User talk:Wizardman/Archive28

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cooky
That's cool, no rush on it. It was nominated by someone else anyway, I didn't really know what a GA would need I just wanted to improve the article. Think there's gonna be a problem with the averages graph though, the guy who made it doesn't seem to edit Wiki anymore. Tony2Times (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Note
[please insert message placed at Risker's page about tallies on Rfarb page]; except compare and. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nipped in the what??
Gotta be nipped in the bud??? It's years since that issue was anything of a bud. It's more like a young Redwood Tree by now. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

GA reverts
I would be very nice if you stop reverting, I passed both Fred and 1986 Tampa Bay Bucks season, and yes I have seen similar passes. An example of this is Tropical Storm Alma. Also, I request Basketball Association of America to be kept up at GA. GA's are suppose to be decent articles not perfect articles. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the GA passing. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Bigipedia
I've tried to improve the reception section of the article like you asked. I hope it is what you wanted. ISD (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

David W. Mullins, Jr.
Thanks for the pointer. I left comments on the review and hopefully disposed of the problems you mentioned. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Penrose tiling
Hi there. Best of luck with this review - i'm glad someone has decided to take this one up, I just wasn't game. FWIW these are the comments I left on nominator Gandalf61's talk page. I thought the article was a long way from GA, but mathematical WP articles seem to be their own world, so i could be wrong. I'll watch the outcome with interest! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for passing TNA Women's Knockout Championship, I really appreciate the review. It helps me get closer to the goal of a championship topic.-- Will C  06:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for also passing TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship.-- Will C  20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ivy GAN
I've gone through and added more in-depth fair-use rationale for each image. Does it suffice or is there anything I should clarify better?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gregory Helms/GA1
I believe I've addressed all of your concerns at Talk:Gregory Helms/GA1. Thanks so much for the review. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Userpage
How come you don't have your userpage semi-protected, or even full protected for that matter? Until It Sleeps Wake me ``

Dennis Gorski GA
I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:2007 French Grand Prix
Well, the prose seems solid enough (although certainly not spectacular), but the article needs a bit of a cleanup to meet current standards. The Notes section is little more than trivia, and should be removed and integrated into the text. It could probably do with a Post-race section (there's a little bit in the last paragraph, but there should be more). Finally, the lead is a little short (maybe I just like long leads) and should summarise the article a bit better. I did a quick MoS cleanup, and it's almost there, but not quite a GA. Aptery  gial  22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

last and first vs. author
Please note that last and first are preferred over author. author is deprecated. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jake Long GAC
I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your latest concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to WP:GAN
Hi, in your recent edit, removing two review tags, you also changed the section heading Animated television episodes to Animatwized television episodes. I have reverted this.

Also you do not appear to have finished the reassessment process for 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team by implenting the Article history as per the Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts


 * the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.
 * administrators were to watch for further instances.
 * harassment/ false accusations continued.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
 * In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.


 * even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
 * an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
 * this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
 * administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
 * they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
 * The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
 * Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
 * a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

GA backlog
Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/GA1 is on hold, waiting for improvements. It's a massive article and the author has to do lots of work to improve it. Therefore I will wait a few weeks for the promised improvements. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgetown Hoyas
Wizardman, do you think you could give me some more time to fix up the article on Georgetown Hoyas before giving it a GAR? I realize much of what needs be done, just I've been quite swamped for time this last week, though I still plan on getting around to it.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom motion
Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ten cuidado
I was unaware that replace this image1.svg was the subject of a discussion regarding its obsolescence since I neither watch that image's IDP nor any centralized discussions. I'll assume that your "ugh" isn't disgust or derisiveness towards my contributions, but will rather point out that since it could be construed as such, you may want to use the edit summary to specifically point out from whence your consternation stems. I am not a troll attempting to contravene a consensus, but was simply unaware of the situation since the image itself&mdash;when implemented&mdash;has no indication that it's no longer to be used. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Spaceman  Spiff  04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Zoltan Mesko
I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Road to germany GAN
question, i can't see what your concerns are as you have put mostly positive things but can you explain it.-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry user confusment, clicked wrong on the watchlist-- Pedro J. the rookie 22:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures and ITN in the WikiCup
Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind
Hope you dont mind, I moved one bio hook down to prep 2 from 1 as half the hooks were currently biography related. Thank you for helping with preparing the prep areas (an area where we greatly need assistance in) I will now stand back and let you get on with your work :-). Kindly Calmer   Waters  21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Labeled Maps in County lists
I've started a discussion on labeled maps in county lists here. Any comments would be appreciated. In case you're wondering, I notified you because you're the only active user (besides me) in the county lists project. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
The Infoboxes are being changed to nflactive now becuase the infomation will work in this template. I got this off of the WikiProject National Football League poject list. I asked a few questions and user:Giants27 and user:Eagles247 confirmed the switch. If you have any questions you should ask them. P.S. If you converted any back please put it back to nflactive. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is some info from a talk page that might explain:

This was actually changed for a good reason. We are currently switching over all NFLretired infoboxes to NFLactive, as the NFLactive infobox can now support retired players. Also, it will be easier to switchover an active player to a retired player now when a player retires. I will revert the previous edits. This is from talk:Barry Sanders if you want to check this out yourself.

Southwood Paul (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoko Shimomura GAN
I've fixed all of the points that you raised, and the article is ready for another look. Thank you for the review! -- Pres N  02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a dick about this
But another week really does seem like forever. Everyone - Ottava included - put a lot of effort into getting evidence together quickly and laying it out clearly so as to assist with a speedy resolution of the case. We're all sick of it, and would like to see some kind of proposed decision: even if it's not voted on straight away, it would be good to see roughly what line arbcom is going to take so Ottava, and everyone else, can prepare themselves for it. Moreschi (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings
You edited Robert Byrne to remove the blank lines below the section headings. Is there a reason for doing so? According to the MoS, "A blank line below the heading is optional." I personally prefer the blank line because it makes it easier to focus on the heading when skimming the page in edit mode. Other people, of course, prefer omitting it. It seems reasonable for editors to respect the style in which the page was created and not go around changing this optional point -- or am I missing something? JamesMLane t c 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for passing Turning Point (2008)!-- Will C  19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFAs
I'm on a RFA creation spree, want to help :p. Secret account 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

David Molk GAC
I have replied to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ponting
Another cricket article - that's the way! Thanks :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 08:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lemon Tree
I've tried to give a clearer ending of the film. Hope that helps. Thanks, -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I now participate on RealClimate?
Hi, you may remember me from.

I have a question regarding RealClimate. I have on a couple of occasions, and, avoided contributing there because during the discussion of my editing restrictions it had been argued that this is a page closely related to William M. Connolley I assume because he is/was a contributor there. I now see that he is denying that he contributes to RealClimate anymore, see.

Given that he is no longer a contributor to that blog can I safely contribute to the RealClimate article so long as I refrain from making any direct references to William M. Connolley, who should not be confused with User:William M. Connolley? Would it help to ask this question at WP:AN as well?

Thanks for your input. --GoRight (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RM of Aloysius Snuffleupagus
Hey Wizardman. I think you didn't read by oppose opinion carefully in the requested move. The request was from Aloysius Snuffleupagus → Mr. Snuffleupagus and my oppose said we should move to just Snuffleupagus, but: "(Note: this opinion should not be taken as an oppose of the move entirely: If others find some reason which I can't imagine that either Mr. or Aloysius should be used over just Snuffleupagus, then certainly Mr. is far more common than Aloysius, per the same evidence I posted)". In other words, only two people gave opinions, the OP and me, and I agreed that Mr. Snuffleupagus was a far better title than the current. So, there was unanimous consensus that the page should be moved to Mr. Snuffleupagus in the event consensus could not be reached for just Snuffleupagus. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops
Hi Wizardman. Could you make a minor edit to Stephen Bains's new proposal, "3.3.3.2 Supreme Deliciousness topic banned" at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Proposed decision? In the second sentence "Arab Cowboy" should be changed to "Supreme Deliciousness". (I can only imagine someone gleefully breaking a ban if it played out as written). And it should also be numbered 3.2 instead of 1.2. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Uninvolved administrator" proposal
Hi there. There's some confusion about the meaning of your "uninvolved admin" proposal at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Workshop -- could you clarify, please? Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Per your request: no spam, just a simple thank-you (passed 93/1/3). Cheers! KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dick Padden
Is this the same guy? If so he seems to have managed the White Socks? SGGH ping! 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominated at DYK. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aqua Connect deletion
Hi Wizard,

I wanted to speak with you first regarding the deletion of the Aqua Connect article. First, the vote was to Keep the article by majority. Secondly, the article met all of the general guidelines for notability. The notability of the article was proved with over 13 qualified references. I believe that this article was deleted because of a personal attack by ONE editor. If the question at hand is notability, then it has been proved. Please advise... MacJarvis (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the above comment here from a unrelated page or I would have never seen this... It appears to me the company is probably notable despite Mac's misguided promotional efforts.  (The first AfD closed as no consensus and the 2nd was marred by his antics.) If its OK with you, I'd like to move the article into the Article Incubator for cleanup & further development. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Newton
Hi there, I saw you deleted the page Morgan Newton right here. Could you explain to me why he would not be notable? The Arbiter  ★★★  01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really don't mean to sound argumentative, but could you please explain how the copyright was violated? Was it almost copied word for word from the site? The Arbiter  ★★★  17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...ok...If he actually lives up to the way he played in high school, he may become notable one day. I'll keep an eye on him. On a completely unrelated note, do bots have to be used universally on Wikipedia, or could a user just create a bot for his or her own personal use? For example, a bot that does automatic talkback templates just for the user that programmed the bot. The Arbiter  ★★★  17:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:


 * "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.


 * "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.


 * "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:


 * 1) Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
 * 2) Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
 * 3) Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform  Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Link typo on Arb page
I'd have fixed it myself, but it's your reserved turf: at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Proposed decision, you have a non-working link, [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources]. I think all you really need is [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My last statement to you


John Vandenberg thought there was more than enough evidence to run a CU check on Fowler. Do your research first before making such claims.

Furthermore, the fact that you would dare say this, when it was two sentences in a work without any references by a guy who never published on Oscar Wilde LABELLING HIM AS A PEDERAST. You are saying that the source was credible to say that the guy was a supporter of having sex with young boys.

That statement alone makes me want to have no further connection to Wikipedia. The fact that you would find -me- in fault in the situation where the source was clearly bad in a matter so incredibly controversial gives me no faith in your understanding. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ponting
Thanks. Can you be more specific about the punctuation? Merry Christmas  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * YM has done some tweaks.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, best wishes.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 06:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

asmahan case
Hello, I have several questions that I would like answered about the asmahan case, can I ask you them? or someone else? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox opinion
You may have an opinion on this debate: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hypertension
I have nominated for a WP:GAR. Many of the issues during GA were not yet address. See Talk:Hypertension/GA2 Cheers  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The GA review
Hi, Wizardman, I'm the one having received the GA review and working on that article of Korean cuisine. Hmm. are you in charge of closing GA reviews in general? I will try as possible as I can, but I don't think I can make it within just "next few days" for unexpected factors during the review process. So I wish you're more generous like "hey, let's wrap up within a week"? :-) Caspian blue 03:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions
1. Can you please explain in detail the significance of the principles, Do they have to be followed? If yes, then who has to follow them? In what articles? What happens if someone do not follow them?

2. Concerning my restriction What is it exactly that I have to post at the talkpage if I revert something? Must I do it immediately at the same point as the revert?

3. Asmahan is on probation for six months, what does this mean?

4. Is this edit a violation of my topic bann?

5. If I do the  exact same edit as I did several months ago, will that count as a reversion?

6. What can I do if an article is in the "wrong version", for example someone has made an edit in violation of collaboration/consensus/mediation at talkpages, and I cant revert it?

I may have more questions later.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The scope of case mentions disputes at other articles also, following on from question 1, do the principles also apply to the other articles than Asmahan? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin nomination
Hi, thanks for the offer, it's really nice of you. I don't really have any desire to be an admin though- I just write articles, I don't really participate in the backend work on WP, so I don't feel the need to have the tools. Thanks though! -- Pres N  19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrbek and Gant
Thanks for offering to help in the case I filed for arbitration. The primary concern I have with Raven is his constant confrontational attitude, not the Hrbek article - that was just the last straw in a series. My thought was to edit the two player's articles to reflect the MLB official decision, and then write an article regarding the incident itself, allowing that to be the vehicle for putting forth the arguments from both sides. Opinion? Rapier1 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohhan gobalu
I notice you have oversight. If you check the revision of the page history, which contains a lot of personal information including email address and mobile number, does that requite revisiondeletion? Does it have to wait until the creator of the page requests it, or is it automatic? I admit I'm not too familiar with the process and I can't find any advice on procedure on the relevant pages. Cheers, SGGH ping! 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though of course I may have beansed by asking you! SGGH ping! 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NYC 2005 election
Ok well if the person was a guy that's all you had to do. The fact is you can't just get rid of the replacement picture because in wikipedia there has to be some picture in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
When you deleted The Bravest of The Brave, you deleted the redirect. The current title is Bravest of the Brave: Pennsylvania's Civil War Generals. Joe Chill (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan Walker
Hi, Wizardman. I noticed you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Walker as "delete." With that in mind, do you think there would be any objection to me creating a disambiguation page in its place? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

amendment
I have requested amendment did I do something wrong? it doesn't show in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard the Duck
Expanded the lead and rewrote the article to clarify and address the problems. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Welles Declaration GA Nom
Hi, I think I addressed issues on Welles Declaration. M.K. (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

GA
Check if Aladdin (1992 film) and The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film) still need work for you to pass them. igordebraga ≠ 14:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)