User talk:Wikidudeman



Admin
I hope you become an administrator! Gosh you deserve to become one badly! Becuz, you know, ur name is very cool "wikidudeman", and you've got well over 19,000 valid edits and stuff. Very cool, and very impressive aswell. Cheers! Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

communes
I hope you plan to add some more content to these articles than just stating their names. DGG (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) It just seemed to mee that you probably had some basic geographic information right at hand, and could add it. of course such stubs are sustainable even without it.DGG (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN
I wanted to give you a heads-up that I have suggested the 'crats extend your RFA given the sticky patch it has run into. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

admin consensus
Why did you remove yourself from the admin candidacy and place yourself in Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/W? In three hours I was going to promote you to admin. Kingturtle (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In three hours I'm sure 10 or 20 more people would have changed their votes to oppose based on obvious and disgusting misinterpretation of my posts from several months ago. It's just not worth it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi WDM, I honestly don't understand the problem with this round of RFA. I don't understand the changing of votes, the original opposes, and in general, what the problems are.  Anyway, I hope you try again, I'll continue to support you.  WLU (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disgusting misinterpretation? That's nice.  So, several very capable and hardworking editors are disgusting.  Thanks.  I'll pass along your comments to those "disgusting" editors such as myself.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another example. I say that the editors misinterpretation of my posts are disgusting and Orangemarlin interprets it as me saying the editors themselves are disgusting. It's no wonder the RFA went the way it did. Reading comprehension does a lot of good. Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely crystal clear here (language does not work well over the internet): Wikidudeman is saying that his posts were misinterpreted as disgusting statements. He is not saying that it was disgusting to misinterpret them, nor is he saying that those misinterpreting them were disgusting. Geometry guy 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to Orangemarlin. You should "unwatchlist" Wikidudeman. You obviously get upset at whatever he does and says.  Right or wrong, you have your opinion and he has his.  So just stop watching him.  Go about your business here, which is to improve Wikipedia in the best way you know how, and stop adding grief/stress to your time here.  Just my $.02.  Keeper   |  76  20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I guess you're a shrink, because you obviously have insight into my level of stress and my being upset. Thank you very much for the free clinical evaluation and advice.  You are a wonderful person.  I'm in tears that a fellow Wikipedian can be so thoughtful.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Knock of the sarcasm buddy - please. If it doesn't help, don't post it. And if it's not about Wikidudeman you can use your own talk pages, not his.... Pedro : Chat  23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I happened on this RfA by chance and was eager to support when I found it. I carefully read the opposes, but they did not change my mind regarding supporting the RfA. I was more than ready to counter the oppose arguments, based on my own experience. Then I hit the edit button, and the page changed colour! Next time, I hope I will be quicker.
 * Wikidudeman is to be admired for working on controversial articles and attempting to steer them towards NPOV. This generates enemies among those who have a strong opinion about a particular subject, and at controversial articles, many editors have a strong opinion. An RfA needs a thick skin, and I'm sad about what has happened here. Geometry guy 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I helped to loose a fine admin from your first time round. I think this just re-affirms how wrong I was in your initial RfA and how wrong the whole process is now. I'm gutted, pissed off and generally upset (I'm trying to be mild). The only hope I have is that you do not loose faith with the work here. My sincerest and best wishes to an editor who is prepared more than almost all (including many admins and certainly including myself) to take on the difficult and conflict ridden areas. Your forced withdrawl to meet your own standards is a net loss to this project and shame on those who can't keep the bigger picture in view when commenting at RfA, again a lesson I have now learned. Pedro : Chat  20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pedro. You are a very capable editor.  I too !voted support, then saw the pileone from voices from the past, and looked at the diffs presented.  After reading the comments, I decided to stay in your "support group."  You are rare among editors that you are willing to take on heated topics, and reading your diffs from way back when, it appeared to me that you were approaching the subjects with reverence towards Wiki-policy and not reverance towards any particular POV.  You appeared to use good faith, and you appeared to let things go when consensus went against you.  I was saddened to see you withdraw, even more saddened to see some of your supporters jump ship over things that happened so very long ago (by wikistandards, a year is an eon.)  The irony is that many people become admins because they've never been in any conflicts and have no good answer to Q3.  And why don't they have conflicts?  Because they avoid the very articles (murky waters) that you dive straight into.  And because of you're bravery, you've been watchlisted (apparently) by a group of editors deadset against you because your POV doesn't match their POV.   For shame.  I was hoping that because you explicitly stated in Q3 the exact conflict that those opposers dredged up again that it would not have the effect it did.  With no hard feelings towards those that opposed, I personally hope you stick around and try the RfA again if that is your wish.  If you only edit and never become a janitor, you are probably better off.  The "tools" are no big deal, cause more problems than they solve it seems lately,  and you have proven that you can contribute in exceptional ways without them.  Best of luck to you, Wikiedudeman.  Happy editing, Keeper   |  76  20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was one hell of a 12 hours. I don't recall seeing any RfA run into the sand like that. It's a shame that the stuff about the David Irving hoo-ha only emerged at this very late stage: I believe that had it been aired earlier you might have had a good chance to put what happened (after all, 9 months ago) into some context. I'm sorry my withdrawal of support added another stone to the avalanche: I was hoping your reply would allow me to restore it but quite understandably you'd had enough by that point. I just wanted to post here to express my sympathy over what must have been, by any standards, a gruelling and unpleasant process. Very best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY reason that I ever wanted to become an administrator is so that I could shave a few minutes off of the time between me spotting a vandal and that vandal being blocked as well as the time it took to get other admin tasks done such as edit requests etc. That's it. It was never a big deal to me and if so many editors want to get all worked up over my interpretation of a word from a year ago or my using a racist website to verify that a racist belief exists then it's not worth it. I'm not going to try for administrator again, ever. Simply having a few extra capabilities isn't worth all of the hassle.

At this point in time I'm essentially done working on controversial articles and fighting tooth and nail to end disputes between POV pushers, making countless enemies in the process, and in the end accomplishing nothing but a headache. Take the Homeopathy article for instance which I spent months building up to GA status from scratch with the help of only a few. It has been protected for over a month and was just recently unprotected. Edit wars WILL start back up immediately and the article will only be re-protected with no progress made and probably a lot lost. This process will continue on and off until the article is again no longer a GA (it probably isn't anymore) and the months of work that I put into it will go down the drain. This is only one example among dozens and I simply don't have the patience or time to deal with such articles or with editors who frequent them.

I'm not sure of my future on wikipedia but most likely I will simply be editing and improving only the most uncontroversial articles every now and then. I won't be fighting vandalism anymore (unless it appears on a page I'm watching), I won't watch newpages anymore, I won't be checking new usernames anymore, I won't be mediating disputes anymore and attempting to get POV pushers to work together anymore, I'll let the people who think I am not fit to become an administrator do all of that stuff.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This post makes me feel awful. I do not blame you for feeling this way; I will never be voted to be an admin myself since I have made legions of enemies here. I think your work on Homeopathy was incredible and we would not have made the progress we did if you had not made such a Herculean effort. I do not want you to think that people do not appreciate it, because I certainly do, and I know several others do as well. Maybe we did not express it clearly enough, and that is not to our credit.


 * I would certainly support you for another RfA attempt, which might never come I suppose, and I wouldnt blame you for not wanting to go through that again. However, I think that people will dredge up bad material from the past and raise questions, and these have to be explained clearly and addressed so people can weigh this questionable material and come to terms with it. If revealed early, it can help people to come to terms with it, and realize what it represents.


 * This entire episode is an example of things that we need to correct on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree. Dude, I know your work in trying to settle controversial issues has been extremely valuable, particularly in settling arguments and being an effective mediator regarding content relating to such subjects. Yeah, I've jumped the gun a few times myself, and I can't fault you for when others choose to interpret what you say in an unfortunate way. I can't fault you for dropping work with controversial issues, either, under the circumstances. Why get more undeserved heat and aggrevation than you already have? I guess all I can really do is say that I regret the outcome because it was not what you deserved, and that I hope you can continue despite the strange circumstances. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad about the RfA
I am very sorry. I think that it was just too much to digest in a day or so. A bit more explanation and people would have been able to understand it or come to terms with it. Even an apology might have helped I think. I think you did an incredible job on homeopathy and I think you are one of the best editors on Wikipedia that we have. I realize that your knowledge and understanding of NPOV might have changed considerably in 10+ months (mine has, for sure). I am sure most people will be happy to support you the next time, but they need reassurance that you understand what is troubling to people about those diffs, and that you didn't mean anything bad by it, and would do things differently now. I am very sorry, once again.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry to learn what happened. Mine passed today with 40 support, 9 oppose and 6 neutrals. I was so sure you had made it, and I was shocked when I checked today. Bummer! You deserve to have it man! Cheer up! The world goes on. -- Alexf (Talk/Contribs) 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel very bad about this as well, its a pity this happened after my Wikipedia Weekly interview, or I wouldn't have been so sanguine in my comments on how RfAs are assessed. This must a a real kick in the teeth for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I had some pretty solid feelings about the RFA process after my first RFA and after seeing numerous of the most qualified candidates fail miserably and the most unqualified candidates get nearly unanimous support, however this time it made it concrete for me. This incident has also caused me to take a deeper look at many of other wikipedia processes in general as well as the entire wikipedia "culture" and all I can say is that it is a good thing this happened sooner than later, otherwise I might still be wasting my time on lofty pursuits like I have in the past here. One of the main problems is the RFA process in general. The idea behind the RFA was that editors could ask the community for admin status and if they believed the editor asking could be trusted with it then they would give it to them, and that it would not be a big deal at all. However the RFA process, like any similar process, has turned into simply a popularity vote.


 * Editors who are popular and who have the least enemies become admins, editors who are unpopular and who have the most enemies don't. Generally speaking the editors with the least enemies are those editors who walk on glass around POV pushers and generally don't cross them. The editors with the most enemies (editors like myself) are editors who frequently involve themselves into disputes and in turn make enemies. Given the fact that in many articles there are often two very opposing Point of views, it's impossible to make everyone happy, no matter what you do. Given these facts, a good majority of editors walk on egg shells here and don't do or say anything that might make someone not like them. They avoid disputes and always go with the flow, never disagreeing, never objecting, just another editor who said "support" or "oppose" or "keep" or "delete" along with all of the rest. After a while such editors Request adminship and other editors see that they have a lot of edits and have been here several months and then "support" them. Other editors, just like the editors running for adminship come along and "support" them since they see a lot of supports, without ever taking a serious look at the editors experience. The editor running for adminship becomes administrator, nothing having much of any experience with disputes, and when this editor is needed to solve disputes, this editor does a miserable job at it and causes even more problems.


 * While there are a lot of good administrators out there, Tim Vickers being one of them, there are even more who don't know what the hell they are doing, and that number is increasing weekly. The only way to solve it would be to abolish the entire RFA system and simply have Bureaucrats(who should be more common) grant admin status to editors who they know and have experience with and that be that. If they don't do well with the tools then they are taken away as easily as they were given. That's it. But of course this won't happen. Any such a thing would surely need to go up "for a vote" and would surely be voted down by the same people who simply "support" or "oppose" based on how many supports or opposes are already there. A lot of supports means they support, A lot of opposes means they oppose. And the process continues itself. Of course for such an idea the initial reaction would be oppose since wikipedians in general, I have experienced, don't like change.


 * Where am I going with all of this ranting? Nowhere. Just expressing my opinions on a process and culture in general that seems to work against group psychology. While some might think that I'm just sore because of the way my RFA went, they would actually be right also, It does bother me a lot that given all of the work I've put into wikipedia and the time I have put into it attempting to get people to work together and to resolve disputes, so many editors don't even believe I am responsible enough to have admin tools. Though as I've stated before, most of the editors who opposed me were editors who I have crossed paths with in the past and who for one reason or another have held a grudge.


 * Anyway...I've just wasted another 15 minutes.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "simply have Bureaucrats(who should be more common) grant admin status to editors who they know and have experience with and that be that. If they don't do well with the tools then they are taken away as easily as they were given. That's it." You are very right. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating rant, and it's great to play the victim, isn't it? The reason a large number of individuals changed their vote was because of the David Irving episode.  Your edits appeared to be anti-semitic and racist.  Your use of Stormfront, a Neo-Nazi, White supremacist organization, as a reliable source was reprehensible.  Many of the opposes were Jewish editors on Wikipedia (myself included), and will not countenance anti-Semitism, either subtle or obvious.  I give no good faith to racism in any form, and all we asked of you was to explain your reasoning--maybe we misinterpreted what you did, but we deserved an explanation at edits that could be interpreted as racist.  Attacking the process rather than owning up to what you had done only confirms to many of us that you are, in fact, misguided about NPOV or worse yet, a racist.  Remember, I supported you up until Slrubenstein showed diffs as to your edits on David Irving (and Slrubenstein and I don't get along on much on this project).  Then a landslide of very respected editors, whom I trust implicitly, jumped ship from supporting you.  Then, in a fit of immaturity or righteous indignation (hard to tell), you quit.  Of course, who knows how many more editors were going to move to oppose in that last two hours; on the other hand, maybe we were all full of crap, and a bunch of editors would have moved to support.  So, you can continue to play the victim, a persona that many racists utilize, or you can come clean about what you were thinking when you used Stormfront as your reliable source.  You don't have to answer me, or you do, your choice.  I've battled you so many times on NPOV and ownership of articles that I guess you don't give a crap as to what I think.  I'm just telling you what the background noise is.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to above. I and many others were glad to support you until the David Irving talk page discussion was exposed. Then, for people to feel comfortable supporting you, they need an explanation, an apology, something. And they probably need enough time to be able to digest your apology or explanation. That is all. --Filll (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin, You clearly have reading compression issues, so I won't fault you for that. However you should try to pay attention to what I am saying closely so that perhaps you can understand exactly why I did what I did. I was unsure about referring to David Irving as a "discredited historian" simply because I was unsure about whether or not someone could still be a "historian" even if most of what they said was discredited. That's it. You interpret that as antisemitism. You clearly don't have a clue what antisemitism is. If you want to attack people like myself who do things that you disagree with as antisemitic then you're just playing the race card and are a race baiter. Pure and simple.
 * The reason I used Stormfront.com as a source was not because I thought anything they said was reliable, it was because I was using it as a reference to support the fact that such people with such beliefs exist. That is it. It would be like using Mein Kampf as a source for a statement about Hitlers beliefs and then being attacked as a racist for using Mein Kampf as a source. The absurdity of that is beyond comprehension.
 * The problem isn't me, It's you and others like you who want to interpret something as benign as the edits I made as racist simply because you don't like them. You're right about one thing though, I don't care about what you think. I've had more than enough experience with you in the past to take nothing you say seriously. During my RFA you made a post on my talk page about how much you "respected me" and how wrong you were for misinterpreting my actions on the Homeopathy article as harmful, and then not 1 day later you (yet again) misinterpret my edits and actions and then attack me as being racist and strike out your comments about respecting me.
 * A problem with a lot of wikipedians is that they are so uneasy about the possibility of racism on Wikipedia they interpret people who make edits they disagree with as racist. Any edit that is even vaguely against the grain of what is expected when it comes to race is labeled racist, regardless of the intentions of the editor.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. This did not help matters any. I think you have many strengths but this is very disappointing. You might want to cool off a little and look at this post later and strike out or redact or refactor or whatever a few parts.--Filll (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Time to get rid of you. Reading comprehension issues?  Others like me?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about: move on folks, there's nothing to see here. We're really not accomplishing anything by draggimg this out further.  If WDM has an RfA again, bring it up there.  Really, enough. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There won't be another RFA. Ever. The only reason the people who changed their votes supported me at first was because of the fact that everyone else was, but once a few people started opposing, then the Dam broke. People whom I had crossed paths with in the past only supported me because they thought I was going to become an admin and wanted to be on my good side, but once they noticed that there was a chance I might not make it...Well you know the story. Far too many editors spend far too much time "playing the game" and politicking their way in hopes of becoming administrator or in attempts to avoid anyone challenging them. POV pushers also do it so that they aren't called out. I too used to do it but I can't do that anymore. Filll, Please... Orangemarlin, Don't threaten me.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I hope you do not really think I am threatening you. I was just stupidly trying to be helpful and suggest ways that things could be fixed for next time. I apologize, I don't mean to be disrespectful. And I supported you because I think you would be a good admin. No other reason. Believe it or not.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "don't threaten me" was to you, Filll. That was for Orangemarlin. Dudeman said "Please" to you, which I interpretted, I guess, as a "PuhlEEze", i.e..... Friarslantern (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change my vote. You would probably have been a good admin. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Friar, Indeed, It was to Orangemarlin. Martinphi, I have a feeling that given the chance you would have changed to oppose and only didn't do so because you didn't notice the flood of opposes. If however you wouldn't have, then you get my respect for not being vindictive.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading the above, I get the feeling that changing would not have been justified at all. But I didn't bother reviewing the evidence personally, so I don't know for absolute sure. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel you deserved it and wouldn't have changed my vote. I should have changed my vote from "neutral" to "support" in your first RfA, and I apologize for not doing so in time. I know you said you won't be trying again, but good luck when you do. Make sure you send me an email letting me know. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Wikidudeman, I've granted rollback rights to your account. You would have received rollback had your RfA passed, but since it didn't, I thought I'd give it to you. For more information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you don't want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tested it out. I don't plan to fight vandalism anymore unless it appears on a page I am watching, but it might come in handy. Or it might not. Either way, thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA
, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch :(--Filll (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter
{| valign="top" width="100%" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%;"
 * This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

User:209.133.36.2
Hey, I just want to tell you that User:209.133.36.2 is the ISP adress from the Wyandanch Memeorial High School, I use it becuse I came form thta school but I did not vandalize pages! Over, Under, Sideways, Down (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

asorokin
You blocked my article about TripleMe.com search engine ! it is unfair. My search engine is similar to Dog Pile and my conten was similar to others metasearch engines. Please explain what is wrong or fix it and publish! I have about 1000 visitors a day and Wiki people should know about this new search engine. Andrew : antratel@yahoo.com.au
 * }

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

child support
Hi,

I am new to editing wikipedia pages. I don't know all the rules. I discovered a fundamental flaw (incorrect interpretation of federal statute) on (apparently) your post. I attempted to correct it several times, and when it was reverted back to its original state, I attempted to delete it several times. I assumed there was some type of bot monitoring for change and automatically reverting back to your post. Finally, I noticed a message bar stating I must fill out a form when doing so. I apologize for inadvertently violating wikipedia's policy. That being said, your description of federal statute regulating the priority of child support payments is flat out wrong. The percentages from the study may be correct, but only insofar as the percentage of those funds paid to the government are from families which are currently receiving monthly checks from the government in the form of welfare. Current support collected for child support is only remitted to the State during months in which the family is receiving monetary benefits from the government. The government does not "steal from the poor and give to itself," at least as far as child support is concerned (taxes are another issue).

Respectfully,

-Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.8.167 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You must be confused, I've never edited that article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TOM BRADY
I am a federal agent and it was taken during our line of work Michigan10 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

hey check that....
Can't view your user page that cover with flag check that and fix that ..... bye have A Nice day!!!! ShEsH (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Work
Hello, Wikidudeman. I am wondering that my work reverting vandalism is good. Check my contribution to check it out. I was just going to let a random person know this, and I decided on you. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks!-- B a r k j o n 15:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers
New user, Blist14, continues to deleted biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has not other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey
Please rescind the star you have placed on Loonymonkey's page. He has abused his priviledges by erasing my contributions for no reason, threatening to ban me when I was trying to help out with an article's NPOV, and making his political views apparent through all of his edits. He consistently erases any references of criticism by conservatives toward liberals, but has no problem with references of criticism by liberals toward conservatives. His far-left political views are evident through his history page and he is starting compromise my integrity. Note also that this IP is shared (and there are bad edits from others listed) and he does not seem to care. Again, I ask that you remove the star from his page and warn him about his abusive activity. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Help :(
could you please help me change formats on my user page? -minus —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-minus (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, but congratulations
I know I am a couple of days late, but I just wanted to congratulate you on the appearance of Anabolic steroids on the main page. It reminded me of happy days working with you to get the article through GAR! Cheers, Geometry guy 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Signpost spamlist
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least a few months. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the Signpost on your talk page, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

&mdash; Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Wikidudeman I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FA article you worked on reached the main page
Congrats! Parapsychology is today's featured article. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

hello
You said you would return. You never did. 12.26.134.67 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR
Hey, I think this policy has changed a bit in the past year and have just made some new proposals, maybe you would comment? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

if you have time
If you have time, and you look t this? here. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David Hume
Hi Wikidudeman. Just picked you from the assistants page. Can you please let me know if my actions on [David Hume]'s article are appropriate? I things his racist views should be in the article but some other do not. Will be glad to hear your view. Thanks! Serkalem (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar Scan
Hi i sent you an email wondering if you could fix me brock lesnar scans from the flex magazine. I happend to see it in the discussion page in the history and wondered if you could send or post the rest of them. --Roan126 (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

request for suggestions
here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hodgepodge
Hi. A few days ago, my Tag tab disappeared. I added your Hodgepodge today, but this didn't bring back the Tag tab. I'm out of ideas; do you have any suggestions? Thanks, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Schulendorf
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schulendorf, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schulendorf is a test page. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schulendorf, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Altruism
Hi Wikidudeman! Glad to let you know that I'm back after a long break of more than 1.5 yrs. Any interest in being re-nominated for adminship? Do stay in touch. --- Altruism T a l k - Contribs. 10:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Tickle torture, you will be blocked from editing. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Boo fucking hoo!!! Please whatever you do don't remove my right to to edit this fucking waste of binary code of a website, my life will simply be over.

Isn't it just really fucking obvious that I rarely come here?

And like I give a shit really. Fuck you and Wikipedia you fucking loser and get a goddamn life. I'll do whatever the fuck I want to do when I want to do it and there's very little you can do to stop me.

You don't own the internet or make the rules and you damn sure don't tell me what to do so piss off and die.

Now go ahead and delete my account and I promise you'll feel all better.

Pussy

Creste (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR Anabolic steroids
nominated Anabolic steroid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!
Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics). All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (British Petroleum) Wikipedia Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it
Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:359144030 3ec1f43017.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:359144030 3ec1f43017.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wikidudeman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Dave Palumbo -

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

speeedy.js
Although it is not immediately apparent your speeedy.js page is categorised in Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup, can you please remove it form the category. If you need help to do this, just ask. Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I'll take care of this. Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

RSV article
Gentleman, I have found numerous errors, omissions, and obsolete material in your resveratrol entry. I would be happy to discuss these with you however I prefer to do this before potentially wasting time and effort in submitting edits which are quickly overwritten. James Betz, PhD

I can be contacted a james.betz@gmail.com

RSV article
Dear Editor, In the past I have attempted to correct some of the errors in the resveratrol page and my edits have immediately been overwritten. What is the point of having a community based informational forum if the editor takes a dictatorial stance towards edits? 88.7.3.207 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC) James

Editor assistance list
Hello. Since your account has been inactive for some time, it has been removed from Editor assistance/list. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list. You are, of course, welcome to re-add yourself to the list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job.

Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Supremacy article
Hey, sorry to bug you about this, but ever since you and other Wikipedians reached consensus on how the first sentence in the Black Supremacy article should read (a consensus which included the word 'racist'), the article has experienced continual back-and-forth editing, mostly from IP addresses that seem to not take too kindly to the agreed-upon sentence. I've recently thrown my hat in the ring by trying to monitor the page and correct it following "drive-by" edits, but I wanted to alert you to the situation too, mostly because another user has accused me of sockpuppetry (which I am not), so I might not be able to edit the page in the near future. Hopefully, you can throw an eye every now and then just to check that it is the consensus version that is presented and not someone else's. The way the article is now (per my most recent edit, reverting another user that went against the consensus version) is the way I believe most closely follows the agreed-upon version that you and others came to in the past. Anyways, thanks for reading. Accreditor (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Georgenthal


The article Georgenthal has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Very little notability and content to be considered an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tannermessage me 07:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing picture on your User page
I noticed that you have a picture with a broken link on your User page under "Hard Worker Award". I just thought you'd like to know. Cheers! --Rockower (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fuck you. Oh, almost forgot four tildes Creste (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)