in order". Your efforts have delayed the process even more.

If I may be clear - I am not upset at you or DrZak. This is just frustrating when I get quote the policy, when people are not trying to resolve this civily or read the talkpage. I am not upset.

I also want to be clear that I am serious about adding new information that people might have to this page. If their page gets wiped out with the revert, then it may be lost. Especially, if no notice is given. Thanks for your time.

Best Regards --meatclerk 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read I have no argument with you. Please read

meatclerk 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not add unnecessary tags to pages
Do not add unnecessary tags to pages. They are ugly and not needed. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not add unnecessary ugly tags to pages. If you really have a burning desire to do so, use the talk page instead. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The pages are in categories. I do not dispute that they are orphans. They do not need ugly banners at the top.  I also do not like the way you are accusing me of rudeness, which in itself is incredibly impolite. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786;


 * I wouldn't worry about it, dunc is incredibly impolite in his own right. if you take a look at his talk page, you generally see only messages telling him to stop being rude.  i'd try to de-admin him if i were a real user (cause who'll take an anon user's de-adminship seriously, especially cause my ip's dynamic so my contributions never really get above 20 edits or so before the numbers change) or cared all that much.  instead i'm just satisfied whenever i see a new message asking him to not be an asshole. 82.82.164.164 09:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor has passed away?
I don't know that a wikipedian can be deceased anymore than a monarch can be. The user is not actually deceased, its the person that created and occupied the account that would now be deceased, why? Becuase the account could easily be passed on, and to my knowledge, wikipedia has no policy to stop that. Btw I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Anyway, what I did was nominate JustPhil for adminship and also opposed a number of self-nominations on the basis that self nomionations are silly, being blocked for that felt repressive, I don't understand how expressing such a view could be disruptive. BTW I beleive Cyde to be a she rather than a he becuase of her reason for blocking one of the troll accounts. Myrtone

FBI
We have worked on some of your suggestions. Check it out. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pyongyang Hotel on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pyongyang Hotel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
THANK YOU for protecting that damn page. My watchlist was crying. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bays List, Newfoundland and Labrador
This list was re-incorporated into the below list. It is part of that list and should have been requested for deletion now that the article is no longer needed. List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador There is a similar one for Ports as well i will take another look and deleteI have added a speedy delete message WayneRay 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Misplaced? Or mistaken?
This -> was half way down an old archive of yours... I moved it here, feeling impetuous today and all. But not, I note, quite bold enough to add the actual category to your page. - brenneman  {L} 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it got there after an archiving... since I don't have a userpage I figured just having it on my talk page somewhere would get the point across. --W.marsh 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my post?
You deleted my post, and the post of the SICK ATHEIST underneath it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)


 * It was just devisive trolling and flamewaring... nothing productive was going to come out of it. --W.marsh 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add that this user made both posts, the one he claims as his own and the one he claims belonged to said "sick atheist", you can see the summary here . This user is apparently unaware that we can easily check who did what and blame him for the whole thing. So rather than flamewarring, it was just his ploy to try to slander atheists, something that's becoming akin to vandalism. Do not feed the troll, you don't need to justify yourself to him. I stand by your decision, W.marsh. Star Ghost 01:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur
The intro is a brief overview, or summary of the article. Please see the section "Awards" for cites for his consistent ranking as one of the greatest rappers ever. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

¢ King
This user may do whatever he wishes. -- Jimbo Wales 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This was actually posted by User:¢ King, who I have blocked indefinently. --W.marsh 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Peabody Award winners
Hiya - just thought I'd let you know I've re-added the wikify tag to this article - it is wikified for the first 1/4 or the article, but from 1981 onwards (currently - I may have made more progress by the time you read this!) it still needs attention! No biggie, I just thought I'd better let you know why I'd done it :) -Ladybirdintheuk 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply- blocked account
Thanks for the offer to appeal for unblocking my Brando03/ The Br3 account. However, given the status quo of Wikipedia, it is better for me to continue editing as an IP rather than create another account which could be blocked. I have been combating the deletionist yahoos and other mean spirited pedians who have been unfair to what I feel are legitimate edits and aren't interested in diplomacy very agressively, so I'm quit an outlaw right now and being reinstated isn't going to happen. I have still been contributing to articles anyway actively as an IP anyway, so reinstation isn't necessary. Also, I have an account where I moved my home page User:Sirrom nodnarb yerffej), I just don't edit from it with people like JDoorjam and Dumbfu Adam out there who block anyone who disagrees with them. 65.138.71.135 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)