User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 7

Keyservers
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0

hQQOA5tRR7fEWjr2EA//Qrc6SXBOg1TpRFIrdi0/bvmIu4Suqr62FVQ6D0jc+TUY RFB35OIR6VuaSKNKV/oB22k2OsySnT3nLPJbgw4e4havCwboiPWMvrTDZv2sxygx ZkkLvFsldNV/Lxu0VbCcKVioHPsIAsvbCtTbNk7UYfRhYimamJKSsoNj6G91FujB sc5yzhlhs/qNx4fgFcUxaGQh5q7ZoKbISV/id9OFSL2B/LePc1buydLaU4xf81VN kH6V/KgVXOeyvF3kt3uBBHBxbiMTCMYwhZY9/PoJqP3AdVpzzeQsBgmiaJvSmyV7 fwqnX3/qqrucsO84oBsp/caCBr9bYEal+q/yXg+niRNUT+yJ/Y9yw3TCt/ic/aWz J9T7n1tWXLHZqgX8kHscKgTj6DzSuPPhI26zt5zt3iU7qijse9k137I5Xd28mhHG ok88GgQb8CYcNG6+tvKH1RXkQmHsGWFwz/pQvpIfggYZND5SkE+ohhb/OKr2rXvr uJefmpS1SXPvuEo5cv3AwHRKTTuafJaFaxxvhsUfbme2EFAYkE0QRswanVW5TeYx rRaBzJvf0EfkvlksR5UBT4wdSUzyGDPU//wrUlMfrZU6UQsx17Vdv5LjGpAQy+24 KIfRWhFazH1BFyE6hMxlFLeQar3R5rGSERMf8nIH9W87d+Y1yx+oPZ328InAR7EP /jTmeynJVEHp5vt3E9lU1PnVimD7v/0rWQkUpm/WYOZj/BPof55P5BxtF01R2kdo U79Ea/tCRuNAO97EGj2in9ksQ46spALZxaZeOpnnRiOfp4iil+j49PQoDllB5GAH 51qhoSnxWlTuX0anTDrLi66ZP3L+Kd2F72rUnDnGdGKnr6XBjJB8SmutnJFtTOZ+ 5/DDTpqeZHuJuRL+9ZEO3s5E4bYaj7+lrMMZ/xF8i5v82hBsf/Gleo92kuzMIpTD oth4fXtnWEnHxXSqIHw3382z+xUaDEHr+YafJV6bUB4wIDHUPyyJG6WJZJbiYP2Q 5ypnn0eXOpbmLvievZs++iFZwRpDjKjaILmDOcPl5yzoV8JcOmaXLsezDOAPFLtu J5sMYIjWdeAJkmoYSAT3lb/VpVT8BQ4ptcgn6lyi3PpcR4Q8bpbEw1GNPZKcg+a7 xYs/PnETOVVXFjJT2VPRXX8yHRLvDt25L9oxyQerGBAA9mV9b1rS8geB3w7Q4Q7e G/cxR/2+cevAYt7YbrHpjsTn1IEzPmCUY1Rsfm56ROgTGhH5TcEKLlrcu8Icjs0R LN3UAJSz8btWlMbnrnObOEFg1Yc7Rm74q1l3Z3ZOKDwrq+6C4Ih7AwC+oLNB5gBg Y9BCHYi5V5jDWiRKWQVfINKftc/M5jMn24McNF67PGrDhQIOA0IinhNbZDJzEAf/ S2EjvkTHjvtuMYDG1/IFNfagNUBeJn/nz1R02/MFfbNzv9Dhm9JgwO9QwsVHLoL8 POI+ET3HqQKBVR0yMh7TI49ytQ+/XZu5MzdRLYnHgcx3cjQ00r6g9oXCRPtHfVZd kRKkG6kaXP8HxRvDCdKzWyeWZwEFXNeK1wuiwEsp9wflWT/ynlFr9kOt3HGrq94I A56p6ObQOu0F36pieMlzSM00l2JVFqVtx7CB4mbH9STq7O8Lgh1Z8a/ky7LFXo9d m509ET7rg6zUPDxYmXx2jsFrKDfMRAxDKEiBHU+s+FDsW2kZoqcUHtrtQSK5OZTv IgRwp+q66e/vKArl7QgKPgf+O9TCob6R2Y29fqJkfZ3SMVZCxU/hNaWh9xZMNRkr d0gXfjlzV5c0Ey2Zx/UneqiYu8vr09DPa1rF/71j7JgB1JFsaQWtENFqe1u/60IA sod1/1zqixVzrB/6rL6CP4rUZynmNCI0oSjghHAZYriEqYT+z+CLp0cyDxNCwXHF FDE/WrM8VO65xbGDBCzp4MbpoWspeb2inDZU17jqUJ2xtEhkuTc7sfqpC0mv7Jzg phrRXFkHR62eaTC2rZnV8hbaLGBU+jMGVWI9cL2MTEeg199VWM9W82COuVkZL6g+ 0zCN9IkhIZYX9PV1LVp4UQGYn1ae8/tusfzGLD3ZaOMzrtLBGwEnjs5lvcSCMaJP KFr9oFoESqPfMlJUpFG1LRgokNJw7+t8R1O4bdHikEFmNCrDpPdogufTvKkdP01t nIyaUfbJXNE3rYfEN/+ei4Y/8RZhZkpncdpHpE0LqpRW7AQ0Y+dbJ49x2XbPvnDw vp6hc8p3nDayLEKNfFRyWApe7Bl12m9o0kEovikupqCURbXCZ1wF6l1yVMie0GG8 TjcoslHMUfZjdyWlFn2bzSoNpuc/bnR6ImzBn9HNAQRbNO7JCH1bSvG2Lv/0CpO5 gaeWtu+1y81qh9p3Eh5/RdZULInY7s9xZpxYhrAggoZdJepZWea5KWpV9nUBsQVh Vn3/cRtnvIj/mGXKZ8v6Cy1wd+x4+dOvblnTLhe163faf6c8r7PVtMq7M5Lx3QPL lkjkr6aj3VzEQNIycrfdlI52C2Rp8KHQXk1Q8lLycJXWHl/yN+VN7FILIB7DLRT+ r41TLbAxEyo5mJ0t7bp6XLrESMo3ANZc041xpSL5irvtjT088nbIvZCcJesXUeES z+K+P98pR7ihCZ9yzZE2XvIrW9w00jxoAc91kGu/tGUcL1tKaNuOv2UC9QTJgWHd xgLN0Oxf8rRZs9E+rC4u1fbq3E1xECUpTY2g5kTRp5k= =HH9U -END PGP MESSAGE-

-- Avi 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronations
You might find this discussion interesting Micronations. --Kevin Murray 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability (music) or Notability (songs)
You might find the parallel evolution of these pages interesting. --Kevin Murray 15:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Creating policy
You might want to take a look at what is going on at Help:Creating policy. Two editors are trying to eliminate this. Radiant is trying to demote it to a help page. I don't fully support the content, but without some guideline on creating guidelines, it will be a free-for-all. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS Arbitration
I have initiated an arbitration request due to User:Thebainer's unilateral decision making and full-protection of AACS encryption key controversy. I am notifying you as you are one of the parties involved. You can find the arbitration request here - Requests_for_arbitration. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fahim Dhalla
May 9th 2007

I recently did a search under my name as a friend had alerted me to the fact that I had apparently been entered into the Wikipedia database of articles -- I noticed that you had left messages (December '06, around the 22nd) for one Ch204 regarding the creation of the nonsense/vandalism articles. Do you have any further details??? If you could please contact me I would much appreciate it.

fahid at gmail dot com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.96.67 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

HI
Regaurding Suspected sock puppets/Planetary Chaos since User:Sarenne has decided to have it's account deleted the evidence is gone should I be happy? No. Can you fix it? I'm not done laughning at it. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR'S ATTENTION NEEDED!
Dear Seraphimblade!

Please read this. My english knowledge is not the best, but I am giong to write down my problem:

Administrators should know, that there are nacionalistic users, like User:Tankred,User:PANONIAN and User:Juro who think that they can take revange on nations with the help of the english wikipedia.

A few weaks ago, as a new hungarian member of the english wikipedia community I decided to write, edit into an article called, Móric Beňovský. You should know, that 3 nations claim Benyowszky as their own. To keep the articles neutrality, I deleted the edits, which said that he was hungarian. I later discovered that the first sentence says, that he was slovak. I deleted this too to kepp the articles neutrality, and also this would be against the other parts of the article (part: nationality, also the full story is here:).

After I made a this changes, and after I added new infos with references, these users started to revert my edits,, (you can see it in the history page) and started to claim me as a sockpuppet of a benned user called user:VinceB, because these edits didnt fit into their nacionalistic belives. I tried to make a contact with them, (I wrote them 4 times) but they refused to answer (see: "My edits, Sockpuppet, Hy Tankred, Test" comments). After they still reverted everything, I decided to ask help from an administrator, called user:jpgordon for a usercheck (see: Please check!). But I had to realise, that the administrators dont even care about this, and they refused to help. Of course, my edits were still deleted.

After a few days, I decided to protest against this, so I started to act like a vandal: I changed the "hungarian" words to "slovakian" in the articles slovakia, and Principality of Nitra, and I reverted their edits. I hoped that jpgordon now can start a checkuser against me, so I can prove, that I am innocent. This did not happen, and administrators banned me for a day, and you banned my account forever, and you said that I am the sockpuppet of VinceB.

Please note: I dont care about the wikipedia now, because I know that it is ruled by a few persons, and nobody will help you... I just wanted to tell this to you, and I can just hope that this will not happen with other hungarian users. You can bann this account too. Thank you for reading. I wish you the bests:Hollyad 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (once user:Pannonia)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways)
--Kevin Murray 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

backdoor?
PSI World was deleted, but it seems now PSI Seminars got created. That seems sorta backdoor(ish). Lsi john 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(you may respond here, I will watch). thanks. Lsi john 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't in and of itself see any issue. The new article cites a lot of sources. If you believe you can show that those sources are poor, or only trivial mentions of the subject, you could AfD it, but unless you can make a really convincing case for that I don't give it good odds. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what the rules were for re-instating an article. And that one seemed to be a round-robin by renaming it. It looks like several of those sources are from the company website. Many of the others appear to be casual-mentions. i have no desire to fight to get an article deleted, but over citing trivial mentions, doesn't exactly make for a good article either. Its just another *ho hum* company that uses LGAT and is targed by *yawn* rick ross's forum. Thanks for looking. If you don't see an objectionable issue, then there probably isn't one. Thats why I asked a neutral person. Lsi john 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images
Could you let me know what you think about the compromise proposals I have described at User talk:Cyde? I think your opinion will be helpful to clarify things. I know you are very fond of having sources for things, but I want to point out that the standards for sources on TV shows can't be too high, since they are current events by nature. CMummert · talk 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I'd like to flesh out the meaning of "decorative use". Would you say that the second, third, and fourth images in Taxi Driver are decorative? What about the third and sixth images in Star Wars? I think they are. My point is that I think higher standards are being applied to the list of episode articles than are applied to other media-related articles. CMummert · talk 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed!
Hello Seraphimblade. I really really need your help here in the article developed country. This user is using boosterism practices to "talk up" Brazil. I have already told him that sources must be in English, and most importantly that his source doesn't say what he claims (I know some portuguese). Please, help! I'm desperate. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, your help is needed. Alex  Covarrubias  [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]] ( Talk? )  02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I told you I do speak a little of portuguese. I can understand it but hardly write it. I assumed good faith but when I read the article I noticed it doesn't back up the claims. In the meantime, can you talk to the other user and tell him to stop while you consult with a fluent portuguese speaker? Alex  Covarrubias  [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]] ( Talk? )  02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure
I, and perhaps others too, would have appreciated a more thourough motivation for your closure of Articles_for_deletion/Malta_Tribunals, addressing the points raised during the discussion. Stammer 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I believe you are mistaken in your evaluation of the 3RR report I filed with regard to Rm Uk. the 2nd & 3rd reverts are identical, the 4th is explicitly described by the editor as a revert, and the only difference between the 1st and 2nd revert is the use of "The rest of the 192 member states of the UN" vs. "all other nations". Please review this, keeping in mind that 3RR tells us "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." - and in all 4 cases the user in question reverted my actions.

assistance
i try but all i've been getting lately is warning messages on my talk page and reverts without edit messages. Linestouch

My RfA


Hello, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Deletion question
Hi Seraphimblade,

My name is Adam Nelson and I am the co-creator of the Adelaide Medical Students' Society Wiki Pge that was deleted on the 30th April. I am VERY new to wiki and have done my best to update the page with the best of my knowledge, which is very minimal in computer areas. I was really shocked and upset to see that all of my hard work had been deleted in one small click and i was just wondering why this had occurred and whether it could possibly be reinstated? All of the images, diagrams and logos are my own and i tried to reflect that in the information as requested on the website, so i was wondering what exactly was in breach of copyright? Thanks heaps for your help, I hope this can be sorted out.

Regards,

Adam

Your advice to Ray
Hi Seraphim, the outcome of Articles for deletion/The Foundation for the Study of Cycles was no consensus between merge of delete. I therefore suggest you don't advice Ray to "unmerge" the article, but direct him to WP:DRV instead (like he has been the previous time he wanted to have this article restored.) —Ruud 08:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that merging the article was just an editorial decision, it was an act which was performed after a consensus had been established at the AfD (where most editors argue for it to be merged or deleted outright, a few argue on it being kept under certain conditions which as of yet have not been met.) This is not an action which can be undone single-handedly every other moth by Ray(also see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79.) Given the number of (uninvolved) editors who have already expressed they find Ray's behaviour problematic WP:3O (or even WP:RFC) is not a suitable next step in resolving this dispute. —Ruud 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this is secret information as far as I am concerned. In the public arena the likes of Hillman have criticised me, but if you look in to any of that you find that he was a great big liar. Good that he is now gone. Telling lies about people should *never* be a basis of them being labelled as problematic. You tell me what I did that was unacceptable and I will show you why I did it. Ray Tomes 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because Hillman isn't here to defend himself doesn't mean that WP:NPA doesn't apply, and thus I respectfully request that you either back up your claims of him being a "great big liar" or retract that statement. Hillman is gone because dealing with these sorts of things was too difficult back when ArbCom didn't take strong stances against it. --Philosophus T 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have stated on a number of occasions while he was here waht his lies were and he never gave evidence to the contrary. Some of them: That I used sock puppets; That I started the FSC (6 years before I was born no less); That I manufactured hits on various sites; That all the material on FSC on the internet originated with me; That Dewey practiced numerology; That I practice numerology; and many more. These are all too silly by a long way. Perhaps you would also resepctfully request that those claims be admitted as lies, as they are libelous in the extreme. Ray Tomes 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with him rewriting a neutral and sourced article on the subject, but he previously just restored the old article without modifying it in any way. Would it be unreasonable to suggest him to rewrite the article in user space first? —Ruud 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not true that I restored without change. I had only just begun work on the article when Ruud deleted it and blocked me. But I had added material that showed that the FSC had a board and advisers that were of a high standard, and some other things. I had also added in the talk section that I was planning to do more work the next day. I have no problem with discussing these things in the talk page of the article. I am happy to work on it in my user space. I suggest that future discussion on this be held in the talk page of FSC article. Ray Tomes 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about, work on it in your userspace for a bit, integrate some sources and the like, and then we'll see what the new version looks like. There evidently is a pretty strong consensus that the old article needed a good deal of work, it might be a very good idea to see why that came about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There was also a strong consensus that it should be deleted or merged. --Philosophus T 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If other people are going to criticise what I write, they need to also go to the article and make a contribution. There was a lot of opinion against deleting and merging, and both are foolish actions. FSC is clearly a different entity from Edward Dewey - there is no reason to merge them. It is also an organisation that has had a past that involved quite a few famous people and that should not be hidden from the public who inquire about it. For these reason there should be a separate article and it should be checked for meeting correct wikipedia standards and not deleted or merged. The fact that few people alive today know these facts is not a reason to delete but quite the opposite. Ray Tomes 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion in User:Seraphimblade page it was proposed by User:Rood_Koot that the FSC article be set up in my User space which I have done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayTomes/Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles and please note that I have made the name without "The" on the front as I consider that correct. Anyone with an interest in this article should please discuss it in the associated talk page, thanks. Ray Tomes 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest again, moving this entire discussion to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RayTomes/Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles page. Ray Tomes 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Newport sock case
Aargh! I was hoping to avoid that one, it looks long and annoying. But sure, I'll handle it, although it may be a few days before I do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Response
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.61

hQQOA5tRR7fEWjr2EA//QmtLLM12OAsFzu0+ejZLkkxO1ToVDF5kQmGjlSn1XG2I BFKYtii7E3AAWUUPwZFCI9uqJnGdW1cvFtSeJefmioWQcAo9pmr/5P4m5DNQJzLy 39ZAGR7Sc4k5ELziAlpextU/+IWmdEIdYTyQHbWSQiyJFb+uY+S/7pxMyKZ+BVPY cShgAcsl1wRJtCRaYeW+NSJhmdhan+Fs+Z0xJnudLBwJfA2amgQR+q5n0Is9ndf8 PDpIZ5KsJrbA405t9as3RboVCyFNpMhZB40SfTFkJkFr99+O/S4bUA0yDJLfeOmg EF+4c963aBXddnifl8TmqhKz5vCaXHL5i/H3OvcXTHJzE37PQfFGfIpPjvF5zIxi GuXtKUfKDG1EqCiusFZaQwzl9MTRXMAX0wT5G5Tof1AIhkBNXlksyOOtGxI89RDY kErDElo7+z3tx+blLKaNnNgk7OhP5/tKjooA1cDu3z+URa09BcerAoxxiAFlK9ao PDOg0jMMTAWOD4sEM/WZsAU1iyIcUN8OYTFEYy2VGsSQaxHheOL2W+wJPOsX5I5b chXO9VHzE8P83cNsFd0HR0kNhx2qqEBGXGg9bPFf9nFck0ybfjNm5u5Fz+RnXp1N cdMGQFMKpJBsayjhQW6gAKOQ2PnMCy4oqktVf4NVa9FP0p1Se8jiIYsm0UzuJQIP /2AttIcxBenHU3giWMHHPc1aDB2C/zMSPkki3sP7gbxUEACG8I/itBljxPBSmanS LdtLX5RPi6m/TK4125U5EPaj3sHINm+MqmMg9mkNdLiu1jbD4fcQrnHrYFqpaDab 1lgJhBcWl+xBAXYcEXtdvqIP7rZkDxCTLq8JkkBx4NkL4tAjb40c0bUceAUeRDxR x2DC1cWmocEuhYliyCpmp8hZsz78Mpg1vf85ywtNBu1teHaWLJEgLLnj5SJcTDRv JwRXZExgIo1HfN4VuMx7CO60pt/RsA0NIKzHsboSojk7uPlC2dRpzCxnXcoPWrUD ZmiMcbrPkDOnYBv84gMLbopCJoGWiBe5Covb+/RHv+jwb8rdCFMCjKwYXHgsDa3W 9i+rM67pEGaTGXaItSgs8eY4ddERu/PCqQtUSOgkpiptlI+JsnVPNKRbHAnTaz33 PBAu+6lMVFpjhhCRLNfOEe0xbj1M+y/yRYV0EqbYVo+3Izmxp3UE0lY5wlCbBn9M 7hDw1s2zYamw/RJBc6HMxFQev1i/pqbTn0ZINOHSguOC9oImOMkFpkq/Hm+n85c9 vrccDqV+Vh9vGuP4ULezR4bBVk74GAcS4ujO9bbVibVMRuVU3j1++8gqmVBd+nnk gXTlVNk7c+H/M/ZiD3unU99EyFUwdD1WfGko9AW3N2GMhQIOA0IinhNbZDJzEAf/ cJX/3ccVaganEOL7ChgPqFyKu3pTmU+SVL0rBtbMWrhfyyNqLwntMsnUL7kGYm1b 4s34Znd0FULZvqPGGy7kw3hxQ1o74tOUbCgvxKwXgwhWK7u2oZCnsHbIlIUO4dFn +PE/N10gVs+lgtI6+UB8iqZgLaXLZIdIBEKaNWy5Xj4K9CwYncLCHFUEsLFIcyW/ RKFdKzWX/9gYspart+GR4Sjo1xrVtgQijaf44vxAyrzCFD+16q+lvZi/kvLR0IcE b6NBrta9Mv+Ee+8btqYdnKT6GwHCI/9dCpAnGMt9+faIgRME0Yvr/epxLwmsd1ak VvOOpxwLl/h4A7C/vPjkDwgAmLkrml02KiBFiaozw76/dMTHH/sWUbb1cAztLl04 2+vpkRtLj0voGrfbQlEBgdG+jMjcV3/ZVFyrDWHvB0++mFhe8gyQkrQr7Qi5IuXD M7BUb0c7EmK/T4rLE3tQ9j+OuWqOydf2VVZYxeOGn7IYWZxmVC1qBJ9DtQlQ8u7n Vtk9iDZ6NmjX/R90rN5tZEkw+Dk3hEkfsWiw1THPqK5lIhioMkGOLbZnRtjXs/7B QVfgTKDEf4/vRktRNcjAUyDUY4Oi/RwSxjdZAetQJA37Z2dAELwK9/Dtz4oPJAYL 7/K8GJZBPl2zPXt+EJU1GJaVZgQgPZdN+WS4SWXlQvnhldLABAFLEjJoUmM4yYpJ SecJtYkm2ItuFsMYW9nDpLu1iy9dsabu3FPspDdLPbacHO1gyGZBbaTYbH+uIS9R 2fHV7o4A+7XAKpLXJIx3QbR3o4usIyP10N1h5zayBX4ZjVgkp99JQiLIV1DjNpgX stwZmkTsSDTHLAPWlYnMvHGd0I6+n+PSOxx3F7y2lkH26zcpfgM2BKgrkkdIVAxR PhgoOj5Qyf6FSgiTD+IiFHzJxuDJ8gCSDxAyxU3Emfs7lfPaIOoIqck= =zw9j -END PGP MESSAGE- -- Avi 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

wp:rs
I've added a suggestion via wp:brd - to WP:RS discussion. I don't know if you think its relevant/necessary or not, but I'm interested in your input. Thanks. Lsi john 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sephimblade, thanks again for your generous description of my activities on wikipedia in my RfA nomination. I am sure that your nom played a big part in the success of my RfA. Now I am off to see if I can't figure out how to use these new tools. Pastordavid 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply #2
So the steps forward are for me to email info-en-o@wikimedia.org and say that i am happy to release the material? How do i do the GFDL? Do i have to organise for something to be posted on our website? After all this has been completed will we be able to have the page reinstated? Cheers for all of your time and assistance. Adam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adjanel (talk • contribs) 07:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

you appear to have an imposter
Hello Seraphimblade, you appear to have an imposter, User:SeraphImbade. I was typing out a report at the inappropriate username page, but someone else beat me to it. -- Kyok o  20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy
Hi, you blocked some socks on this case a few weeks ago. I think Marlon is back. This account was created to insert the same kind of claims Marlon was, and then to inexplicably remove me from List of non-admins with high edit counts. 8 minutes earlier this account was opened to make a personal attack on me, changing a Barnstar awarded to me to "The Faggot Barnstar". Wasn't sure if I need to open another sockpuppet case or not. Stu  ’Bout ye!  08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Seraphimblade. Stu   ’Bout ye!  09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cycles related articles
Hi Seraphimblade. Thanks for expressing willingness to take this on. I will make some notes here relevant to your comments in User talk:RayTomes. Enough to start with I think. You might look at the latest FSC article deleted when I was suspended from wikipedia to see if you think it an OK place to reinstate that and finish off the article (I was in the middle of it when I was blocked). Ray Tomes 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of the problem has centred around the expertness of Edward R. Dewey and The Foundation for the Study of Cycles which currently redirects to the Edward R. Dewey page.
 * The redirection of FSC (short for that long name above) is not justified. The organisation is a separate entity from the man that started it.
 * When I last recreated the FSC page (under the guidance of User:SilkTork), I began to add material that showed that FSC was a respected organisation having board members and advisors that included a nobel prize winner, a US vice-president, several Sirs and a bunch of highly respected university professors. That should cover the issue of notability. These people all respected Dewey and FSC.
 * There was one peer-reviewed journal "Journal of Interdisciplinary Research" which is no longer published. I have only one copy of one edition of it. It was a joint venture between European and US (meaning FSC and Dewey) cycles researchers.
 * The Cycles magazine is not peer-reviewed an has articles that range from very thorough (Dewey and others) through to letters which are just opinions.
 * In 1987 the FSC published a 4 volume set "Cycles Classic Library Collection" which I have a copy of and which contains the best of articles from FSC (obviously many by Dewey as director from ~1941 to ~ late 1970s). This would be considered by many as the Bible of Cycles Research.
 * There have been claims in wikipedia that "cycles research" or "cycles study" is not a discipline. Google searches show otherwise. The existence of Fourier Analysis is the main technique, but there are many others. The existence of FSC, CRI, CIFA and others show this to be true.

In my talk page you wrote:
 * Actually, the The Foundation for the Study of Cycles article wasn't deleted, just redirected. You can go into the page history, and grab a copy of the article. You could just restart the article that way, since it never was deleted, but that may just cause more trouble. What you may wish to do is grab a copy of the last version of the article before it was changed to a redirect, and work on it in your userspace for a bit, citing the source material you've stated, and then get it put that way. (To create a userspace subpage, you can just do something like User:RayTomes/temp.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Originally the FSC article was redirected to Edward R. Dewey. However under SilkTork's guidance it was recreated as a separate page. That one was deleted I think. Ray Tomes 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the most recent version that I made. What is your opinion about putting that back. I would prefer if you did it for two reasons - one is that I don;t know how to undo a redirect :-) and the other is that I won't get blocked again if you do it. It neds some more work, as it is as I left it before going to bed. If you reinstate it I will work at making it as tidy as possible. Any remarks you have about what is wrong with it would be appreciated. Ray Tomes 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another matter was the merging of an article on the 9.6 year cycle into the canadian lynx article. See. This was done without consensus. Ray Tomes 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I should mention that I would like this one unmerged too. I don't know how to do that. Ray Tomes 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I note with great pleasure that User:Hillman is no longer participating in wikipedia. He has been the worst offender in all of this. For example in he states: "Deville, when you Googled, did you examine whether you were finding any hits not originating from websites by Ray Tomes, wiki articles by Ray Tomes, posts to various newsgroups by Ray Tomes, blog entries by Ray Tomes? Note that Tomes apparently has registered a number of websites, some of which have been mentioned in various of the these AfD discussions. When I did this search, I couldn't find ANY information about Dewey or Tomes's crank theories on the web which did not appear to have been created by Tomes (or a suspected sock). He has been enthusiastically promoting his ideas in many venues, so much so that the prospect of 10,000 hits manufactured by Tomes himself does not seem unlikely. Now, do we really want to encourage all the worlds cranks to simply make sufficiently many blog, newsgroup, or wiki postings to promote themselves from a non-notatable crank to a "notable" crank? I think not! ---CH 03:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)" He has accused me of creating the FSC, which was started in 1941, 6 years before I was born. He repeatedly accuses me of using sock puppets and tries to create a bad feeling about me. He makes out that I manipulate hits on sites. These are all lies, and I was about to ask the procedure for having him kicked out of wikipedia. No need now. Ray Tomes 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I have made the FSC article and await others to make comments and suggestions. How long should I now wait for a due process? Also, the matter of unmerging the article on 9.6 year cycle in canadian lynx should be addressed. This is a case where voting was against merging and it was done anyway. I would like to separate the article again. What is your view on that? It was to be the first of a series of articles on well established cycles that are not already in wikipedia. There have been comments that wikipedia is poorly represented in cycles information. Ray Tomes 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruud has emailed the Friedman review. I would be interested in your comments before I take action on the following: Regards Ray Tomes 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose to remove the Friedman quote from FSC and put the alternative one in the Dewey article as it relates to Dewey+Dakin's book. The alternative still contains criticism but is not selected solely on that basis, also stating what he agrees with.
 * I am confused by the picture loading facilities of wikipedia. I load pictures and set permissions and then wikipedia sets about automatically deleting them (see FSC talk page). What is the point of that? How do I avoid it?
 * What further steps need to be taken as regards the FSC article before making it live?

Proposed format for AACS_encryption_key_controversy -thoughts. ..
Hi I noticed your recent comments on AACS encryption key controversy talk page and I wanted to invite you to comment on a proposed format change for the beginning of the article. The relavent portion on the talk page is here. Thanks. R. Baley 01:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PORNBIO
You proposed merging PORNBIO into BIO. Nothing has progressed on this. Shall we move ahead? --Kevin Murray 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

EN mediation
Not to tell you how to do your job, but.... I think you just got a fairly good time to try and take control of the situation. TKirby is an ENer (who remembers the original mediated version) and the vandalism revert wasn't vandalism. OTOH he's engaging in censorship. This is a perfect time for you to be able to be able to bring both sides and start improving the article. jbolden1517Talk 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine
User:Wikimachine appears to be asking for an "outside" opinion at Suspected sock puppets/LactoseTI. I believe he's essentially requesting somebody to overturn Mackensen's decision at the relevant RFCU from long ago (although I believe its unwarranted).

This WP:SSP case is essentially similar to Suspected sock puppets/Assault11, which you have commented on before. As many admins tend to stay away from issues relating to the RfM at Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, it would be very helpful if you can at least comment, or get another admin to look into it. As you have commented before, there's a lot of mudslinging still. Thank you in advance for your help.--Endroit 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You gave the most actionable advice
On the incident that I reported you gave the most actionalbe advice. However I have responded that I do not think that is workable and I explain why. Since you seem to be the ONLY admin who had even the smallest interest in the matter, I am turning to you for your advice. I am frustrated that editors can be treated badly and it just does not make any difference. I am thinking about leaving the project... not over this one incident, which on its own is nothing. But I try very hard to get along, and I find myself walked on a great deal. I rarely complain and when I do, nothing happens. Mediation attempts get no where. It is now getting old. My time, in the "real world" costs $275 per hour and I do not want to spend the effort to work where I and my ideas are subject to such abuse. I do not understand why such behavior is winked at. I would like your input on how to proceed after you read my comments to your former ideas. --Blue Tie 18:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre
Only for the sake of completeness I'd like to let you know that a few days ago I did suggest User:Blue_Tie ask for an RFC. Cheers. Gwen Gale 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, guess I'm catching up here, I never refused mediation. Gwen Gale 00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cycles related stuff
Hi, you have moved all of the cycles material to archive with a request not to change it. There are unanswered questions by me there. I have proposed a course of action and would like your comments before proceeding. Are you still involved in this? Ray Tomes 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PoidLover, profanity and being uncivil
On March 20th, you warned User:PoidLover that he should refrain from "profanity and attacking other editors", saying that "...[a]ny such further conduct will lead to a block." I noticed this user has indeed been extremely uncivil and used quite strong foul language on User talk:Boothman (see his contributions here for 16:42, 24 May 2007, where his language falls far short of the standards expected in discussions on Wikipedia.) I thought some people should be alerted to this, but looking at his talk page noticed your message, which is why i am leaving you this message. Do you think something should be done? If so, are you in a position to do it, or else point me in the direction where someone who is can read the exchanges? DDStretch   (talk)  16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd second that. It doesn't look like PoidLover is here to help build an encyclopaedia, he's too busy starting campaigns. I'm not usually one to use the t-word, but this looks like it. --YFB ¿  17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blatantly so. I urge you to reconsider your unblock. Hesperian 06:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked again, and I'm not reversing it this time. I'll do second chances, but I'm not big on third ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request your opinion on issue
On the page for NCAA Football 08, someone keeps posting an external link for a website called www.gamerosters.com where roster updates for the game will be found upon its release. Even though these rosters are free, I feel this is non-commercial advertising and I don't believe it is appropriate. I do rosters for Major League Baseball 2K7, and they are very good and popular, but I would never list them on the game's article because I don't feel I have the right. Anyone can release a game roster, so I don't feel anything unofficial deserves to be placed on the articles. What do you think, and am I right or wrong regarding WP:EL? Chris Nelson 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for your opinion on the issue. The IP user is very persistent in posting this link and I'm trying to get rid of it while avoiding violating WP:3RR. I guess this probably isn't enough for any kind of protection, so is there anything else I can do except watch it?Chris Nelson 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well he's aware of what he's doing and of WP:EL, he emailed me a few days back and called me a fag, haha.Chris Nelson 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, what if I can't get him to go to the talk page? I've taken it there but I'm the only one who has posted, and it seems I need to have another person to take it to a third opinion.Chris Nelson 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy is back. This guy wants to be the #1 place for NCAA rosters and has a professional-looking website (Personal attack removed) What the hell can we do aside from 3RR violations? He's vandalizing and he's knowingly violating WP:EL.Chris Nelson 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, he's just annoying.Chris Nelson 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's him, he's emailed me from briankaldenberg@nimblead.com, which is the name and email of the owner of gamerosters.com. I can show you the emails if you like.Chris Nelson 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:
I don't have to add fair use for album covers, asshole, they're FUCKING ALBUM COVERS, there's thousands of them all over the site. You're tellin' me the only way they're "free" is if you put some stupid half-ass "rationale" on there? "Oh, this is educational, uhhh, it's not good quality", fuck you, dude, I'm sick of you people givin' me these dumbass speeches, just delete 'em, you don't have to notify me every fuckin' time, obviously I don't give a shit. You people think you're making the site better by patrolling with this stupid shit, but you ain't. I've written featured articles brah, what the fuck do you do? And if you go snitchin' on me about making "personal attacks", you're a ho, I'm just tellin' you straight up what I think about this. I guess it's unthinkable to actually have a discussion about something on this site. --PDTantisocial 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention
I appreciate your responses. I am, presently, unable to justify spending my time to seek improvements in wikipedia when the system is designed to accept disruptive behavior. I have so much to do in real life, things that are highly valued, so that it is hard to justify efforts where my time and contributions are not particularly valued, but are in fact, open to ridicule and abuse without consequence. But I appreciate your attention to my complaint and related comments. I also have reduced my talk page as you suggested. Thanks! --Blue Tie 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3O on article that may qualify for speedy
Could you take a look here and offer any suggestions. I gave a 3O on the article and was trying to be patient and work with them.

The article was written by a company employee, has zero external sourcing, and has existed for almost a year. Rather than finding external sources, they are quibbling about which 'version' they like best. None of which have any externally cited sources. Perhaps speedy deleting the article and leaving the talk page would help?

I'm open to feedback on my approach so far.

Lsi john 15:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article was problematic and had some ad tone, but articles which have already been through AfD cannot be speedied (unless the AfD resulted in deletion and a new article that's an exact or near-exact copy was recreated). I imagine, though, that sources do exist, I've certainly heard of Raritan and they've been around a while. I've cleaned up a lot of the puff, so hopefully some sources can be found and a decent article created. If you are aware that someone from the company is working on its article, you may wish to post on the conflict of interest noticeboard to get a few more eyes on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the conversations on the talk page, diff, it appears that the article was written by a VP of the company and is being edited by an employee. There does appear to be at least one editor who is not affiliated with Raritan. Lsi john 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status
From the nomination page: (self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Hello Seraphimblade, I am not currently in a edit war. If you take a look at the Evolution article histoory I have not been editing it for days. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had already warned James for this, but he removed the warning from his talk page and then when I returned and commented on this, he archived the page. You'll find the discussion in his Archive 6. TimVickers 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

melonbarmonster
Adding "and administered" is a new change, but melonbarmonster reverted its inclusion (he removed it), twice. He also reverted the "English speaker" to his preferred version twice. Perhaps I wasn't clear that he had removed this text, not added it. --Cheers, Komdori 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(This was in regard to this case by the way on the 3RR page.)


 * I'm a moron, sorry, he was reintroducing text, my fault. Should I give you the link to the diff here or on the 3rr page? --Cheers, Komdori 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put it in both places. Here is the diff that he was effectively undoing.  We've talked at length on the page that administered is too strong, so we switched to alternate words.  He insisted to reintroduce the word "administered." --Cheers, Komdori 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it's tenuous, but if you look up on the 3RR page a bit more you can see that he's flexing his muscles, trying to see how much he can stretch the 3RR. He edited the infobox as his 4th revert last time, and this "and administered" thing has been going back and forth for days.  It will probably wind up in dispute resolution but in the meantime it's irritating to get these massive number of reverts.  Anyway, thanks for your opinion and taking the time to look at it. --Cheers, Komdori 05:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was never notified on this 3rr violations report. Komdori has been shadowing and reverting my good-faith edits on articles he has never participated trying to instigating revert wars. This is the third 3rr report he's filed on me, 2 of which were denied. Is there any action I can take in response to this harassing behavior? I'd rather discuss substantive issues and work on editing articles rather than being being needlessly harassed with technicalities like this.melonbarmonster 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete 3RR report. ..
Re: (aka  3RR report by R. Baley.  Sorry about the incomplete report.  It was my first one, and I thought the instructions said diffs weren't needed if the revert was to the same page every time. Will do it right if it comes up again (hopefully it won't, I don't like this part of wiki).  R. Baley 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) edited to add: it's complete now. 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you could re-check this. . .User Raphaelaarchon was blocked for 24 hours by User_talk:ChrisO. Prior to the block ending he/she self-admittedly made this edit and presumably these edits:   and this  with yet another IP (at least 3rd and probably 4th IP that I know of). Though to be fair: (1) she said she had trouble logging in, prior to 24 hr block and (2) she did just edit the talk page, as far as I know, so I'm not sure if blocking is supposed to affect this.  However, with the first edit he/she insults and threatens to resume edit warring, and I think the 24 hr block will expire soon.  Also on the 3rr block log, there is still no "result" posted.  Thanks, R. Baley 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award


I, Durova, award Seraphimblade the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award for an investigation that uncovered and ended a long-term vote stacking campaign by a Wikipedia administrator who has now been desysopped. Thank you for your excellent work keeping the site honest and preserving the integrity of the administrator community. Durova Charge! 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting a rebuttal to Thelma
I was wondering--would it be appropriate to post a rebuttal to Thelma's post in the "Issues to be mediated" section? I was debating whether to do so anyway, but wasn't sure if it was within protocol.Blueboy96 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All Games Radio
Who the fuck do you think you are? That article stood for over a year unscathed and you ask for it to be deleted? You really think you're so high and mighty that you can just erase someone else's work because you don't understand its legitimacy? Well your highness, maybe you should just consider that maybe it has some relevance.

Criteria for deletion
Hello Seraphimblade. Could you please provide a link to a page where the consensually agreed criteria for assessing the value and validity of Wikipedia articles can be challenged and discussed - if any such page exists. Thank you. Rubywine 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your kind words. The RfA was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jon Sonnenberg article
This entry was not an advertisement, and I do not appreciate you deleting it without consulting me first. Now I have to rewrite it. I don't see what the problem is when I have easily verifiable sources (linked in the article) and I am not related to Jon in the least, nor am I his best friend.

This could have been handled in a professional manner.

Stshores24 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for pete's sake. So everyone is going to delete my articles if there's not two billion references to Jon Sonnenberg or Travelogue in the mass media? This guy is an independent artist, and there is, frankly, not a lot of information on the Internet there about him.

That's why I was trying to get the information out there. How are people supposed to know about someone if every time a useful information resource comes along, it's deleted?

I will do the best I can, but I would appreciate some understanding here.

Stshores24 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll let it go, then. If someone deletes it, someone deletes it. I did the best I could.

Stshores24 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That will work. Thank you.

Stshores24 18:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hey, thanks for your reply. I am sorry for my ignorance regarding this but i still don't understand what i have to do? i took the photos, i designed the logo, i created the organisational structure diagram and yet i am unable to post them? What do i have to do to satisfy the copyright etc agreements? Cheers, Adam

St John's College
Thanks for your work on the St John's College, University of Sydney. I have compiled most of the article but i would like to filter out some of dribble. Please feel free to edit some more - cheers! [[User talk:Offshoreholdingco|

Offshoreholdingco
What are you refering to by Biographical details of living persons and in which articles (just so i know for the future) Cheers. --User:Offshoreholdingco 01:19, 19 May 2007 (AEST)

Anime Pulse
Why did you delete this article. The reason was false as it is not mainly a website. This was voted the best podcast of 2006! i spent hours fixing the article up and then I come back to see how it is and it's gone. Please tell me, I neeeeed to know. User:BioYu-Gi! 4:35p.m. 6/4/07

Adelaide Medical Student's Society page deleted
I was the original creator of this topic and was not contacted at all when this page was deleted. I believe this to be totally unreasonable. I understand the page was deleted due to a 'copyright' infringement, however I wrote the material that appears on the AMSS website, and hence was able to replicate this on the wikipedia page as I own the copyright. I note your comment on how you are a 'deleter' however you should have contacted the original page creator, myself. Additionally, much information was added to the wikipedia page that was not found on the actual website.

Is there any way to recover the page that was deleted and readd it?

A prompt response would be appreciated.

Unblocked user
Since you declined an unblock request from the user, you should be aware I unblocked. An explanation of why I did so may be found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cheers! Vassyana 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Items in Ranma ½
I had planned to make a backup copy of this page, but now that it's been deleted, is there any way that this can be done or am I SOL? -- Broken Sphere 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the suggestions on the AFD page was migration to a Wikia, which has not been set up yet, nor do I know if it will, but in the meantime, if the article could exist on such a space and not here, I was thinking of moving it there in its latest form. So largely it would be for archival purposes for now.  Is it possible to get the talk page as well?  -- Broken Sphere  18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting the article, history, and talk archive in my userspace is fine; you could use the article title.
 * I was just about to go through and delete the images (db-author) that were subsequently orphaned because of the deletion, but is this necessary or they can be migrated to Wikia as well? -- Broken Sphere  19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Got the text. I can always reupload the affected images, for now since they're orphaned I'll get them off Wikipedia space.  Thanks a bunch.  -- Broken Sphere  20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regional Information Center Deletion
Hi. I'm confused. You recently speedily deleted Regional Information Center and Northeastern Regional Information Center as Blatant Advertising. The RICs are government agencies, not commercial entities, and act as an extension of the state Education Department. Can we talk about why they were deleted?

Thanks --Igoldste 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. OK, I see what you are saying regarding writing style, but I'm not sure about the rule for promotion. If possible, I would like to bring the article back, but want to keep it within guidelines.


 * Can you take a look at Orange County Transportation Authority as an example of a not for profit agency article? I see similar (though written much better than my work) promotional statements.  Would you consider that article as promotional too?  If not, what makes the article acceptable?


 * Thanks in advance for your guidance.


 * --Igoldste 02:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A tad quick on the AfD close
Heya. I was in the middle of commenting on Articles for deletion/Jason Heyward when you closed it with no consensus. I was going to change my comment to keep, which probably would've indicated a consensus to keep. I understand that old AfDs are liable to close any time, so I can't really complain. Still, it seems to make sense to wait a little while after new comments are made before closing an AfD in the middle, since being listed as an old discussion attracts new, often valuable, opinions that might swing discussion. This is more true for discussions that have gotten too little attention for a consensus, not too much. That discussion might have ended appearing to have a delete consensus if not for the last minute keep comment. I don't know if there's any etiquette about this kind of thing, but if you want to keep an eye out for it, that'd be wonderful. Ichibani utc 04:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose what I'm asking for is to consider waiting longer before closing a debate as no consensus if the last comment is very recent. Relisting is always an option too, but if the debate is still going and there's no reason to think it's going nowhere, there's no real reason to close. Ichibani  utc 05:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough. Thanks for explaining. Ichibani  utc 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
I think you have a real nerve deleting the article I started so quickly after a guy said if links are added for release proof. You deleted it same day a short time later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Livingston The guy has had remixes with ICE MC (HIS PAGE HASNT BEEN DELETED (Ian Campbell) !!) in the UK top 10 from the film Trainspotting which were used on many compilaiton albums. Other chart remixes with Scooter (There page has not been deleted), Mary Kiani (Her page has not been deleted), co-wrote songs for the DJ Tom Wilson that charted around 44, and released many single under the band name Dymension, all of which charted in the Scottish Dance chart. One of his band's singles, was reviewed in a music industry magazine called MUSIC WEEK, it was a release by his band Dymension featuring Hazel Dean, guess what her wiki page hasn't been deleted.

OH HOW ABOUT THIS FOR NOTABILITY AND VERIFICATION ???

THE GUY IS A MEMBER OF THE PRS THE MCPS AND THE PPL.

You are not allowed membership specifically of the PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD MORE THAN 3 RECORDS RELEASED. You also have to provide proof.

Same goes for the MCPS (MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT PROTECTION SOCIETY) AND THE PPL (PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED) BOTH THESE ORGANISATIONS REQUIRE VALIDATED PROOF AND COPIES OF RELEASED FOR THEIR RECORDS AND ARCHIVES.

In my own personal collection I have magazines that show the guys records in the top ten of the Scottish Dance Chart. Just how I could get a link off the net for some of these I have no idea as the bulk of his success was late nineties. Therefore due to time it is a tad tricky.

I was going to add more of the guy's large discography with release barcodes and cataslogue numbers WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED. But you deleted the page really quickly.

There were 4 people saying delete if no other information was added. I WAS GOING TO ADD IT. And there were 4 people saying keep as it.

Seems there are so so many wikipedia pages about other musicians that have so much less detail than the article I posted had and once I had been able to add more it woul d have had much MORE than the bulk of other articles.

And there was me going to do other articles about other artists from the Scottish Dance Music scene.

Whats the point now ???????

Alex

Acid Eyeliner
This is a load of crap.

I'm a fan. Your a disgrace to wikipedia! I WILL re-upload this article!

Personal Attack Warning
Your point is taken. Upon further investigation it appears a destructive user NOT Rubywine edited the article. I apologize for both the attack and the oversight of the vandals identity. (user tednor- not signed in)

re: Don Murphy AfD
Don Murphy is user:ColScott, who has waged a campaign on his forum that has indirectly lead to User:H leaving Wikipedia. There are current threads on WP:ANI about this. Maybe I should have linked to ColScott in my comment on the AfD... Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment led me to think you didn't know... sorry. Anyway, you've outlined my conflict. If we delete what seems to be a perfectly acceptable, non-controversial article about a notable person who has a disagreeable webforum, then where does it leave us? I don't know why he doesn't want the article; I've only been following the story for a couple of weeks back since he was first unblocked. I'm leaning to keep, but I'm giving myself some time. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion process
If you look at AfD as a majority vote, or even as a supermajority vote, it will indeed often appear broken to you, since it is neither. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. But if you look at it the way it is presented in the deletion policy, it will often appear broken, as well.  Deletion policy and Deletion guidelines for administrators both stress that a "rough consensus" for deletion is required to delete an article.  Without a consensus for deletion, the article is kept.  Consensus means general agreement and discussion, not majority rule or the personal whim of the closing admin.  In a case where a majority of editors are voting to keep, and the voters or their rationales can not be discounted or invalidated, there simply is no consensus for deletion. — Omegatron 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, for example, that our current policies enjoy support from far more people than have shown up to even the busiest AfD.


 * Absolutely.

So if it can be shown unambiguously that an article is inherently unverifiable, or cannot be written neutrally (not just "is not currently", that's a very important distinction there!), or cannot be written without the use of original research, they must go


 * Yes, but determining whether the article meets those policies is the point of the AfD itself. If the article clearly violates a policy and this is not brought up in the discussion, then sure, it can be closed accordingly.  But if it was brought up in the discussion and several competent users said that it meets the policies, the closing admin can't just discount them and close according to his own personal opinion.  If he could, admins would never "vote" on anything; they'd just close discussions instead of participating in them.  It would just be a matter of which admin got there first.


 * I never said that AfD was a head count. I said that it wasn't.  But that means that it swings toward keeping, not deleting.  The burden of evidence is on those who want the article deleted, and some sort of consensus has to form in support of that position.  No consensus = keep. — Omegatron 04:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Merill Chase misspelled - how to fix?
Hi - you helped me out a few months ago with an article about Merill Chase, an immunologist. I haven't done anything with it in while, but it has just come to my attention his name is misspelled, it should be Merrill Chase with 2 r's. I think it may be misspelled in another spot in Wikipedia. How do I fix the name? Do I have to submit for deletion and copy the wikicode into a brand new article? Thanks - randomplanck.
 * There's a "move" link at the top of the page. I googled a bit, and found it each way, actually. Is this him? But then I found the New York Times obit on line, linked to it in the article., and decided to do the move for you as well. Merrill Chase. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Priory School (Hitchin)
Thanks for you help. I'm not very good at nominating AfD... I don't really like doing it. Jack1956 06:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're being quoted
...in an edit summary (here) for CSD'ing as blatant advertising an article that is no such thing. I declined the speedy, thought you'd like to know how you're being quoted out there. It looks to me like a bad-faith nom as a result to what you wrote on the noming editor's talk page.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion on this has continued on my talk page...as a fellow admin, I thought you'd want to know that you're being brought up there. It's my policy not to second-guess my compatriot's decisions, which I hope my response reflects.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I do see that he left an earlier message for me which I missed, I responded and apologized for that. (And by the way, if you ever do think I screwed up, please don't hesitate to let me know. We're all human, we all make mistakes!) Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at the deleted article, and I agree with your decision...I would have done the same thing, but then again I'm militantly anti-spam. The "glowing" adjectives is the alarm item for me. It makes me wonder if the contributor works for/with the organization. I'm a newer admin than you, and I'm still getting my sea legs, so I wouldn't presume to correct you! I have come across similar sitations before, and offered to put the material in a sandbox on the users' page in case he/she wanted to rewrite it. In one instance, they did and produced a good article, in the other they never did respond, and it went no where. Just my thoughts.  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK
Just to let you know, there is a bot running for automated archival so you don't have to archive them manually :) E  talk 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Common phrases AfD
Hi! I just noticed the AfD/deletion of the page, and while I'd have voted for keeping it, it seems the page has already had enough controversy. Regardless, what's going to be done with all the various redirects and pages that link there? Are they eventually going to be deleted/removed as well? I saw no mention in the AfD of anything happening to fix the collateral damage of deleting the page, but it seems rather misleading to have the redirect pages exist, making the links blue, when they have nowhere to link because the destination page is gone. (And just as a sidenote, I was surprised to see just how many pages DO link there.) -Bbik ★ 04:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several more redirects, most of which don't have any incoming links, but a couple which have several (result of a page move?). Can the bot take care of those pages, too?  It seems like it should be about the same concept as removing direct links. -Bbik ★ 12:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To a fellow admin - this is in regards to the common phrases AfD. I know there's no magic number for rough consensus, but (if I'm counting correctly) only 13 out of 34 participants in this particular AfD were of the opinion that it should have been deleted. That's not even close to half. It's pretty evident that the AfD resutld in no consensus. What sayest thou?

BTW.. as far as verfiability is concerned, I am surprised that this criterion is even being taken seriously. It is quite simple verifying phrases in another language. All that one has to do is pick up literature in that language to do so. What am I not seeing here? Thanks. --Chris S. 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jill Neimark--deletion--reliable sources
Hi, I hope this is the place to write you. I appreciate your answer and I answered you on the page I originally posted on and where you answered. I would like to add reliable sources and the current ones are mainly about my autism article at the moment but there are many of them. I am not sure how to format this though so if you think this is useful can you help me out? THANKS!

Hi--I saw your post on my talk page and am going to try to respond there, but also will respond here. Thank you so much for helping btw. Anyway, I have looked at the web just now and there is reportage that I can find online links for you on my piece by 1) David Kirby, a NY Times bestselling au., in a column in The Huffington Post; 2) a PhD psychologist in the Columbia Tribune 3) A book review in Entertainment Weekly online, 4) commentary on Autism Speaks website, a $100 million research foundation 4) commentary on Generation Rescue website, another autism foundation 5) further commentary at the Autism Society of America by their communications director on their website (they are the largest such foundation in the country). Would it be useful to put these in discreetly just as footnotes at the end of a sentence? Or are they supposed to be references? Or both? Thanks. jenbooks13 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, me again. Not sure I did it correctly, but see the footnotes I added. I would be very appreciative if you'd check those links and see if they are reliable sources. I didn't want too put too many more in as it could be seen as self serving, perhaps? I don't know if they should stay like that or be made into references but at least this is a beginning, I hope. THANKS! I'll look for your answer on my talk page or here. Thanks again. Also, I really wasn't going to make an issue of it and it shouldn't matter in the end, but the person who posted to delete me did it specifically against me, for his own personal reasons, and is posting about it again today I see. In the end, that shouldn't matter, as it raised an issue that wikipedians will decide for me, I guess. I'm just doing my best here. jenbooks13 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you will read this and can help me. I've been looking at edit pages but I am uncertain how to make my footnotes into references that don't have URL's (that looked easy). There have been various "keeps" in discussion on my page but one was a weak keep because my sources could be more notable and better. I do have such sources but they are not web/online. For instance, my novel had full length reviews in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle. I have those citations but I can't figure out how to footnote them to the references. I will keep trying to figure that out. I also have other better citations and sources. Look forward to your advice or that of somebody else. I can cite my NY Times article as well, I have that one. I'm not sure if I should leave all that on here, but I am not sure otherwise how to get you the citations. So for my novel, Bloodsong, they are: 1) The talent in the anteroom: Five young novelists -- Particles and Luck by Louis B. Jones / Decorations in a Ruined Cemetery by John Gregory Brown / The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides / Bloodsong by Jill Neimark / Dogs of God by Pinckney Benedict Griffith, Michael. The Southern Review. Baton Rouge: Spring 1994. Vol.30, Iss. 2; pg. 379; 2)Pleasure and poison: in love with a killer; [2 STAR Edition] LISA MEYER. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Jan 2, 1994. pg. 21; 3) Love--Excessive, Obsessive; [FINAL EDITION, C] Reviewed by Bruce Allen, a writer critic.. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Nov 21, 1993. pg. 6; 4) Steamy Sex, a Little Murder and Intrigue-It's All Here BOOK REVIEW BLOODSONG by Jill Neimark; Random House; 304 pages.; [Home Edition] JONATHAN KIRSCH. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 8, 1993. ; p. 2; and finally, 5) Novel reading Smith, Wendy. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Sep 5, 1993. pg. WBK11. For my NY Times credit: Using Flows and Fluxes to Demythologize the Unity of Life; [Interview] Jill Neimark. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 11, 1998.  pg. F.4... jenbooks13 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there--one more comment--you asked on my talkpage if I could help. I would like to help editing the autism articles online. I believe I could add some useful information to them and so could Martha Herbert, MD PhD if I can ask her to help me. Would you like that? Let me know. jenbooks13 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dana L French
Regarding the deletion of article about "Dana L French". While true the initial article was deleted in 2005, the article submitted today was revised according to the instructions provided by wikipedia editors. Does wikipedia not review revised articles? or is the policy once deleted, always deleted. Please help me to understand why the revised article was not reviewed.


 * Responded on anonymous editor's talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rabbeinu SockPuppet Cae
What did you mean in your comment, that you were unimpressed with the conduct of some people? --Meshulam 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I did participate in such conduct. I wanted to make sure that you agreed with me. Otherwise, I will know what to do and what not to do in the future. Thanks for yourspeedy reply. --Meshulam 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is not suspiscious that you have banned or blocked 3 anti-Zionist editors in 1 day, and one user who was simply using the same computer as 2 of them? The last 3 without hearing any evidence, this one under discussion despite his views being completely different from Daniels. Shia1 01:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Joehazelton sock is back
Hi. A user you banned two weeks ago has returned under a new sock ID: Willie Peter. As happened last time, Propol tagged the sock, and the sock has removed it, screaming harassment. The IP address of the new sock falls closely within the IPs of the 80+ Hazelton socks. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Application Portfolio Management topic
I am troubled by your decision to "swiftly delete" my topic on Application Portfolio Management. I am a professional practitioner of APM and am writing a book on the topic, one of the first in the field. As an experienced architect, but not an experienced Wikipedia contributor, I wasn't aware that my article could be so quickly deleted. To be honest, I'm not sure what I did wrong! The article was tagged as "Blatant Advertising" yet the only 'advertising' in the article were links to the relatively few software products on the market that attempt to fill the informational needs of people in this space. NONE of the products are made by my employer! I deleted a totally different article (that I had written about a year ago) and moved the content over to that article because it was better placed there, and added sufficient references to known sources of information in an attempt to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Can you help me to recover and fix the article so that I can make it work for Wikipedia. As I said, I'm an expert practitioner in the field of practice, not an expert at writing encyclopedia articles. I'd love the help. --Nickmalik 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your closure on Suspected sock puppets/Charlie.somerville
Hi, I was about to leave a note on that page, when you conflicted me with the closure. I was wondering if you can open it again, because I just submitted the note, and I'd like to hear a reply from the suspect (Charlie). Thanks. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 00:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center
LaughingVulcan wrote to me today: "Ask Seraphimblade if he would be willing to Userfy Gandhi Information Center to User:Chrbartolf/Gandhi Information Center. Refer him to here if you want for a little of the discussion (User talk:LaughingVulcan#GIC info,) but make your request clear. Seraphimblade is under no obligation to grant your request, though I don't see the harm if he/she does so. You have been forthright about your vested interest in the article, and seem like you're interested in improving its notability. LaughingVulcan 12:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"

And I responded: "Thank you, Laughing Vulcan, but I am just right now writing a new book to be published by the Center, and this is why I do not find time. Is there a chance that someone works on the article and consults me for questions? Or will this be no option? My wish is to keep up at least a few lines on the "Gandhi Information Center" as wikipedia article so that the Center's existence cannot be denied or ignored. Thank you for your advise! Chrbartolf 27 June 2007"

Would you please help us a bit in this matter? Thank you! Chrbartolf 27 June 2007

Thanks for all your efforts and explanations. I always use as signature Chrbartolf - will this be right in future. To be sincere, I do not understand the complicated procedure now, and I am afraid this might take a long time, a long time of absence of the wikipedia article on "Gandhi Information Center". Would be a real pity ... In any case, if you need some info, I will be prepared to give it to you, because Gandhi Information Center's "organizational notability" should be obvious to everyone, after all these activities and years ... It is just a matter of proper wikipedia text. Please go ahead soonest! Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Thank you again for your kind cooperation, translation is no problem for me, but there are no additional "completely independent unquestionably reliable publications" (whatever this might mean in our societies), they are all in the hands of these responsible people who suppress good news by ignorance and indifference - this is it. I need not explain you why. It is quite easy nowadays to marginalize someone (and who?), and they (whoever they are) succeed daily! Now do not recommend to me professional PR management - this is a matter of "do-re-mi" (if you know what I mean). Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Of course, you find entries in the library collection databases of the "Swarthmore College Peace Collection" (500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA, 19081-1399 U.S.A., 610-328-8557 (curator) - http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/ - and in "The Commonweal Collection, c/o J.B. Priestley Library, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, Telephone: 01274 233404" - http://www.bradford.ac.uk/library/services/commonweal/index.php - (these are the two major university-linked peace library collections as far as I know) for "Bartolf" as well as for "Gandhi Informations Zentrum" - but I do not know if this helps you ... Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Now "Prodego" deleted the "Christian Bartolf" article, in addition - what to do? Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

"LaughingVulcan" and David Goodman ("DGG") and "Seraphimblade", thank you for your efforts and explanations - I appreciate them very much! First of all, I do not intend to do PR work or become famous, but the readers of "Wikipedia" should be informed about the "Gandhi Information Center" and "Christian Bartolf", do you not think so? Second, those who are allowed to inform the readers could be you or someone else, but not me - according to wikipedia guidelines, as far as I understand. This is the reason why I have abstained (after grasping the rules) from "autobiography", "self-advertising" or else. Third, even if I change the text in the sandbox (during the next hour), I do not really know who decides when the new article will be restored, because I suppose the "rough consensus" could destroy anything, although notable, because of reasons you might better know about. Fourth, what other webpages will prove authenticity or notability except from government-related webpages or quotes in scientific works already found out during the past busy week - please explain to me! Fifth: Will there a chance or a way to represent these two articles in a new shape soon - by cooperation (and if yes, with whom?) - for the sake of the Wikipedia readers. Chrbartolf 29 June 2007

Now I edited this "sandbox" page :User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf. Link from outside Wikipedia: - what else is missing and will be necessary? Chrbartolf 29 June 2007

User:Vox Humana 8'
Hi there. The above use was requesting unblocking of your earlier 48-hour block and I responded to the message. It appears that the sockery was some time ago, and since then, the editor has produced a number of good articles. Furthermore, he was vouched for by another editor in good standing. I reviewed the evidence and unblocked the guy. Hope that's okay! - A l is o n  ☺ 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion here, and particularly Alison' inability or unwillingness to substantiate her claims, is relevant. Andy Mabbett 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * *sigh* - third time - take it to ANI - A l is o n  ☺ 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this unblock. Blocks aren't punitive - it doesn't seem that a 48 hour block now for events that happened back in September 2006 is a great idea. Had it been picked up at the time the 3RR block would have been fine but I don't think it helps now that the editor is contributing constructively. WjBscribe 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)(see further below)


 * The reverts happened on 21 June 2007, when the user was operating three accounts simultaneously; having previously been blocked for the earlier sock-puppetry. Andy Mabbett 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to link me to diffs of four recent reverts to an article I will look into the matter further. Drop me an note on my talkpage. WjBscribe 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What does the number of diffs have to do with it? Sock puppetry is sock puppetry. There's a report with links at Suspected sock puppets/Vox Humana 8'. Andy Mabbett 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The sockpuppet report was pretty unclear and I can see why you and Alison came to different conclusions on it. It was from a discussion elsewhere that Pigsonthewing gave me the impression it was for old sockpuppetry. He seems to have found inordinate difficulty explaining things to me (see my talkpage) when Alison asked me to review the matter. As it is I still only see 3 reverts on the 20th not 4 and I don't think he's proved that User:Vox AntiVandal 1.0 and User:AntiVandal001 are socks of User:Vox Humana 8' as far as his userpage is concerned. WjBscribe 01:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask you a question?
Could I ask you a question outside of the public forum? It is about Wikipedia, but I am not interested in the entire world knowing my question. My e-mail address is RebMeshulam@gmail.com. If you can e-mail me, I would appreciate it. If not, I understand. --Meshulam 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

on Application Portfolio Management
Thank you for replying quickly. I appreciate your feedback. As it has been well over a month since I penned that article, and since I do not have the contents of the article saved in another media, would it be difficult for you to retrieve it and send it to me, so that I can make another attempt to creating an article that reads less like a 'sales brochure'? e-mail address is nickmalik (at) hotmail (dot) com --Nickmalik 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit/merge resolution request
Hello, I'm a newbie here so thought I would ask for your tried an true advice. I've just recently authored an article Orca (Jaws boat) and unfortunately have had several objections made hereto, including a proposed merger with parent article Jaws (film). I've made every possible point in reference as to why this article should not be merged, and having not had any tangible and substatiated arguement set forth by other editors other than an insistance that article be merged, I would like to know (in your opinion) when it would be deemed fit to remove merger suggestion header and footers from said article and parent article so that said article can exist without further objection or potential objection. Also, any help you could provide in resolving what looks to be a postential edit war and possible bias toward a newbie would be appreciated. In short I would like to see this article remain as a stand alone piece but want to do this following correct Wikipedia procedure for which I still have a learning curve. Thanks in advance Fred-stine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

slimvirgin 3rr
I'm sorry; this is my first time using the 3RR page and I didn't quite understand how to report it. If you have a moment, please glance at my update. Jav43 02:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * Thanks for your perspective and time, but I was actually looking for help in strengthening the article technically so that it meets criteria relevant to a stand alone article (non-merge). I provided several examples in my original query to you (and to those making the proposal for merge) of similar stand alone articles which from what I can tell set a precedent for this article to remain stand alone. In reading the area you forwarded me writing about fiction I was able to note that article Doctor Who is mentioned as a prime example of 'out of universe' writing. Orca (Jaws boat) appears to follow this standard IMHO. In addition Doctor Who contains a Wiki link to TARDIS (the vehicle used in the show) which IMO is almost an exacting example for which I am making a case. I have yet to hear a good arguement against this line of reasoning from those concerned.

I've aso provided a reliable source in the article (The Jaws log). This was written by the same author that wrote the screenplay for the film. I'll add another reliable source today if possible to strengthen this area, namely "The making of jaws" by Edith Blake. Mass Market Paperback: 182 pages Publisher: Ballantine Books (August 12, 1975) Language: English ISBN-10: 0345248821 ISBN-13: 978-0345248824. Both of these books are considered the bible in so far as the film is concerned and are both considered Production diaries;. In relation to Behind-the-scenes documentaries; The Shark Is Still Working covers the Orca extensively thereby further making the case that this subject is notable unto itself. www.sharkisstillworking.com/

If such reliable source material regarding just the fictional boat does exist, you'd be well advised to add that to the article, else those who suggest merger are correct.

The jaws log and the making of Jaws both mention the boat extensively. Alternately, there is no stand alone book dedicated to and mentioning just Amity Island as a fictional setting or TARDIS yet these articles exist as a stand alones. I could list numerous examples like this, so clearly precedent must be noted here as a Wikipedia standard. IMHO it is unclear why I am being confronted with so much opposition hereto when precedent clearly exists.

The following were listed as reliable source entities. These types of things exist out there mentioning this boat in particular and thereby can only strengthen the article.

Annotated books or screenplays; Critical reviews; Distribution materials; DVD commentary tracks; Interviews with creators, actors, etc.; Press coverage;

Your help in technically strengthening the article would be appreciated. Also I'm trying to ascertain how long merge tabs should be allowed to remain and who decides if they should be there in the first place? Thanks Fred-stine 11:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I submitted an entry for Joseph Gorman, who co-wrote a series of educational plays based on American history. His credentials and those of his book are easy to verify. Just go to google and enter "Conversations in History." It is a legitimate book and a legitimate wikipedia entry.

Deletion of Legal Week
I'm writing to request further details about the deletion of the Legal Week page. I note you quoted A7 and G11 as the reasons for the removal of this page, yet other comparable articles such as The Lawyer and The Law Society Gazette still exist. What was the particular problem with the Legal Week page that set it apart from these other two articles? I'm totally new to Wikipedia and hoping to learn. Thanks. --Solicitor1 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a article exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist. The article failed notability and both WP:CSD and WP:CSD. We've gone over the WP:COI and other issues. you yourself said I'd rather not have the page in Wikipedia at all if the COI template is permanent .--Hu12 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - I came across the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule after I made the above post. But thanks for confirming that for me. My crash course in Wikipedia law continues. I appreciate I am 100% guilty of the COI charge, and as I'm sure you've seen me write already, I promise never to post anything to do with Legal Week again. But as for the other charges that relate to the validity of the page, I feel the 'blatant advertising' charge is a little harsh. I think it's naive to assume that all the other contributors creating pages are in no way affiliated to the subject they are editing. I just gave myself away with my ridiculous former username(!) and the link-adding (which, incidentally, wasn't done by me, rather a colleague who no longer has access to the page after the username change). I still stand by my claim that nothing I wrote was overt 'sales-speak' (unless you want to identify something in particular for me?). As for the non-notability charge: Legal Week magazine has a circulation of over 30,000; is read by all the major commercial law firms around the world; has broken stories that have been referenced in the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, The Telegraph and the Financial Times (among others); and legalweek.com features regular blogs from many of the top names in the world of law, including member of the UK Parliament Jonathan Djanogly, and Fiona Woolf, President of the Law Society of England and Wales. Apologies if this does all sound a bit 'salesy', but I'm just trying to counter the charge of non-notability! --Solicitor1 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Seraphimblade is busy in real life for the moment, let me jump in here. Addressing just the notability issue...a good case could be made, as you just did, for notability. The problem is that the article didn't make that case. Generally, reputable publications that qualify as reliable secondary sources for articles are themselves generally considered notable. The fact that other pubs pick up stories from Legal Week, if that can be demonstrated by refs, is a valid argument. I can't speak for Seraphimblade, and I don't want to appear to be countermanding him, but I can see a case for an article being built in someone's sandbox, as long as that editor doing the writing wasn't involved in COI. I might even be willing to do it, if I can find some time. As far as the COI thing goes, it's something that takes a fair amount of self-discipline to toe the line with. I myself have to be careful, for instance, not to edit Air Methods, since that's my employer. Instead, two other editors were willing to pick up the torch and run with it. This needs to be the case here, Solicitor1. There's nothing wrong with you working with another editor, as long as he's the one writing the article, and your involvement is limited to commentary on factual matters, and providing source refs. Having said that, if you can provide refs for LW articles being used in other publications, and would like to dump them on one of my sandboxes (see my user page), have at it. We'll see what we can come up with.  AK Radecki  Speaketh  15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (And of course when Akradecki kindly helps me out, I get an edit conflict with him, isn't that how it goes? Thanks in any case though. :) )Alright, I think an article might be possible here. The big question is: Has any reliable source which isn't directly affiliated with Legal Week written about it? If so, we can certainly create such an article, using that as verification. As to "Wikipedia law", there isn't really such a thing-we just write down what tends to happen in practice. As to a COI template, those are usually removed if an established editor looks over the article and decides it's not problematic (or reworks anything that is), no templates are intended to stay on an article forever. They're just there to call attention to needed maintenance and tasks, we remove them once those are done. If you can direct me to some source material, I can certainly help to evaluate it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "those are usually removed if an established editor looks over the article and decides it's not problematic (or reworks anything that is)," ... which is what *I* did just before the deletion. I didn't use my normal user name, because I ran into COI issues on articles that I had written. I decided to help others who had run into the same problems. I would use my normal user id, except that I feel that everything I do is suspect. With most admins, once someone is tainted they are presumed guilty and evil and there seems to be no way to remove the taint. I chose this article because one overzelous new admin with questionable judgement is the same one who dinged both of us for COI. I've had the desire to contribe to wikipedia beaten out of me by history revisionists and finally by overzelous admins. I thought I could at least bring some relief to other well-meaning editors, as a type of carthartic (sp?) release of my own frustration. So far, I've found two or three articles that I felt deserved a place, but had COI issues and made appropriate edits. I've waded through many more that didn't deserve my efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.146.65.6 (talk • contribs).


 * Thanks for the help and advice guys (although I'm a little confused by the unsigned comment above!). I will endeavour to provide some appropriate source material and references in due course. --Solicitor1 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's alright, just know that someone else "felt your pain" and was trying to bring a little justice in a system that is stacked against those in our situation. I'm sure it was my edits that spurred someone to delete it, and you probably didn't see them. I basically removed the more "bragging" type facts and shifted it to a more disinterested audience, and made a few wording changes, some of them to be less British. After doing a little online research to verify things. Funny, the fundamental concept behind wikis is to make things as friendly as possible for editors, but WikiPedia has become more and more un-friendly to most editors. — 69.146.65.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deletion of Cambridge Rangers WFC page
As a newbie to Wikipedia I was sad to see my Cambridge Rangers WFC page deleted and would welcome advice on how to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. My general area of interst is of the History (and current) of the Womens' County Football League in Cambridge - an area that, I would agree, probably has a limited audience but one that, I feel, should be recorded for others to view (more generally I am interested in the History of Womens' Football within Cambridgeshire). I had intended to produce a page for the league history etc. and then add pages for each individual club who has won honours in the league.

I started with Rangers since I happen to have had a meeting with one of their players to get some history of the club etc. (having trawled local newspapers etc. to get some information too).

Is this an area that is suitable for Wikipedia or one that is of too limited interest to meet the "sum of human knowledge" criteria?

Many thanks in advice for your guidance

Steve


 * Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Chase spelling correction
Thanks for the "move" tip on the name correction. Someone seemed to have done it before I got to it but I had a further question - Before I created the "Merrill Chase" stub, (soon to be expanded), A search on his name yielded another hit in an immunology article where I think it also may have been misspelled - but now, since there is a perfect hit on his name, there are no more "suggestions" from wikipedia as to what I was searching for - is there anyway to get at those? Thanks again for your help.

Gandhi Information Center / Christian Bartolf
Thank you again for your very good advise, Seraphimblade, I will do so now. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

The combination of the two articles to the one now on "Gandhi Information Center", successfully prepared by LaughingVulcan, will do. In case you agree, please roll it back to Main Space. After all, I am too shy to do so - thank you! This message goes to DGG, Seraphimblade, LaughingVulcan. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

After reading your fine comments (DGG and LaughingVulcan) I think the best continuation is to follow your proposal, LaughingVulcan when you just wrote: "I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin." This is why I remain without action during this day, before you will have finished your editing of the text for which I am very grateful to you, of course. After all, I just want to express that I do not complain about other editors at all. On the contrary, I am lucky about your cooperation and willing to follow your advice. To avoid any further misunderstandings, I communicate openly on the talk pages. It would have been easier for me to observe and just resign. But I identify with Wikipedia readers - that's it. The better the article, the higher the standard of the article, the more the article fulfills the criteria, the better for all. So, please inform me about the result. If there is anything I can do for you, please inform me as well. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

RE:Your report to WP:AIV
Who did I report? I haven't reported anybody recently, are you sure you're talking to the right person?  Bsroiaadn Talk 10:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, man. Peace.  Bsroiaadn Talk 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Emperor Tony
Thanks for the block. Thought you might be interested in this list. Would it be appropriate to block II for being a vandal-only account and / or an obvious sock, and block VIII-XIV for being obvious socks? Previous editors had put suspected sockpuppet tags on some of the accounts, I've added the rest.
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu - indef block
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu II - warned for page move vandalism, no block
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu III to User:Emperor Tony X. Liu VII inclusive are indef blocked
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu VIII - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu IX - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu X - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XI - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XII - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XIII - new account, no edits
 * User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XIV - new account, no edits

Regards, Bencherlite 12:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just to let you know, I didn't realise that there was a sockpuppet issue when I filed the AIV report. It was only after I'd put the name up that I thought "hang on, I'm sure I've seen that name before on AIV recently" (sad, I know!) so went into the history and found the earlier report.  Noticing VI and VII, I wondered whether there might be more around, so checked Special:Users and found the above list of socks. I would have put more information into the first report had I realised!  The vandalised pages are on my watchlist now so if he returns under a new guise and returns to the scenes of his previous crimes, I might put two and two together... Regards, Bencherlite 13:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Common Phrases AfD
I sent you this on June 26th, but you never replied. I'm ressurecting this question from the archives.

To a fellow admin - this is in regards to the common phrases AfD. I know there's no magic number for rough consensus, but (if I'm counting correctly) only 13 out of 34 participants in this particular AfD were of the opinion that it should have been deleted. That's not even close to half. It's pretty evident that the AfD resutld in no consensus. What sayest thou?

BTW.. as far as verfiability is concerned, I am surprised that this criterion is even being taken seriously. It is quite simple verifying phrases in another language. All that one has to do is pick up literature in that language to do so. What am I not seeing here? Thanks. --Chris S. 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I am planning on putting it up for deletion review just to get other opinions. I hope you don't mind. I feel that there is a place for it in Wikipedia. Thanks again. --Chris S. 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Common Phrases Part Two/Dos/Zwei
I appreciate your statement that this will be preserved somewhere. In the Internet age, we have so many more languages available than we've ever had. I remember when dictionaries other than the European ones-- Spanish, French, German, and sometimes Russian-- were available only at a large college library. I'm not kidding when I say that the only exposure that most of us had to the other languages of the world was in certain editions of the Bible that showed John 3:16 as rendered the world around.

To my knowledge, a list of common phrases in 100+ languages was never published in book form, nor would it have been feasible to print a such a compilation. Verifiability is a valid concern. I think that a team of interested persons could verify the accuracy of the information, however, within a set time-- say 60 days. Vandalism is most definitely a concern, and this one should be off limits. Linguistic comparison is of scholarly interest, since it shows the similarities between branches of a linguistic family. Mandsford 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

>>It is a very interesting concept, it looks to be the type of thing that would be perfect for Wikiversity. I'm going to be moving this week, but if you'd be interested in doing the transwiki, I'd be happy to userfy it for you<<

Thanks! Please let me know what steps I would take after that. I'd say I can probably just click on a link of some sort. Mandsford 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of common phrases in various languages. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Chris S. 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-biographies
On the topic of pseudo-biographies and WP:HARM, I think I've found a perfect example - Lisa Michelle Lambert, an article with a current AfD. The article's not really about her, it was about a murder she was involved in - a real case of WP:COATRACK. Waltontalk 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fluid entropy
Hello Todd! Would you like to read and think about all the "stuff" connected with the deletion of the article "Fluid entropy", please? I am desperate. This is a completely new situation for me, I am in the middle of a battle and I don`t exactly know why, because I based this article on sources. Both sides don`t play fair but you can see it when you look at their personal pages and contributions. It does not matter any more to me if the article will be deleted or not, I just would like to hear an independent opinion from somebody who is interested in physics and is willing to read the article and search for some extra information in order to understand it, but most of all from somebody who dears to think. Normally I am active on PL-Wikipedia but because all the materials are in English I have decided to make an English version too. I wrote this article because I am interested in entropy of water due to eventual connection with homeopathy. Entropy of fluids (Fluid entropy) is based on entropy issue in fuels and it is better known than entropy of water but both subjects are quite unknown. Todd! Please, if you only can spend some time on it, help me. --LidiaFourdraine 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Todd! It is not necessary to bother about "Fluid entropy". I have agreed with the deletion after doing some deep thinking. All the information on your page is very clear and useful. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi there, I was wondering if you might have any comments at Editor review/TimVickers. Thanks, if you have time. Tim Vickers 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Community Credit Union
Would you consider undeleting Pacific Community Credit Union? I dont think it fits into the definition of G11 as it contains information of historical value and very little promotional information. It is unreferenced, but I will fix that if it is restored. Alternatively, would you restore it to "User:Jayvdb/Saved pages/Pacific Community Credit Union" for me to expand and tidy it up. John Vandenberg 05:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those issues can be fixed by removing any details that dont belong here, which I will of course do. John Vandenberg 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we have different views on notability, but if you're not convinced it's notable then I am happy to drop it. So to recap, its a non-profit that was established in 1955 (havent verified this yet), and being a credit union means that the CA govt. has yearly reports about the company, which assists in verifiability.  IMO, being a non-profit means that a few of the underlying assumptions that drive the "corp notability guideline" dont carry the same weight; i.e. the notability of a business with 1 million customers is not the same as a co-op that has 1 million members.  Readily assessable resources also exist:  "Pacific Community Credit Union","Beckman Employees Credit Union",, financial data submitted to govt and responses to CA senate bills ; I think there is enough.  Also, according to this   they have ATMs, and their financial figures indicate they are above average for credit unions in CA.  The CEO Kevin Pendergraft is also the chair of the Fullerton Chamber of Commerce.  This wont be an important company bio, but it will add to the history of the area, the history of credit unions of CA., and probably also the history of Beckman Coulter.
 * p.s. Thanks for pointing out the size of my talk page; I've archived it, so could you respond here to avoid splitting up this conversation too much) John Vandenberg 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Steven Douglas (footballer)
As for your contribution about notability of sportspeople, I would like to see your opinion about this article. I know that may be you will not support delete, I just want to know why this article must be kept. He has never played in senior's national team and plays in a weak amature league.--KRBN 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Accreditiation Council for Accountancy and Taxation (ACAT) Article Deletion
Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide me with a full explanation as to why the page referring to the Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation (ACAT) was deleted. The information provided to me is directly from ACAT and I placed that reference within the Notes section of the Article. The uploaded image, which was not yet posted to the page, is the authorized for use by me as I am a credential holder. Additionally, ACAT has it's own logo which would be covered by their permission as well for information purposes. I also posted for non-commercial, information purposes.

The article is provided to give information on an existing credentialing organization like the State Board of Accountancy, the American Academy of Financial Management, AICPA, IIA, etc. Information on the article was provided directly by ACAT.

If there are any methods of referencing that you would like to see, please let me know. If this page can be reinstated, and you can inform me of how the references should be made, I will be more than happy to make the required edits. It is possible that I may have mis-understood how the references should be made.

I can provide to you the permission given to me by ACAT to publish that information, if you require that as well.

Thank you.


 * Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton Drug Controversy removal.
I agree that although the videos are obviously of Paris Hilton, it needs secondary validation. However, how about the video with the "parisexposed.com" water mark? Is that enough validation because it is reported by that website they bought the video from a foreclosure sale of Hilton's storage facility? Rather than the other videos that could be extremely good fakes in order to defame her (yeah right).
 * Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton
what about he one where she is naked and aduitioning for a play as a something on youtube(gross)it goes on forever but she si a suprisingly good actress excpet on larry king where she lied about drugs, she was cringing.and yes i think the paris exposed videos are good enough. and yes she has regulray said that she doesnt drinl i heard her say on i think letterman that she doesnot drink but everyone thinks she does as she drinks red bull i will have to find the quote. and the other paris exposed video where she says nigga should have a write up, the whole paris exposed thing garnered alot of critism for her as a rascist and a flake in blog world.


 * "Blog world" is not a reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion FAQ
I want to commend you on this page. That is surely very helpful, especially for newbies. Best, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad you find it helpful! Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Week references
Hi - as a follow-up to our earlier discussion, Deletion of Legal Week, here are a selection of articles which I hope back up Legal Week's notability. If you need any more information, please get in touch. I have also posted this in AKRadecki's sandbox. Apologies for my amateurish use of Wikipedia coding, and thanks again for your constructive advice. --Solicitor1 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Times; with reference to Legal Week (28 June 2007)


 * The Wall Street Journal; with reference to Legal Week (19 April 2007)


 * The Guardian; with reference to Legal Week (15 February 2007)


 * The Telegraph; a profile of Legal Week founder Mark Wyatt


 * The Financial Times; a selection of stories which reference Legal Week


 * Member of Parliament Jonathan Djanogly’s Legal Week blog


 * President of the Law Society of England and Wales Fiona Woolf’s Legal Week blog

koa block
can you check if coconutfred is actually koa? i want to be absolutely sure, as im not completely sure about his involvement ad dont want to feel guilt in case he is uninvolved. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * while they share similarities, coconutfred doesnt appear to edit wwe or nickelodeon articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed SP tag
Just FYI, since the case against me is now closed and was deemed inconclusive/not-proven, I have removed the suspected sock puppet of... tag on Haelstom's user page. LordPathogen 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Liverpool
Hi, I noticed you had posted a last warning on the user talk page for an anon. IP - User_talk:212.219.189.60 - which has been vandalising several articles. I went there to add a further warning and noticed this. Could you look in to it further, since it appears the user has a protracted history of vandalising? Thanks :) ColdmachineTalk 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! Thanks for the response. Didn't realise it was a shared IP :) ColdmachineTalk 10:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam
I do not understand why the page I created was deleted. It used unbias language and try to describe how this product imparticular worked in the relm of the entire system. The type of product that this is has a wiki page and I figured I would do one for the product imparticular. Many people feel that this wiki page helps them get a better clearer view on the product and better understand what they are looking at. I do not feel that it was blatant advertising and that you made a mistake it getting the page deleted.

Green_W Green w 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review updated article
Hello Seraphimblade. You were very nice and helped me to recover the article on Application Portfolio Management that was deleted for poor quality content. If you get a chance, could you look over the new article and tell me if this attempt is closer to meeting the Wikipedia standards? --Nickmalik 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Year pages
This are articles which will inevitably be filled as the encyclopedia grow, and eds might think of using them, who might not feel comfortable constructing them. In any case, I want to see how many I can find at least some content for today. And have a good vacation, and dont spoil it by editing WP (smile)DGG (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime South
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anime_South. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Animesouth 05:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

... skip to final
Actually, I don't think I did. This was a pretty clear case of log-off-so-they-don't-recognize-me-nyuk-nyuk. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I might have been new page patrol for too long and the wikistress got me a bit biteish.    Dealing with wanton spammers and vandals kinda drowns the rare real newbie after a while.  Break time.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Jew
A quick look at the contributions of the user who has a problem with me shows that he/she is a POV warrior on this topic. It's best to ignore him/her. The user is only back a week for an indefinite suspension for disruptive editing on the Bob Dylan article. What was the gripe there? You guessed it...whether Dylan is a Jew. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire -- You really need to learn to stay on topic. No one was talking about Bob Dylan. Are you trying to shift the conversation in the direction of Bob Dylan? What about Bob Dylan are you interested in discussing? Bus stop 01:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

 * Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 09:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images
Hi Seraphimblade. I notice you have deleted two images I posted. The first on the Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 is the only image extant of the film model and I have approached the photographer, James Farmer to establish a public domain status. The other image is Image:CarolKaye.jpg which was found on an internet site. I could not figure out how to post an image that was a screencapture of this rock artist which is taken from an interview on the web. Is there a way to use a screencapture when there is no other image available, I am presently writing to another photogrpher to obtain public domain rights to a different image of Carol Kaye. Thanking you in advance for any assistance. Bzuk 12:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Promotional Writing and Documentation (Response to ACAT and ABA articles)
Hi Seraphimblade. I agree that articles should not be promotional in nature, however, with respect to credentialing organizations and credentials, there are no other sources than those granting the credential. Naturally, ACAT and ABA are both directly related to the subjects of Accounting and Accountancy. Consider the other articles in Accounting and Professional Designations that are on Wikipedia: CPA, CIA, CMA, etc. The articles were written in a similar, informative tone. Please review the CPA article segment "Services Provided by CPAs" at the article CPA. You'll notice that a description of their function, and not an overall promotion, is provided. I would be interested in your feedback comparing the ABA article to the CPA article - giving specific examples and helping to clear my understanding of the neutrality guidelines.

In the ABA article, a defining line is drawn because of the legal framework underlying accountancy. For example, ABAs cannot provide attest services because the ABA credential does not have a state granted license; however, ABAs are permitted to practice in areas that are non-attest in nature and do not require state licensure (e.g., bookkeeping, tax preparation, business advisory services). This distinction is required because of the various state laws and the Uniform Accountancy Act. The article deliniates along regulatory and functional lines, rather differentiate in terms of quality - the latter being the proof positive of promotional prose.

Also, in the CPA article, the differentiation between CPAs and PAs are made with the parenthetical comment "below that of CPA" to describe the tiers of licensure. Should we assume "below" means of lesser quality or that PAs have a more limited scope of service than that of a CPA? According to the profession, we would have to assume "lower" describes a limitation of scope, not necessarily a measure of quality. In this case as well, ABA can be substituted in the place of PA with the same interpretation. The above is only one example; however, I would like see your rubric for determining neutrality.

Other than the original, primary source (ACAT) and references to already exisiting Wiki articles, I don't understand the copyright violation since I do have permission from ACAT to write the article. I also reviewed other accountancy articles and minimal documentation was done to reference a primary source. My goal is to add this dimension of accountancy to the already exisiting body of information available. I will also need your help in determing how to document the articles as I am in contact with the primary source. Please give me a specific example to follow.

I look forward to your feedback.

cj_aba 16/July 07
 * Seraphimblade, I replied on talk page. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Supervision proposal
I've thought about and updated per your thoughts. There's also a (separate) sub-page on nomination. Comments update? FT2 (Talk 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List of common phrases in various languages
Was this article transwikied? It's a shame it was deleted, nonetheless, can I have it's source for myself, since it's no longer accessible? Thanks. Epson291 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what other Wiki project it would go on, so the source for myself is what I'd like, if emailing it is the best way, or post it here, whatever works best for you. Thanks again. Epson291 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized the source was recoverable/hand-out-able when there was no intention of recreating the article. Any chance I could get it as well?  E-mail would work for me, too, or I could grab it from Epson's sandbox so you'd only have to deal with it once.  Thanks, Bbik ★ 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock decline
What!? Didn't my decline count! ;P --Steve (Stephen)talk 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use cleanup
Hi there, I was RC patrolling and this edit of yours caught my attention. You removed all those fair use pictures citing "fair use cleanup". Well I've been editing the 50 Cent article and I'm wondering if there's enough critical commentary to justify the last two images on that article (the screenshot and album cover). I personally don't think they're necessary at all, but you might know better. Thanks! Spellcast 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that! Spellcast 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Vanessa Williams image was deleted, but the Fair Use reasoning was that it was a photo of her CD cover. Am I missing something?  Don MEGĂ| 60645  14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rgfolsom
Did AGK clear his undo of your 3RR block with you? It surprised me, because every single one of the four Rgfolsom reverts contradicted talk page consensus, and Rgfolsom immediately went back to edit-warring once the block was removed, even gloating about it on the technical analysis talk page. THF 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Folsom block
Hi Seraphimblade,

I know you were doing your job as an admin, I'm not upset about the block. Anthøny lifted it after I was able to explain some things that weren't obvious about the circumstances. He asked me have you direct questions about it to him. Thanks --Rgfolsom 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Rgfolsom has just broken 3RR again; I've filed the case at the 3RR page. Ministry of random walks 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox question
Hello! Why on your Admin userbox is there a verify in parentheses? I don't believe I've seen that on other's userboxes, unless I'm mistaken. Regards, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Seraphimblade's Day!

 * Thanks very much Phaedriel, much appreciated! :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With every fiber of my wiki being, let me tell you, it's the most modest and humble way of telling you: you are awesome, Seraphim! :) I hope you seized your special Day! (and let me know if you didn't, and I'll gift you another ;) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan Rental Market Report
I am wondering about the specifics as to why the Manhattan Rental Market Report article was deleted. The Manhattan Rental Market Report is just as notable in an encyclopedia as, say, Rand Fishkin or other people/things known within a limited community (real estate for the report, SEO for Fishkin), as it is a very unique and helpful tool to the real estate market and its price trends in Manhattan. This information was not previously available to consumers. The market report has been featured in many prominent news and resource sites, including Yahoo!, Inman, and About. The report was featured as a Yahoo! Finance website of the day and the New York Public Library has requested copies of all our archived and current market reports for indexing, which makes me believe that it has more significance than the Wikipedia community had originally thought. Please review the article, look at the actual report, and consider adding the article back to Wikipedia once again. If more sources need to be added and cited throughout the article, then I would be more than happy to do so. Thank you! --Tregny01 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Valentin Lossev
I noticed you removed the listing of the IP. If the creator, Valcan is an "obvious spammer", shouldn't he be blocked? —AldeBaer 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. —AldeBaer 09:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image question
I'm curious about non-free image use. If I have a poster from a local concert advertising campaign for a rock band, can I scan that in and use it in an article about that band? Or do I have to take a picture of the band myself (becoming one with the papparazi...a scary thought..;). Thanks! (oh and Archangel Michael...nice choice! My favorite one...!)  – Dreadstar  †  19:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed answer and the great advice! It's a somewhat unclear line between free and non-free when the band has commissioned a poster to be made that is then taped, stapled, pasted and left under doorways everywhere to advertise an upcoming concert.  On the surface, it seems like any advertising material distributed in such a manner would be something that can be reused (with attribution) in a Wikipedia article about that concert or band or event..or even in an article about graffitti or that style of advertising.  Thanks for the clarity, and I'll see what I can find!  Or if the band's publicity department would release it to the public domain.


 * And um...thanks for saving me from having to haunt the thorny-but-crowded-paparazzi-bushes...;) – Dreadstar  †  22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya!!
Hiya love!! KathRUNE 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP Zimbabwe
Together we can make the world a better place.

User Taharqa
Since you were the blocking admin of Taharqa, could you take a look at these attacks that he made during his block : "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up" and the rest of his rant. He edited the article Saint Maurice twice when he was blocked. I am trying to do the right thing here without responding to him because I don't want to inflame the situation if I respond angrily. Thank you. Egyegy 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles Deleted While Under-Construction
Hmmm, the three articles I was actively working on (Predator hunter, CorporateSexOffenders and Absolute Zero United) were listed for speedy deletion and though I contested the deletion with a request for time to work on the articles, they were deleted regardless...within hours...without any posting or discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-pedophile_activism about why they were/might be deleted even though I referenced the above post for why they were created to begin with. How do I find out who deleted particular articles and why they were deleted? What exactly are the time parameters that a person is permitted to clean up an newly created article before it is deleted by someone? Does an article need to be "airtight" before it is created and posted or is there generally some lattitude given to new articles created in good faith to allow time for completion? Is this time-frame a matter of minutes and hours or soley subject to the capriciousness of when a particular editor logs on? How airtight does an article need to be to survive a speedy deletion request? I sincerely do not understand these obstacles to contributing. I am trying to contribute in good faith with as neutral a POV as possible but without active input as to why three articles I was actively working on as stated in all three article's discussion pages really deflates my desire to contribute to this community. If the answer to any of the above is merely minutes, a few hours or whenever an admin with an interest in the subject logs on, then I feel the whole process needs review.


 * This issue needs a wider airing. See Editorial and Op-Ed Features ô ¿ ô  16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect, svp
Would you consider semi-protecting the A. Whitney Brown article for a bit? I've been reverting some nastiness placed there by several anons over the past few days. A. Whitney Brown apparently committed the unspeakable crime of being CRITICAL OF THE MILITARY recently and is now paying the price! --AStanhope 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't claim vandalism, simply "nastiness." Thanks, anyway.  --AStanhope 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Chichichihua
This editor removed your "Result: Asked and answered" from the noticeboard on my supposed 3RR violation notice on the admin board. I believe the editor is only interested in disruptive behavior, and may be a banned user who was a troll for six months. --David Shankbone 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CSN
As I said on Cailil's talk page, I'm fully aware and responsible for my actions. With regards to my attack on him - I got hostile with him long after he began attacking me (and others). I reported it, several times in fact. Nothing happened to me and nothing happened to him. This community failed to step up and do something. After a week of being insulted and belittled by someone, I felt obligated to bite back. I understand this communities' express belief that you are never to attack another user. I ignored that rule when nobody would uphold it on my behalf. Right or wrong, that's what i did. I won't apologize to that user, and if someone wants to prevent me from editing - so be it. I make it no secret that in the absence of moderation, people who don't respect others should not be respected themselves. Mind you, this is 2 or so weeks of build up.

With regards the the general nature of my frustration: I set up a WikiAlert because of his incivility, nobody did a thing. Some other editors have chimed in because of the alert, but they were only there "unofficially", and did not really help to get the conversation moving forward again. Next, I setup a 30. The person felt I had legitimate points, and advised me to open a RFC. What happened with the RFC? Nothing. Not one single response here. Finally, I went to open RFM. Not surprisingly, he and another one of his buddies (by their own admission) did not agree to mediation. His buddy was the only one to "officialy" respond. Did he simply say disagree on the RFM page as is "required"? No, he went on a diatribe (since reverted by another user). What did this guy do? remove the notice from his talk page (which is fine) with the note of vandalism (which it wasn't). Twice I have had to ask that the template page be locked (as it currently is). And now people are saying that the onus is on me (AGAIN) to have this behavior looked into. I'm supposed to go to arbitration and fill out more "forms", and spend more of my time just trying to get someone to deal with the issue. The only thing that has changed is that I am now not editing articles until this situation can be dealt with (voluntarily i might add). I find this quote an ideal example of his attitude: "I appreciate your effort, but I think I should have gotten someone with no real interest in football, because all I was looking for was someone to help me create the template I was envisioning." He said that on 00:26 on the 23rd. I'm frustrated as heck that I can't edit pages right now or discuss development of these infoboxes because of one user. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - I have marked this for watching, but if you'd rather keep this on my talk page, just refractor it and we'll talk there. Calil said he felt like I was canvasing, so let me clarify something: I'm not asking anyone to agree with my "perspective", I'm simply asking that someone step in so that a conversation based on the issues can take place without fear of personal attacks and article ownership coming into play. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't stating anything specific about you, only that sometimes those requesting arbitration seem unaware that the arbitrators will consider everyone's part in a dispute. Sometimes they do indeed find that one side has behaved much worse than the others, sometimes they find roughly equal fault with all involved. I don't know your situation well enough to even guess at which would occur here. As to the rest, I certainly would be willing to mediate a discussion between you and the others involved, but any such mediation, whether formal or informal, does require the willing participation of all involved. If that's not present, and the problems continue, it certainly can end up getting to arbitration, but that's never a good result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I would welcome anyone who wants to help get this thing unlocked and moving along then.  But I'm not sure how to proceed.  All I want is someone to take the reigns and try to get the situation to a point where both of us can co-exist.  I agree arbitration is really - REALLY - a last resort.  The dispute started over a template that has since been moved from my user space to the mainspace.  You can view the template (and thus it's talk page at undefined.  The early history is lost because of my own mistake (I merged via copy when I shouldn't have). But the time stamps should give you an idea of how things progressed.  I will tell you that many of the "sub-sections" are all "continuing" conversations.   I will give you whatever information you would like.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are around, it would be great if you could step in and ask that (an admin) and  stop.   stepped in to fix something that was not disputed.  He had already expressed similar feelings to Chrisjnelson.  Chrisjnelson continues to go to others and ask them to make changes simply to circumvent the template protection.  He is not even doing it with the editprotected tag.  I just want this to stop until reasonable discussion takes places. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I see here, it does appear to me that there's been plenty of incivility and failure to communicate on both sides. What I would suggest was also something that was suggested to you at WP:CSN, which is community enforceable mediation, where basically both of you would discuss and agree upon enforceable standards of behavior which both of you would follow. I would be willing to mediate there if both of you would like, or to help you in finding someone if either of you would prefer someone different. Would this be agreeable to you? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but just to make clear - here is what I'm hoping for: Incivility to stop. For people who claim ownership, that their behavior be addressed.  And that we allow for each issue to be addressed individually and not take on 30 different issues at a time. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here's my advice to the both of you. So long as anyone is unwilling to undergo mediation, that can't happen. (That's not intended as an attack, mediation is a voluntary process and anyone is free to decline participation in it.) Quite honestly, this has been made quite a mess of, and the both of you share responsibility in raising the temperature of the discussion. I hope that both of you can take a step back from the situation, and perhaps leave the issue alone for a while and instead at least come to some basic terms of civility during discussion. The level of incivility taking place on that page doesn't just affect the two of you. Many good-faith editors would come along, see a discussion like that, and walk right away, taking with them any constructive advice or suggestion they may have otherwise had to offer. As it stands now, this is heading toward blocks or arbitration. It would be a damn shame to see that happen, both of you are good faith editors who simply have a content disagreement, and I hope that you both will work toward lowering the temperature and working out the dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed. He is now onto calling me a lunatic, mentally unstable, and "off the reservation".  That is ridiculous.  You wonder why I attacked him?  Because he lays into this stuff and nobody does a thing about it.  Per one of your statements: I don't think I'm right and that he's wrong.  What I have said all along is that there are at least two perspectives and both have legitimate "arguments".  The solution was to have an impartial display of information.  I would welcome any solution that does not allow for edit warring.  He got uncivil with me, and no matter how polite I was it has continued unchecked.  That is really just disgusting.  I will be happy to point you to said examples and show you how this thing is really easy to solve.  The reality of the situation is that this user goes around asking people to make edits to things he can't edit.  Many times, they are unaware.  You might want to take a look through Template Talk:Infobox NFL player to see how this attitude that he carries around has been expressed before.  He keeps saying how I don't understand the policies and guidelines I cite.  Yet he goes and says that he's going to do what he wants, when he wants.  I have gone so far as to essentially stop content editing (sans a few minor ones), and yet you are not getting his behavior to stop.  Why again is the onus back on me with no support from the community?  I'm not asking for people to agree with me, I'm asking people to get this guy off my back. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I can honestly say I never meant any of those comments as attacks, that's simply my interpretation of your recent behavior, although if I were reprimanded for such comments I guess I could see the reasoning. As for "getting off your back" I can't say I see how I'm on your back. I've pretty much limited speaking with you, and the recent times I've replied to you I believe were in discussions I was in first. How am I not going about my business here?► Chris Nelson  02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTICE This is absolutely just childish. He has now started to make disputed edits at Brett Favre.  I will gladly report this as a violation of 3RR as it is against the spirit of the rule.  He knows very well that this is disputed and despite my numerous attempts to discuss these matters civily, he refuses to do so.  How this can be allowed to happen is beyond me.  Please let me know if there is anything you feel should be done.  If not, I will be forced to continue this debacle without the assistance of others. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All I'm doing is trying to make the [Brett Favre]] article better. I've sourced what I believe is the so-called disputed edit with a link to Packers.com.► Chris Nelson  02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now requested page protection and am now filing a 3RR. I am happy to talk about this peacefully, but you have attacked me more times than I account.  Stop creating problems and learn to respect the fact that others (NOT ME - OTHER PEOPLE) do not share your view. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

► Chris Nelson  02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I have violated 3RR. Most of my edits came before I was aware you were even changing them. I wasn't trying to edit war, I was just editing the page on my own. I didn't know you were undoing it until near the end.
 * I wasn't attacking you now.
 * It's not about MY view. It's about what I can source. I can source the Favre Pro Bowl years I put and did so.
 * See your talk page, this is not the place. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I've decided I'm willing to let this dispute go to mediation by a neutral and objective party. So how does this work? If it happens, I'd like to be no earlier than Thursday, I have an exam to study for today and the exam Wednesday.► Chris Nelson  04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I'm willing to mediate if you're both alright with that. If not, I can certainly assist in finding you someone else as well (and don't hesitate to say so if you're not, the mediator should be someone you're both entirely comfortable with). The process I would recommend that you use, in either case, is community enforceable mediation. In many ways it's similar to standard mediation, however, you can also propose restrictions or paroles that both of you will be bound to (such as a limit on reverting, a prohibition against personal attacks, or the like). Agreeing to those remedies is voluntary (if either of you don't agree, they cannot take effect), and are also subject to approval by the community as a whole, but once they are approved by both of you and the community they are binding and will be enforced. (Of course, if you do come to an amicable resolution during the mediation process, no restrictions may be necessary at all). I'm glad you've decided to enter mediation, in any case, it really often does help to resolve these matters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I can't say I'm 100% with you as mediator, since you've been in this discussion in some way for a while and I'd prefer a new and fresh person that I know will be totally objective going in. No offense.► Chris Nelson  05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, as I said, it has to be someone both sides are completely comfortable with. I've put in a request and will keep you up to date. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Not a chance. I am 100% sure in my mind that Jmfangio is wrong about everything he says I'm doing (ex. WP:OWN and other policies he cites incorrectly), as well as every edit he's been doing regarding NFL templates. Personally, I believe he is completely delusional and bordering on mentally unstable. I'm not saying this as a personal attack or because I want you to agree; rather, I'm trying to let you know how I view all this and therefore why I feel no desire to be part in any mediation. There's no need for mediation, only a need for him to either figure things out or cut it out.► Chris Nelson  12:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you'd have me do. My last post on the template's talk page explains the situation clear as day, as I've done time and time again. 99% of the time you will see Pro Bowls selections spoken of as I've put them - the regular season a player was selected in. He's just flat-out wrong on this and I've shown why over and over. I've shown how a handful of NFL websites do it this way and I guarantee you all 32 do it because it's common practice. It's just insane it's gotten to be this big of an issue. It's only an issue at all because HE doesn't understand why his edits are incorrect and never used in the media or by teams except by mistake. So while he has been a nuisance, I'm not going to let him make Wikipedia less accurate and prevent my enhancement of articles because he's mistaken.► Chris Nelson  23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was civil in the beginning, it's not like I just went off on him for no reason. Anything I wrote that comes off as angry was after many attempts to calmly and logically explain it. But it's not just an isolated thing anymore, I think he may actually be some sort of crazy. He talks about all kinds of policies but understands none of them (WP:3RR, WP:D and WP:OWN, for example). I honestly think he's gone completely off the reservation. Anyway, to be honest I haven't considered taking it elsewhere. I've known I'm right since Day 1 and I've been able to get by so far, even if I have pushed him over the edge. I suppose that'd be a good idea and I know with 100% certainty that most NFL fans would back me on this, I just really don't have the effort to discuss this thing anymore. I doubt he would take it there because he'd get shot down. I'm just going about my business now. If months from now he's still whining about Pro Bowl links, perhaps I'll take it to the NFL project.► Chris Nelson  00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

feminism email
Hi Seraphimblade, I sent you an email about a dispute I'm having with User:Bremskraft. I've also mentioned this to SirFozzie, so if you don't get a chance to look at it immediately, don't worry.-- Cailil  talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do
I'm having a debate on several pages:


 * User talk:RobJ1981
 * User talk:Eyrian
 * Articles for deletion/Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture
 * List of Harry Potter parodies

There seems to be a kind of cult mentality taking over some of the admins on this site all of a sudden, and I find it frightening. People have decided that any article involving popular culture, whether sourced or not, is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now I may be wrong, but if editors had seen fit to mention references in the works of Shakespeare, Milton or Goethe, I doubt these admins would care. I don't see how you could quantifiably decide when an outside reference to a work was "notable" or not. This whole phenomenon smacks of elitism and snobbery and seems against the whole idea of what Wikipedia is about.  Serendi pod ous  07:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were writing a genuine article, I would agree with that position (indeed I deleted a list section from an article I edit). But with list articles I don't see the problem. All list articles do is list. They don't make a point, they don't say anything other than that these items listed do exist. So really all the sources need to say is that these items are real and weren't made up.  Serendi pod ous  07:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My quote of something you said
I've quoted (and disputed) something you said in the discussion here, so I thought I should give you the chance to respond. Carcharoth 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Committed Identity
I did, see User:TheFearow/Identity, however I removed them and for some reason didnt delete the page (but meant to), because I couldn't remember any of them. IP proof should be enough, but I am probably going to just provide details on my userpage (like phone number) that can be used to contact me. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had my share of real life/real life family stalkers in my time on the internet, I'm sure nothing from wikipedia can shock or surprise me after that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellis D Fogg
I have noted that an article on Ellis D Fogg has been removed because it did not assert notability even though the National Film & Sound Archive (ScreenSound Australia) consider him to be Australia's most innovative lighting designer and lumino kinetic sculptor. Could you please explain to me why this article was deleted as I would like to replace it with an acceptable one. Thanks Tallum 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. The name we are looking at is "Ellis D Fogg", not Elias, and a google search will bring up no less than 30 references to this artist (birth name Roger Foley). How do I view the deleted article so I can work on it rather than having to start from scratch? Tallum 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The name "Ellis D Fogg" is a drug reference (LSD fog) and relates to the drug culture of the Yellow House where Foley worked with many emerging Sydney artists in the late 1960s. I think under the circumstances the article should be listed as "Ellis D Fogg' with a link to Roger Foley. Thanks for your help with this matter. Tallum 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stretching the friendship can you also help me with William Doe and Darren Yap who have both been speedied recently in what appears to be a campaign against Old Boys of Newington College. William Doe is without doubt notable as a former professor of Medicine at ANU, Sydney and Dean at Birmingham. Darren Yap is an actor director and his entry may need work but he has done a lot of important work and I would be pleased to see him brought back so that I might improve him. Tallum 06:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you helped me with Ellis D Fogg I have done a lot of work on it to try and bring it up to standard but another editor has now reverted it to the version prior to the speedy delete. Have I done something wrong? I don't understand the edit summary and don't want ot get into an edit-war. Can you help on this. Thanks Tallum 07:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tallum 08:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad on this one people. We've had a rogue Aussie user throwing CSD tags over truckloads of articles where it's just not warranted, and while I was going thru cleaning these up I must have accidentally done it to this one too. Thewinchester (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No troubles, we all have those I do believe. I figured it was something like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Game show vandals
I am inquiring as to your removing from the intervention page. Your rationale states that "I see no vandal edits from this IP". This vandal's edits are not necessarily noticeable to the casual browser of Wikipedia; he vandalizes by putting tiny bits and pieces of incorrect information into the articles. Same thing with. I don't have a problem if you need to see an edit made by one of these two after my final warning, but they have both been blocked before. The 24.208 guy was blocked for 31 hours on July 26, and on the 28th he was already back vandalizing more articles. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do on my end before reporting them again. Thanks --Goldrushcavi 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone's doing something unusual, you may want to note that. Usually when I'm looking at the vandal board (and as far as I know this is often the case), we're looking for blatant vandalism&mdash;"PENIS LOL", totally and blatantly false information ("George Washington was born in 1950") or the like. Can you give me some examples of the edits where he's falsifying? That subtle misinformation is some of the worst vandalism, if someone's up to that, I won't hesitate to block them. Seraphimblade on Goldrushcavi's talk page - 05:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit from 64.136.173.16 to Supermarket Sweep. This is all false information; there was no 2004 version.  A previous vandal tried adding this information months ago, so he is reposting it.  Also note the bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation:
 * A remake of this show began in 2004 with an audience present the entire show. With Grahm Elwood hosting from 2004-2006 & Bill N. Thompson hosting 2006-present with Burton Richardson annoucing & later Rich Fields. Buena Vista bought the show early-mid May of 2007.
 * 24.208.58.194 usually just re-adds incorrect, unverifiable, or unimportant information taken out by others. He also capitalizes every word of all headings and subheadings in violation of WP:STYLE, even after he is warned and his edits reverted.  With his last edit, he simply corrected 64's grammatical mistakes in the false paragraph:
 * A remake of this show began in 2004 with an audience present for the entire show with Graham Elwood hosting from 2004-2006 and Bill N. Thompson hosting from 2006-present with Burton Richardson announcing and later Rich Fields. Buena Vista bought the show in early-mid May of 2007.
 * Hope this helps. --Goldrushcavi 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Returned sock
Our friendly neighborhood sockpuppeteer seems to have returned, this time as Neemazoid. Do we need to wait for more vandalism, or can he be blocked on sight based on past history? -Bbik ★ 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks.  All these abbreviations are confusing, much less memorable, when I haven't used them before! -Bbik ★ 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

sourcing
I think that primary sources should be usable when it can be seen by direct inspection--and if there is any doubt, we should change the rules there to make it clear. V is a pillar. The manner of V is not a pillar, and is subject to change to permit good articles. Primary sources are even more accurate for this purpose--why take a description from someone's review of a book rather than the book? any teacher would insist on the book. DGG (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) OK, then, where should the plot be taken from, Cliff;'s notes, or the book? Which will give the better WP article? Which--if it comes to that will be more objective? Primary sources can be cited objectively and in a public format for all books and most videos and films: anyone can go to =a specific piece of dialog, or even a particular frame. I said yesterday, foolishly going on the basis of title alone, that a song was about a particular subject, and was corrected. suppose I challenged that: we look at the text of the song. It is either obviously about the subject, obviously not about the subject in which case the title is only alluding to it, or the matter is doubtful, in which case we say so. The secondary sources over something like that are likely to be divided also.
 * Now, for almost all cultural influences, we don't need that--the reviews will in fact talk about the influences, and if it is too trivial to be reviewed, then perhaps we shouldn't have it. And in that case what we need is a 3 month moratorium on deletion so articles can be upgraded. I'd accept that.
 * But I'd then still argue for changing the primary sources rule: I'd accept the text over the review anyway. What is better evidence for the story arc over episodes of a serial: TV guide, or the videotape? Time we changed the rule on primary sources. But perhaps that can be a second thing to do, once we get reasonable articles on cultural inflence established. DGG (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a usable hypothetical example. suppose that a respected alternative news source, one used elsewhere in WP, were to publish as article saying that "Family Guy spoofed X one time, and so did The Simpsons", while discussing X. Supposing it were some academic guy in a journal? . Do sources like this establish the notability of the association? does this establish the notability and make it usable in an article about the popular culture influence of X. If you say it does, then it is just a matter of setting the standard for sourcing and there is no real debate between us of the inclusion of what looks like trivial pop culture references, & we should shift the discussion to sourcing the articles and what is acceptable. (I know I differ from you here; I do not know what others will say if the discussion is restarted on the basis of res-establishing the commitment to secondary sources only. It's worth a discussion not just in the context of these articles -- and in fact my interest in it is not primarily in the context of these articles. ) Or, are you saying that this material will never be notable no matter how well it is sourced? DGG (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think we disagree on what ideally should be done with these articles. As for practicalities, would you support a moratorium on deletion while people work to source them more seriously? This amounts to a change in what's been accepted, and it would be useful to give some time for this. (and please excuse the above question, , but I am trying to sort out those who think the articles so inherently insupportable that they think they should be opposed by all means necessary. A somewhat different argument is needed there.) What Im trying to do is reach some kind of a compromise...  DGG (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Supervision proposal - query
Heya,

Can you take a look at #What_supervision_is_not? More eyeballs sought :) Thanks! FT2 (Talk 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
I provided the diffs on the reversions. Sorry for the oversight.--Getaway 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3rr additional info
Provided it here. Should I have removed the 'incomplete' result from the complaint? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My question at the Harry Potter AfD
Not a problem at all with crossposting to my talkpage. Thanks for the reply. :) --EarthPerson 14:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Your reset of User:Fadixs ban was very admirable. Fadix admitted using a sock, which was in violation of the arbcom decision and you were right in resetting his ban for another year. User:AdilBaguirov has also come back with many socks (please see ). Could you please look into that. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

smoove K / heart corporation
regarding the Heart Corporation that Smoove K seems to be concerned about, no information was put on wikipedia, that had not initially be put online by Smoove K, in public forums etc. His Wikipedia account linked straight to his name, which I feel as a self-proclaimed main manager of a prominent company, is suitable for placing in wikipedia. In addition to his name, the only other details on there, were direct quotes that he made, and placed in the public domain. I did not place any contact details, or even hint at where he lives/phone number/nationality/work phone/etc

To be honest, if someone does not like his less than polite quotes being linked to his place of work, then perhaps they should think about being a little more professional and not making those comments in the public domain.

as im all new and fresh to wikipedia, feel free to point out exactly what the rules and regulations are.

kthnxbyeSennen goroshi 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

will you please help?
I am requesting that the following two individuals be blocked. I cannot figure out how to use the wiki system to request this. If there is some way for someone to submit this request on my behalf, I would appreciate it. The following are the reasons that I believe a block is warranted. Thank you for your help. Herd of Swine and Dyanega are using the Morgellons article to promote their personal beliefs that the disease is delusional. If the disease is found not to be delusional, they stand to be subject to personal lawsuits and public embarrassment (see below). They have made hundreds of edits to bias the article, claiming that their position that the disease is delusional is the majority view, when the majority view is that no one knows anything for certain about Morgellons disease and opinions are divided. They continuously have deleted cited material from reliable sources which does not support their position, without discussing the changes or reaching any type of consensus, except between the two of them. They replace this material with DP articles and cites. I have repeated asked them to discuss their changes on the discussion page and reach consensus first (with someone other than each other), but they will not. When others don't agree with them, they ignore opposing points of view and make the changes anyway. They harrass users who do not agree with their position and use childish tactics to try to provoke others into violating wiki rules. They make weasel edits and distort facts. Dyanega has strong personal beliefs that Morgellons is DP. He is an entomologist and for years has received samples from Morgellons sufferers, and he has examined the samples and determined that they are "textile fibers" based on only a visual examination. (Examination by forensic scientists of these morgellons fibers, however, prove that they are not textile at all.) As an entomologist, he has been dimissing the morgellons sufferers who have sought his professional opinion as delusional for years. If it is found that Morgellons is not delusional, particularly if it is found that there is an unknown parasite involved, he will be personally discredited and he could find himself subject to lawsuits. Herd of Swine, has devoted the past several years of his life to discrediting the disease and he runs an entire website which is devoted to doing so: www.morgellonswatch.com. If it is found to be an infectious disease, he will be discredited and he may be subject to lawsuits for slander and libel. An unbiased observer said the following regarding their behavior: "Why so much anger and hostility? Six weeks ago, before I happened upon this article, I had never heard of Morgellons. After reviewing the article, its sources, and this discussion--and some active participation in the discussion--I have one major question: What is it about Morgellons, and its support group the MRF, that inspires so much anger and hostility? What is it about an almost unknown medical condition, that reportedly affects an unknown number of unidentified patients, including children and infants, that makes some editors demand that Wikipedia ruthlessly condemn them as fakers and loonies? I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it. Mukrkrgsj 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)" The CDC has called the disease an emerging public health concern which is debiliating and has a high rate of morbidity. No one knows what causes it, how to treat it, or how to prevent its spread. This is a very serious issue that needs attention.User:Pez110372.231.188.136 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Pez1103 has COI problems that are influencing her editing such that WP:OWN is also a problem. Use of unreliable sources, edit warring, failure to understand NPOV or WP:WEIGHT, whitewashing, failure to collaborate, etc. are some of the other problems. I suggest that User:Pez1103 seek (or be forced to) adoption, as well as using some time on other articles. This article is an obsession with her that is draining the resources of many other editors. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advocacy, and that is also a major problem here. -- Fyslee/talk</b> 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the user's already been blocked for legal threats (which I would've likely done if Durova hadn't gotten to it first), so appears to be resolved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look, pls?
I submitted a 3RR complaint about 8 hours ago, and I am a little worried that it might get archived without viewing (it happens sometimes). I am not suggesting the editor be tarred and feathered, but a bit of a time-out might be called for, as the person knows the rules and apparently thinks his viewpoint is bit more important than some silly ol' rules. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson
Howdy,

This mediation at Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson has opened. Outside comments are welcome at Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson/Outside comments. Hoping everything goes the best. I'll be in touch there, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, Navou banter 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure exactly why Navou took the case when he didn't really want to put any effort into this. The opening line from CEM states that the goal is "to address persistent conflicts between established editors where content disputes include user conduct elements."  He then asked to have the conduct elements left out (in part because of Chrisjnelson), and then he closes the case without putting in any real effort.  Is arbitration my only course of action? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What does this part mean where you say in part because of me?► Chris Nelson  22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you asked to have your behavior "left out of the discussion". (I conditionally agreed to provided certain conditions, but those conditions were neither accepted nor refused. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may, the course of mediation is up to the mediator, not to me. There is the possibility of arbitration if the problems continue, but they also decide on behavior only, they do not and will not make rulings on content disputes. My suggestion remains to ask at the American football Wikiproject, perhaps the ones there can help to clarify the matter. Going to arbitration is not a good outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear ya. Every time someone chimes in though it seems that they agree a neutral solution is needed (as mine is), but nobody wants to step in and get this guy to stop making ownership-like statements.  He continues to drift toward making personal attacks as he sees fit. I filed a WP:ANI and nobody did anything. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Loneranger4justice povpush
Hi Seraphimblade, sorry to bug you with this one, but this user, Loneranger4justice has been vandlaizing feminism related pages with unsourced POV material. Their additions claim that feminists are nazis and that pro-feminist men are like KKK auxiliaries.   The material itself is unsourced original research. They've so far managed to go unnoticed as far as sanctions are concerned because of their infrequent use of wikipedia - they have made aprox. 150 of these edits since August 2006. Recently however, they were warned for breaches of NPOV with a level 4 template in April 07 by User:Ted Frank and last night (August 4th 2007) by myself. I put a post at WP:AN when I first noticed this guy in July 07 but it got no attention. I've put together a full report page at User:Cailil/cailil_sandbox_5 - it details the history and extent of this problem. Is there anything further that can be done?-- Cailil  talk 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Seraphimblade - I'll give it a shot-- Cailil  talk 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
Since you were one of the closers of the discussion, I'm pointing you to Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6.--Chaser - T 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Slo-mo edit war at Lars Larson
User:Picapole is at it again, this time reverting edits I had made that didn't even change the subtle spin of his previous edit. I've commented on all my edits on the talk page, but s/he still seems uninterested in dialogue. Thanks for your time and attention. Katr67 17:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:YoSoyGuapo
Can you please check this IP user 68.155.127.112 judging from his contributions he seems to be related to Yosoyguapo, more acurately his sock BoriquaStar judging from his contibutions to the Dominicans Don't Play article, thank you. -24.139.157.139 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Getaway on Ward Churchill again
You very justly gave me a 3RR block, and Getaway with me. The issue that promoted it was that editor's attempts to insert obvious WP:COATRACK material into the article. Specifically, a not-particularly-relevant quote that is critical of Churchill, but adds nothing to the overall narrative flow, nor provides any new information. Getaway and one other editor, as I've mentioned, have largely poisoned the whole article with material that is verifiable but not central, and is presented solely to soapbox on their negative opinion of the biography subject.

Obviously, I don't want another revert war on this same matter. But I also don't want gross violations of WP:BLP reinserted into the article again. Care to help? Use your magic administrative powers of reason, good, and right? LotLE × talk 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NOT COMMERCIAL
ABout LittleFish Productions I am not putting commercial material, or advertising, I wanted to put it on here so that I could explain it more about the company, so let it be a site. BTW, we are a non-profit organization and we are simply enertainers and do not recive any profits from our work.LittleFish133 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Not quite.... I am Not advertising! For the last time!LittleFish133 02:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Update on Fiction
Heya. I remember you were really passionate about finding a compromise for fiction. The WP:FICT rewrite has been implemented; you might want to check it out. &mdash; Deckiller 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Crit. Section
Instead of deleting the section in Conquer Online, perhaps you could find sources for it? It was flagged as being NPOV and unsourced. For now I've deleted the entire section as it was pointless to have such a small part [which you left] in a section, especially the way it was worded [which you didn't correct, either]. Finding sources, rewording the section etc. would've been more productive. --Marc Talk 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (and Barnstar)
Thank you for this. I had asked about it here, but it went unanswered for a few days, and I had actually forgotten about it until your edit showed up in my watchlist. ElinorD (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any chance you could do the same thing here? ElinorD (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Will have a look at it after work. (And thanks! :) ) Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification
Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your outside, i would agree with most of it, although there is a "disclosure" section there which I fully admitted that after weeks of this, I did bite back. That should amount to something.  I made a comment on the talk page, I'd welcome further input. I'm fully willing to take responsibility for my actions; the problem is, others are not and everyone seems to want to be slow to deal with this more aggressively.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PR on Community sanction noticeboard
considering this block log, you might be interested in making some statement on this community noticeboard.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be rude
Isn't there some rule that you shouldn't be nasty to people after you've already banned them? It just seemed to be rude to me. 123.2.168.215 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that there's a rule prohibiting attacking banned users, and quite frankly I don't see the point in doing it. Most bans seem to be somewhat controversial, and a number of them have gone to lengths off wiki to try to prove the falsehood of the reasons for their bans, so stating these things as fact doesn't seem to be right.  I mean ultimately Wikipedia is a private entity and can ban whoever they like for whatever reason they like, fair enough, but they shouldn't be going around saying they've banned someone for x reason when there's evidence that that wasn't true, and they aren't allowing that evidence to be presented.  I don't see why, if someone is banned, their entire identity can't be totally nuked from the servers.  That'd be the nice way to do it. 123.2.168.215 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Poetlister case is all over Wikipedia Review, and was on Wikiabuse and everywhere. They seem to think that Runcorn was a sock puppet of Poetlister, not the other way around, and have pointed to User:Zordrac/Poetlister, a page that was deleted by User:SlimVirgin just before she indef blocked User:Zordrac against community wishes, and not long before the second, more telling block, of User:Runcorn etc.  Also the original CheckUser admin, User:Kelly Martin has gone on record saying that the original block was a scam by User:SlimVirgin and was totally fabricated.  See here: http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/08/regrets.html . It seems that they are all related to each other, and also to the recent scandal related to SlimVirgin.  I think that transparency is especially important in such instances. 123.2.168.215 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But wasn't the evidence for the sock puppet claim based around the fact that User:Runcorn was created about the same time that User:Poetlister was initially banned? Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence that would convince any rational person that the block is justified.  I suppose that you can see whether the famous page User:Zordrac/Poetlister really does clear their names, or whether it is, as SlimVirgin claimed a year later, nothing more than an attack page.  But in the end, what does it really matter?  This is, ultimately, a private place who is not bound by any laws with regards to who it blocks or doesn't block, just so long as they don't block people for being black, or gay, or anything like that, nobody can do a thing.  It's just unsettling to me when you see people with block tags that are very nasty, and are going to put the Wikimedia foundation in to disrepute, especially when they are such controversial blocks. 123.2.168.215 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the Use:Zordrac/Poetlister page has been re-created in its entirety on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I can't add the link as it is on the spam blacklist, but I am sure that you can find it.  The evidence seems pretty definitive that they were not sock puppets.  Combine this with User:Kelly Martin's admission, and I don't understand why the blocks still stand. 123.2.168.215 12:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious Gregor, etc
Hi, since you closed the original sock case, could I ask for your opinions on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents? Should I just ignore, file a user conduct RfC, etc. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for your action here. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy
RL is calling! See you once you've ironed things out. --AStanhope 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Seraphimblade,

Some months ago you kindly offered a Third opinion on the Sustainable energy page and I wanted to let you know that the POV Renewable energy section there has finally been updated and that things have worked out quite well.

But I'm writing about more than that. Lately, I've felt the need to link up with a more experienced WP editor and you came to mind. It's not that I have a burning ambition to be an Admin or anything. Maybe I'm just looking to find someone who I can talk to about WP issues that might come up.

I noticed your tag about personal issues, and am sorry to hear about that. Like you I am an INTJ, and I think one of the big issues for us is being misunderstood. Sometimes we are just miles ahead of others in our thinking and we need to work on communicating with others to keep them up-to-date on where we are at. A related issue is appearing to be aloof to others, and again it comes down to improving communication and relating better to others I think. Hope this makes sense.

Anyway I just wanted to make contact and wish you well...

kind regards, Johnfos 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Brooks Pond
i wanted to thank you for weighing in on the brooks pond page. being a novice, i was a bit unsure of the procedures, but it was obvious that the content was being politicized. you actually missed more of the same in the section on 'fishing', i will go and remove that too. i did think that it was appropriate to include in the page a short history of the pond, this being well documented in books and newspapers from the 1800s. do you feel that this is appropriate content or should the page only reflect the physical characteristics of the current pond? thanks again... Bpfarmboy 15:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register
<div style="background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 3px; margin-bottom:1em; margin-top:1em;" id="inactive"> Hello, ! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

Tcrow777 talk  04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....
My interest is not at all in writing about news or current events, just in documenting one of the most extreme and unusual cases of animal hoarding that I've ever heard of, but there seems to be no way to describe the event without it being a bio. That an animal was so caked in feces that rescuers couldn't tell which side was it's head, that a mansion was so soaked in urine and feces that it was condemned because of damage to it's structural integrity, these are facts and as such unlikely to change. Any suggestions on how this could be reformatted as not-a-bio? ~ JohnnyMrNinja  07:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Phish tribute album pages
Hello there. While checking stuff today, I noticed recreating pages you deleted under CSD G5 such as Gone Phishin (Gone Phishin'), Still Phishin (Still Phishin'), ect. The user claims on their user page that they are from The Pharmer's Almanac, but this may be a ruse by and derivative users thereof, since the this new user just started editing with ease. Just wanted to see what you think about these pages. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SHould I bring this up at the Noticeboard? -- moe.RON   Let's talk  23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Update on Fiction 2
Did you get a chance to read my above comment at ? &mdash; Deckiller 23:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Daniel  00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One quick question - on the ArbCom you said that I mentioned that i would revert Chris' edits unilaterally. I believe that this is something that I did clarify my position on shortly thereafter.  I will gladly point you to the diff link, but I think it is important that the context is given.  If you believe this to be the case (either before or after looking at the difference link) would you amend that statement? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you can show me that was in error I would amend it accordingly. Also, while threaded discussion isn't permitted on the evidence page, you are allowed to make responses of reasonable length to evidence other editors present in your own evidence section. Just put it under something like "Clarification on Seraphimblade's evidence" in your evidence section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film)
WP:WAX refers to deletion debates, not to fair use images; to use it to justify your actions is (quite) a bit of a stretch. Star Wars Episode IV and Halloween are featured articles, which are supposed to be examples of our best work. If Dreamgirls (film) only needs one image to "show the filming style" (which isn't even what the images were being used for), then so do those two articles, which each have more nonfree fair use images than the Dreamgirls' article had before you arrived at it. Why haven't you removed images from those articles? I'm sure an image of the cover of the Halloween novelization doesn't "show the filming style" in any way. --FuriousFreddy 05:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've edited Wikipedia long enough to learn that articles about certain things are favored over another, not based upon historical significance, but upon general consensus of the types of person who frequently edit Wikipedia. So things like reducing the images in one article while not doing the same in another always looks suspicious to me. But if the same standards are (actually) going to be applied to all articles, I have no problem with it. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Ethnic People in UK
I noted your recent decision on the AFD of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Chinese_Americans was "no consensus. Any possible splits are editorial decisions." While each AFD should be judged on its own merit, I wonder if you might be interested to contribute to the following discussion? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_25#List_of_British_Chinese_people Chineseartlover 00:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks, for blocking User:Natedogg252k3. Although, he/she was starting to turn around, it was getting old... Good work, and, thanks! :) --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

SF "non free" Images
When the article was revamped for FAC, receiving 3000 edits in two months, a very substantial effort was made to secure free images to illustrate "hippies." The editing history of the article, and the talk pages of the top editors during this time make that clear. Every effort possible was made to obtain a conforming image, and the fair use rationale was adopted only as a last resort. As to the Herb Caen logo, there absolutely is no free-use alternative. Sincerely, --Paul 08:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "No images, text only" is a free alternative. is very clever rhetoric, but it is not part of WP:FUC#1, which clearly argues for alternate images. Ifd seems a fair way to adjudicate this disagreement.--Paul 08:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we could find a good free image to illustrate "Hippies and the 1967 Summer of Love" I'd enthusiastically support it. In the meanwhile, I believe that use of the Humanbein poster image conforms to Wiki policy for the fair use of poster images, as stated on the image page. --Paul 01:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Folks, we -cannot- post copyvios, and replaceable nonfree images are copyvios." Replaceable nonfree images are not violations of copyright law if they conform with the doctrine of fair use. Replaceable nonfree images are violations of Wikipedia policy as stated in WP:FUC which is understandably very conservative in trying to avoid legal problems for the foundation. Once we get past that, we have to deal with what "replaceable" means. As you can see, there are at least two editors who don't think a 2005 photo of an Israeli folk guitarist is a replacement for a thumbnail rendition of an original poster from the 1967 Human Be-In in Golden Gate Park. I continue to believe that the Human Be-in image as used in the San Francisco article easily conforms to the fair use doctrine of copyright law, but I'm tired of arguing.  I had no problem with tagging images with no source or fair use policy stated for them, even though that action had a substantial negative affect on the quality of thousands of Wikipedia articles.  I am alarmed, however, that editors are now going through FA articles worked on by the most conscientious of editors and weeding out all non-free images, whether they have a defensible fair use rationale or not. Excuse the tone of this note, I guess I'm just cranky and tired of defending articles against destructive edits, whether well-intentioned, self-serving, or the work of vandals.  Wikipedia will never be a collection of excellence.  Anything good will eventually undergo degringolade as the creative editors tire at the defensive effort and leave.--Paul 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The notice you've just removed
Hey, I didn't see it at the time, or I would have sent you a message of support. I just saw it when you removed it. Glad things are okay now. Keep up the good work here. ElinorD (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson
I have added some evidence to the Request for Arbitration as I was involved with the situation as well and would like to see something constructive come of it. Is there anything else I need to do? I couldn't agree more with your Statement on the matter either. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Nuclear and Radiation Safety Centre
I just didn't got wat was the reason for "Nuclear and Radiation Safety Centre" article deletion. What "Never mind that, it's a copyvio anyway" means? Orjenna 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions under "router" and context of synthesis
You deleted,

''To understand the role of a router, understand that it does not, in a network of any real complexity, take you directly to the destination. Instead, your information will pass through a series of routers and intermediate subnets, each getting you one "hop" closer to the destination, until you reach the router that connects to the subnet that contains your final destination.'' - 		 - 	''As a simple analogy, assume that you want to travel from Washington DC to New York City. Getting on a highway, you see an exit marked "US Capitol". That does not get you closer to your destination, so you continue. Eventually, you see a sign reading "Baltimore and New York". You take that exit, which leads you to another freeway, where you pass a number of exits for destinations in suburban Maryland.'' - 		 - 	''Eventually, you see an exit marked "Philadelphia and New York", and take that to another highway. You repeat this process until you get into New York City, and then take a local exit to your destination. In like manner, routers receive packets, look up their destination addresses in routing tables that have entries that tell you the interface that is one hop closer to the destination, and sends the packet out the destination. This is characteristic of the Network Layer, which deals with hop-by-hop communications as opposed to the end-to-end communications of the Transport Layer. ''

While, to the best of my knowledge, first use some of this material, it is in published and peer-reviewed work, including Designing Routing and Switching Architectures for Enterprise Networks (McMillan, 1999), and a variety of other text used elsewhere in the industry, such as Cisco's Internetork Design course, Priscilla Oppenheimer's Top-Down Network Design. See talk page for router


 * This is a paraphrase, but closely tied to text in one of several more technical works. I certainly can attribute it. I wouldn't call it unique "original synthesis" as it tends to be the common usage of quite a few people that teach routing to an audience that has general awareness.


 * One of my current concerns is that quite a few things about routing and networking are citing, as references, things that I know were written as certification cram guides, and that certainly are not authoritative. I'd like to work with you in coming up with an acceptable paraphrase, but, to some extent, I am relying on real-world experience in what does and does not confuse people about routing. There's a great amount of misinformation floating around, which very often traces back to oversimplified or even marketing-driven proprietary work. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that the paraphrase is from my own peer-reviewed work.Howard C. Berkowitz 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost Weekend, losing patience
Hey, I am working on the May Pang and John Lennon articles, helping to clean them up via BLP (Lennon counts bc the Lost Weekend adventure involves Pang and Yoko Ono negatively). I am encountering two editors in particular who edit war to preserve the largely uncited passages that BLP was specifically designed to prevent inclusion without a high level of citation. The only citations for the Lost Weekend passages are May Pang's tell-all which has no citations in it (aside from backstory explanations of relationships), the other is Larry Kane's equally uncited reminisces of his times with John Lennon. I am pretty much at my wits' end, and am pulling back to ask you to take a look and tell me what you think about how I should proceed, or whether this is a BLP noticeboard issue (I'd prefer to avoid this, as it takes forever, and I'm about to go on a non-net surfing vacation). Halp! - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll give that a whirl. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px; vertical-align: middle;" class="plainlinks">

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.

Thanks for the tip! Cheers,JetLover 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

arbcom
According to ArbCom, aren't I supposed to be warned first? I did not even realize it was incivil. How so?Hetoum I 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I see it your way, though I found it silly to call someone who has an Armenian stepfather ethnically Armenian. Point on warning taken. Hetoum I 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ) Will do, I do not like the idea of a block. All the best, and hope to edit with you under different circumstances.Hetoum I 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Hetoum I has been revert warring on the article removing the source to Professor Emeritus from Oxford CJF Dowsett and . I don't know if he's now restricted to 1RR by new ArbCom, but it's really unfair if he is not. Especially in light of his edits above, and this comment here  again assuming bad faith and accusing user of vandalism. Atabek 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. So everyone out of the Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is restricted by 1RR, right? Perhaps, users involved need to be made clear on that, because besides User:Hetoum I, User:MarshallBagramyan is also involved in revert warring, and has already violated 1RR on Shusha -, , removing twice the image of Azeri girl from Shusha. To be honest I don't see how ArbCom case decisions helped these two contributors in at least trying to start editing in less disruptive and confrontational manner, so maybe reminder that they're restricted by 1RR also could help them in some way. Thanks. Atabek 07:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra Apostrophe?
There seems to be an extra apostrophe at the end of the picture caption at Bobby Layne. I, however, can't figure it out. There doesn't seem to be any when you click edit the page. Do you know what's quirky with this? -WarthogDemon 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I also found that 2 apostrophes at the beginning and one at the end also works . . . it's like there's an invisible apostrophe somewhere. I'll report it at the Village Pump. -WarthogDemon 00:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at NFCC
I appreciate the issue of preventing excessive use. I have been active in tagging replaceable uses and clearing image deletion backlogs. The most blatant problem related to the discussion there is logos of corporations. In virtually every case an article about the corporation carries the logo of that corporation (although that could of course change, it is the current situation). People upload more logos, and put them on company pages, but don't put on rationales. Then the images get tagged for deletion because of "no rationale". That leaves the deleting admin with some choices. I can ignore them, but then the backlog never gets resolved. I can delete them, but clearly the manner of use is acceptable. I can add fair use rationales, but it's a real pain given that they all say the same thing.

Deleting the images is perfectly within policy, and if they sit long enough with no rationale that's what will happen. But I think more people would be satisfied if we found a way to keep the images which, more or less, do have a standard rationale. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this specific issue, rather than the more general issues discussed at NFCC, if you have time to give them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding jmf and cjn
I was under the impression that the brokered csn deal caused the arbitration hearing to be dropped, if that's not the case...then on we go. I have no comment really on either behavior as I don't edit the articles they do (though I do read them, and it seems that they are argueing minutia that nobody cares about). Just that they are as disruptive as whomever has their shorts in a twist about isreali palastinian issues or eastern europe. --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451
Hello.... User:Fahrenheit451 is still at it despite your warning to him. See here. First he accuses me yet again of being in the cofs (Church of Scientology) then states (apropos of absolutely nothing) "We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender." (he now refers to me as "WPD" after being ordered to stop calling me "Trixi".)

Further, he followed up a warning I gave to a tendentious editor with this comment linking to a frankly paranoid and bizarre screed about OSA Agents working undercover at Wikipedia, and the edit summary "defense against the badgering". This sort of paranoid vendetta from someone I don't even know and who doesn't know me at all is really beginning to freak me out. wikipediatrix 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apropos the above, you may be aware I recently gave Fahrenheit451 a first and final warning relating to harassing wikipediatrix which specifically noted the inappropriate use of familiar or nicknames or abreviations of her username, and that wikipediatrix has requested he did not do so. From your discussion on his talkpage I see that he has disregarded both my warning and wikipediatrix's request. I therefore see no evidence that he is going to moderate his conduct, except so far as to not draw immediate sanctions. I am considering a short block for his continued violations of WP:HARASS and WP:CIVIL, but would like your opinion first. LessHeard vanU 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix false reports on AN/I
Seraphimblade, WPD made the same post on AN/I and I repost my reply here: Wikipediatrix harassed and badgered a user with a very uncivil comment. My comments were to the user who I have edited with and did not address her. Her post above is nothing short of a violation of WP:NPA.--Fahrenheit451 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thread from the false accusations WPD made in the first paragraph of the posting here:--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, an admin recommended that the situation with WPD be taken to RfM. I will do that if WPD will. Otherwise, this nonsense is going to continue.--Fahrenheit451 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that mediation is an excellent choice for both of you right now, probably far better than this route. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think any poking and baiting has stopped for the moment. But I want the mediation to stop it for the long term. I am actually having the mediation done on the most contentious of all the controversial articles, which should bring most of the editors together. I hope that forum will solve more disputes than the ongoing one I have with wkipediatrix.--Fahrenheit451 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you say that, but I note with some dismay that User:Fahrenheit451/Guide is still a bluelink. I think getting rid of that might be a good first step, and quite honestly if you don't I'll probably send it to MfD. You get a wide degree of latitude in userspace, but "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited". Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! ;)
Thanks! I'm currently either sleepy, stupid, or both... I'll leave that judgment to you! Best wishes, Xoloz 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Hetoum I
I was not a party in the first one, and not under 1 revert per week probation. The AA2 has two remedies. #1 doesn't apply to me.


 * 1) 2 states:

The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

My edit was not an aggressive point of view. but it was uncivil, I suppose some might say :). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the wording of that says that in order for a block we must be both pushing aggressive point of view and are uncivil?

Hetoum I 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC) When I find 20 sources calling an Individual Armenian including TURKISH, the NYT and Time's article are presented in a dubious manner, how can I bey considered aggressive? It is the duty of every editor and admin to weed out Original research and dubious citations, no?Hetoum I 20:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at van resistance, I did not notice you referred to those. If you look, I have continuously reported Ottoman Reference and he has been blocked several times and more than one article blocked because of him. I continually report him to ANI because he conducts original research, gives false citations, and do you remember his article April 24 circular that got deleted?

Movses - Minorsky calls it an Armenian source written in Armenian. Is there room for another interpretation that Movses is not Armenian? The users knowingly removed this, hence vandalism.

Hetoum I 20:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly I do believe when a source says a person is armenian, and you modify this in the article to say otherwise, is vandalism, it is adding random nonsense. I of course did not call NYT and time dubious, but citation of context was. When a says times said this, but it really didnt. Francis blindly reverted me not reading my edit summary, responding or contributing on the talk page. What should I do? However, I do see what you are concerned about. i will try to keep my edit summaries civil.Hetoum I 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why warning
Why you think the content i posted are spam? against any policy? Please point out. It is my first time to post. Please tell me more

Ok, thanks, I understand. Sorry, it is my first time to join Wikipedia. Maybe I am not very familiar. If I modify or post again, I will add more explanation about why it is useful or special on discussion. I will think more before I post anything. And I also avoid to post the same content in different site. Thanks for help and instruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmile (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

jasonmile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmile (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum I
Hi. Please see this: User:Hetoum I has violated the revert parole imposed by you at least twice within the last couple of days. Grandmaster 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed
Hi, I'm not sure about this issue and I'd appreciate your assistance (I saw your name on Editor_assistance. I did the following edit:. Namely, I just took a quote from the following site: .  Do I have right to quote something from this site (please read the copyright information, it is on the third page). MatriX 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright info is actually on the first page and it says it cannot be reproduced in whole or part without the consent of the author. Mr. Neutron 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm just taking a quote that is included into that article (the author of the article had to take that quote from somewhere as well), unfortunately I cannot find at the moment any other relevant source that provides the same quote. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use the article as a source for the quote and that is why I'm asking for an assistance.MatriX 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!MatriX 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Akatsuki members
The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">xDanielx T/C 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Theloon
User:Theloon has reverted the fair use images onto the Spice Girls article three times.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=153745099
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=155365756
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=155376873

I have removed them twice, in accordance with the consensus I have demonstrated at the talk page.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=154817272&oldid=154650982
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=155431120&oldid=155429586

I sent them a 3rr warning (under the mistaken impression they had made four reverts, and they returned the warning, along with a snarky comment, "Also noted was your ability to only include this message on my Talk page and not that of the person who was editing against me; who you clearly back up in the article talk. Interesting. Righteous much?" Where do you suppose we go next with this? I would argue that we are right, as opposed to righteous. --John 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

HetoumI
pls. look at cotnribution of this editor. He is engaged in massive edit wars and leave no comments on talkpage - see Cultural genocide. Again rv without discussion.--Dacy69 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not the ArbCom enforcement board. That is here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
I asked this of durova, but felt it wouldn't hurt to get another opinion. As you are versed on the situation, I will present this here. If you feel there is a COI, please let me know. During one of my suspensions, my opinion (which was already expressed) was directly circumvented. I think that's bad form. So how do we balance the need to keep a user's opinion in consideration while they are unable to edit? Even if their opinions are eventually put to the side - I don't want to simply go back and adjust all the contentious edits - even with support - unless I know that is acceptable. It appears that other's share my same concerns as to how to deal with a "suspended" users input. I will also put this on WT:BLOCK, as it will probably be a good thing to include on the article page. JmFangio| ►Chat 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Richmond High School question
Greetings; I am new to this so please excuse me if i did anything that is considered out of protocol. Can you please take a look at Richmond High School, Richmond California and tell me if this is considered appropriate. The editor continues to delete information i put in there. I am the principal of the school and needless to say the editor "onthespot 30" does not allow for me to put information with my version of the story as well as newspaper articles that support my response. please help, thanks... My email is Principaloramos@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.113.191 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Richmond High School question from On the Spot
Hello; I am also new to this. I attempted to post information about Principal Ramos my colleagues found documented on the internet. Mr. Ramos proceded to delete the references over and over again. I never, as you can see by my edits, deleted any newspaper articles or any other factual evidence he provided. How are we to have an unbiased Richmond High School webpage that does not include unsubstantiated information about the school, or the principal, if the principal gets to control what is published? I felt that in my talk with Ramos online that I approached every one of his criticisms with a clear argument about the facts, not ad-hominem arguments such as those levied against me by the principal. I never accused him of having an "axe to grind" or of having "other problems" in his life, as he did of me. I kept this discussion entirely professional.

I would like to understand how I can more appropriately write about Richmond High School, including its leadership, so I do not run afowl of any wikipedia policies.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthespot30 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will be sure to include secondary sources for facts I include from here on out. I appreciate your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.76.65 (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Richmond High School clarification
"He that flings dirt at another dirties himself most"-Thomas Fuller Onthespot 30 posted inaccurate comments not backed up by facts. She will try again. I have newspaper articles from reputable newspapers and publications documenting my successes in urban schools. Onthespot30 claimed that the articles supporting my accomplishments are not factual. How would she know? Should it be up to her to determine what is factual and relevant? Who decides?Again, the articles are from a reputable source. Once she posts another version attacking me, am i allowed to post the numerous newspaper articles supporting my accomplishments? Personally; I feel that an education website should not have these types of postings negative or positive. There are children that have looked at this website and her postings and they have come to me asking me, "Why is this person doing this?" These are the unintended victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masgroovy (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to advise both sides to take a step back here. Please remember, the article about the school is primarily intended to be about the school, not about its current principal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleventyseven
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleventyseven. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chubbles 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Every Nation/mediation
I've nominated Talk:Every Nation/mediation, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Every Nation/mediation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Every Nation/mediation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blueboy96 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

your block of truthjusticeamericanway
Regarding the matt sanchez page. This is a classic case of biting newbies. I "know" Truthjusticeamericanway and he is not Pwok. I will swear to it on a stack of frivolous lawsuits. See Elonka's page for more, unless the cabal forbids you.

Deletion of Middle Earth Mud Page/MUD Pages in General
You recently deleted a page I'd created a while back before registering on Middle Earth Mud. When I saw the page was up for deletion, because it didn't have any third party sources I went to the discussion page of that rule and posted there, what I will now re-point out here: If the Middle Earth Mud page was blatant advertising, then pretty much EVERY Mud related article on Wikipedia is blatant advertising. With almost any Multi-User Dungeon out there the only sources available are going to be posted by either the administrator of the MUD or by it's players. If Wikipedia's gonna remove this sorta information, fine, but do it fairly across the board. And personally it greatly saddens me if that is indeed the policy, cause that will greatly reduce the amount of material to be found on wikipedia. Having all that information in one spot was extraordinarily handy. If that's not the case, and it was just the way the article was written, then how could it be rewritten so as to not be blatant advertising? Aside from including third party links, because believe me, the only ones for any mud that could be included were written by people involved in that MUD in some way. Thanks, TrueAlcon Ahh, missed your response. My apologies. I'll just wander on over to the MU* community page and see if I can help them find ways to better establish notability. --TrueAlcon

Old advice
Do you remember some old advice you gave me in April, when combating a sock puppet to make it clear what I was doing?. The same sockpuppet has returned. Well, has returned several times, but this time is squawking on WP:ANI about it. I've done exactly as you, NYB, and MichaelLinnear were recommending to make it very clear who and why I was reverting and yet I'm getting a bunch of pile-on there and on my talk page again. SchmuckyTheCat

2Wire page deletion
Was wondering how the 2Wire entry was seen as 'blatant advertising' and wondered if you could assist me in making it more neutral.

Thank you, Scout Falta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutfalta (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Challenging things
Regarding your response. Some editors, including me, raise our eyebrows when someone "challenges" an entire article. I am firmly behind WP:V, and whenever someone points out a specific claim in an article I edit I either find a citation for them or remove the claim (here's one example ). That's is a normal part of writing. Even among the most inline-citation-disavowing editors I have never met someone who would argue against it.

I find it frustrating when someone wants to "challenge" the entire article, but not any particular fact in it. There isn't a policy that everything has to have a citation on it, but the purpose of "challenging" the entire article seems to be to induce editors into adding them anyway. It's a question of the reason for the challenge - challenges that are made for scholarly purposes ("I don't think this is true" or "where can I read about this") are wonderful. Challenges made for stylistic purposes are less so ("there aren't enough cites in this paragraph, so I need to challenge a few facts so that citations get added" would be an extreme case of this). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Language page
Hi. You made deletion to links and short description of sites useful for Chinese language learners. The links are intended to provide valuable access, not spam. They were neither intended to provide extensive directory listings, nor detailed description of the site holders' intentions. Rather than deleting the links, I suggest reviewing and restructuring them to be of benefit to students. They may need attention of an experienced educator to provide background, comparison and evaluation of individual sites, citing the purpose and the benefit to learners. I believe the deletion is inappropriate, as there is no such item in Wikipedia yet and as it benefits users. 19 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.54.210.236 (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention
≠Dear All

I have made a page about the band that I manage “ Massar Egbari “ and I was checking out the page and I found that the page has been deleted. Please clarify the reasons and the solutions of any problem that I might don’t know which affected my page. Please handle. Waiting for your feedback

Regards Sherine Khalil sherine.khalil@link.net Band Manager of Massar Egbari Band www.myspace.com/massaregbari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.238.204 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the reason is because it was pretty clear that the article was intended to be promotional. This is, of course, your job, but we do not allow promotional material of any type, and it is subject to speedy deletion. We also require that a significant amount of reliable source material exist on a subject before writing about it, from sources independent of the article's subject. If such source material does exist, please point me to it and I'd be happy to help in a more neutral draft of the article. Otherwise, I'm afraid the band is not suitable for an article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review && Tom Stearns
Hello Seraphimblade,

I write to you with a request that you represent the side of "do not delete" for the article Tom Stearns, on Deletion Review. This article has been the subject of a fierce attack by several administrators. I have laid out the facts about the notability of the individual. The article shouldn't have even been speedily deleted in the first place (as per your FAQ). Some administrators may not like my manner of reacting to their mistakes, but they can kiss my ass. I request you to rewrite the request I made. These mob of wolves appear to think that I am trying to do myself some favor by posting this article. They are so happy to deny me the happiness. An intelligent administrator like yourself, on the other hand, knows that your job is to focus on the content - whether the page for the individual is notable, or not.

Thanks, I would appreciate your help.

Peterchristopher 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seaswift
Greetings, although I cannot see the original article, I can see you were the admin that deleted Seaswift at some stage. I have re-created the article with sources that establish notability. (It is a major part of life for people living on Thursday Island. Please review it and let me know what you think. Fosnez 12:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

EA Spouse
A template has been added to the article EA Spouse, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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 endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Computerjoe 's talk 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning for speedy keep

 * Re : This AfD
 * There's nothing wrong with discussing a potential deletion nomination before deciding whether or not it's a good idea to actually make one, nor was the nomination clearly disruptive or vandalism: The AfD seems to have been created shortly after this comment, in which User:White Cat asked questions re: policy to which he is clearly opposed, and which User:Ned Scott supports — i.e. the discussion is not directly related to the AfD; but the AfD may be interpreted as making an example.
 * This might have been coincidence, but User:White Cat was the last person to make edits to the specific article. Furthermore, there are some history between these two users, please see this discussion, which may or may not be relevant.
 * This again might have been coincidence, but then there are the edit summary.
 * I have not confronted User:Ned Scott with this, nor do I wish to make it public in the AfD.
 * Am I making too much of this? (Please reply here, I will watch this page)
 * Regards, G.A.S 07:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:75.132.95.79 / User:A B Pepper
Hi Seraphimblade, sorry to bug you with politics and religion issues again but there is an edit war at Christian views about women. User:75.132.95.79 now using the account User:A B Pepper is edit warring, soap-boxing, failing to assume good faith, engaging in personal attacks and insults and is engaged in tendentious reverting.[ The soapbox issue is wider than Christian views about women and it came to my attention at Talk:Christian feminism. They are also engaged in the removal of reliable sources and sourced material from Christian views about women.. There was also an issue with them refactoring other user's comments. If you look at User_talk:75.132.95.79 you'll see a long list of recent policy issues with User:A_B_Pepper. When I warned them this evening they removed my warning and comment as a "threat" - normally I wouldn't mind a user accepting a warning by removing it but the action taken by A_B_Pepper is to tendentiously deny any fault with their behaviour on WP. Would you mind taking a look at this? There may be civility issues with other editors at Christian views about women - I haven't looked into that yet - but as far as I can see User:75.132.95.79 / User:A B Pepper is being disruptive. These are the diffs that show User:A B Pepper is the same user as User:75.132.95.79. -- Cailil  talk 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also look at their latest talk-page contribution . As an IP they had 3 consecutive uw-chat1 warnings, all of them within the last 14 days-- Cailil   talk 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is continuing, even though the article is protected, have a look at Articles_for_deletion/Christian_views_about_women. I also missed a couple of extreme posts by this user. Some incivility and more soapboxing. Another user, User:LaMenta3, warned A B Pepper for potentially violating WP:3RR as did VoABot II for vandal comment in edit summaries. Both of these warnings have been blanked. They seem to have a bit of a WP:OWN issue as well-- Cailil  talk 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting pretty severe. He recently posted this attack for the second time.  This attack on Cailil was also way out of line.  My attempts to dissuade him only resulted in his removal of the comments from the page. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Seraphimblade This is now way beyond "politics." This "macho man" (a self-description) appears to be mentally and emotionally unstable. After his latest curse or hex he says he put on me so that I can never minister again (User_talk:Afaprof01 under "You are no Deborah," I think he has gone off the deep end. This is the most serious disruptive uncivil behavior I have ever seen on Wiki. His arrogance knows no bounds. Several have tried to reason with him, and he summarily rejects their efforts. He is so badly frustrating the efforts of good editors, and damaging many articles with his edits, that we may lose valuable contributors. I don't think any of us are willing to go on subjecting ourself to his kind of personal attack and craziness. We need Admin help, please! Thanks for anything you can do! Afaprof01 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a report page here. Just a note to Afaprof01, please remove or refactor some of your comments about A B Pepper - calling anyone (even A B Pepper) "mentally and emotionally unstable" is not acceptable, no matter how incivil they've been to you or I-- Cailil   talk 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed comment. Thanks for the suggestion. Afaprof01 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Might check the date on your userpage
Just to let you know, on your userpage, you list a quote from Jimbo as being from November 3, 2007. Unless you've developed some very interesting new technology, you might want to check that date again. Just wanted to let you know. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a 7 and a 3 in the actual date, and the positions were correct in the source, but thanks for noticing. Alansohn 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed
The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. Chrisjnelson is restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD about the WikiProject_ROMacedonia
Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms Timeline
The history of "Timeline of Faerun" page shows that it has been deleted by the user Seraphimblade. It is an important article, requested daily by many users. Presumably, it should have been based on a reliable source: in this case, WotC(Wizards of the Coast) timeline. Please, help protect Wikipedia against vandalism and other such actions in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulyok (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Pompertown
Some time ago I made a minor edit to the article Backstreet Boys; when I looked back today, it was reverted. I checked the revision history and found User:Pomperton reverting pretty much every edit made on the article text without regard and engaging in a long edit war with several other users in an extremely bad-faithed manner, giving "rvv" as the reason for one of his many reverts. None of the users seem to be willing to discuss - in fact, the edit warring within the article seem to have gone on for over a year. I checked the user's other contributions and found that the user had a pretty long history of edit warring, specifically on several articles. I took a further look at the block log and saw that the user had been blocked a few times for edit warring, the most recent one by you, on June 10 2007, for a month. Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to keep an eye on the matter. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)