User talk:Rrburke/Archive 2

sorry
Article kate spicer can be deleted. i understand the problem now. regards, darryl Jcac222 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

leading re
I have not finished posting for leading re and you want it deleted?

Why do you want it deleted? Please let me finish editing before you recommend it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClevelandPress (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Islamic thinkers and activists
I am The Bully Boy. I am sorry for creating Category:Islamic thinkers and activists. I was a bit upset because of 9/11. What can I do here? The Bully Boy 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
Hello - I'm a teacher who caught some students tampering with a couple of pages during lab. We're a school with a single IP but lots of stations running off of it. Is there some simple way we can block edits from the lab, but leave teacher's desktops open for editing? Or should we block the whole site to be safe? It makes me insane that this is happening.

Cbaker - at - spes - dot - org

why delete? and why do you have a say?
You have requested that a new entry of mine should be deleted but you have given no reason, so could you tell me why please as I don't understand what's wrong with it. If you can let me know then at least I can edit and improve it. Cheers Jason Marson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlhmarson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
If the allegations (incorrectly presented by another editor as referenced facts) are removed from the talk page (as you did)(permissible under (WP:BLP)) then there is no need to have a comment (such as mine) criticizing them and explaining BLP policy. I feel there could be discussion of allegations on the talk page (qualified as allegations) if they were sourced  to  the public prosecutor,  the police spokesman, or if the accused or his spokesman or lawyer commented on the accusations to the press, or if they sued someone for saying it or printing it. That is sometimes how rumors or allegations become news. In some circumstances, the allegations could be included on the article page, with the clear qualification that they were only allegations, and sourced to multiple reliable and independent source such as a wire service reporing one of the above events. My view is that even with multiple wire service reports of an allegation, we should know who made the allegation, screening out anonymous whisper campaigns. We need the talk page available to determine if thre is a critical mass for including derogatory info on the main page of the article. If not there, then where? Anonymous acccusations per se do not belong in an article, but there was extended discussion of anonymous allegations on the Larry Craig talk page (now archived at Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1). Policies such as BLP are largely influenced by what happens in AFDs,in DRVs, in actual article editing, and in dispute resolution, as nuch as by editors acting as a deliberative body debating on the talk page of the policy. So we do not always scrub all discussion of allegations from the talk page even if they are too weakly sourced to go on the article page, as long as it is kept clear that we are discussing allegations which have been reported in a reliable source (as allegations) and whether they have gained enough secondary discussion in the mainstream press, for the purpose of improving the article (and not acting as a gossipy blog). There are probably cases where even the discussion should be cleaned out by office action, but that is not always the practice. AFDs and even Requests for Adminship have been similarly scrubbed. Some experienced editors or admins would doubtless set a different standard. You should also leave an explanation on the talk page of the person who posted the allegations, referring him to WP:BLP, since he will find that the contributions to the talk page have disappeared and might repost them without searching the page history. Everyone was a new editor at some point. If admin assistance is ever needed, as in a WP:3RR situation, the matter can be posted at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where other opinions or assistance can be solicited.

And admins are not necessarily better informed, they just have extra buttons and a mop to keep the place clean. Edison 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see those very allegations in some of the references, but as I noted the refs themselves criticized the sourcing. BLP does not always create a total Voldemort "He Who Must Not Be Named"-esque inability to talk about "The Thing We Must Not Talk About." Perhaps such talk page discussions should be conducted in Pig Latin: "Edate-say the ildren-chay". Edison 03:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My further communication on this will be encoded with a One-time pad. Unfortunately, I have the only copy: j1llg keuib rgvwk. Edison 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is disappointing
I had put in some additions to the fibromyalgia article, only to have them deleted because I didn't have a citation. I went to your citation page, which is extremely unclear, and tried again. I put my source under references as #55 and as the last on the list that was already there. I even added the website address to where I got my image from. And yet, my stuff was still deleted. Your citation page needs to be made more clear. And you citations for images also need to be made more clear. I have found that wikipedia is very unfriendly for everyday users. I also got a message from Djma12 saying that my text looked interesting, but that he was deleting it. I HAVE FIBROMYALGIA, and if that isn't enough knowledge for you, then I don't know what is. A lot of my factual info came from the book I had put under resources, and some of the text came from my own personal experiences. I have been diagnosed for four years. I do not appreciate being made to feel like I don't know what I'm talking about. The bottom line is that you don't accept anything that is not published, yet many people are experts, or have gone through diseases and other situations, and they don't count because they have not written a book. I do not see the point in having wikipedia online and stating that anyone can add anything if it is deleted less than five minutes later. While the article on fibromyalgia is informative, it is missing some important information. I was also trying to make it sound less dry. But apparently, since I am only a sufferer of fibromyalgia, and not an author on the subject, I am unimportant to the wikipedia world. If that's how it is going to be, perhaps I should refuse to use wikipedia ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srs5699 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerdy derk
Why would you restore a blatantly BLP-violating personal attack? Corvus cornix 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No identifiable person to you and me, but that doesn't mean it isn't identifiable to the person who wrote the article and his/her friends. There are articles like this all the time where people come up with neologisms based on their friends' and enemies' names and write nonsense like this. There's no point in taking a chance, the db-attack label was perfectly valid and should consider a lot more weight, especially when you're restoring the entire article after it's already been deleted as an attack page. Corvus cornix 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My tag was already there and was replaced. Corvus cornix 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth Image Permissions
Hi... I saw your SD tag on Image:GoogleEarth_Image.jpg. Have you seen Google's FAQ on permissions? Here's the link: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=21422

There's certainly a problem with User:Paulkondratuklovesginger claiming to be the copyright holder, but since Google only requires attribution for non-commercial use, is the image really a copyvio on Wikipedia? I'll confess to total ignorance on the subject, but it looked to me from the FAQ that while the licensing tag will certainly have to be changed, the image may be usable with attribution. --Rrburke(talk) 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, your link provides the answer quite clearly: it's OK to use online (in general); but the user fails in meeting Google's requirement by claiming the work as his own. Additionally, as Google prohibits commercial use of their imagery, they are not permissible for use within the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi... thanks for answering. Is use on Wikipedia "commercial use"?  --Rrburke(talk) 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ye-up, check out this info for tips on what is and is not OK for uploading to the Wikimedia Foundation. FYI, if you would like to upload photos, it is generally preferred that you do so on Wikimedia Commons, which allows users on other Wikipedias (i.e. other languages, wiktionary, wikinews, etc.) to use your upload.  -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:John Tory
hey Rrburke, the photo that you reverted to wasn't free either and anyhoo the guy who uploaded the new pic is the Exec. Director of Communications for the Ontario PC Party, so im sure the photo has the Party's blessings for the photo to be used. nattan g 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure...and if you can find a better free image...go ahead... nattan g 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Pages With WP:CANADA
If you're going to tag large amounts of pages with the WP:CANADA banner, could you please actually assesses them? We just cleared out our backlog, and now I see that there's 60 more pages for assessment. Tagging them with WP:CANADA doesn't help things if they aren't assessed for importance and quality, so could you either stop doing it or start assessing? Thank you and Cheers, CP 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem if you're actually going to go back and tag them. I saw the category go literally from 0 to 60 overnight and freaked out is all. Cheers, CP 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging!
Hello, you tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3_revert_rule&redirect=no which I changed to a redirect. It would be nice if you could also warn the user that you tagged the article, as it gives them a reasoning. (oops I mean in future) Keep up the good work. Phgao 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right, thanks for that, feel free to revert it, but the original editor did probably search for it and found it wasnt there and did it in good faith. Phgao 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Erik Bartik all info and pics have been taken and used with permission from www.myspace.com/erikbartik and if you look at the bottom of the bio on www.myspace.com/erikbartik it staes that the pics and bio are cleared for public domain use and and that we have permission to use and re-post. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entertainment host (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Post Breton
Hi Rrburke, thanks for the message, but the references in question do not hold and the sentences need to be removed for the benefit of the article.CoolRanch3 02:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the reference source information is written by friends of this Chicago grop. I researched their material and its all written by themselves and their friends, go check it out. I will wait a while before making any changes. Rrburke, I certainly do not want to get into any edit war, which is the last thing I want to do. If you know anything about surrealism and modern art, there is nothing credible on this Chicago group, its all a bunch of friends trying to get on the Wikipedia article. Let me know what you think.CoolRanch3 02:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cantley, Quebec
Hello Rrburke!

Checking out the issue since I've been contributing a lot in that article and following the case even though this is not happening in my city (though it is located about 20 kilometers away), I have checked the reference in question in an archive research engine of a university and it is mentionned (and those two names as well)in the newspaper article, although it's better not to have those names published. So, the reverting was a good decision even it is was someone else outside of the parties involved on the matter - I often hate to put names in legal or other major issues locally.--JForget 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canadian politician photos
Unfortunately, Image:John Tory Casual.jpg would not be acceptable - though the image is promotional, it has to be released for commercial use to be suitable for use on Wikipedia. Please read this for more information.

In simple terms, unless a person is dead, you cannot post a fair-use image of them. So taking a quick look at Category:Official photographs of Canadian politicians, deceased politicians like Image:Florence Elsie Inman.jpg and Image:Emmett Hall.jpg should be kept. Photos of living politicians, like Image:Gilles Duceppe photo.jpg, should be deleted. Morgan695 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, judging on an image-by-image basis:
 * Image:MillikenPeter LIB.jpg Delete, he's alive and in office, it's reasonable to believe that a free image of him exists
 * Image:20060206 cab01.jpg Keep, I believe only the government and media are invited to this event
 * Image:AlanGotlieb.png Keep, he's 79 and I assume has retired from public life - this would be a special circumstance
 * Image:Clark-citizen.jpg Discuss - I'm not personally sure of legal matters surronding a photograph of an oath of citizenship, it may be irreplaceable.
 * Image:ClarksonandQueen2005.jpg Delete, we have a free image of the Queen and it's reasonable to believe that a free image of Clarkson exists


 * These are, of course, merely my opinions on how a discussion would go, but I'm fairly confident in my answers. Morgan695 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Carmel Valley, San Diego
Nice catch on this article. - Coffee and TV September 18, 2007. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to WP:AIV
Hi there, I've blocked the IP you reported to AIV. Just a quick note however, when reporting to AIV it's not really accepted that anonymous IP's are known as accounts let alone a vandalism only account. This rationale is only really applied to a registered editor who's sole aim is to disrupt Wikipedia, and having only vandalism edits to the account, we would then block the account indefinitely as a vandalism only account. As we are unsure if it's the same editor behind an IP address at any given time we cannot issue a permanent blocks to anonymous IP's. Any problems please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khu kri  13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi... thanks for the note. I noticed that just after I submitted it: it was a mistake.  I'm undercaffeinated. :) --Rrburke(talk) 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Long
Can you get someone to protect this page, please? It has been vandalized at least 20 times in the last hour. Thanks Tech43 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hepling me out in getting the page protected. Very much appreciated. Again, thanks. Tech43 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Fischer
Hi! I nominated this article for deletion, then noticed your notification of speedy deletion on the creator's talk page. The speedy deletion doesn't seem to have registered on the article, for some reason. Anyway, the deletion is here. -- Kateshort forbob  21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information - have a nice weekend! -- Kateshort forbob  23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done - I learn something new every day; on WP, sometimes it's 2 things! -- Kateshort forbob  09:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image question
Hi, Bossi. Thanks for answering my question about image-licensing. I have another one, if it's not too much of an imposition. It involves the use of this image in this article. It's a political campaign presskit photo sourced from here. It's copyrighted, and the fair-use rationale is. However, I'm concerned that the fair-use rationale offered on the image page doesn't address this problem:


 * Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent.

I have tried to raise the issue with the editor who restored the image in, but I have to confess to being way out of my depth on matters of image-licensing. Do you have advice about how to proceed?

A complicating factor is that the previous image used for the article, Image:John Tory Casual.jpg, has exactly the same problem. --Rrburke(talk) 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You've honestly got me stumped on that one! The best I can say is to take the issue to the Village Pump, which usually gets good and speedy feedback. Good luck! -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is a correct explanation of my findings, and the Wikipedia description of "Birth Revisited"is completely wrong.

Benny Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.35.246 (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image question
Hi, thanks for the info on your image deletion for my contribution Juliet_richardson.jpg. If I change the image from color to b/w and then resubmit, will it qualify as an uncopyright image? Would be nice to have her picture on there. Thanks!

--Electrafiction 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Thanks for note on SueBrewer, answer on my talk page. I thought you were an admin, but it appears you're not. I've often seen you on wiki and think you'd make a good one. Would you accept an RFA nom? Have you been nom'd before? Rlevse 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk page. Let's use mine for this thread.Rlevse 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The 87.xxx vandal
From the discussion at User talk:Riana

I've protected two of those articles for a month for repeated vandalism and certainly for preventing him of starting over again. As for the abbreviations, well the first returns from Google are from the wine label, so I have no idea, maybe a nn local organization or something.-- JForget 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:SueBrewer
Please see: Suspected_sock_puppets

Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Logos
I see your question was answered by User:Quadell, who is correct in his answer on the subject. The user who uploaded Image:Nbpc.png has also uploaded Image:Ontario Libertarian Party small logo.png, concerns I've voiced on his request for adminship. Morgan695 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

request for comment on Hugh Hefner
Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tottenham
I think you will find that Tottenham are known as the Yids more than they are the lilywhites. Therefore it should be under the nickname section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.46.81 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Counter Vandalism Award


You get this award for all your hard work on reverting vandalism. So you got it right now. Have a fun day! BASE101 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Chris Redfield
Hi there, could you let the rest of us editors in on your recent edit to article Chris Redfield, where failed to indicate why you set an image for speedy deletion, from a glance it appears to meet zero reason for deletion on the policy. Parjay ► Talk 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Dumb Fuck
xD Sorry about that. I was relatively inebriated when I saw that, and made the comment without thinking. After realizing what happened I made another edit with the ":p" to show that I was not being serious. Meh, don't take it personally. ;p) -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

editing chess articles for "spelling consistency"
You should be careful with editing chess articles for "spelling consistency". As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia does not favor U.S. or UK spellings, but does encourage consistency within a single article. Consistency normally is made towards the spelling originally used in the article when it was created, although that can be hard to determine sometimes. Some of the edits you have made have created links to redirects which are discouraged. (On the other hand, some of your edits have changed links to redirects to direct links, which is good.) You have also introduced redundant piped links (e.g.,  Bogo-Indian Defence ) which are also discouraged. Quale 16:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Transcend records deletion
My two boss's are two of the most respected figures in the British music industry, and are both slightly notorius..I have written the entry very carefully, so it is not seen as advertising, it merely states the very interesting story behind there careers. Its well researched, accurate, and I suggest a valid and useful tool.

Both mentioned parties have many other Wikipedia entries, if you allow this to remain, i will link all of there other references in to this article.

Best wishes,

jenny.

Why has this page being taken off "ekwa"

Please give me the reasons for doing so.

Thanks Ryan Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan alex (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Sorry I didn't catch your request, I was out camping this weekend. Feel free to ask me for help anytime.Rlevse 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you do not mind me eavesdropping, but I have had this attitude for awhile, regarding this statement you made (copied from User talk:Rlevse) :
 * My personal feeling is that the display of politically-oriented userboxes, of which there has been a regrettable explosion, are inherently divisive and detract from the primary purpose of building an encyclopedia, but that genie appears to be out of the bottle. But whatever one's feelings about such userboxes in general, one that begins "this user hates" is probably over any line you want to draw.
 * That was sort of my mantra in the MfD, "Why all the hate?" I still think that specific user's userpage is disruptive by asserting negative positions rather than positive ones. By placing such userboxes on their page, I would argue they are already promoting POV and therefore have diminished their contributing integrity by passively pushing unconditional bias.
 * This, in turn, suggests they cannot be argued with because they are "sensitive" to such subjects and have developed a moral authority that others "just don't understand". I would liken this to, assuming you are familiar with American politics, having Rush Limbaugh (staunchly right-wing) calling NFL Monday Night games on ABC or Keith Olberman (staunchly left-wing) doing NFL pre-game shows on NBC; their football credibility is ruined because their public reputation is already tilted due to their own self-proclamation in other media.  This is identical to the damage some userboxes can do to a user's credibility.
 * I hope you do not mind me butting in, and maybe rambling on too much, but I agree with the position.--Old Hoss 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Soßmar
Do you have read my comment ??? --D.O.A.BitH 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks --D.O.A.BitH —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st eMail I've sent 13/10/07 22:53, 2nd 16/10/07 15:31 and 3rd 09/11/07 12:11. The subject is wikipedia-article "Sossmar"/"Soßmar" and the receipient is permissions-en ATT wikimedia DOT org I still waiting... --D.O.A.BitH 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

About this edit...
Um... besides the fact that users are allowed to remove warnings... he didn't remove any. Just the space at the top of the page. Just pointing this out. Gscshoyru 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Damodin578
Blatant vandalizer, have him blocked please. Thanks. IP4240207xx 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just super busy with something else. Thanks again. IP4240207xx

noel redding
While I appreciate that my comment was personal, i felt it was justified, as the person was going to keep adding the details of Noel's death, which are intrusive and uncalled for. Surely the commnet that he died of natural causes is comment enough

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstrand (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thepurpledragen
Hi Rrburke. If I may ask a favor, would you please self-remove the warning templates you placed on User:Thepurpledragen 's talk page. Looking at his edits on that CSD article, and the talk page (if it's still there), I really think we just have a new user who genuinely wants to contribute, and just doesn't yet understand how things work here, rather than someone who is trying to be disruptive. I'd just hate for him to be discouraged by this first taste of Wikiculture and a few red-flag icons on his talk page. Thanks for your consideration! Arakunem 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cordylus
Sorry, I'm just adding to a list of species already present on wikipedia. Some of the species do not have common names, others have multiple common names, so the scientific names should stay. I tried searching for one of the common names of Cordylus jonesii and the correct page opened immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kucycads (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so hard on people.
What User:66.202.98.172 wrote in Ferret, may not have been constructive, no, but it wasn't vandalism. It was more what I like to call "inappropriate appraisal". After all, he/she didn't mean any harm, most likely, they just wanted to express their feelings about ferrets, and they were positive. (Besides, I quite agree; ferrets are simply adorable!) The 30th of October becomes the 31st when you subtract twenty, but add on twenty-one, then cut down all the trees and replace them with waterfalls overflowing with minesweeping cockerels, plus a few more in the way of nickels and dimes. October 21st, 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry
Insert non-formatted text here

Just trying to make it relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokeygreyfur (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sclater's Guenon
Hi, I am being forced to do so, because UtherSRG continues to remove a well-thought-out, accurate, scientifically sound update to this profile. I am amazed that Wikipedia operates in this way. Since this person notes violation of COI and NOR, which actually do not apply to the new profile I posted, and they claim they are an administrator, I see no other way around this. The new profile cited peer-reviewed journals and books, and gave readers much more current, accurate and detailed information. I would think people monitoring Wikipedia would encourage and support such updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnerbaker (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other
o ya... who are you? why the heck would i be looking up those pages... its the 21st century. i dont care about 3 million years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.63.105 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't got a response from Mackan
The root of this problem is the various attack sites that are after Wikipedia editors. They have various reasons, some are run by trolls, etc, while some are run by highly suspicious groups like Scientologists, the LaRouche organization, and various conspiracy theorists who don't like that the first result that comes up when you search for their group or ideology on Google is a well researched, non-partisan Wikipedia page that exposes them. The influence of the 9/11 conspiracy panderers, for example, is fairly minimal, but LaRouche has a rather well organized following of nuts and they can cause a lot of drama and disruption.

SlimVirgin came under attack lately by the nuts, putting out her supposed real name, which I'm sure you can find if you want to- a long opponent of the various conspiracy theorists on and off Wikipedia. Jayjg and others defended her, in one or two cases apparently using the admin tools to make sure the attacks were scrubbed off. Jayjg has a long history here of removing rubbish from various controversial articles and making sure the various Wikipedia attackers were not cast in a positive light. And Andrew Gray (Slimgray) and various others seem to think that editing the Wikipedia Signpost and Important Wikipedia Community Drawing-Together Activities like making stub articles no-one cares about bigger is more important than protecting Wikipedia editors who police controversial articles. If you ask me, that's bullshit.

Main whiny post is |on the discussion lists here. The discussion that highlighted this for the morons who bloat out the articles on video game characters is |here at Slashdot, and unsurprsingly it's fully of conspirational rubbish.John Nevard 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA ready
Are you ready for RFA? I think it's time. I just have that feeling. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude What the Hell?
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Joe Wright, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Rrburke(talk) 13:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)"

You sent me this message. Why?

I haven't done anything.

Who the hell is Joe Wright?

And don't advise me to get a wikipedia account, I already have one and i never edit without logging in, so how could my IP address have edited a page which I've never been on?

Thankyou.  Oddly enough, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.172.39 (talk • contribs) .

Tipi: Home of the Nomadic Buffalo Hunters
Hi, you tagged the page for the book, "Tipi: Home of the Nomadic Buffalo Hunters" as not meeting notability requirements. I was wondering what it would need to have, to meet those requirements. I was looking at other children's book stubs such as "Come over to My House" and "Glasses (Who Needs 'Em?)" and it was not clear to me why those were notable and this was not. Thanks. Temp07 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,

Happy Valentine's Day!


A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Seagal Issue
I have asked his management company for confirmation that his is or was with the sherrif's deptartment. Also, I did NOT edit your comments, I merely asked you for reliable citations that Mr. Seagal is not a reliable source of information about himself!!! I think that a person can be a source of reliable information about his employment-- are you NOT a reliable source about yourself??? Why have you not gotten on your high horse about your users comments about steven being unreliable, isn't that an insult?? Power corrupts! I think I';; report you for insulting comments and lies about a well respected celebratey, unless you CAN back up that Mr. Seagal is a liar, can you?????????? (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ( posted by User:Fr33kman)


 * I have requested oversight on this matter and have reported you for making potentially libelous comments about a well-known personage. I have further reported the matter to Mr. Seagal's agent! Fr33kMan (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I reported the matter to his representatives because you have said that he is NOT a reliable source of information about himself and I'd like confirmation of this supposed fact and you've repeatedly not offered any and also to seek, once again, WRITTEN confirmation of his status as a current or former police office. It is not now and never was a legal threat! Also, if you have taken offense at any of my comments then you have my apologies! Fr33kMan (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three references I'd like you consider ...


 * 1) A picture of Mr. Seagal in uniform exists here http://www.steven-seagal.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7866&highlight=swat, 2) Sheriff Henry Lee himself told Rita Cosby on MSNBC that Seagal trains his SWAT team and was given a commission [as a deputy] 15 years ago. Here's the transcript page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9326665/ and here is the quote "COSBY: Yes, how do you two know each other?  A great friendship here. LEE:  We got to be friends—he actually was trains my SWAT team, pistol and hand-to-hand combat.  And I gave him a commission 15 years ago.  He was filming in Romania.  And we get calls all the time, but he wanted to come down, so he finally made it today.  So he‘s getting ready to ride with the New Orleans SWAT team for a little while, and then he‘s going to come back and just answer calls with us tonight." 3) Anderson Cooper on CNN stated ""You know, you see a lot of surreal things here in New Orleans these days. One of the most surreal, Steven Seagal dressed up in a SWAT uniform. I don't know if you can see him, that's his back, I think, is turned to the camera. He's driving around, with the SWAT Team from Jefferson Parish. Not sure why. Just he is. One of the strange things you see here in New Orleans." Which is located at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/13/acd.01.html Fr33kMan (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I now consider this matter as over, but have responded to you on my talk page. Take care! Fr33kMan (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:David Paterson
Thanks for your note. You're absolutely correct, it was a bad example of WP:CRYSTAL. However, as is often the case, events have overtaken the issue. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Harper's
No I hadn't. What's it about? Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  02:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I love Bernie the Shark
I don't understand your threats. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherworld (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

spy hunter
i got proof go to safernetworks website the owners of spybot s&d spy hunters is a fake program its detected as malware

http://www.safer-networking.org/en/updatehistory/page-25.html

its on the 18th of june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellknight666 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies
for the misdirected warning--someone was impersonating you. GJC 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Countdown
Hi. You've just reverted my edit to this page. I don't agree. Please explain. Thanks.. 81.159.134.34 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies... I should have logged in first... Annatto (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...reverted. My fault, I should have logged in first. My edit was in good faith and from my personal knowledge.. thanks for your vigilance ;-) Annatto (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
What will happen if i keep editing :K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.135.12 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry bout tht. my teacher said tht u can do it so i just wanted to try it. i was going to change it back. once again sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.58.61 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry
i did not no the harm thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

how does sand box work
how snadbox wwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much
thanks for helping me with sand box —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

question
is there away to make your own page can you send some info.

Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me around webkipeda
thanks alot is there anything else I should know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

any thing else to know
any thing else i should know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchastings (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Roundhill
Hi, I just have some more reasonable explantions for my edits - sorry typos - why do you revert to the assinuation of him being bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.55 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rodney MacDonald
Please be specific in what you feel needs improvement. Wikipedia readers should have a right to uncensored material, so if there is something you feel inaccurate then I will either back it up more clearly, or delete it. Hoever, please do not delete material that is valid as the entry shuld show all facts (pro and con), and not be an infomercial for this politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanMacDonald (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Saddleback Maine (ski resort)
I was in the middle of a major overhaul of the Saddleback Maine (ski resort) page when i went to make a major change, and all my work was undone by you (or a bot), why did this happen? I am interested in improving this article. --Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits!
Rrburke, please stop reverting my edits on List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. I explained all my changes there, and you are the one reverting edits without explanation. Please take the time to read the changes I have made, as there has been no vandalism or loss of information, as you have suggested with your revert. If you believe there has been some reason to revert my edits, please explain yourself on the talk page, or I will revert it again. 70.251.150.167 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)