User talk:Whitenoise123

Revert warring over b and c class
This is silly. When in a revert war against three different people you really should step away from such a trivial dispute. My god I'm astounded that you would waste time and effort on such a thing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As above. Your efforts here are beginning to look disruptive.  If you believe the article should be upgraded from C to B it's up to you to put forward a case that convinces people.  You don't get to demand that everyone else justifies the status quo, or you'll change it regardless on what they think.  Edit warring without discussion is only going to end badly and certainly won't resolve things. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to pile on but to prevent a lame edit war, I must agree that the burden of proof is on you to prove an upgrade to B. I am on the side of the users expressing their opinion that C is correct in this case until you have a clear case for B. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sharapova review
Hi, the results can still be contested. What I interpret as something that cannot be contested is a statement such as "Earth is a planet", etc. Someone still needs to be able to go somewhere to verify that the results are accurate. Gary King ( talk ) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, before this is declined again, I'm requesting the community review this at WP:AN to ensure fairness here, as there is conflict regarding the case and the subsequent block - A l is o n  ❤ 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will to have to reply to you here, Alison, so I hope you read this.
 * Firstly, I am grateful for your attempts to reach a fair conclusion to this. However, I must protest at your comment to my message on your page: "Indeed, one of my main rationales for running the check in the first place was based on the "evading scrutiny" part of [{WP:SOCK]]. It's pretty clear, IMO that that's exactly what has been going on here and it just allows you to edit-war intensely on that one, particular article. That is a pretty clear justification for running a check, IMO." Once again, even assuming I am ML565, there would be no scrutiny to evade; the ML565 account would be permitted to perform the edits I have done, because they are completely differrent to the edits it got banned for in Feb.
 * If a proper discussion is started on AN, I would appreciate it if this comment I have written is relayed there. Thanks.

Whitenoise123 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required
Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to WikiProject Russia/Members by adding # to the membership list. You may also like to place on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)