User talk:Ronnotel/Archive 2

Appreciation
Hello Ronnotel,

Thank you very much for your participation in my RfA; it closed a few hours ago, and I now have extra tabs at the top of each page ;)

I am loathe to spam &mdash; or template the regulars &mdash; hence this short thank you note. Cheers! --Aarktica 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleander
Please see this: I think, he won't listen to me. DenizTC 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * as per WP:3RR, users have wide latitude to control their own talk page. You should leave him alone. Ronnotel 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you reprimand me, you should first do somethning about the paragraph "Controversy" that the turkish editors continually delete from "Mustafa Kemal" section despite the fact that it has quotes and speaks about irrefutable facts. Cleander 09:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you throw around terms like Mongol, and murderer, please consider whether you are commenting on the article or the editor. Commenting on an editor violates WP:NPA and will result in a block. Ronnotel 11:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mongol" is not a slur but an ethnic name which engulfs all turanic peoples including Turks. It is just like "European". Oh! I forgot! The Turks want to be recognised as "Europeans"! Please, see to that a PROPER dialogue is began on the paragraph "Controversy" because the section "Mustafa Kemal" as it is now, is merely turkish propaganda. The TRUTH about the massacres of Greeks and Armenians must be included. I owe this to my grandfather who was slaughtered by Kemal's soldiers on Smyrna's quay on September 1922. Cleander 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to debate the fine points of Turkic ethnicity with you. It's quite clear from your tone that you intended the comment as a slur and therefore it violates WP:NPA. If you persist in commenting on the person instead of the article you will be blocked again. Ronnotel 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you insist on seeing one tree while ignoring the forest: the person I comment on, is one of the turkish agents that DELETE the paragraph "Controversy" on "Mustafa Kemal" which speaks the truth about him. If you fail to acknowledge that their action is a provocation against Greeks and Armenians who were killed by Kemal's butchers and not take action to preserve the paragraph or put it into proper debate, then I have no other option but to treat those turkish agents with the only language that they understand. I don't want to believe that you are so insensitive about crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust or the Armenian and Pontian Genocide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my RFA
Thank you for commenting on my RFA, which was withdrawn. Whether you supported or opposed, I thank you for the suggestions for improvement. And forgive me if my wording was a bit harsh, by oppose I meant opposing Wikipedia. Marlith  T / C  04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Peace.gif|200px|thumb|Forgive me if I sounded a bit rude and boorish on the RfA, future discussions will not be like that again.]] Marlith  T / C  03:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion in pop culture
The section on popular cultural references was removed from Cold Fusion with the comment that it was recreated in List of references to cold fusion in popular culture. This article was not a recreation of the removed article text but a single link to the The Saint (film). Another editor came along 5 day later and reduced the article a redirect to that film. Was this your intention? patsw 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent was to remove what seemed like extraneous material from Cold fusion. Here is the version of the article I actually created. Since there was only one link to be moved, someone came along and turned it into a redirect. This is the actual redirect page (note that you have to add the parameter redirect=no to the url). By all means, go ahead and flesh it (and remove the redirect) if you are interested. Ronnotel 21:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Monday (1987)
This should be on the Main Page on October 19 in anniversaries, so finance will make the Main Page! I've spruced it up a bit, but a proff-reading (make that proof reading) (or even some real thought) would be helpful. Smallbones 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thanks for the tip. I'll take a look! Ronnotel 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the edits
Hi Ronnotel, since there's not a policy or even standard procedure set in place for dealing with these kinds of things, I understand why you restored the diffs in light of the school's needs. We are just all over the place right now with this... for the suicide threat discussion I was involved in, the pertinent edits were deleted before I even called the police, and I think even the relevant ANI thread was deleted (I can't find it). But as I said, that's why deletion is a good option, because it's a very undoable action. I started a discussion here about better coordinating our efforts if you'd like to weigh in on this. Although now that I'm thinking about it, we probably need more than just a template to figure out what to do with this sort of thing. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding, Eliz. I'll take a look at the discussion. Ronnotel 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. -- John Reaves 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM
Dear Ronnotel, I saw a post at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. I put a link there please check it. VartanM is under revert parole for Turkish-Azeri-Armenian related articles. He is now in RV war in some other smilar articles also. Regards. Must . T  C 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw your comment and I responded. I couldn't find a reference to User:VartanM in the Remedies section of that case. Can you be more specific why you think this user is on parole? Ronnotel 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not under any remedies, and as I stated on the notice board I was reverting a sock of a banned user. and user Must has reverted at least one article back to the sock. I would like to remind him that editing on behalf of banned user is prohibited. Sorry to have disturbed your talkpage. VartanM 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Regards and thanks. Must . T  C 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ronnotel, I posted some links to related section in noticeboard. Main question is, How VartanM know that the Whitealp is sock, how he check IPs before Whitealp's IP checked and verified. Allegation of VartanM about my one rv, and "editing on behalf of banned user is prohibited.". These pages are in my watclist. VartanM and college was made reverts which they was meaningles, they reverted Whitealps edits without any reason with an editsummary "rv banned user".Without checking those edits are valuable or not.

Rebellion of 1857
Hi

Thankfully, you've been neutral and have refrained from taking sides. But I think trouble's brewing there again. You might wanna lock it or perhaps recommend some steps to resolve the issue. DemolitionMan 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, how about these recommendations:
 * Stop engaging in sock puppetry.
 * Stop inserting POV material into Indian Rebellion of 1857.
 * Stop edit-warring.
 * Seek consensus before you make controversial edits.
 * I've been patient with your behavior so far. However, now that you are a proven sockpuppeteer, I will be less so. Ronnotel 11:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Looks like the sock edits are now coming in on that page from anonymous IPs. I have filed a 2nd sockpuppet check request. FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DemolitionMan_%282nd%29 srs 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, that was fast. srs 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy seems to be back, as User:Texankudiya this time. And there's some fun, fun rants about all this from User:DemolitionMan's good friend User:Bobby Awasthi.  Which is why I took it to RFAR - mediation aint going to work here. The other steps assume good faith.  srs 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Best is to keep adding socks to WP:SSP, as you have done, and let the investigating admins handle it. BTW, I noticed that your new case wasn't added to the list of open cases so it would have taken a while to find it. I've added it in. Ronnotel 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Color me a wikipedia admin newbie, like I said.. the processes you have in place are incredibly complex for me to wrap my mind around (the systems I build for abuse mitigation are simpler.. but then blocking spam is far easier than resolving wikipedia edit wars. :)  srs 02:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:Ronnotel, would you mind semi protecting the Indian Rebellion page again? At least two recent edits from anon IPs, one asking the previous editor not to rewrite history. Safest to semiprotect so that anon / bare IP and brand new editors can't edit the page. TIA; srs 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon edits seem to be in good faith so I'm inclined to let it go for now. Semi-protecting is really only used when the edits become disruptive and I don't see that yet. Ronnotel 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redux. Now we have User:Bobby Awasthi picking up where User:DemolitionMan left off. There's a somewhat rambling rant on the talk page, with no shortage of "Gunga Din" (me, for supporting a "British POV") and you're apparently a "so called admin" for permbanning User:DemolitionMan. Have fun ...


 * Y'all let User:DemolitionMan back onto wikipedia with a 3 month suspension on editing "desi" (india related) articles. He agreed with the proviso that he'd continue to post to talk pages. Well, he does most of his edit warring on talk pages, and it is double what it was earlier, when he divided his considerable energy between edit warring on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 page and its talk page. I am sure that when the 3 months are up, he'll be back on the main article as well. srs (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by edit-warring on the talk page. Edit-warring involves abusive reversion of article text and is associated with articles, not talk pages. Can you kindly provide some of his objectionable diffs the relevant WP policies they violate? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be editing if he were editing the page. For now he confines himself to disputing every single other edit, and arguing with the other editors. srs (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Expressing strong opinions on the talk page is not considered disruptive unless it includes personal attacks or similar material. If User:DemolitionMan resumes disruptive editing when his topic ban is up, then the community will have a chance to deal with that then. For now, please assume good faith and hope that your example will engender a suitable response. Ronnotel (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

srs (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ewing High School
If it is so very important, then perhaps you should call the school. You live in the USA. The phone number is (609) 5380-9800. Talk to Mr. Logan. Do not forget to tell them your name, address, phone number, employer and your Social Security Number so as to take responsibility for your actions. Do not worry: school officials are reliable and trustworthy about handling your personal information.--Learntruck55 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. The Irpen thing was a complicated situation where, in hindsight, I should not have told him to remain civil in the fashion that I did - it should have been said in a much less controversial way. So again, thank you for the feedback, and hopefully, if I decide to run again, I can earn your support! Thanks!-- daniel folsom  22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion debate.
Hello, Ronnotel. I'm alerting the editors who were involved with the Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex (but may not know) that it is now a deletion debate. Since you were involved with the discussion for redirecting it, I felt that you may want to voice your thoughts on its deletion debate as well. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review
Hello again. I understand if you may be worn out on this debate, but once again I thought that you might want to know that the debate over this article is still going on. It is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Congratulations, Hibearniantears. Please note my action plan implemented immediately after my RfA last month. Ronnotel 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR policy question
Could I invite you over to 3RR talk to hash out the whole user-space exception issue? Thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * beat ya to it. . . :) Ronnotel 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'Scott Thomas Beauchamp'
The argument over the article is if Beauchamp perpetrated a hoax, that is did he sell fiction to TNR as the truth, etc. The US Army memos that were leaked by Drudge have been confirmed by the TNR staff as well as a source in Central Command (Linked on talk page) That established the documents from the Army include the findings that Beauchamp's stories are fiction. They are the only investigative body. So we have confirmation that documents are real, and the documents say the Army's investigation finds Beauchamp to be a fraud, there needs to be a consensus that he was a fraud because a couple of overly partisan editors, one in particular, want to insist the earth is flat?

What course of action should be taken here, in your opinion. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, first of all, stop violating WP:3RR. Second, engage in consensus building. Third, act cautiously as this article falls under WP:BLP and therefore must meet a higher standard of proof for claims such as B perpetrated a hoax. I think it's entirely likely that he did. But WP needs to wait for unimpeachably independent sources to make that claim first. And I just don't see the Army document as meeting that criteria since they are an involved party. Ronnotel 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to argue a point, the Army is not an involved party. The issue was between Beauchamp and TNR hence the Army is an outside party. So, what if TNR continues to stonewall, we have to wait for an article in the New York Times or Washington Post? I think the Army's investigators, who have no really stake in the outcome of a journalistic ethics case, have at least as much credablity in this matter considering they are the only people on the ground with access to other members of his platoon, etc. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, so Private Beauchamp belongs to some other Army? Ronnotel 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is neither here nor there, as the actions of his that are in question is not his conduct within the Army. By that standard we are not believe anything The New Republic says because Beauchamp is/was also in their employ. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree that TNR's actions and statements must be viewed through the lens of self-interest. Ronnotel 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask, just in your personal opinion, what threshold must be crossed? Are you insisting on a recantment from Beauchamp or a confession by TNR? So if they both stonewall, as they are appearing to do, then we must just take their word for it, all other evidence to the contrary? &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please take note that neither Eleemosynary or Thumperward are engaging on the talk page to help develop consensus, but rather are just waiting for the page protection to be removed so they can strip the article of the things they don't want. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My threshold can be found at WP:BLP and WP:RS, with the emphasis on independent. What, exactly, is the rush here? Ronnotel 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find nothing in reading WP:BLP or WP:RS, which are fairly vague, that would disqualify an official Army investigation. I would ask what the rush to exclude things from the article is. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Well, for starters, WP:LIBEL comes to mind. . . Ronnotel 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Beauchamp sue Wikipedia for libel for citing an Army report. Not to be rude, but frankly I don't think you have a good answer. Aside from a confession from Beauchamp himself, this is as clear as you can get. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Steven, I think the only thing we disagree on is whether the Army report can be considered independent. I say no, you say yes. I admit that I am not an expert on this topic, perhaps we can seek more input from WP:RSN? Ronnotel 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fine suggestion. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created a new section at that page. Please extend my comments if and where appropriate. Ronnotel 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ronnotel, you are bending over backwards to accomodate someone who has made up his mind, regardless of the facts. I think it shows admirable restraint.  But for SAM to suggest what he does above hardly shows a good faith contributor.  By the way, TNR has responded.  Beauchamp and TNR are standing by the stories; apparently, the Army employed coercion during the transcripted phone call.  I posted the link on the article Talk page. --Eleemosynary 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm trying to be more politic in my comments, but Patsw's latest use of "selective quoting" is making that well nigh impossible. Could you please take a look at this, and my follow-up here, and give your thoughts?  (You may wish to visit the Talk Page directly, as the diff codes make the reading a little tricky.) Thanks. --Eleemosynary 09:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr, Dab
Hello. The reason I am messaging you is because I've noticed that as an admin, you handle cases on the 3rr notice boards for reporting. Well, I've noticed that you seemingly passed my case up, while tending to those below mine.. I can honestly think of one, but is there any particular reason, according to you why this particular case on this particular user is being ignored? It has already been identified as a clear violation and has been just sitting there for a while.Taharqa 01:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Taharqa - no I honestly didn't even look at your case. I noticed that a report had been filed on a page that I had been watching closely and I wanted to handle it before anyone else got to it. Not a reflection on the merits of your case at all. I'm sure an admin will be by shortly to review it. Ronnotel 01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Indicates a poor understanding of how edit summaries are used and why they are important to admins."

I have enabled the prompted edit summary option in my user preferences, and I of course will be providing edit summaries for all administrative actions. Please let me know if this resolves your concern. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, it does and I appreciate the responsiveness. I honestly am a bit surprised that you didn't succeed. But you're doing the right thing and I'm sure you'll have no problem next time. Cheers Ronnotel 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
I stumbled upon the page Soprano crime family which is the target of a redirect from DiMeo crime family - apparently due to a renaming of the page. Should piped links to the old page (DiMeo) be changed to the new (Soprano)? I'm asking here because you're the only admin who has edited that page recently. Thanks. - Special-T 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In theory yes, but I believe that bots periodically look for these and update them automatically. No reason not too. Ronnotel 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just curious about the protocol/mechanics of the redirect. Sounds like a job for robots! - Special-T 12:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack
Can you take a look at this? It's an out-and-out personal attack, but I don't want to get into a revert war with the author. Would you mind removing it if you think it meets the threshold? (I'd do it myself, but the usual chorus would cry foul, and I find you a disinterested, fair party.) --Eleemosynary 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. It's been taken care of. --Eleemosynary 10:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But I like candy!
So what's the appropriate thing to do when someone lies about both my behavior and his in a discussion that's supposed to regard his policy violations? Ignore him and hope everyone does the proper research to reveal the truth? Point out the lies in as calm a tone as possible? I want your honest opinion (and hope that by not mentioning the person in question by name that he will respectfully stay out of my attempt to solicit your opinion). Calbaer 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Go Bears. Second, I'd like to suggest that WP:AN/I is probably not the place to have an I said/you said conversation - it's for reporting incidents that require prompt administrative intervention. Third, I would like to repeat my suggestion that you pursue mediation to resolve specific disputes. If that doesn't work, then the next step would likely be WP:RfC to discuss user behavior and likely ways it can be addressed. However, when it gets to that stage, the community will be asked to make a judgment on all prior interactions by the participants. If you think that someone's editing style needs to be modified, don't undermine your case by engaging in the same behavior. Ronnotel 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did notice your affiliation on your page; go Bears. One of the problems is that the user in question is personally attacking a user who doesn't respond in a civil fashion.  As I said before, there's really not anyone to "mediate" between, since the attacks go out to everyone, including the aforementioned uncivil user who was attacked for no reason after (I believe) having not altered the page for weeks.  Frankly, I'm just sick of seeing these homophobic ad hominem attacks &mdash; and other violations &mdash; go unanswered.  The lack of good faith is exemplified by his latest Wikistalking of a user who reported him, trying to trick the user into violate WP:3RR by altering an article the stalkee was working on.  He also tried to circumvent WP:3RR by requesting page protection rather than hashing things out of the talk page.  He seems to view the talk page of articles as outlets for his mockery and hatred, treating any disagreement with him like a declaration of war.


 * The actions he attacks others over their questioning of are often correct actions, so it's all the more frustrating that he attacks any perceived enemy (even those who agree with his actions) with such hate, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL dozens upon dozens of times. Again, what's there to mediate with that?  What's the appropriate forum if not WP:AN/I?  One look at his block log and it's clear people have tried to help this user climb down, to no avail. Calbaer 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the questions I ask above are not hypothetical, just in case it wasn't clear. I really want to know your thoughts. Calbaer 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The actions he attacks others over their questioning of are often correct actions, so it's all the more frustrating that he attacks any perceived enemy (even those who agree with his actions) with such hate, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL dozens upon dozens of times. Again, what's there to mediate with that?  What's the appropriate forum if not WP:AN/I?  One look at his block log and it's clear people have tried to help this user climb down, to no avail. Calbaer 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really feel that something must be done - the next stop is probably RfC/User conduct. The purpose is to elicit feedback from the community on someone's editing style, which I am inclined to agree (at least from the little I have seen) is unnecessarily combative. If a consensus forms at an RfC, remedies can be proposed and enforced. Should you decide to take that step, I would strongly urge you to review successful RfC's, come up with a clear set of objectives, and present relevant evidence. Above all, assume the presence of a belly button and don't engage in tit-for-tat argumentation. The point is to protect the encyclopedia - not to score points. Ronnotel 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the tit-for-tat argumentation, it's hard to be called a liar for a truthful statement and not point out which is the lie and which is the truth. I'm not trying to score points, just answer defamation.  Regarding WP:BELLY, it's really hard to assume so many "honest mistakes" coming from one user in so short a time.  I had thought he might be unaware how his remarks could be perceived as homophobic, but his insistence on using remarks which just so happen to be homophobic, over and over, even when confronted about them on multiple occasions, does not strike me as "honest mistakes."  I assume good faith, but that doesn't require me to ignore all negative actions.  Anyway, perhaps the recent attention will remind him to behave well, though I fear that his getting away with 3RR and the collective yawn with which my concerns were met mean that he's just going to continue.  Our time will be wasted addressing his talk page defacements and defamations, either through using Wikipedia process to curtail these actions or just by addressing them on the talk page. Calbaer 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Norman hsu.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Norman hsu.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your recent block of TDC
Hi, Ronnotel. I saw your recent block of as a result of a report by. I'd like to ask you to consider something: It seems a bit shaky to me to block only TDC and not Xenophrenic. The two have a long history of edit warring with each other: see this Arbitration case and this checkuser case. While Xenophrenic vehemently denies that he is the same user as the one sanctioned in this ArbCom case, I don't believe a word of it, since the checkuser evidence and the MO (edit warring with TDC on the Winter Soldier article) support this. Thus I don't really think it's right to block only one editor with a long-standing history of edit warring when the other was also edit warring (albeit not to 3RR). I suggest both should be blocked or neither. Lemme know if what I say makes sense to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at this more, it seems to me that this edit war has gone on for too long, and that short blocks are no longer accomplishing anything here. Therefore, I've started discussion at ANI on this topic. (This is focused on the edit warring of the editors in question, not on your blocking.) If you'd like to comment there, I'd welcome it. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dow Divisor
Hi Ronnotel. I calculated it yesterday based on Wednesday's close and got that figure. I just did it again based on today's close and got .12298413. I'm just taking a class in equities valuation and that was an assignment. You seem to be educated in the field, why would I get different numbers on each day? Thank you! Mdineenwob 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Accumulator (structured product)
You might know more about this than I do. Go Bears??! Smallbones (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review for Option (finance)
I'm encouraging User:Samiharris to do a GA review for option (finance) and it looks like he's about 40-50% done with it. Which means we could put some work on the article - in particular more references. Too bad about dem Bears.

Smallbones 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Cleander
It was showing up on the Broken redirects list. So I fixed it. Did I do something wrong? --Jeanenawhitney 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that someone came along and deleted the user page to which it had been redirected. No, you didn't do anything wrong. He was a particularly nasty customer and I was just wondering whether he had managed to get his case reopened somehow. No problem. Ronnotel 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page not Protected
Hi Ronnotel,

I noticed a user talk page that you wrote that the page had been protected from editing by non-admins. However this is not the case, so I was wondering whether or not you want to fix this?

Not Protected Page

Cheers  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Save the drama for your mama"?
What are you, twelve? Seriously, if you're going to comment, leave something that at least sounds like you're not just parroting what you read above your vote. Mr Which??? 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cold Fusion Page"?
I don't see how you can justify locking the page in the censored mode 50K bytes short of the less censored mode. Some of my comments on the talk page have been deleted. I do not see how you can allow this behavior. Ron Marshall (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, my job is to step in when conflicts (and tempers) begin to flare up. One of the tools administrators use in these situations is page protection. This is a relatively low-pain way to defuse situations and get people working towards consensus again. Please note that pages are protected in whatever version they happen to be in at the time. This is not an endorsement of any particular content. I urge you and the other editors to continue working towards consensus on the talk page. I'm sorry if your comments were removed from the talk page, that is usually only done in extreme cases. Can you provide a diff of a comment you felt was inappropriately removed? Ronnotel (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective comments regarding the Request for Arbitration on the Cold Fusion (CF) article. I have only been a 'wiki-reader' using it as a reference when I want to get a factually-based, objective and cited (i.e., "here's the source to back up what I'm writing") background on a given topic. I think Wikipedia is a very positive and powerful global use of this phenomenon we call the internet. However, I am dismayed at what is happening here.

I hope Wiki-Arbitration will look into this dispute CAREFULLY! I think the first three "Declines" came out a bit too quickly and don't feel they have carefully reviewed the material. Although there are some elements of this dispute that are content-related, there is also a VERY CLEAR BEHAVIORAL element. I started a wiki-account in an attempt to add to the Request for Arbitration, but so far have not been able to do any editing on that page.

I have two college degrees, one in Biology and an advanced degree in Computer Science, and I chose to work in industry, not academia. I am NOT actively involved in any CF-related work, thus, I consider myself to be objective in this instance. In fact, I am very much a data-driven person... I don't care what your feelings/beliefs are, show me the data/source material! I am very intelligent and can decide from there.

In reading the editors 'discussion', primarily ScienceApologist and PCarbonn, and to a lesser extent, Ron Marshall, Jed Rothwell, Guy, and Michaelbusch, what I am seeing is SA making decisions to do things and not providing specific references to justify his actions. For example, he uses the excuse that the bibliographic material was removed because it doesn't meet the "notability" requirement (Wikipedia:Notability). Okay, so I follow the link and guess what? The notability "guideline" (not requirement) should be applied for the creation of a new wiki-article. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT APPLYING THIS GUIDELINE TO BIBLIOGRAPHIC LINKS! I really do appreciate the rigor with cited references which are used in the main article, but nowhere does it say that those same rigorous requirements apply to "Further Reading" material! Wiki must think that we're all children and need to be saved from biased material! Frankly, this is bordering on censorship. The compromise I wanted to offer before this blew up is that we include a statement about the "self-published" material with it's link. This way, the reader is made aware of the caveat just as they choose to click on that link. But unilaterally removing the links to these non-cited materials is Wiki-editors making decisions for me... sorry, but provide fair warning and let ME decide how to "filter" that material!

SA also uses the excuse that some references should not be allowed because they were not published by "respectable" publishers. Again, I followed the links and cannot find how one determines what is a "respectable" publisher. One of the most important works since 2004 has been the efforts by the Naval Research Lab/China Lake/SPAWAR. The papers published in 2005 and 2007 by Spazk/Mosier-Boss represent a VERY significant advance in repeatability and reproducibility. It took me all of 5 minutes to research the peer-reviewed journal, Naturwissenschaften, that those papers were published in and I find the publisher to be Springer. This is a MAJOR scientific publisher, and I would guess that at least half of my old scientific text books from college are by this publisher. Here is a link to just the Physics Journals (http://www.springer.com/west/home/physics?SGWID=4-10100-12-71132-0).

Then researched a few of the other important references mentioned by PCarbonn and I found that many of those journals (e.g., Physics Letters B) is published by Elsevier. Fortunately, their website is more informative and it only took me a minute to get the facts. They publish 2290 journals and have published over 21,582 book titles! Does this qualify for a "respectable" publisher? Someone didn't take 5 minutes to back up his statements!!! I plead to your sense of objectivity and fairness that there is a VERY obvious BEHAVIOR element here, as well as content dispute. What does it take for someone to call SA on the carpet about his unjustified statement about "no CF papers have been published in respectable journals"? This is so blatant it's laughable. I also find it interesting that although Michaelbusch and Guy are supportive of SA, they are not nearly as bold as him! SA is way out on a very flimsy limb in my opinion.

Although SA's deplorable comment about the late Mr. Mallove's just wanting to make money was pure POV, more importantly it shows his COMPLETE lack of knowledge about the topic. Mr Mallove resigned as Science Editor for MIT's Media Relations or Press department in late 89 or early 90 and eventually became the "torch-bearer" for CF research. EVERYONE in the CF arena, opponent and proponent alike, knew of him, and are likely aware of his brutal murder. The fact that SA didn't know is CLEARLY an indication that SA knows next to nothing about CF. This and the fact that it took me all of a few minutes to falsify SA's claim that peer-reviewed journals from "respectable" publishers have not published any CF articles shows that SA is throwing out claims that he hasn't even taken time to research! PCarbonn was willing to concede on a few things in order to come to a compromise with SA, but SA was non-yielding. One person came in for just a few sentences and admonished SA by saying, "...stop being belligerent".

Quickly, on SA's repeated justification using the phrase, "the majority of mainstream scientists..." Mr. SA needs to READ the Wiki-article on WK:Scientific consensus! In the SECOND sentence of that page it states, "Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method".

I think PCarbonn has acted with objectivity, keeping statements like "kooky", "shitty" and "I think..." out of his rebuttals, and perceive him to be a man of integrity. SA and Michaelbusch have not. Ron Marshall and Jed Rothwell, although injecting an equal amount of emotion and passion into their contributions, one cannot simply dismiss their argument with well-sourced references because they happen to be unable to contain their passionate feelings. A good editor should be able to ignore their personal opinions and just look at the logic of their argument and any references. Dismissing ALL their contributions is simply a way an editor can dodge dealing with a strong rebuttal! Jed frequently refers to the archival site, LENR-CANR.org. I have visited there several times, and as far as I can tell, it includes ALL material on CF, both positive and negative; same goes for newenergytimes.com. In fact, Steve Krivit, the founder of New Energy Times, has written some very detailed, balanced reports on controversial topics and makes what appears to be very diligent efforts to contact all parties and give them a shot at presenting their side of the story. He also includes very detailed reporting of anti-CF material.

Best Wishes for the Holiday Season, Mark (Wiki-user:PhysicsEng) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsEng (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Block
Howdy, would you check out User talk:72.218.29.126 if you get a chance? He's been banned twice before, with you as the last one to ban him. It's expired and he's at it again! Fogster (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Alfredchew
You might check this out as a spammer. I've reverted 3 links, but there are a bunch more. Does your mop let you delete everything the guy did on Dec. 28?

Merry Christmas! Is it true that Santa lives in Finland?

Smallbones (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, the mop is very handy for situations like this. However it looks like all of his edits are no longer current. It seems like it's been taken care of. I'm on my iPhone right now so it's not so easy to go thru the edits one by one. I've never been to Finland so I couldn't tell you. Ronnotel (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to you too!
Thanks for your message and for your ongoing and excellent stewardship of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Congratulations are due you as well, not only for your fine work on the article itself, but for being the one who finally shepherded it through FAC. I think nominating it for the front page at its one-year anniversary is a fine idea. Maybe by then all the ref cleanup will be "finished"! Oh, yes, and Happy New Year! --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy on cold fusion
Ronnotel, how come that JzG / Guy is allowed to change the cold fusion page while it is protected ? How come one side of the dispute has more privilege than the other ? Can you do something about it ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Baas is also complaining that JzG redirected a disputed page, then protected it (see here). This is a gross abuse of administrator right, I would think. What recourse do we have ? Pcarbonn (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd call it a gross abuse, but I have sent Guy a note asking him to

review admin policies. Ronnotel (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think by gross abuse, Pcarbonn is refering to the Condensed matter nuclear science redirection & protection issue: There was a series of reverts back and forth between an article with content: and a redirect:, involving multiple people.

JzG is heavily involved in multiple disputes about condensed matter nuclear science on the cold fusion talk page. Page protection policy states that: Before protecting the page, JzG reverted it back to the version that he prefers. Page protection policy states that:
 * "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people."
 * "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

In both cases, JzG violated wikipedia page protection policy in letter and principle.

I believe that Pcarbonn says this is a "gross" abuse because it deals not merely with some content in an article, but ALL of it. Indeed, the whole existence of the article. What JzG is doing is essentially deleting the article over numerous reasoned objections by multiple contributors, and circumventing due process for article deletion. Surely administrators shouldn't be given free reign to just go around deleting every article that doesn't fit their POV. Kevin Baastalk 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I've sent him a note asking him to review these policies. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. If the behavior continues, you can either post an entry to WP:AN/I or try RfC.Ronnotel (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857
I understand that I have been forbidden to edit the page for some more time. However, the user Josuquis is indulging in wanton editing - deleting Hindi titles by claiming to be "bold" and in general running amok. Please revert the page and lock it. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Ronnotel (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While you haven't given me specific diffs, I don't see anything that stands out as a blatant policy violation from my quick review. If you want to cite some diffs and the policy you feel has been breeched that would help. I'd also like to point out that User:Nishkid64 is also an admin. As he has been editing recently, I would probably defer to his own judgment on any edits that are inappropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the Forex scam deletion page
RN,

I was surprised to see you nominate this article, but what the heck, let's consider it a disagreement among friends. OK, so my edits to Wilmette were pretty lame...

As always,

Smallbones (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I hadn't reviewed your input on that article and was unaware you had a view on it. I do think it reads a little preachy for an encyclopedia. I am well aware of the problems in the Forex markets. However I'm not sure WP should take a view as to whether they are appropriate for retail investors. That's a little too close to investment advice for my liking. What do you think should be done? BTW, I liked your edits to Wilmette. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are scads of articles that seem to take a view on retail trading, e.g. day trading, retail forex - of course two wrongs don't make a right. I was trying to get the warring parties off the Foreign exchange market page, and thought the general topic was notable, and helped the one side more clearly express his views.  On the other hand, reading it now some of it does look OR (even if it is well-informed and fairly precise OR!).  As far as investment advice, we can leave it to the CFTC, etc. to point out that there are problems.  The whole section of CFTC warning should probably be cut down.  I think the first half of the lede is ok (Should I document that forex is a zero sum game?)


 * BTW, check out Barrington Hills, Illinois to see what a couple of good pictures can to to what is really a pretty lousy article. Smallbones (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert please
Would you consider leaving the comments in that RFA for a few minutes? People can no longer see the evidence, and I would like a 'crat to decide what to do for the avoidance of all doubt. Jehochman Talk 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it out of fairness to Rodhullandemu's RfA. The evidence is obviously preserved and can be easily accessed - I was more worried about other's using that oppose as justification for their own oppose, as User:JetLover apparently did. If you feel strongly, go ahead and revert me, but please try to make it apparent that the comment is bogus. Ronnotel (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of transparency, can you leave a message on the talk page, with diffs, explaining what you did and why? I think that would help in any case. Jehochman  Talk 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Ronnotel (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is going to get booted around. I suggest we both step aside and let the community figure it out. Jehochman  Talk 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Standing back. Ronnotel (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that dreadful comment was
I suppose I should see it at least, though I'll likely wince. You can use the email link on my talk page if you like... thanks. Here is the diff. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've said something about it on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Re the unstriking of the opposition, can I just point out the 'crats have reached consensus at WP:BN that it should have been stricken? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I try to let others unrevert when someone has reverted me. Besides, I think you can start resting easy at this point. Remember, a big part of being an admin is knowing when to rise above it. Also, here are some helpful hints for the newbie admin you might want to check out. ;)Ronnotel (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was posting here while you were at BN. I will read the advice, though. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at January 2008 stock market volatility?
I think it could be made into a respectable article, though historically it hasn't been. Smallbones (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article, I'm a little concerned about WP:RECENTISM although there's no doubt it was a significant market event if for nothing else the response by governments around the world. What are your main concerns? BTW, no hard feelings regarding Forex scams. If I had investigated a little more closely, I might have been a little less quick on the delete button. Ronnotel (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am concerned about recentism - but its more like WP offering inaccurate market commentary, panic pushing, predicting a crash, etc. As recently as Sunday
 * the article was still named January 2008 stock market downturn and carried a "Stock market crash" template. I figure if the Dow ends up higher for the week, it wasn't a global stock crash.  BTW, I toned the article down recently, and tried to do so earlier as well - but there is no co-editing with some folks.
 * RE forex scam - I'm always saying I'll go back and make it better (that and 20 other articles!), find the middle way. It's old and still needs work.  Smallbones (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * fiweru, I'd implement #6 immediately. Good luck. Ronnotel (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock of User:Wfgh66?
It looks to me like user is a sockpuppet created by  to evade his block for edit warring. Take a look at Wfgh66's last contribs, and the creation date/time and contribs of Rocky2276. Seems pretty obvious. 219.153.70.245 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * yep, blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wfgh66
Good call blocking this destructive user. Igor Berger (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * not even close. enough is enough. Ronnotel (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He must have been inspired by my essay WP:SEI..:) Igor Berger (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

...think alike
It wasn't a hard call. He had just sent me 22 emails saying "fuck you". Nice guy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to hand it to him, it's not easy getting admins to ec on the indef button. At least he had style. Ronnotel (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per an email exchange, I have reduced the block to one week, with stern admonitions. I'll be watching him.  Best wishes, Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. Ronnotel (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

according to what policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&curid=3741656&diff=188516172&oldid=188499635

According to what policy admins can violate 3RR? Quack  Guru  02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR and common sense. Ronnotel (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins and other users have to follow the same rules. Andmins get more tools than regular users. Regular users can follow WP:IGNORE so do admins. But then there must be a common sense for breaking a rule. One cannot ignore a rule just because they want to ignore it. For example dealing with a vandale 3RR will not apply, for admin or regular user. Igor Berger (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Maglev Power
You're right about the template; I just caught the issue on my way to bed. He had, in fact already asked to be unblocked and been declined so was fully aware of the process. I'll make sure I have a handy link to the blocking templates. Meanwhile I will keep an eye on him. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of CEP Vendors
Hi, I don't believe you have followed correct procedures for deleting this page. No concensus was reached at the discussion for deletion. Many of the "delete as per nom" comments cannot be considered, especially since policy dictates very clearly that it is not a headcount vote issue. The topic was still being being debated, and on the talk page for the article, a way forward had been proposed and was being discussed. Please reinstate the page until either a concensus is reached. I further encourage you to at least participate in the discussion and clearly identify and explain why you support this decision by clearly identifying which policies were breached and why. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not close the AfD discussion, nor would I since I had participated in it. I believe it was closed by User:VirtualSteve. I simply removed a link to an article that had been deleted. If you think the AfD discussion was closed in error, you may ask for the deletion decision to be reviewed here. Ronnotel (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronnotel - I'll follow up with VirtualSteve. Bardcom (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs a mopping up after
I'd guess that User:Bobknowitall needs mopping up after. Smallbones (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ronnotel (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I noticed the Sami thng as well, but the info I'm missing is what User:Mantanmoreland did. He seems to be still editing so .... As far as Sami goes all I've noticed is extremely good editing on Naked Short Selling, Martha Stewart (at my suggestion), George Soros, Gary Weiss and a few others. If he's on the outs at WP, maybe I should take the suggestion and spend my time elsewhere. I've noticed that some ideas I think are obvious (e.g. not writing market commentary or calling crashes) are not well accepted! Sometimes it seems that you and about 3 others are about the only "normal people" who write on finance!Smallbones (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Senior note to Senior debt
I need help moving Senior note to Senior debt, which is currently a redirect page. Senior debt is the most commonly used term, compared to senior loan and senior note. Ideally, there should be a correspondence between Senior debt and Junior debt too. Finnancier (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be standardized like this: Senior debt and Subordinated debt, of which Mezzanine debt is an example. Finnancier (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ronnotel (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ronnotel! Finnancier (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Subordinated loan to Subordinated debt, merge with Subordinated bond
I need help moving Subordinated loan to the existing redirect page Subordinated debt. I can't delete the existing redirect page without admin rights. After that, I can handle the merger with Subordinated bond if you like. After this, there should be only two pages: Senior debt and Subordinated debt. Thanks. Finnancier (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ronnotel (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh
Yes, though I think now he's just playing games, I saw a glimmer of hope in one of his responses and switched to neutral. I can't believe how much of my time went into dealing with that RFA. Dloh cierekim  Deleted?  15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

High frequency computing
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article High frequency computing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of High frequency computing.

As per our discussion on the talk page. If you can find any reliable sources, be sure to add them and hang on to the article. Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of High frequency computing
An editor has nominated High frequency computing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)