User talk:Seb az86556/archive7

Please do not keep up your grudge against me
You are not involved in this. And I am sorry that awhile ago you got mixed up in it. That was a mistake. I have no issues with you and even though you got me banned for a week I don't believe you are involved in this harassment of me. Please do not be mean to me anymore.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ? mean to you? I don't have grudges, I simply see that it was right to reject your adminship. The kind of stuff you were throwing around last week should not come from someone who wants to be an admin, no matter what kind of pressure they are under... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side... sometimes, when you know you are right and others are wrong, it's time to let them be wrong and just leave it that way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened was that user ryulong and that user treasurytag and Coffee and all those same ones were really harassing me and making up lies and false complaints about me trying to get me banned and they are still doing it. I accidentally sent a message to you. I tried to explain that but you already got me banned before I could even say anything. It was a mistake. I am sorry. BTW, I think you should understand that these other users are harassing me and filing false reports to get me banned. Please try to understand that and please do not support what they are doing. If you can help me with this I would really appreciate it. It seems that Coffee and Pak are friends with the rest of them and those two admin are trying to ban me without any other admin even knowing about this. Please if you can help me tell me how.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I cannot help you other than giving you the above general advice. If you are certain you are right, then walk away from it with that knowledge. At the moment it seems that is all you can do. "Justice" isn't always a wise thing to pursue when the odds are stacked against you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Locating copyvio photos
Do you have any thoughts/suggestions on dealing with the 100 or so photos uploaded by Special:Contributions/Alohahell? I am fairly certain they're almost all copyvios, but haven't yet been able to find exact copies online on http://www.tineye.com for more than one of them (which I have deleted; it was a copy of ). Other than his latest one, all his uploads have the same professional quality, which I don't think is his actual work--his latest upload, which is more likely to be his own work, is much lower-quality. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the user could by some procedure be forced to upload to commons exclusively, that would be great. The people at commons have a stricter and swifter way of dealing with copyvios (I had one of my uploads nuked within 10 minutes...). For now, you could make all of them candidates for migration; during that process, they will be checked individually. It would be a pain in the butt to go through a deletion process for all of them... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a good idea. I'll wait a couple days to see if I can get him to incriminate himself on his own talkpage, and if that doesn't happen I'll give migration a try. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One Sonic Society
You knew the article creator had contested your prod, so adding a prod2 to support another prod isn't really playing by the rules. A deprod is final as far as prod is concerned. I've sent it to AfD, see Articles for deletion/One Sonic Society. Fences &amp;  Windows  04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that so? I didn't know that... and I don't even remember what article it is... lemme look. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see -- that one... well, I guess I was assuming I couldn't re-add "my" prod, but since someone else gave it a second prod, I figured... Ah well, I learned something new today. Thank you Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I'm being a bit process wonkish, but prod is only for uncontroversial deletions, to take the weight off AfD. If we start saying some deprods "don't count", that way madness lies. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I don't disagree, I just didn't know the complete process, it seems :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand
What is the problem with This ? All I did was amend the link so that it points to the article's current name. Having decided to give making edits on wikipedia a go I think I'm going to give up because its just brought hassle and exclusion. User:Marlarkey > Talk 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I just saw the next revert, and thought you had been the one who changed the infobox from "micronation" to "country". I will look into it and try to track down who the "culprit" was. Thank for pointing it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it. User:CatJar did it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel reverting
I translated the name in Syriac because Syriac is also a Semitic and Middle Eastern language too, and it's derived from Aramaic which is the ancestral alphabet for Hebrew and Arabic, here's my source that you ask for Aramaic alphabet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm aware of that. The question is whether it makes sense to include it where you did. The article on the United Kingdom, for example, doesn't give the country's name in Old English, either. Only the official languages are listed after the country's name in the intro. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point?
What exactly is the point of you suggesting I am in violation of the revert rule when I have reverted on the page only twice with a continued call for discussion on the talk page, and a suggestion that I will happily abide by a majority opinion? I was under the impression that requesting people engage in constructive and civil discussions rather than attempt to force their own will was preferable. In the mean time, if you have something to say to me, say it. Copying and pasting inapplicable generic information is an unnecessary waste of time.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The note says "potentially". Cases that already have violated the rule are reported to the appropriate noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a point in warning someone of something they have not yet done? That's akin to warning a man walking into a bank that he better not rob the place. Regardless, my reverts include a call for discussion of inclusion of the contentious information on the talk page. MikeWazowski is simply following me from article to article and undoing anything I add. He's the problem here.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt to deflect attention - too bad it's not true, as my record of contributions and edits to the Landry Walker article will show. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely true. You and I had a difficult exchange at the Tron page, and suddenly you are reverting the majority of my edits. Our exchange of edits shows one thing quite clear. Me telling you that I will not continue to revert your edits if you please cease reverting the aspects that are not a part of what you describe as a "minor incident". You are ignoring my polite requests to work together. requests that include a concession, and you're following me around on multiple Wikipedia pages. That's not deflection. That's fact.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warnings are by definition for something one hasn't done yet. If you don't like being warned, you need to change the procedures at wikipedia. The alternative would be to block or ban users without any warning at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A warning is relevant when the person being warned is anywhere near breaking the rule. As I had reverted twice as opposed to three times, and I was reverting changes made by two different editors and as I was not the only editor making said reversion and I was including a call for civil discussion on the talk page and a concession on said page that I will submit to consensus... I was clearly not, and no warning was warranted. Again, the question is why is MikeWazowski following me from article to article?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you like to get a warning for Landry Walker instead? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be odd, as: One - I was clear that I would accept the edit as long as it did not take out bits of non-contentious information as well. And: Two - We seem to have already reached an accord on that page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm done here. Note that I have warned both. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Message
Hello fellow editor. Can you be so kind as to assist with an article over which I'm experiencing come conflict about. While I read through the policies and have long used wikipedia, I'm not as familiar with actually dealing with other editors as much in trying to changes things. I thought that the article is what is important to improve. It appears the editor reported me for blocking? Any advise is appreciated. The article in question is "Mao the Untold Story." Thanks.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Seb, we're talking about the matter in question here, but I guess a new section might be appropriate. That said I have no idea what interest/understanding of Chinese political history is, so apologies in advance if you don't have much to say.

As you will see, rjiang has left some feedback on the IP user's talk page explaining the situation. I hope we can resolve this and improve the article even if you can't help. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know you asked them to make an account. But some people don't like to, for various reasons. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'm the same editor that helped out with the problems in the other article, about the Falun Gong, that you had messaged me about.I'm Any help you can give with this one I'm having problems with now would be appreciated. I do plan to create an account, btw, although my IP address doesn't change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative approach?
Hi, Seb, I just read on the AE thing (I forgot which one) a complaint you made about my editing methodology. Would you be able to explain to me the best way I can edit, then? It's really unclear what's expected of me. If there is some preferred method, I would like to know it. I thought numbering the edits would be very transparent. If you're asking why they were made quickly, well, am I supposed to sit on wikipedia all day and only do one change per 30 mins? Life's a busy old thing, so I just do what I can, and when a 2 hour window appears, I use it. Anyway, if you have some specific advice, please advise.--Asdfg12345 13:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the main complaint people have about your style is indeed the "swooping"-method (a style which has, as far as I can tell, evolved only recently). This definitely wouldn't be a problem if you were changing articles on, say, the Northern-Eastern subdialect of the Ulumbura-tribe on the Southern Chuckchi-islands or whatnot -- but with a highly disputed topic like Falun Gong, it gets kinda hairy, esp. when you know that the whole deal is under scrutiny. It would indeed be better if you slowed down a little; that way, people would be able to give you the point-by-point rebuttals you are looking for. Apart from that, and more generally speaking, I really don't think there is that much at stake -- so yes, you could sit there and wait... or you could simply do something else, like, have a cup o'coffee, watch TV, or whatnot. Despite the initial impression you might have had, I don't really care that much about this whole topic, and I would guess I am not alone with that attitude. You might want to keep in mind (though you might not believe it right now) that most people who read and write English know full well that the Chinese government is effed up. Therefore, at least with me and most other people I know, when I read something like "the government of China says xyz," I will automatically have a red flag going up (no pun intended). Some of the statements and passages you are so afraid of will therefore be ignored or at least questioned by most Anglophones anyways. Hardly anyone believes what China says -- we just trade with them so we can shop at WalMart :P The same is true for other statements. Try to put a bit more trust into the critical reading-skills of our readership/audience. I, at least, cannot believe that anyone who comes to this site ever walks away saying "well, it's on wikipedia, it must be true". I think most people of average literacy will always question what they read, no matter where they find it. The few nutcases who don't are a lost bunch anyways, and you won't save them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. It's not in WP's ethos to want to control what people think. The Falun Gong and the CCP mentality are totally counter-culture to the openness of WP. That's a very fundamental difference, which draws the line between argumentation/persuasion and indoctrination/propaganda. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seb, I get what you're saying. I don't understand how it relates to concrete actions, though. I mean, I have a couple of hours each day spare, and I spend them here trying to improve the articles. It's not that I am plotting all day how I will "swoop" or something. I don't think people should be restricted in editing simply because of like, I don't know, others say "please don't edit so fast." That seems dumb. I know what you mean about how everyone is kinda keyed up about who's changing what and how and when, but that's why I thought it would be easy to number things. It doesn't matter if it's changed and sits there for a while, until whoever disputes it gets to it. We should be able to edit at our own pace, right? Ohconfucius, I'm sorry you have the impression that Falun Gong practitioners want to control what people think. That's not part of my understanding or experience. I see myself firmly in the first category of discourse, and am as against the second as any thinking and rational person. In any cultural group there will be people of all understandings, education levels, and persuasions--what can you do? (control them?!) I don't think any of the discourse surrounding Falun Gong should be censored from wikipedia. It precisely needs this sort of open debate to get these issues out, hash them out. The problem is when what people have said gets twisted, or certain views get marginalised, or whatever. Just basic wiki stuff. If the disputes, points of view, and divergent narratives could be just straight-up presented, that would be great. At the Falun Gong page now, PCPP has undone all my edits and not even bothered to address the notes on the talk page. Seb, are you going to revert him, or do you think that behaviour is okay?--Asdfg12345 09:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not revert him, just like I haven't reverted you; moreover, I am not in the position of placing restrictions onto anyone's editing practices; you were asking for advice or suggestions, and I gave you mine. Restrictions can only come from ArbCom, and as far as I can tell, they seem close to doing so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may say so, I completely agree with the advice of Seb az86556 above.  Sandstein   22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With that, let me read it again!--Asdfg12345 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit History & Copyright/Attribution.
Hello, You reverted two changes I made to "New Zealand Flag Debate" (call this one the upper case page) and "New Zealand flag debate" (call 'flag debate' the lower case page) due to "Edit history must remain intact due to copyright/attribution" which I understand is important.

My opinion is that the edit history/attribution would remain in the previous location after the page has moved so the audit trail is not lost. As for copyright, so long as open source/original material is used then there is no claim of copyright by any contributor so I don't understand the reference to copyright.

Do you know of a method to 'fix' the title of the page to use Title case instead of Sentence case *and* keep the edit history/attribution intact?

--Sinesurfer (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

oh! the references and I'd fixed on the upper case page I've moved into the lower case page.

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on my talk
I don't understand this comment. For me to understand I'll need an English version. I see you have the en-3 userbox on your front page and therefore presume that does not present a problem. If you're asking why the photo was changed on NV wiki then it's becase it was mistakenly identified – based on the scientific name I could see the NV wiki article was about the species Cathartes melambrotus (the Greater Yellow-headed Vulture) but the photo that was used really show the species Cathartes burrovianus (the Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture). Its file name is misleading but if you check Wiki Commons you can see it is about to be renamed to a more appropriate name. I see the NV wiki article now includes both the name Cathartes burrovianus and Cathartes melambrotus. I therefore guess it now covers both species and therefore is fine to have a photo of Cathartes melambrotus on it. Cheers, 62.107.237.72 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please can you help
I've place an article Will Gray and been told it will be deleted i've followed the guide lines (i thought) can you give me guidence to what improvements can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanishingrabbit (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs precisely what the tag says it needs: reliable sources, published in third-party publications, that are independent of Mr. Gray. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On the leicester magic circle page he's mentioned on the past winners page and on the news page Vanishingrabbit (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

the links to the ffff's website that mention him are third party and to the leicester magic circle site and him being a member of the magic circle what more can i do on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanishingrabbit (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Regarding the lecture notes i can only give you the dates they were printed he only sold them at lectures not through a third party.Vanishingrabbit (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Andreas Kundler
You don't need to deleate the article Andreas Kundler. That article don't needs more sources. When I created that article, I used the Swedish article and translated that, so please don't deleate that article. Thanks for your attention. BjörnBergman (talk) 22:39 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such regulation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Graham Jones (politician)
While I share your concerns about the motives of the IP who removed the proposed deletion tag from Graham Jones (politician) based on the edit summary, I don't see anything that makes it an invalid objection to the proposed deletion. Accordingly, the article would now need to go to AfD; it can't go through PROD. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you havent pursued rollback rights?
You seem to do a lot of anti vandalism work with Twinkle and I think you could easily be trusted with rollback, which makes anti vandalism a lot easier, as well as enabling access to Huggle if you want it. In fact, I wanted to support your RfA on the Navajo Wikipedia (which I knew about because it was linked on Meta somwhere), and only held off because I was worried that a person with 0 edits to the Navajo Wikipedia and no knowledge of the language would make your RfA look more suspicious. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * err... Twinkle has rollback... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Twinkle's rollback is good, but there is a difference between that and the "real" rollback that is talked about at WP:ROLLBACK. True rollback is faster and doesnt load popups or anything that prompt for a summary before you finish the revert.  While that may not seem to make much of a difference, I can tell you that it really does make a difference and I only use Twinkle for complex situations like having to revert several people at once and provide an edit summary explaining why I'm doing so (see the orange juice article for example).  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll think about it. About that Navajo-thing, well... thanks, but, we'll never get any permanent admin (be it me or anyone else) since they insist on 5 votes - instead, we'll soon be overrun by global admins... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand why you worry ... I initially opposed the proposal as well ... but I think that in practice the global sysops will have many eyes watching them and if they were to ever get into a power struggle with a local admin on any wiki, they would be made to answer for it at Meta. Even if they do something that negatively affects a small wiki accidentally, it only takes one local admin to overrule that action, if I understand correctly.  However, the proposal as it stands now is only getting 77% support, against the 80% that it needs to pass (unless that bar has been lowered).  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions of Truth
Heh, I see this has caught your eye as well... anyway, FWIW, I agree with your comment to Michael Schmidt but I am considering just archiving that section and trying to restart it below. My original aim for it was to get some comments from real editors, but it looks like it just devolved into, first, a place for NBeale to continue his "they-hurt-my-feelings-and-deleted-my-article" rampage, and second, some low insults (thanks to Michael Schmidt). Maybe if I close off that thread and start over I'll be able to get some actual comments from serious editors....

Speaking of NBeale, it looks like he's getting ready to report me to some place or another. I'm eager to see what the community has to say about his self-promotion, disruption, and repeatedly playing the victim card. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 08:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Urumqi riots FAC
Totally unrelated to the above, but while I'm here... can you think of any people who might be good to notify about the FAC, and who weren't already involved in writing the article? I usually try to notify people who are knowledgeable in whatever area the article is and encourage them to leave comments, but this time most of the people I would have notified are the ones like you who wrote the article, so their/our comments probably would not carry as much weight in the FAC itself. But I have seen FACs get failed just because not enough people commented, so seeking out extra input can't hurt. (That being said, we are only like 1/3 of the way down the list so far, so we still probably have a week or two before the FAC closes, and sometimes comments start coming in faster when it gets closer to the bottom of the list.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 08:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... you could ask some of the people at WP:FALUN ... though half of them are banned by now. :P I'll send an email. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My Complaints
I have left my complaints to these two following people:


 * Happenstance


 * RashersTierney

I want all the people who are angry about their projects being destroyed to read my comments and post more complaint comments like mine.

My complaints ends with the UserName: Pryde_ 01 that is my Username. If you need to post any comment on my page feel free to anytime.

UserName: Pryde_01

Thank you for providing the names of these peoplePryde 01 (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't been editing any of those articles so my emotions are naturally not as involved as yours; however, I do think that someone "jumped the gun" as I stated earlier somewhere on the "passport"-talkpage. I sorta "had it coming". Tellingly, this whole deal caught my attention while I was doing vandal-patrol a few days ago... I'll be monitoring the situation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They had no right do that. I mean they did not seek prior approval, like no one would agree to their project being destroyed. I have every right to be angry would you if your project was destroyed? Leave those two bastards and tell them off and threaten them with a sanction. Cause that's vandalism and its not allowed at anytime.Pryde 01 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Compromise
Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Passport#Finalised_proposal_to_fork_articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Romanian_nationals It is the compromise to create a special page for visa free policy. Tell your opinion. El Otro (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your AFD of Mongolian passport and 32 other articles
Given the discussion at Talk:Passport, I'd like to ask you to withdraw your nomination of these articles at AFD. It's difficult to evaluate 32 articles in one go, even if they are stubs. Since they were stubbed very recently, and since there is controversy surrounding their status, that makes this AFD doubly contentious. Further, you note that, if we are to have articles of this type, they need content (per your comment here). It's always preferable to add content rather than delete it, and adding sufficient content to 33 articles in a week seems daunting. I would recommend leaving the (freshly stubbed) articles for a while, giving the involved editors time to properly expand and source them. That can't happen if they are deleted. Withdrawing the nomination (and we'd ask Mandsford if he concurs, since he voted Delete) would go a long way to helping to resolve the drama. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question
Hi! I thought that the "Ginger1978" account had been previously blocked, but it wasn't. Someone else had tagged the "Best Buy Drugs" account as a sock and rightfully so. The edits were the same and even if it wasn't a sock account, the username itself would have been grounds for a block. WP:SOCK has info regarding sockpuppetry. Asfar as catching banned users editing under sockpuppet accounts, it's all a matter of recognizing the editing patterns. Most keep coming back to the same old subjects. WP:LTA/BF101 is a great example. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawl
Probably the correct decision (the votes were massively against anyway) and gracefully done. I apologise again for my misattribution! That was due to an unaccountable lapse in concentration ie I leaped first then saw... The AfD might just prompt a few editor to get on with expanding these articles. If any are still undeveloped in 6 months, I suggest you check that they really are unviable (by trying to source info that is potentially missing via a Google search etc) and if that fails renom. I suspect I will be on your side under those conditions... Anyway, I have been asked to see what can be done about the whole graphics issue...  I will honour that, but I suspect it is a nest of vipers and that I will retreat rather rapidly to a safe distance! Best wishes! --Jubilee♫ clipman 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise you just to stay away from it. Some people are simply on a warpath out there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the withdrawal. The breathing space at this time while other pressing issues are addressed is appreciated RashersTierney (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-Review the CSD Guidelines.
While I respect this was in good faith....You need to re-read the guidelines of nominating for CSD> CSD are for clearly non-notable people. To pass CSD I only have to claim notability to pass. After that you may PROD or Nominate for AFD. Thjere is a third road though. A chess master with 20 years of coverage is pretty notable research it and if you see it withdraw your nom. If not we'll go through the proces sbut this will pass your csd tag at the least. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... you noticed I did spend more than a passing glance. And had to think about it for quite a while. Good. I'll remove speedy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool beans thanks. I'm still fleshing it out with more sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree
I agree it was an edit war. He/she did not listen to anything I said. Although my edit was constructive.

R•B2talk 08:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This editor is a known sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed. Dont' worry, I don't fall for that kinda sh*t... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Block required
Hello, as you see, Artie Lange is under attack from the IP who is constantly being reverted. No-one has responded at AIV, and thus, I would appreciate it if you swung into action. Many thanks, Orphan Wiki  09:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)