User talk:Who then was a gentleman?/Archive 1

Template:1911 talk
I will be adding to the Randy Pherson and Dick Heuer pages you marked for deletion. Not tonight. In the meantime, please understand that these are highly, highly respected researchers in the fields of neuroscience, cognition, and analysis. To argue that they do not merit inclusion in wikipedia is to argue that these fields of research are unworthy of public attention. And to make that argument is implicitly to say that we deserve repeated intelligence failures that lead to wars and terrorist catastrophes. This is a public interest, not a commercial interest; let's not confuse the two.Sarahmiller8 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Will do! That's easy! Sarahmiller8 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Both Randy Pherson and Dick Heuer's pages have links to websites selling the books. Also, the new book is being published by Congressional Quarterly Press according to information provided at the recent professional conference for Intelligence Community Educators. It's forthcoming, otherwise I could add that reference now. Sarahmiller8 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) They are both published authors already. They have a new book. The point of the pages isn't the new book, that's just an update. The point is their contribution to the field. The pages should stay and be added to, just as anyone else's page. These are serious scholars. If you're concerned about a reference to the forthcoming book, then it's an easy fix to refrain from mentioning it until it is published. There's absolutely no need to delete the entire pages to satisfy your concern that it could be read as advertising. Sarahmiller8 (talk)

Can you take a look at my user page? I put the article about "The Roundball Classic" that I was going to submit. Is there any reason that it would likely be deleted? I've read and educated myself quite a bit on writing and editing articles. It is quite enjoyable. I believe that I have done a good job following advice. I would like it to be under the link "Roundball Classic" as you had suggested. So, if I hit "create this page" on the "Editing Roundball Classic page" and save the article, that will make a Wikipedia link? Thanks for your help!

I'm not sure what happened to my article on The Roundball Classic. You wrote "Your test on the page Template:Sport-event-stub worked, so it has been reverted or removed." Does that mean that it was deleted or is it under review? I have a lot of primary source references that I've included, some of which can be directly accessed on the internet. I have worked in the Sandbox and edited. Do I no longer have access to my article, or will it be reviewed and put back up? Shermanfolks (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The template will be deleted as soon as I orphaned it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The procedure I'll follow is the same: First ensure that for all talk pages with the 1911 talk template the corresponding article has the 1911, then remove the 1911 talk template from all talk pages and then delete it. The procedure will finish in the next 24 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mouth bresthing
Semi-d the article for a day. Interestingly, those two IPs geolocate to different continents and they're not proxies - so I'd say they're almost certainly different people. Black Kite 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Oscars
If I am not able to watch the Oscars on TV tonight ... and I am also not able to record the show (by DVD, DVR, VHS, etc.) ... is there anywhere on the Internet that I can actually watch the telecast at some later time? Does anyone know of any web sites that will have the telecast posted and available for viewing? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Check hulu.com tomorrow. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe abc.go.com. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I actually found most of the clips I wanted to see on You Tube.  Thanks for those web sites ... I had never heard of them.  Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC))


 * You're welcome. I love hulu, I hope it proves useful to you.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I finally did get a chance to see what I wanted ... which was Heath Ledger winning his Oscar.  I found it on YouTube.  Thanks for pointing me to that hulu site.  I will probably use it in the future.  Thanks!    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Kurukshetra University (Kurukshetra)
Speedy deleted as a copyvio. If you catch any more things like this, please tell me. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pics on my user page - reply
Edit Centric (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AI8
I didn't make the original edit. :) I simply restored one I had previously removed because I found a source. You can change it to whatever you'd like. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will say, though, that if you go by DialIdol (which is extremely accurate), Sarver and Desai were indeed going for that next slot. Gokey won by a clear margin. See here. So I'm with ya on removing the fact (since we don't have a foolproof source on it), but it's probably accurate. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

not to be a jerk
Not to be a jerk but I asked to use the "copyrighted" text for the page as it is a good example of Fretlight's history. I had to edit it to remove "advertising langue which took sometime. Why would you delete the page and delete it from my talk page. All you had to do was talk to me and the I could have added "used with permission" to it but now i have to reedit and remake the entire page. Thanks. If you know a how to get it back so I can add one line to it I would appreciate the HELP.

User:Bobtompson —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Have a nice day!


Cool3 (talk) 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fun user name. :)
You made me smile. :) Thanks!sinneed (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.unterstein.net/or/ThePeerage.html
Sorry to say, but I can't vouch for the site as this is the first I've seen it. (But obviously any printed source is going to be considered more "reliable" here than any Internet source, issues of being current aside...) For what it's worth, the page seems to have loaded completely in my browser (through #824, who acceded in January). Maybe trying another browser would let it load for you? - Nunh-huh 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be peculiar indeed if IE did something that Firefox didn't, but it's worth a try :) - Nunh-huh 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop cyberbullying
Hi. I removed the CSD tag on the Stop cyberbullying article. To be honest I think the article did assert, to my eyes at any rate, notability, especially as the organisations's formation was as a consequence of the high-profile Megan Meier case. That said, I am not entirely convinced of the independent notability of the organization and the article might (possibly) be merged to either Cyber-bullying or Megan Meier. Anyway, just letting you know.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Confussed
I am confused why List of Australian TV Newsreaders should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by News nightly (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What's it called
What is the newsreader's page called and if possible can i change the title of my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.113.207 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I Change the Newsreaders title
Hi,

Can I change the title pf the page to Australian TV Newsreaders Year by Year as it has got tables of the newsreaders on the page since the early 1990's. Please REPLY ASAPNews nightly (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks alot for the Help News nightly (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Linda Christian
Since you're new here, I'll point you to WP:AGF. It was late and I misread a paragraph in the article when I was removing the statement, the wording of which seemed to promote the book Hollywood Babylon, sourced with a link to a site which is a blogspot page used to denigrate and debunk the book. I read the two oddly phrased paragraphs incorrectly:

"Her younger sister, the late Ariadna Welter (1930-1998), was a well-known actress in the Mexican cinema. Her most celebrated role was as 'Carlota Cervantes' in Luis Buñuel's 'Ensayo de un Crimen' (The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz) in 1955. Ariadna continued to appear in movies and on soap operas in Mexico in her later years until her death in 1998.

Christian's autobiography, Linda, was published in 1962. Her death was covered in Hollywood Babylon 2."

The last sentence says that Christian's death was covered in the book. I removed that statement as the offending one and glanced up to see the "death in 1998" and mistakenly thought it confirmed her death.

Now here's the part where good faith comes in - you assumed I was pushing that she died and posted a direct note to me in the edit summary. That's extremely poor, and certainly not being a gentleman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, take from this that it is rather rude to post direct messages to an editor in an edit summary, and it is more productive to remove the erroneous entry in a project banner than to remove everything that was added that is relevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenians
Based on my own personal knowledge, the number is somewhere near 8-9 million, but definitely not 10. However, taking my word at face value would be original research, not that the anon who changed it to 10 used reliable sources himself. If you check what he/she cited, they're not really authoritative nor do they say what he claims (at least the URLs don't). If I were you I'd find a reliable source that backs up the real figure, and then revert the anon's edits on other pages. Khoikhoi 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Edit Summaries
I was told by another user that DVD release tables were not allowed in articles under Wikipedia policies. So how does that make me a vandal, I am removing the tables from the article, I am not vandalizing the article in any way- you do know what Vandalism means don't you?! HeMan5 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

News videos
Seeing your the one who knows all about wiki i was wondering if you could answer my question. Can you upload videos onto Wiki as I am interested in starting up a page on Australian TV Newsopeners, promo's etc. Just wondering. if not possible please reply so that i can maybe take cap's of the videos and post them. News nightly (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

News Video's
Do you upload them the videos the same way you do picturesNews nightly (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages_needing_translation_into_English
The source will available at zh:郭冠英 or google result at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Azh-TW%3Aofficial&hs=0ui&num=50&newwindow=1&q=%22Kuo+Kuan-ying%22&btnG=Search.

JustbeBPMF (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Thanks for fixing my botch.. I didn't even notice that.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kuo Kuan-ying
Of Course no !

but you can find several people that mastered both Chinese and English, and also interesting of this article, like many articles related to Taiwan. For example, User:Taiwantaffy and many etc. JustbeBPMF (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Cotant
The PROD was removed; I've taken it to AfD. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about David Gray?
After having checked iTunes, it seemed there was no album / EP called "iTunes Originals". However, there was a live EP, Live from London. I think the original writer was mistaken and therefore I corrected it.

Unit371 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of the confusion, I had changed the title on the main David Gray page as well, so that it would coincide with the "sub-page"of the EP (naturally!).

I got your message about this confusion whilst editing everything and before I had the chance to even finish it.

Unit371 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies accepted. Sorry on my part as well, people on Wikipedia just tend to come across as quite berating. But I'm getting the hang of the interface on here and some of the basic rules etc. so I'm sure I'll do better in the future... ;o) Anyhoo, the confusion has been cleared up now.

Unit371 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
I left my opinion regarding your question here. -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle name beginning with H
The IP beat you to that joke! --Dweller (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah
Where is the AFD that this was previously deleted under? I couldn't find any for any reasonable version of the article's title, nor were there any deletions at the current title. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know; it's very different from the version that was deleted, mainly by actually making claims of notability (which probably don't hold any water). I would still decline to delete it, but I doubt it would survive a new AFD, based on what I see on Google. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah's page - nominated for deletion
Hi Someguy1221, Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah's page has been nominated for deletion. Have your say at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Remigius_Jerry_Kanagarajah_(2nd_nomination)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

International news programs website
Not sure if you were still looking for an answer but I just saw your question. I found http:// beelinetv.com (thats on the Wikipedia spam blacklist), http://www.humanitas-international.org/newstran/streaming-tv.htm and http://broadcast-live.com/tvnews.html. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. There was another one that I was watching the other day but I can't find it now. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget...
...to read the talk page there. It's interesting. The newspaper coverage is special too, if you haven't seen it already. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

aiv
Many IPs are dynamic. Unless you can prove the IP is static, warnings older than a day or two are not taken into consideration because the warnings have to be based on vandalism of the current user. Old warnings are usually only taken into account for static IPs and user accounts.  Enigma msg  05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Medicine4mosh
Ooops! Sorry. I'm sleepy. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Who then was a gentleman? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran :-). Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial advertising
Hiya. I noticed you're rightly on the case for User:Sunnytree. Then I noticed their user page. Isn't that blatant commercial advertising, & hence contra-WP-policy? And all their contributions are to their own "Talk" page. Best regards, Trafford09 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one. That should sort it (in its current guise!).  Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Charleston Lowgators (2002-2004)
Look, buddy, I know this is a place to edit, but I don't see anything wrong with my page. This is not a place to put in lame excuses of the page.

Sincerely, Infonerd2216 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Infonerd2216

Whenever the News About Guiding Light's final episode came out on April 1, 2009
Whenever the news about Guiding Light's final episode came out on April 1, 2009 and the article on Guiding Light where I was told that it would happen on September 18, 2009 and that, I thought, would be it for Guiding Light. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The O'Quinn Schools of Porter-Gaud
Apologies, simple error on my part. Xenocide Talk undefinedContributions 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying that if he worked on it in his namespace, he could do as much as he wanted with it without the article being tagged for deletion and things like that. I was merely suggesting to him that if he worked on it in his namespace, there wouldn't be a problem. Δnnuit Cœptis  02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
Please see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I'm concerned about the reliability of the references you are using. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was merely transfering old content and not adding new information ; some the associated sources include SNAP. However, a good idea would be to diversify the sources because of issues with the SNAP links. ADM (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan
Re Ronald Ryan - propose an earlier version that isn't a disaaster William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CBPA and CSDs
Hi. I was Huggling (still new at it) and noticed CBPA appear with a WP:CSD and it had a hangon on it. What confuses me is that according to the page history, it looks like the user added the hangon tag, then the CSD (with no reason), then the CSD with the G7 reason, and then removed the CSD tag. Am I totally confused about this or is the user? And, if the user added the CSD tag to the article, can't the user also delete it? It's not like anyone else added it and the person is removing someone else's tag. I'm asking as a matter of learning the policies, not out of any interest in this particular article. Thanks! &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. I get it. It was deleted, he recreated it, added the hangon tag as requested, then put the CSD tag back, then removed the CSD tag (incorrectly). Got it. Thanks. Without being able to see the prior deletion, the whole thing made no sense. But, hypothetically speaking, if there was no prior deletion… just a user adding a G7 to a page they created, they could remove it without problem if they were the only editor involved, right? On a user page, I'd say that's a no-brainer, but on an article page nothing is a no-brainer. :-) &mdash; Will scrlt  ( “Talk” ) 07:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Apparently you're my sockpuppet now. has started a sockpuppetry case at Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard. See here for what led up to this preposterous report. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The case has been closed and DunkinDonutBoy has been blocked, ironically, for sockpuppetry SpitfireTally-ho! 09:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of articles you nominated for deletion
I quite don't understand. All these articles are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Request
Can you please stop [|this editor]? Over the last hour he has been making several edits that do not appear to be constructive. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  08:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You were inactive at the time. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  08:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My Signature
Thanks for reminding me that I am violating a specific rule. I have changed it! Do I have to edit the talk pages in which I have used that signature? If I have to, I may not be able to edit those right now or I may not be able change it the next few days as I am busy with work and extra curricular. Again, sorry for the bother and thanks! Have a nice day! ax (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ow, thanks! I thought I have to edit those also! Nope, I should be thanking you for correcting me and to your quick response! :) ax (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of hoax have been debunked - Please be fair
Who then was a gentleman?, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#There_was_no_hoax_-_Please_set_the_record_straight and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qqtacpn#Accusations_of_hoax_must_be_withdrawn

These articles were deleted at my own request (G7), and other Wikipedians agree there is no proof of hoax. Furthermore, after my request of deletion, I have presented additional irrefutable evidence that these accusations of hoax are false(http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/).

I'm new to Wikipedia. I have made mistakes and apologized for them. I would like to give you a chance to do the same, by admitting that your accusation of hoax was premature. After that, I will leave Wikipedia in good terms. Thanks (Qqtacpn (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

HippoRule
It's just vandalism. The part about Florida residents makes that clear. Eeekster (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Elissa Sursara / Eliska Sursova
Hi - would we be able to include Elissa Sursara in your Eliska Sursova afd? The similarities between the articles are a little too close to seem coincidental and there is also some concern over whether one or the other - or both - people are real. After not receiving any response to my questions at WP:BLPN I asked for admin assistance and was advised to discuss the issues regarding the articles at afd. Does this sound reasonable?  florrie  14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Anyway
We tried to add biographical information about a few notable residents of our small town and were shot down. We surrender. Clearly Wikipedia is not the place for us to share the noteworthily accomplishments of those highly regarded individuals from non-metropolitan areas of our great nation. Our local wikipedia committee will disband having learned that there are a few individuals in control of what is and isn't published on wikipedia regardless of fact. We thought the mission of an online, free encyclopedia would be to bring otherwise scarce but fully factual information to anyone. We sincerely apologize - The experience has been, to say the least, disappointing while reaffirming belief that there are increasingly few people in this world interested in doing, or willing to do the right thing.

We post this on your talk page because of the reasonableness of your comments in hope that you may reconsider deleting our current and future articles, but with some confidence that we have failed the opportunity to bring truth about our community to to Wikipedia's users. --RealReview (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Master of Illusion
Listing it for deletion is nothing less than pointless. There's nothing that CAN be said, as all most people know is the name, which is why the redirect exists. It may not have content, but will. It was just announced, and suddenly jumping on the redirect seconds after its creation is on the "no-no" list for deletion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh... how is it nonsensical? Let me explain to you nonsensical - more so than "creating a legitimate redirect to an obvious target", nonsensical = "calling for a speedy deletion based on a guess, literally nothing more, seconds after the redirect was created." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Euphonix Entertainment
Hello Who then was a gentleman?, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Euphonix Entertainment) under a different criteria, because the one you provided was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! A le_Jrb talk 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jasmine Lenzen
I created the account due to a request on unblock-en-l for an account bypassing an existing school or range block. I monitor the accounts I create, and based on the edits made have blocked the account. I have treated it as a sock of an previously blocked anonymous user. Fred Talk 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone Aila
You said on my talk page the Cyclone Aila headline had been removed, but it's still there. The part where it say "kills at least 170 people" I don't like. Maybe some people love it, but it seems poor reading to me.--Chuck Marean 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward-Beck Systems
Thanks for the heads up. I'm new to this and trying really hard to keep up to the policies. The links I am posting are self published and I have no other sources. The website I maintain is the only source in the world for this data. I'm trying to share it through wikipedia.

Why?
Why did you delete the Speedy tag on Nations Afire? The only sources are MySpace pages. WP:SELF? Ottoman project Review me 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Forgive Me
I didn't look right and didn't notice it was a talkpage. I was reverting vandalism and mistoke this as some. I used the recent changes section and din't read right. Sorry:) Schnitzel MannGreek . 22:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why wiki source?
Thanks for your comment. I thought about doing it with references to the relevant sections of the vehicle code that are currently quoted, but that would make it more difficult to follow and understand. What is the purpose of the quote template if not for this type of use? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please identify the policy or guideline that says quotes need to be only one or two lines? Books and articles on this topic (bicycling and the law) follow the same format used in this WP article, where the law being discussed is quoted in full. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2009

Okay, thanks. I understand your concern. But I believe this is a special case, where the "quotes" (the relevant sections from the vehicle code) are the topics covered in the article. The "meat" of the article is still the article text, but each section in the article refers to one or more sections of the vehicle code. It seems appropriate to fully quote the particular law being discussed, especially offset within the quote template, but certainly paring each down to only what is essential can be done. Please judge the appropriateness of these quotes by reading the article, rather than just glancing at it. Although it says it's under construction, that mostly means there are more sections to be added, and maybe a few more references, but what's there so far should be more or less complete for that part of it. I would like to resolve this sooner rather than later because it has been a lot of work so far, and there is a lot of work left, and I would hate to go through all this and have it all undone. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You quoted from WP:QUOTE: " Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote." Fine. That article is not a list or repository of loosely associated quotations. The quotations are very closely associated. Nor is it "a simple list of quotations". I fail to see the relevance of that quote to this article. Is there a problem that I'm not seeing? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Salt on the way.
I think this nice person has earned a permanent vacation as well. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Up

 * Hmmm didnt realize Up (film) redirects there, Probably due to it being the mainsream search since the other films are older. Quick read of Naming conventions (films) explains that disambiguating films of the same name, the year of its first public release should follow in its article name. So long as there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with another existing Wikipedia article the film could just take its name, but in this case theres two others in 76 and 84. Hope that helps any Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already an Up (disambiguation) page. However guidlines say nothing against making one specifically for the films See WP:DDAB. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One does not need an source for what is blatantly self-evident in a movie. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One does what if one has no source for it? Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not for information that is so obviously and clearly self-evident. Jimmy Wales himself has stated this, in a recent discussion on WP:V that I participated in with him:

''I think balance is needed, and that in the case of negative information, your approach is one that I would strongly support. In other cases, I think it is ok to do what you are doing, but not if it's an ongoing extreme campaign that annoys people without purpose....I don't agree with those who would argue that every single thing in Wikipedia must have a source. It is desirable to source everything, but some things are simply common knowledge to the point that demanding a source (or else removing it) is just WP:POINT.''


 * I understand that you're new here. That's cool. (Welcome to Wikipedia, btw!) But one does not need a source to describe a Doberman Pinscher in a film as a Doberman Pinscher. It's taking WP:V to simply perverse levels. Unless you think Alpha's breed is up for interpretation or disagreement, it's perfectly fine for the article to describe him as such. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. And what is contentious about describing Alpha as a Doberman? Who would mind? Alpha? Pixar? John Lasseter? :-)

As for Dug, well, I'm not a breed expert, but I think his appearance is far more subject to interpretation, because he has a generic look that fits many breeds, including GR's. But Dobermans? They're so clearly distinctly identified. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida Whig Party
Although after Blanchardb's restoration I reverted the article back to a previous version without the copyvio, I support having the article as a redirect. It probably would not survive AfD, despite my efforts to locate sources. The talk page on the redirect should still retain my discussion on that matter. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean we needed to keep it persay, I meant that the discussion was probably still there. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * She was coming around, but I don't want to second-guess the deciding individual. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While such arguments don't defeat deletion in AfD, it is important to note that we *do* have articles for state parties of the Democrat and Republican parties, and so the most important concern must be that the sourcing isn't there, not that this is a state party division of the main party. At this time, the sources just aren't there, so a standalone article isn't merited. When the sources appear, then we can discuss whether a state party should have an article distinct from the main party article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also important to note that with a little source fixing, all the important content from the article in question already exists in the main article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The article keeps being restored. I'm right on the edge with the sources on this one. You might want to chime in on the talk page if you have any insight. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what... Why not revert the edit, and list at AfD? I'm leaning towards inclusion, and I would rather have this decided by consensus. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and revert it. Feel free to list for AfD, I'll willingly participate in that discussion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were being uncivil. I felt I was once or twice, and I'm concerned about how little cross-communication occurred during the situation, that's all. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Now see what has happened. I stopped it, but the IP revrted it again with bad comments. Can you help? Can we have third reviewer? Bijuis(talk)11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Sorry, just reverting edits being made by an anonymous IP 121.241.67.226 (talk) on a selected article. Looked like a personal rivalry or narrow gains to me. If you look at the version of the article I saved, you can see that I didn't remove any data, but provided both sides of stories and made it impartial in nature.

Article Pinarayi Vijayan

This anonymous user also started using abusive language on my talk page. I deleted it, but you can see it from history, I guess.

It was never my intention to vandalize. Please note that this page and this user is the only one where I had to ask again and again to maintain impartial nature. But I am sad to see that the intentional edits by the anonymous user is not prevented and I am being crucified. Can you help? Can we have third reviewer? Bijuis(talk)11 June 2009 (UTC)

MattJacobson.jpg
No, the copyright belongs to Matt Jacobson, but as I noted in the file, he has released permission for it to be used on the wikipedia article (and basically anywhere else also). FreeRight (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As it clearly states at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MattJacobson.jpg - the licensing section of image says: This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRight (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

-- VS talk 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PAPAs Info
Hey, I removed the holdon tag, since I can't find the required secondary source. Feel free to delete the page and I'll remake it once I can acquire those sources. Sorry for wasting your time >.< BSPiotr (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WHOIS
Who the fuck is WHOIS?--86.45.130.30 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah right yeah, thanks for showing me. That was interesting.--86.45.130.30 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry
Being new to the site I am disappointed by the immediate jump to the assumption that I am simply supporting the article for the sake of supporting it. I doubt that a so called 'meatpuppet' would continue to debate with such vigour. I assure you that I am wholly capable of making my own decisions, particularly in matters such as this. I personally have enjoyed debating the topic and do not see why deformation of character should be resorted to. Thelliwell (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelliwell (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interest in this article did draw me here, yes, but really what is wrong with that? Everyone needs some initiating cause to spark there actions, this is mine. Furthermore, why shouldn't people get involved with topics they support, regardless of who directed them to it? I believe I am making valid contributions, not simply reiterating points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelliwell (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidrama
Re your note, Nishkid's note about "wikidrama" is actually his signature. He wasn't accusing you of starting wikidrama. If you already knew that, then just ignore me... {  Wknight94  talk  00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Mayfair High School
My apologies if you have an issue with my comment. It wasn't meant to be rude or anything like that. We don't usually notify users when they request edits (in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen an admin do it). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
rootology ( C )( T ) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Roofio
You are querying my removal of your copyvio tag relating to this article. The article quotes from a blog, which allows free access. Now I am quite certain that the article merits deletion, and is currently nominated at WP:AfD. But the author cannot, in my view, be faulted under copyright regulations for quoting from a blog which he himself has created and to which he himself allows free access and usage. As a seperate issue, a blog cannot, of course, be quoted as a valid reference or source, but that was not the point you raised. --Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 10:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notifications
RE : "Interesting. The last time I tried to remind a person who posted on ANI that they should notify the person they were talking about, not only was I berated for it, but not one single person ever notified the subject of the discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)" - can you elaborate? When was this? (diffs if possible). Reason I'm asking is that I was instrumental in getting the guidelines upgraded from "should" to "must" notify - you can see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm - your run-in took place about a week before it was changed. Definitely the right thing to do to notify people - Hopefully the editor who refused to will now abide by the new instructions. Exxolon (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA
In light of this personal attack, I recommend that you review the relevant Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied wrong template.
I apologize I meant to use teh db-content template. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
For the kind welcome. I didn't think to mention anything on the talk page, I should have. Anway the article looks like it has been further cleaned up since I looked.

One question, though - is there no talk page for that article (Robert Tuchman?

Thanks, Scootastar (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I get it now, in effect there was no talk page since no-one had contributed to it yet. Thanks for helping clear that up! Scootastar (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution(criminology)
The reason I removed all that content is because it is redundent; it can be found in the articles which I listed at the See also section and in the main prostitution article. I will explain this on the talk page of prostitution (criminology). 86.121.10.107 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note:
Hi Who then was a gentleman?, just want to drop you a friendly reminder: When warning vandals with templates like these, remember to add "Subst:" to the beginning of the warning template. Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then - don't worry about my note. :) -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, just making some test edits, didn't mean to vandalize.  ♣ Makaveli ♣   23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect a hijacked account. - Schrandit (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point...I guess he was just decided to vandalize stuff after 13 months of service? Weird. - Schrandit (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell International, Inc.
The milestone statements were taken from Mitchell company web site directly. I have removed promotional phrases while keeping more factual related information. Would you consider removing the ad tag, please? Thank you. (User:wc721) 9:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Defense attorney
Hi there WTWAG, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thank you for your words. My words, these: that "person" which i have scolded has done the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive), and is now editing majorly anon, so i treat said "person" with the respect that "person" shows towards others, removing stuff even though repeatedly blocked/warned/threatened.

If it's something else i said in Roland Linz's edits, i sometimes get carried away in summaries, writing caps or putting two many exclamation marks. I once received a message (don't know if it was admin or just user) telling me that "no personal rants were allowed"...Whatever happened to free speech? I can say what i want without getting to insulting...except for vandals, those will always get a piece of my mind...Always! If/when i get a message regarding uncivility, i will try to defend myself to the best of my abilities...

That is all for the moment, attentively - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CCI
Ooh, thanks for catching that. I didn't notice. What tipped you off that it was a copyvio? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am new Here

 * Thanks for your comment. I am new to wikipedia, and I couldn't figure out why the "nowiki" was appearing.  Thanks for the clarification.  I read that one must wait at least 4 days for one to move a user page to the "live" section.  Regarding your comment, in what type and format (e.g., pdf document, video, etc) do I need to show that this band indeed meet the criteria at WP:Band?  To whom we submit such proof?  Thanks for your help and advice.  Ochodebastos (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe new time you should read the Discussion/Talk section
Hi. Maybe the next time that you revert an edit, you might want to read the Discussion/Talk section that accompanies it to more fully understand what is being done. I realize you are kind of new to Wikipedia, but then maybe you should take less aggressive steps... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could actually read the Discussion section, you would read that I am setting up a disambiguation page so others don't waste their time as I have trying to find the appropriate information in Wikipedia. I am not sure what is wrong with you psychologically, but as you are not an administrator (and hopefully will never be one), why you don't you just make some contributions to Wikipedia by doing research and writing, rather than be a police officer...Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't...
...but his username is what drew my attention. I primarily blocked him for that. Otherwise, no. I wouldn't have just clobbered him after one bad edit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought ya might. :) Thanks for helping keep an eye on things.  You're a tremendous asset.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's charming. Reminds me of a couple of users I've run into in the past. He comes at you or anyone else like that ever again, he'll be looking at a wikiquette time-out. Thanks for the alert and don't let someone like that grind you down. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just saw that and I weighed in on the discussion. His attitude reminds me more than just a little of the guy who drove me off.  Ain't gonna happen to you if I have anything to say about it.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Stay on that moral high ground and don't let anyone grind you down. Damn, I thought this sort of infighting was pretty much solved. The alert should help bring attention to the problem and hopefully keep it from happening again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul M. Barford
I deleted it since doing so would appear to serve the interests of the article's contributor, the Wikipedia community, and our readership simultaneously. Hope that helps. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
for reverting vandalism to my user page.  Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dongle
> Please explain why you characterized my edit to Dongle as vandalism.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I falsely assumed that deletion of most of the listed companies was vandalism. I now realize that some of the names you deleted are out of business or in bankruptcy. I am not going to make any changes to the company list and I leave it in your hands. I suggest, for historical reasons, that you add the names back in as a separate section of companies that made dongles in the past, but no longer do so. That will alert others not to add those prior company names as current suppliers. Greensburger (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Shadowjams (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

the wonderful User:WAOPKKPOWKOAKPW
Thanks for the AIV report, he's been blocked and I think I've disposed of all his various copyvios. Let me know if I missed anything. ~ mazca  talk 01:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot
Did you mean RfC? Just thought I'd check. Maybe you could suggest improvements to the proposal details? I believe they're trying to find a logic for defining cases where there is zero chance of being a "good" link. That and the exclusion, obviously. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to pester you further, but could you clarify "Plus there has already been discussion about how linking dates is important in some circumstances." Community consensus was pretty clear on the fact that date links were usually not relevant, so couldn't the few instances be re-linked by hand? The proposal promised the bot would not edit intrinsically chronological articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vixen ...
Kill joy! Tell me. How often on WP does ANYBODY get the opportunity to use the noun phrase "Sexy Vixen"?

Cheers (and chortles), Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)  ;-)


 * Y'know, I think that that phrase, and your response, are going to haunt me for quite a while ...
 * Is that the Twilight Zone theme I can hear? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please don't subst speedy deletion tags, thanks (-: Stifle (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Entry reworked...please check for neutrality
I have been working on Axiom Education page. An advert warning was put on the entry. Since then, I have been re-writing & editing, to create a factual representation of the Company’s history, philosophy & unique products. I have tried my best to document the company information in an objective & neutral manner. Wanted to check with you if the entry meets neutrality standard and if the advert warning can be removed? Also, was wondering if you could suggest how the entry could be improved from an information sharing & documenting point of view.IndiWebPirate (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please give us specific guidelines for this article to improve neutrality as it still remains marked as advert after major edits. Would be grateful, if the entry meets neutrality standards in its current form, could be "unmarked" as advert. IndiWebPirate (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

THEN WHAT DO I USE
Then what image of the Joker can I use? Lucas Duke (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You a pain the *** you know? Lucas Duke (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1st Amendment Lucas Duke (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant the namecalling Lucas Duke (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bakugan Battle Brawlers
I have reverted this this edit you made to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. The URL you provided is a copy of an older version of the Bakugan Battle Brawlers article and not an actual copyvio. If you also look at the date in the URL you will see that the content on the Wikipedia article predates it. --Farix (Talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Argentina
I have responded on my talk page. On top of my response there, please note the lack of light green in the map, but the mention of such in the incorrect heading which you have reverted to.  M I T H  19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How on earth was it misleading? "tidy with change in map" explains it perfectly. Please understand valid English in future and don't accuse people of bad acts when the edits were good. It can be misleading.  M I T H  19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't belong there!
This message:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion. This article has been flagged for rescue. Please review the deletion discussion and help improve the article so it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. Please edit this article to add reliable sources and address other concerns raised in the discussion. (Find sources: google, news, books, scholar)

in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VH1%27s_100_greatest_songs_of_the_80%27s

DOES NOT BELONG in the article VH1's 100 greatest songs of the 80's.

Thank you for your patience. --74.197.86.10 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.86.10 (talk)

Redirects
I'm doing this to the many ways people may serach the item up on here in the different ways. Especially if they don't know how to spell it. So it's just a way to help find what you're looking for. I'm doing this kind of thing with other articles. You could help wikipedia by doing this as well. --VitasV (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hicham Yezza
FYI, I declined speedy delete as it is a very newly created article and there are (now) some references to back up the claim of notability. Feel free to nominate it on AFD if you still feel it should be delete. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Madoff
Concerning this: edit of yours, calling my edit nonsense was uncivil. He was selling bonds and paying them back with more bonds. There was nothing criminal about that. It may have been somewhat incompetant but it was not criminal. Your comments on my talk page were also uncivil. I want an apology. --Chuck Marean 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also WP:AN. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AN heading change.
Just FYI -. Manning (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of breast cancer patients according to survival status
Hi. I'd like to know what tenet of Wikipedia required you to unilaterally remove so much info that had been assembled by myself and others over the years from the List. I feel strongly that at least some of those names should be restored, including Hannah Powell-Auslam, John Nick, Betsy Lehman, Maureen Bateman and Carol Martineau Baldwin. I do not want to act unilaterally so please let's see if we can arrive at a consensus, in a gentlemanly fashion. Also, let's not forget WP:IAR. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking we could create a new, small section for special cases that don't fit anywhere else (such as those I listed above) -- unlike wives, sisters, etc. of individuals who already have pages and which info can just be added or piggybacked. What do you think? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fontana, Ca
Hi. You have a reply on my talk page Mracew (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Medusa: Dare to be Trutful
Is there anyway to put a protection on this article? An anonymous user keeps destroying it with entries that contain pointless info and bad grammar. His edits are highly unconstructive.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Image
What do you mean by the phrase "photo-shopped"? --George Thompson (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is due to the fact that the Chinese govenment does not permit any Christian denomination in China to display the name of their church group on the chapels. --George Thompson (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will tag that image for deletion on the basis that parts of were "photo-shopped". --George Thompson (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia policy forbid images that have been slightly modified? --George Thompson (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally do not mind about the modification because I believe it portrays the situation more accurately. I also think that the TJC members in China would not mind either. I have added a note below the image caption here clarifying the situation to readers. --George Thompson (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Anonymous5544
In part because I was already blocking him as he made his last edit. On review, the edits were severe enough that an indefinite block is in order, and I've extended it.

There are times when I think timed blocks may be more useful than a straight indefinite because 1) if we're lucky, they wait out the block instead of creating a new account ASAP, and 2) if they wait the block out, we know what account to be watching. The flipside is that anybody new who vandalizes the St. Neots CC article can be blocked quickly as an apparent sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Page vandalism
Hello Ma'am, i'd just like to let you know that I have removed 'floorball' from the page windsor floor hockey league twice today. I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning about the community and the way people act on Wikipedia. I'm guessing childish, based on your undoing everything I do on a page you have no business adding to. Please stop vandalizing the page, another instance will force me to report you to wiki admins. Thanks for you anticipated co-operation. Thewalrus69 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo Lopez (pitcher)
I restored some of your reversions to the above page. Please check the history when you revert anonymous users; while there was a small amount of vandalism in that IP's series of edits, there was also valuable information about Lopez' start last evening which was reverted. Also, he is still on the team, so the present designation is correct. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Awarding a PSI
What happened yesterday was unfortunate. I appreciate those who were willing to get involved, a fotiori those with sufficiently clear sight to see what was happening and jump in on what I naturally regard as the right side. (That may sound vainglorious, but no one picks a wikibrawl and sticks at it for a day if they don't think they're in the right.) At any rate, I'm grateful to you on both points. :) <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately (i.e. to its and its editors' detriment), I don't think wikipedia takes rules very seriously at all, period. On the one hand, that is not always a bad thing (WP:AIR has value when understood narrowly), and on the other, it would not always be a good enough thing if the rules were taken seriously (because the rules are often inadequate to the task of regulating user conduct; WP:BLOCK's focus on preventative rather than punitive blocks, for example).


 * But the worst problem with systematic underenforcement, as I said in the thread at AN, is that it confers almost unbridled discretion on admins to enforce policy or not, and thus to help or hinder the side of a dispute to which they're more favorable. They can enforce 3rr to the letter, or ignore it entirely, or sanction all involved for edit warring regardless of 3rr, depending on which side the admin wishes to punish. To be sure, admins have broad discretion to block under the rubric of edit warring, but 3RR at least constrains that authority to an extent and can be used as a comparable metric when the power is misused.


 * We see the same problem at WP:RFP. There is simply no consistently-applied standard for determining when protection should be granted, and decisions are made ad hoc by whichever admin happens to act on the request first. Since there is no serious process for reviewing that admin's decision, the upshot is that whether page protection is granted or not is an entirely luck-of-the-draw prospect. See WT:RFPP.


 * Users should be able to rely on adminstrators to enforce rules and standards determined ex ante in an even-handed, fair, and consistent manner. Wikipedia, however, not only fails to understand that, it actively discourages it: in the WP:AFD context, for example, WP:OTHERSTUFF stands athwart any hope of achieving some degree of consistency in how nominations are treated. This unbridled, ad hoc discretion is a real problem (particularly where admins are concerned) that wikipedia has yet to seriously tackle.


 * Well, that's my $0.02, anyway.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dakota Fanning revert
I'm sorry? My edit did make sense and wasn't reverted. I stated that she was born February 23rd 1994, whereas before it just said (February 23rd 1994 - ). I also linked the word February. The page was recently vandalized, so I was helping clean up. Sorry you misunderstood. Torenko (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The same person who vandalized the Dakota Fanning page also vandalized Ryan Seacrest's earlier, but it appears that's been reverted as well. Glad everything is cleared up; cheers! :) Torenko (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Warriors (novel series)
I moved your comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books to WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. That series of books has been discussed at WikiProject Novels before and has split off into its own project WikiProject Warriors (but I am not sure how independent that project actually is from WP:NOVELS). A response will be more likely from the Novels project rather than the Books project. --maclean 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Animal fight person
Well, those are the edits that got him/her blocked in the first place. If his/her next edits are equally unconstructive, (s)he stay blocked. But if (s)he actually starts contributing constructively, it's a net positive. I guess it is rather unlikely. I was probably too lenient... <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your support. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Oops sorry
Sorry about that. <font face="Fantasy" color="#36F">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#09A">Free Lemonade <font face="Papyrus" color="#FA1">Only 25 cents!(Sign here) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Triple J Hottest 100, 2009
You've put a template up requesting deletion of Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 as a copyvio? Can you discuss this at Talk:Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 please? Thayvian (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:RomanticallyHelpless.jpg
Thanks for the heads-up. I got it done. Topjimmyc (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I ALREADY DID!
Right back at you :) I already did. Topjimmyc (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

one month.
after messin up my talk page and bad faith accusations of sock-try between us, I am not suprised. Take it easy, regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I suspect Rebroad of being a sock of another user, is it worth asking to see? I notice another User just mentioned it also on the ANI thread about him. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I was thinking of anyone with similar views on inserting this conspiracy stuff. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Faculty
The rules for the notability of faculty are at WP:PROF. In general, anyone who is a full professor at a major research university can easily meet them.-- the influence on the profession is shown by the publications. In any event,it is by itself quite enough to pass the extremely low bar of WP:CSD A7--which just asks for some indication of importance. It doesn't take much to meet that. It does not take actual notability. It does not take sources. It's deliberately a very low standard, to avoid the chance of throwing out something that might be acceptable. There's enough that does fail even that standard to keep us busy removing them!
 * as a technical detail, when you nominate an article for deletion, you need not nominate the talk page also. When we delete the article, we  delete the talk p. as a matter of course, unless there is some special reason not to. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Email
I'd like to send you an email but your email apparently isn't enabled. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sent. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Previous username
What if any previous usernames have you employed on this website? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This user has been accused of being the user Off2riorob. Both users were a little proud of the accusation. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:38 am, Today (UTC+1))


 * Now that the question has been asked, I would also like to know. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Were you previously editing under another user name or IP? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC))


 * why it matters? in the spirit of openness, and a couple of comments regarding our combined identity, and when I looked at your edit history it was clear that you had previouely edited here. Although I now see your comment on rootologys page stating that your did edit for a couple of years, is there some reason that you wouldn't like to declare that name? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough. I won't ask you again about it. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC))
 * please don't feel badgered. It was a simple friendly request. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

ACPD
Was this intended to be a "see also"? I'm fine if it was - but it's a different question to Cas's as she relied on the premise that "consensus is broken" therefore we require such a body, I'm not making that assumption in this question and asking how it might be useful. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: ReconForceDelta
No I really dont care about Facebook/Myspace. Im not the kinda of guy who spends his whole day on a computer and talks to others about it. Its okay though I know you were just doing your job. --ReconForceDelta (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

?
Do you know of any pages that require help? ( ReconForceDelta (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC) )

K, Thanks ( ReconForceDelta (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC) )

?
How do you request stuff? Like to request to MOVE page or MERGE page? ( ReconForceDelta (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) )

Hi
Just wondering - did you mean to CSD the talk page here Talk:The Minute Magazine. Already got the main article, just don't want to scare the guy off. <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;"> 7   talk   06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, it's an ad. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Okay.  I agree the main article was an ad (now it's just an a7).  The talk page comments were the author's followup to the hangon tag they placed on the main article.  Plus, the talk will get deleted when the main article does.  Just didn't want to bite the newcomers too much with a CSD on the article and then a second CSD on the talk page so the user thinks they can't even defend themselves.  But I guess if you feel it's appropriate, then no harm done.   <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">  7   talk   06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Triple J DRV
A valid CC-BY-SA release has now been received from ABC regarding these articles. I understand copyright was the only issue you had with them, so with that in mind, may I suggest withdrawing the DRV? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've speedy closed it per the above, which I hope you don't mind. If you've still got other issues on the page (from the your comments at the AfD I believe that you don't) feel free to revert me.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 13:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish-American organized crime
Hi, I marked as a sockpuppet of  and blocked him for violating 3RR. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, no clue. Without [further] explanation, it's just contrary and disruptive. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Porter, gentleman
I am very pleased to meet you, Dr. Porter. I did not know you were Dr. Thomas Porter, the cardiologist. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Porter&diff=301655989&oldid=301653621 I wouldn't worry too much about being an autobiography since you just did some clean up. By the way, I'm Tony. Amthernandez (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That article has a warning tag on it (Thomas Porter). It says it is an autobiography. Since we are the only 2 that wrote that article and I am not Dr. Porter, I figured that you must be. Amthernandez (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you and me are being falsely accused of writing an autobiography. Things we can do are complain, remove the tag, or say nothing and risk people thinking it is true. I think I may do the latter. Amthernandez (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandilism
Please refrain from reverting articles back to vandalized copies, namely the WW2 Online article. There has been edit warring going on for a long time, and it seems that several of the people who continue to bash the game at every turn have been using different accounts. As of now, the article is not neutral. I will revert it back to neutrality. If you have any complains let me know so I can contact an administrator to sort out the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.33.176 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your attack, I will point out where you are wrong.

"but has been characterized by many to result in other players dictating how, when, and where one will play. This loss of self-determination in the game has also been widely criticized. "

Read through the review to see that it says nothing of how the strategic level of the game works. Please don't post personal comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.33.176 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you maturing. I will add back the references. Looks like I forgot to post them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.33.176 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

South Asia
It's mainly about the apathy of the established users. In every Wikiproject, anons and casuals add stuff in an ad hoc manner all over the place, not to mention spam and deliberately frivolous edits.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ethan Brehm
Hello Who then was a gentleman?, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ethan Brehm - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Snörkel
I changed the speedy tag on the above article from to  as I am not sure it is a hoax page or blatant vandalism best. BigDunc 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)