User talk:ThirdDolphin/Archive 4

Question to Pstanton
At the article "Bhopal disaster", you have added the POV-square on December 3. However, no major changes have been done since it was taken away, I think in September 2008, after a lot of discussions. Is it possible that you offer some references that shows that the main responsibility for the disaster is not with Union Carbide? See also what I wrote under "discussion". Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on . Again, welcome! Nunquam Dormio 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hymn of the Fayth Sample
Sorry, Wikipedia frowns on mp3 and other formats because they are not open source like ogg. I would have loadd it on mp3 otherwise Renmiri 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

welcome to wikipedia. thank you for your edits on HF. hopefully you will stick around. there is a lot to improve upon here on wikipedia, but don't let that discourage you. take it slow if you need to, and read this WP:there is no deadline, as it has helped me because i am relatively new myself. thanks. you can reply here, as I will put your talk page on my watch list. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

sure about that?
Of course you have every right to remove old messages from your talk page, but you don't "always sign your posts", and typing in your name    instead of using ~ or the signature button does not provide the link to your user and talk that an actual signature has. These examples are all from the last two days, but you had notifications going back months, so it's not as though you can say you didn't know any of this unless you never once bothered to actually read one of the notices. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, I usually type the ~ at the end of my every statement. Of course I OCCASIONALLY forget, but I honestly don't worry about it. I was under the impression that typing the tildes added a signature, sometimes I get notifications from Sinebot anyways, when it first happened, I would check back, but low and behold, I'd find that I HAD indeed signed my statements and so I've really just stopped paying attention to the Sinebot notifications. Are you saying I should use the button under the "Insert" tab? Or type the 4 tildes? Quite frankly, I sign my posts, but if I'm tired and forget to do something so arbitrary as type 4 tildes when I'm done typing, I'm not going to get anal about it, since Sinebot DOES catch it. Pstanton 07:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When you are editing a page, there is a tool bar at the top of the edit window. One of the buttons looks like this: [[Image:Signature_icon.png]]. You should either click on it before you save the page, or type the four tildes instead of just typing in your name. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never actually seen that particular button before, I'll try using that instead. --Pstanton 08:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Molecular structure of Melanin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Molecular structure of Melanin.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please fix your signature
If you are not already doing so, please use four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your messages. They will automatically turn into your signature. If you are already using four tildes, then your signature is broken and not linking to your user page. According to our signature policy, "It is common practice to include a link to your user page or user talk page (often both). At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." If your signature is broken, you can reset it to the default by clicking on "my preferences" above and blanking out the "Signature" box, then unchecking the "Raw signature" box below it. This will reset your signature to the default, which is currently a link to your user page and talk page. --B (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been wondering why this has been happening, I just unchecked that box. I'm tired of being bothered by SineBot about my sig, hopefully this will put an end to that! Thanks! --Pstanton (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. Signbot looks for the date stamp and a wikilink into your user space and yells at you if either is missing. --B (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjiman
I was wondering about the speedy delete - criterion G4 - tag you placed on this article. G4 only applies to pages deleted following a deletion discussion, not those that were proposed fro deletion or deleted under the speedy delete criteria. The log for the page, only shows a proposed deletion, is there a deletion discussion located under a different title? If not the G4 tag should probably be removed. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was actually just deleted on the 11th, and subsequently recreated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Benjiman --Pstanton (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but by proposed deletion - this does not involve a deletion discussion (See Proposed deletion) and so criterion G4 does not apply - "This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions" (emphasis added). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I understand now. --Pstanton (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjiman speedy declined
as I see no prior AFD, and WP:CSD does not apply with prods. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  05:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear briefcase
Hi Pstanton, I found your AfD of Nuclear briefcase had not been listed on the pertinent AfD listings and the AfD tag on the page had been removed. I completed and listed the AfD since I saw it as a worthwhile discussion - even if the result is likely to be a disambiguation page between the different instances of nuclear briefcases (and probably a link to Suitcase nuke as this could be a misinterpretation of terminology). The discussion is still at Articles for deletion/Nuclear briefcase where you created it. In any case I recommend having a look at the instructions for deletion so next time your AfD will be complete on creation and not orphaned. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for having the courage to nominate an article at FAC - and the wisdom to realize that the article might need a bit more help. A peer review can often help new FAC nominators to identify potential problems. If you are interested in doing that, you might want to contact several of the regular FAC reviewers (feel free to ask for my help) to give you pointers on what else might need to be fixed. Sourcing and comprehensiveness are often the largest issues that plague inexperienced FAC nominators; I'd recommend that you improve that as much as possible before opening a peer review, and then we'll help you figure out where to go from there. Don't be discouraged, though - many of us have had to withdraw FACs because they weren't ready, and that is not a bad thing. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - I withdrew the nomination at your request. Please leave the FAC tag on the article for now; a bot will fix all of that within the next few days. Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV on Cherryade
You might be interested. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?
Hi there. I have tidied up the spelling and changed some headings as you suggested - thanks for that. The Ancient Egyptian race controversy article is still under probation and we are not allowed to make big changes there, so meanwhile do you know how to change a title of an article, or do we need to start a whole new article and move everything across? Wdford (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed you've been contributing to the discussion at the above article. There's some suggested language to replace the existing lead paragraph up for a vote here. When you get a moment, it'd be appreciated if you'd stop by and register your questions, thoughts, opinion and vote. Thanks much. It'd be good to get this article moving again. Peace! deeceevoice (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the article so blatantly ignores wikipedia's neutrality protocols. The wording is so obviously derisive of any research which looks into the race of ancient egyptians as being a race other than arab. Anyone expressing interest in accurate history is called an "afrocentrist". Come on... Please consider toning down the obvious personal inflection in this article, or emoving it. I, for one, am disgusted. 2,8,09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.252.152 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, anonymous person. In case you haven't noticed, the Article is on PROBATION And you are introducing massive edits which are changing the inherent tone of the article and redacting content wholesale without any consensus, or so much as an edit summary with a reason! --Pstanton (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy G7
Just to inform you that speedy deletion criterion G7 means deletion per author request. In Govind Swarup, you were perhaps thinking about criterion A7. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, yeah I think thats right, my bad. --Pstanton (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * anyway, i removed the speedy tag and added a reference to a reliable source. He is just as notable as the article says he is. You could have found that too, with 15 seconds on Google.


 * additionally, only the types of articles listed in WP:CSD A7 can be nominated for speedy. That does not include an article such as Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations.


 * As some further advice, it is required that the edit summary for a speedy deletion include the statement that it is being nominated for speedy -- this helps authors, and us admins, to find the relevant edits. It is also considered polite to notify the principal author--though not strictly speaking required, almost all  people do it. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll make further effort in the future. --Pstanton (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for my first barnstar. I'm sorry the nation of Maxistan had to pay the price for it. Wperdue (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

April 2009

 * What on earth, would you kindly tell me where I edited an article and inserted original research? I'm pretty sure the only thing I've done recently was inserting tags, and talk page discussions. --Pstanton (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, I am so sorry!! I must have clicked on the wrong user!  Wow, epic fail on my part...  --Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I warned the correct user, lol. *laughs oafishly*  --Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Armour Dunham

 * from the article's AFD:


 * Delete and merge Not notable enough to warrant his own article, I say delete this and merge the material to Barack Obama or a more general article on Obama's family. --Pstanton (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Merge and delete. Deletion is not compatible with a merge because it removes the "paper trail" of who made what edit. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Free Image Search Tool
I saw you mention this tool at Talk:Susan Boyle. What is it? Matthewedwards : Chat  06:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a rather useful search tool to find free images that can be used in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policies and copyrights and all that. There's a link on Template:reqphoto. --Pstanton (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheel of Time Task Force
You've been doing alot of great work with the Wheel of Time character articles, and you seem to be interested in the books and quite knowledgeable, so I thought you'd be interested. I'm trying to drum up support for a Wheel of Time Task Force in Wikiproject Novels, similiar to the ones for the Chronicles of Narnia and the Sword of Truth. Would you be interested in joining such a task force? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhh! I definitely would!

Susan Boyle
Hello, and thank you for watching out for potential vandalism. Regarding my Susan Boyle edits, I was attempting to revert an obvious act of vandalism, but unwittingly reintroduced it instead. When I realized this, I reverted myself. Cheers! - 69.127.247.109 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok thanks! I was kinda confused. --Pstanton (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Stacy
If you think the redirect is inappropriate, please nominate it at WP:RFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry, I'll do that. --Pstanton (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Terraforming GAR
Following this brief discussion on a GA review for Terraforming, would you agree it's okay if I remove the GAR tags? ~ Amory (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * of course. --Pstanton (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Don't you have anything better to do with your time than function as the self-appointed Wikipedia Police? Storage space is extremely cheap. Relax. Kwertii (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I find new page patrolling satisfying. --Pstanton (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hale
Just a friendly note about Mark Hale. While your edit summary was correct that the article doesn't make a claim of notability, to avoid speedy deletion all you need is a claim of importance, which is a lower standard. Consensus has been that a professor at a university is a good faith claim of importance. (Also, a 3 second search in google scholar shows this would more than likely survive an AfD.) HTH! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dash it
If you see Elliott Dashwood or any bogus peerages again, let me know and I will zap them. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aja (pornographic actress)
It may not change your opinion, but I found that the article had a history of bad edits and vandalism which were not fixed. She does in fact have multiple awards (at least two, and one nom), which does meet WP:PORNBIO. Further research may establish further notability. Шизомби (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Roy D. Mercer
Do you really think a full writeup in Allmusic is minor coverage? Also, I would think that multiple charting albums alone would be a good enough assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think a writeup in Allmusic is minor coverage. As far as I can see, he's a local comedian who has a bio on some non-notable music site. --Pstanton (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is Allmusic non-notable? It has its own article and it's been around in some form since 1991, and many of the writers are notable enough for their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I suppose I stand corrected. I'd never heard of it before, and the other prominent source on that page was a myspace. --Pstanton (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Beatnik Bandit
As per WP:TITLE the correct capitalization of Beatnik Bandit is with both words capitalized. I have redirected Beatnik bandit to Beatnik Bandit and added some references and other things to the page. Please feel free to expand the article further using the sources I listed -- most can be found in Google Books -- or with other reliable sources. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A Sockpuppet case with evidence
Hi Pstanton! Thanks for your message, I hope you could help me to report this user.

AnandVisho is a grand new account created few hours ago today (18:23, 1 April 2010) after Islamuslim has been blocked (09:39, 1 April 2010).


 * First evidence (Claims to be the fastest-growing religion)

AnandVisho restored the same controversial content added by Islamuslim. Islamuslim has been blocked in 2 days for this article's edit war.


 * Second evidence (Major religious groups)

AnandVisho describes him/herself as an Indian Hindu with PhD in Islamic Studies but as we can see from its contributions, it's a pro-Islam and dislike other religions. An example to show it off. Both AnandVisho and Islamuslim removed citation given and claimed Muslim population worldwide up to 2 billion and I reverted it back. See: ,


 * Third evidence (Talk:Islam)

AnandVisho continues Islamuslim's claims in Talk:Islam, against other editors.

Thanks for your time and I hope you will report this user ASAP. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock
What the hell are you talking? check those ip location-- LONTECH    Talk  23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, fine, you are probably only one of the IP addresses, not both. I find the behavioral evidence against you fairly concrete. --Pstanton (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He's back
Hi! I just found out a new sock puppet account of Islamuslim, please join us. Thank you. User_talk:Bearian Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Aphrodite etc
Well, actually, none of that guy's additions are vandalism, incorrect, or "original research", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's obscure and maybe not the "standard" myth, and maybe it could be incorporated more usefully, but it's not wrong. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps, but when its not the standard myth, I think they should cite their mythological source, explain on the talk page. At the very least I'd like an edit summary. --Pstanton (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Ramon Chíes
I'm sorry, but Ramon Chíes isn't a living person. He died a long time ago.

BTW, I've had a lot of beer right now and will add some sources tomorrow. Promise.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on St. Mark's Anglican Church, Remuera, Auckland
I have removed the prod tag from St. Mark's Anglican Church, Remuera, Auckland, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! - A bit of WP:BEFORE should have been done on this one. Sources: .--Mike Cline (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on Lotte Salling
I have removed the prod tag from Lotte Salling, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Reference added to support body of work published.--Plad2 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, but I see that you've added a reference, so I don't see a need for that. --Pstanton (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

your recent reversion
On 27 May 2010 06:50, IP User 98.212.230.120 inserted in the John Lott article a long Amazon.com-style personal review of Freedomnomics questioning facts and deductions on restaurant dinner pricing and airline last day seat prices.

You reverted as violation of WP:Vandalism. Vandalism is replacing the birth name of a serial killer with that of your college roommate or randomly inserting the common names of a genitalia.

The edit was in violation of WP:Original Research and WP:Opinion by a Single Purpose Account, requiring the edit to be peppered with (fact) challenges and (citation needed) tags, and maybe a Sockpuppet challenge on the User's page. Simply reverting as "vandalism" shows WP:Common Sense which is not allowed at the John Lott article (see Archives 1, 2 and 3). Naaman Brown (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for utilizing common sense in my editing? --Pstanton (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging G4
Hi. Just a note about your tagging of Deora's GW Prediction just now - WP:CSD wasn't applicable, because that only applies to articles deleted after a deletion discussion such as AfD. The definition of G4 includes "This criterion also excludes content... which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." Usually when a speedied article is recreated it can be speedied again on the same grounds; this was a funny one because the source blog had been blanked, I guess in response to the first deletion, but Google had a cached version which showed that was where the text had come from, so I have deleted it G12 again, and explained on the author's talk page. There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies and clarification
Hi there STANTON, VASCO from Portugal here,

I am the anon editor to which you sent your message about "dangerous" edit summaries five minutes ago. I, as you can see, already have an account, it's just i sometimes: 1 - forget to log on 2 - have an idea that i want to insert immediately after logging off, and don't want to waste any time, lest i forget it.

Regarding the reprimand: yes, my summaries are a little out of hand sometimes. However, in the case you addressed me, i insulted no one and improved article in regard to the previous addition.

Nonetheless, sorry for any incoveniences, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know, it wasn't that you were being inaccurate, just the "out of hand" part as you mentioned. --Pstanton (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(: Thanks
For the vandalism revert! —Tommy 2010 23:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware
You obviously know nothing about Ware and what he has done to the Orthodox community in Oxford. You may lionise him, you may be wowed by his theological books, o.k. they are very good, solid, well-researched third year undergraduate stuff, his lectures are indeed memorable (I have heard many of them myself) but there are devout Orthodox in England who will now never attend a service he celebrates because of what he has done. We're not talking of angry non-canonical groups, we're talking of people who freely placed themselves under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Ask yourself: why do these people feel so strongly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.109.109 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Utterly irrelevant. You do not get to say a living person has "caused a schism" in the Church without thorough sourcing. That would be adding controversial, possibly defamatory and libelous, material to Wikipedia, which is against guidelines. Those guidelines, in fact, instruct such material to be removed "immediately". WP:GRAPEVINE --Pstanton (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In-image advertising
Hello Pstanton. Can you please let me know why you marked in-image advertising for speedy deletion? I believe it is a neutrally written, well-researched article that follows all Wikipedia guidelines. Can you please let me know how I can edit it so it is not deleted? Thanks.

Inimagead (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)InimageadInimagead (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 2:10pm, June 5, 2010

Passionaries
Hi, I declined your speedy on this page because db-nocontent does not cover dictionary definitions; prod is used for that. Thanks,  — fetch ·  comms   21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambig
Hi! Thanks for nominating Universidad for deletion. It was a long time since I created it. Some time ago I tried to delete Nedre. The word Nedre means "lower", so it's just a collection of place names that happen to have "Lower" in them. No difference from the case about Universidad, IMO. Should I nominate Nedre again or could you do it (so it doesn't look like I have some vendetta against it...)? Geschichte (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bastard brothers
I believe my contribution to the Bastard Brothers article is worthy of being included in the page. --86.41.91.177 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You blanked a large amount of content and replaced it with the random sentence: "Not to be confused with Jedward". So, other editors disagree. --Pstanton (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Respected Editor
My edits are based on reliable references such as books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.60.98 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - sockpuppetry
Sockpuppetry on an article you have touched - Sockpuppet investigations/Encorehockey. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Falsely reverting my correct edit and falsely calling it vandalism
This is the THIRD time I've had to revert this due to misguided users and bots thinking this is vandalism. This is the correct name of Scott Hull's old band. Google it if you don't believe me. Try actually following the link before just blindly reverting. I can't understand why you think "Anal Cunt" isn't a real band, but "Anal Faget" is ?


 * If you used edit summaries, perhaps you wouldn't have run into that difficulty. When you make these sorts of edits silently, without explanation, this is the result you should expect. --Pstanton (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are lying, I gave a very complete edit summary. This is the edit you reverted: "This is the THIRD time I've had to revert this due to misguided users and bots thinking this is vandalism. This is the correct name of Scott Hulls band. Look it up before you decide to "correct" this." 121.73.179.170 (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you appear to right, my apologies, my mistake. However, I do exception to your rude accussation that I am lying, as opposed to having made a mistake. In the future, please adhere to WP:FAITH

--Pstanton (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hah, referring to "good faith" policy right after you accused me of vandalism. Good one. 121.73.179.170 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, on accident. Sorry. Can we move on now? --Pstanton (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you persecuting me?
Such bullshit should not be included in Wikipedia. 85.77.201.117 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not "persecuting" you, and yet I don't consider it "bullshit", which is why I removed the Prod. This is a perfectly normal part of the editing process. Since it has been established that deletion of those articles would be controversial, if you wish to pursue deletion, you should bring it up at AfD. --Pstanton (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

JacksonPackz Entertainment
Hello, just a heads up; I don't know if you noticed but when you reverted the blanking of JacksonPackz Entertainment you restored what was essentially a user talkpage that had been moved to article space. I don't know if the editor was trying to be disruptive or had made a mistake, but their blanking of the page was possibly an attempt to rectify that. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  09:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that, and I was a bit confused as to what had happened, and wasn't sure how to fix it. I tried to go to the author's page, but it just redirected there.... sooo.... I dropped the issue. --Pstanton (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. It's always a bit confusing when things start going cross-namespace. To be honest, I'm not sure what that editor is really up to with their edits! -- Beloved Freak  20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong IP?

Hello, I just received a message that a contribution I had made to the page "Soundproofing" has been reverted. I went through the pages history to find out that it has been vandalised but the problem is this is the first time i've ever edited wikipedia. Has wikipedia made a mistake identifing the IP or is it possible that someone has hacked my IP? and should i be worried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.74.148 (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Keats request for info box
Hi Pstanton, Thanks for your request for an info box on the John Keats article. There has been extensive discussion on infoboxes of many poets recently. A good sense of the discussions can be found at the James Joyce and Ezra Pound. There seems to be fairly strong opposition voiced mostly revolving around WP:DISINFOBOX. I'd recommend not including an info box for the reasons given there. I think it can misleading and unhelpful. Not sure a talk tag is necessary. Look forward to hearing your views. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Holy Anointing Oil"
Thanks for the welcome, but I know my way around. I have been editing since 2005. Wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of the work of pseudo-scientists (also known as quacks). The paragraphs I excised from Holy anointing oil were violative of WP:SOURCE and WP:RELIABLE. Weasel words wp:weasel abound in them. Uncredentialed sources, sources that refer back upon themselves. Miscellaneous bits of trivia about the Dead Sea Scrolls completely unrelated to the topic. Unless you are willingly promoting such quackery (let's call a duck a duck), then I think a more careful review of the paragraphs in question will make the errors in reasoning and the blatant fiction more clear to you. 173.217.212.26 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. ''I noticed you were using Twinkle. Keep in mind that Twinkle does sometimes forget to mark a page as patrolled, so it's likely not entirely your fault. Still.''  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of Impact factor titles of Bentham Science Publishers
Hello Pstanton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of Impact factor titles of Bentham Science Publishers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Courcelles 07:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert von Beringe: not a hoax
Hello. Just to let you know that I've removed the db-hoax you placed on Robert von Beringe. Google scholar gives him over 200 hits. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a mistake
You incorrectly reverted my edits alleging that they were vandalism, when I was simply providing a rationale for the image, something totally appropiate. Please be more carefull when reverting vandalism; just because I'm an ip thats not logged in does not mean that my edits are necesarilly vandalism. Please revert your edit. --201.253.217.2 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw your message on the history log. --201.253.217.2 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV
Hi. I saw that you watch at 69.233.95.110 behaviors. It seems that he didn't understand what you said before and again vandalized with strong Pashtun POV on that article. Please do something about him. I think that we have to block IDs edits.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Non-neutral?
Hello! Is the opinion that smoking is dangerous to health non-neutral? And please think logically. Look into your own life. For example, are you not suffering(once in a while at least)? Are you suffering for no reason? No. Your suffering (and my suffering) is because of your (my) past misdeeds (in this life as well as in your past life-[now this requires lots of explanation]-). So these wicked cigarette companies (people at companies) (and thousands of other wicked companies-[not only cigarette cos]- will face an unpleasant fate and suffer proportionately according to their misdeeds. You get back what you do, son! Just try to understand! And don't forget God. God exists and His inconceivable, powerful, and wonderful potency also exists. It is up to you to accept or not. But if you think deeply, you will. Thank you for patiently reading.Mx000f (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor 4.255.49.90
Hello. I just reverted another unconstructive and inappropriate edit by the anonymous user whose IP address is above. This editor made an unconstructive edit by placing the previous Epic Records logo on the Tetragrammaton Records article. I have already undid the edit and left them a note about it on their talk page. I just thought that I would let you know since you already left him a note on his talk page a previous unconstructive edit that they made. Again, I just thought that I would let you know. Frschoonover (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey why did you delete my edit
on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.50.211 ip (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LiquidOxygen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LiquidOxygen.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.webelements.com/oxygen/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)