User talk:Woohookitty/Archive7

Golden-Road.net
I don't want to harp on this, but I honestly hope I can convince you to come back to Golden-Road. I didn't want to come off as condescending in my post, but a point needed to be made there -- namely, that you were essentially preaching to the choir and that telling us something we've already known for years isn't really a great thing to do in your first post. I actually asked the mod who showed it to me not to say anything in response to you and to let me handle it instead because I knew who you were and I knew you were a decent guy.

I don't know how long you've been hanging around our site...based on your first post, I'd have to guess it hasn't been very long. I really hope you'll come back...maybe lurk for a while...and then start posting again when you've seen what goes on for a little while. Once you know the lay of the land a little better, I think you'll fit right in. -TPIRFanSteve 20:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can appreciate that. I get frustrated dealing with G-R sometimes, and I'm not even a mod. :-) -TPIRFanSteve 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
Looking at your talk page I want to ask a question. Why does one even want to become an admin ? Apart from dealing with bickerings ( where I have contributed to your work load too) do you get time to do any editing ? Haphar 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article
Hi

You maybe interested to know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Q: unprotect an article, per individual in questions's request
Hi there! Earlier today, you this article, preventing any further edits. I understand your reasoning completely, but would like to please request that you unprotect the article. I am in the individual which the article is about, and would like to redirect the page to the actual article where I am mentioned. Unfortunately, a few friends thought they’d have some fun and create/play with this article and add various pieces of nonsense to it. I will absolutely make sure this does not happen again – but would like you to trust me in ensuring that the article will not be filled with nonsense again, but redirected to the article of which I am mentioned. I am a strong support of anti-vandilism and "no nonsense" on wikipedia, and will make sure that the article is redirected to the appropriate source. I would be ever so grateful if you could remove the protected tag allowing me to fix my otherwise defaced page. Thanks so much! - (Andy) 23 September 2006 (UTC)

- Could you please redirect to WHBF-TV. Thanks!

Wiki-truth posting on WP:VPN
I don't know if this is really against policy but something just doesn't sit right about this post. It looks to be a sort of sarcastic attempt by User:Wyss to promote Wiki-truth. I never heard of the site till that post but after reading it, I'm slightly put off by it. I don't know if I would go as far as to label it as "trollish" but, again, it just doesn't sit right. I saw your mention there and as an admin, I guess I just want clarification as to whether or not this is trollish or just something to grin and bare? Thanks for your time. Agne 01:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing that struck me most about the site was (as another editor observed) how much they obsess over something they claim to dislike. It almost a perfect example of Ex-Girlfriend Syndrome. "Oh I totally hate that B***h but I can't do anything but talk about her". What's the point? Unless, of course, you want to be trollish and just cause ruckus for the sake of causing ruckus. Agne 01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
Hi Woohookitty. I wanted to drop a note of thanks for your monitoring of WP:PAIN. I know it can be difficult sometimes, especially since not many admins watch the page (perhaps the difficulty of assessing NPA violations is the reason not many admins watch it in the first place), so your work there is greatly appreciated by those of us who report there every once in awhile. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks


 Signature brendel  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
 * Hi, I would like to thank you for your support and hard work in keeping Wikipedia a civil place. I do appreciate your efforts. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance Requested
Please view this comment:

This is a textbook example of a personal attack. I am letting you know as opposed to filing on WP:PAIN because you have seen the prior behavior that Amoruso has engaged in, and it should be clear that it is not going to stop.

His attitude in this entire issue has been one of increasing hostility, and he has made this into a personal quest to get his POV into the article no matter what it takes. (even when people that support his side in the debate disagree with him about a new category, he still seems bound to try to use it anyway). He has also gone so far as to tell everybody on the main page that the mediator agreed with him, which as that diff shows is completely untrue.

I started trying to ignore his incivility, then I said it should be stopped, then I posted a civility warning, but nothing has convinced him that he needs to straighten out his behavior. Other editors have even said the same kind of thing (here is one such example). I am asking you to help resolve this situation, because he has demonstrated that it certainly isn't going to solve itself. Thank you. Markovich292 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take this somewhere else. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note Markovich's bad faith
He's been bothering you again for no reason. And he's lying again. The mediator has in fact agreed with me for example because he said that what I said seemed right. Then he brought to you an example of a content dispute where I suggested the use of a category for the article (different one) and he thinks for some reason it's wrong to do so. Weird. Then he also brings to you an example where I'm saying I'm ignoring him (following your advice that we should disengage) because of his consistent personal attacks, and yet he tried to bring me in again in force and not letting it go. Markovich should be banned for consistent personal attacks. Notice his attacks here : accusing me of ignorance or arrogance, and then actually calling what I said plain stupid - a neutral editor came and explained to him that he was being incivil but he thought he did nothing wrong. Here he makes another lie against me with no basis :  Here he said I talk bull and I'm insolent. Here he says I have a superirotiy complex. Here he assumes bad faith on my part. Here he again blames me for either POV or ignorance Here he explains it's ok to say I'm talking bull because that word appeared (as a joke) on my userbox  Here he wants me to go away and ridicules me  Here he again blames bad faith  Here he's lying I ignored his question when I haven't  also using the first allegation of bull, although he also said it way back here :

'''So in summary, Markovich is the first one to use a word "bull", the only one to call someone else "stupid", the only one to lie, instigate, and cause havoc. I tried to ignore him and let it go but he keeps stalking me and reporting me to you, using extreme bad faith. Unbelievable.''' Amoruso 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take this somewhere else. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Prod tag
Cheers for the explanation on the prod tag. I wasn't sure if it would be ok for me to remove it so I thought better safe than sorry. --Bringa 09:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Éponyme
Thanks for blocking him. When I saw the report on WP:PAIN, I gave him npa4, to which he responded with making personal attacks on my talk page. However, he's copied an article onto his user page, an written a racist soap-box on his talk page. Do you think this should be removed? Paul Cyr 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closure of Articles for deletion/American (ethnic group)
Hi, I have a quibble with your closing comment at Articles for deletion/American (ethnic group). You said "The result was Delete 8 to 3." Closure statements like that create the appearance that AfD is a vote, but we both know it isn't. We ask closing admins to evaluate the strength of the arguments, give them the freedom to evaluate changes in the article during the discussion, and to downweight contributions from single purpose accounts, vandals, new users, etc....  I'd rather have seen a bare statement such as "The result was Delete." Such statements don't create the false impression that AfD is a vote. This comment is primarily addressed to your future closures; I'm not requesting any action on this closure nor even a revision to the existing closure comment. Thanks. GRBerry 05:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

4kids vandalism tag
Does this help contribute to get it protected?--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User Naziakhanum

 * Despite warnings he persists in personal attacks and incivility targeted at me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATipu_Sultan&diff=78316790&oldid=78315181

Hkelkar 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah
Thanks for helping me deal with him. At least I suspect his obnoxiousness is confined to his own talk page and the handful of articles he wants to "own"... Wl219 07:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OH I had left before I was aware of his comments. Let me remind you, this person wanted to put racial slurs on the black people page. I explained very clearly that the racial slurs are not found in the same manner on any other ethnic page, yet he persists. I was not dealt with. i am still here and my position and intensity have not changed. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contribution to Constitution of Thailand
Thank you for your contribution to Constitution of Thailand. Patiwat 10:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Current State of Anarchism
Due to the contraversial and undiscussed changes made by hogeye on Anarchism, large amounts of verifiable and uncontraversial information was removed from the article due to the resultant edit wars. the page has been locked in this pitiful state for awhile now and if it is going to continue to remain locked (i think it should) would it be possible to revert it to the state in which it existed at the time of the last unlocking? i think a poll taken would result in most of the editors favoring this action. Blockader 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye's edit warring
Hogeye just created two pov forks of Anarchism (anarchism (social) and anarchism (political)). These are both clearly pov forks and were redirected to the anarchism page, which hogeye has already reverted calling it vandalism (even though I explained why on the talk pages of each). Hogeye knows this is against policy and doesn't really give a damn as evidenced by his message on Talk:Anarchism under the topic "YANDP". This user is seriously wearing down people's patience and is clearly trying to provoke an edit war. As a relatively non-interested party (and an admin) I would appreciate it if you got involved in this. I also just noticed this page as well.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * His proposal was put to vote and rejected by massive consensus. posting it anyway is bad faith and shouldn't be ignored. Blockader 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Aahead2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aahead2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a great source. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking IPvandal 152.12.4.15
Thanks for blocking the IPvandal: 152.12.4.15 - he has vandalised more than 30 times. And I am afraid that he shall continue to do so after the block given by you expires after 31 hours. In view of the persistent vandalism for the past 1-1/2 months on the same pages, I believe he needs a much stricter punishment to save some more headache for all of us here - i.e. the IP should be permanently banned. EyeMD 09:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. However, the block shall expire during the weekend. And I am sure he will do something that will not let me take rest. Hopefully, you can kindly extend the block to expire at 9 AM EDT on Monday (2nd Oct, 2006), so that he can't vandalise more on the weekend. Thanks & cheers! EyeMD 09:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls
I never knew I did love you? Till I saw you rock & roll anyway. ;) If you wanna join, which I suppose you do, I'll start sending you out a questionaire when the next one comes along. Although, you did block me once upon a time... ;) Just kidding. Have a nice day. Spawn Man 10:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye edit warring
Hi Mike. As far as I can see, Hogeye went straight back to Anarchism (political) and reverted it again, just as soon as his 3RR block expired. Note his motive as posted on Talk:Anarchism (political), too. I'm thinking a week's block for inveterate and disruptive edit warring, perhaps? Or more, since he seems quite deaf to exhortation and explanation. I'm beginning to see how his block log got to be such a horror story. Anyway, whatever you reckon, could you please do it, if you're around, as I'm going to bed? Best, Bishonen | talk 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC).
 * How do we go about getting an indef block? I've been trying to get this question answered for a while now. This is exactly why so many people want him kicked out of wikipedia.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 04:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible
Just wondering what your thoughts are: should articles refer to Super/System as "the Bible of poker", or instead "a very important book," "a seminal book," etc. - Abscissa 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. Jamie Gold, ugh totaly ruined the ME 2006 for me, what a lucky @#!@#!!!

Anarchism
There seems to be a consensus among the involved editors that the article should be unlocked. See the article's talk page for details. -- WGee 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretender
Hi, I have seen you have blocked the pretender page against me because some users say that I have vandalized this page. This is false! In this page I removed only Rosario Poidimani as fake pretender! This affirmation is false and this is a true and big libel against this pretender that has in Portugal many supporters. Some users continue to insert this pretender as fake pretender in this wikipage only in order to "legitimate" the other pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza. So please I request for unprotection this page and after to remove Rosario Poidimani as fake pretender.82.48.224.24 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For the time you took to try and handle things at anarchism. It really is a messy situation. I think that it helped having you there for a while. At the very least, you have a better idea of what's going on. I think that every administrator should have to watch that article for a week. ;-) Best, --AaronS 14:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for tryin. Blockader 16:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem
Just doin' what I can. --172.194.17.163 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hey, there is a bit of an edit war going on in the external links section of The World Can't Wait and Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. The talk pages of each include the relevant info. It seems to me that User:In the Stacks has an axe to grind with Chuck Munson (which appears to be mutual) and as such is refusing to allow any links to Chuck's website infoshop.org. This isn't going anywear, so I thought I'd ask an uninvolved party for their opinion.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Tortoise
According to the history page, you are one of the editors who helped create the Green Tortoise article. Right now, somebody is trying to destroy your work. A self-indentified Green Tortoise employee signing in under the name "Here" has stated, on a page linked to from the Green Tortoise discussion page, that his employer "freaked out" about the article, feeling that while it was OK for some of the authors we cited to have written articles critical of his business, it was not OK for others to know about those articles or for us to tell people about them. On this basis "here" has demanded the right to remove links to any material critical of his employer, doing so in the name of NPOV!!!

How far has this gone? We've already seen pro-Green Tortoise graffiti posted to the references section, ad copy taken directly from their site used to overwrite the article, and the employee, in at least one case, create a sock puppet account (GTWebmaster) and then try to claim that somebody was supporting his position. He has threatened to file frivolous complaints against anybody refusing to go along with what he wants, as he engages in vandalism.

None of which probably sounds like anything you'd want to be around for, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, but it bothers you to see your work destroyed and replaced by ad copy posted by someody who has come out and said that he is a corporate shill, now is the time when I hope you will speak up. I hate to see companies find that they can turn Wikipedia into ad copy, in this case quite literally, but I can't fight this one alone. If you'd be willing to help, your help would be greatly appeciated and needed. One lone editor vs. an entire company is not a fair fight, and sooner or later you know that this guy will bring in his coworkers. -65

Passing along this bit of info....
Seeing your with the CVU, thought you could either make use of this info a/or direct it to the proper administrators. Found it while looking into a report on another post on that site concerning my duties elsewhere. http://img.7chan.org/i/res/18643.html#18643

--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod to AfD
Just to let you know, I have moved your contested prod for Knox Glass Bottle Company to AfD. Eusebeus 13:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename of Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges
I have a followup question with regards to this rename. Could you please respond there?

— DLJessup (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitman...again
If you're around and willing to help, I wouldn't mind if you'd help me keep an eye on the Charles Whitman article. It seems our friend John Moore has returned with his trolling ways, and I'm wary of violating WP:3RR myself. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, I just checked my inbox and apparently he was sending me more hate-mail while arguing he wasn't Moore on Wiki :P Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Date:	 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
 * ''From:	Send an Instant Message "John Moore" 
 * Subject:	 Your Canadian Cunt is showing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hah, remember I pointed out his fondness of exclamation points :P)
 * You poor crybaby Canuck. Your androgenous female side is taking over.


 * Holy crap, I'm apparently a hacker now. Sweet shit, I'm going to need to get me some dark shades and a trenchcoat, make up a better moniker for myself than Sherurcij.  I was thinking TURBOZOID, catchy, no?  Anyways, I appreciate you removing the crap (Moore, you're probably reading this...learn to format), but don't worry about purging history or anything, my eMail address is no huge state secret or anything - though today it seems Mr. Moore has beaten out both deposed Nigerian princes and men who have discovered the secret to pleasing my wife, in upping the spam percentage of my inbox.  Ah well, c'est la vie ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

RFCU request
You recently compiled and listed seconded a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 10:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

WP:UW
Hi Woohookitty,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry
Do you propose a different introductory sentence to the article in the controversy section? Because it needs to be added. And I don't think it is plausible for you to say, "What (we're) shooting for." You have no authority over the article. Shakam 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It says she was the first African-American to win an Oscar in the film awards section. So are you suggesting I correlate that to the quote? And why do I need quotes from other people? Identifying as something you are not is a controversy in itself. Shakam 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

African-American Self-Identification
Although she is typically considered to be African-American, Berry is actually biracial (her mother is Caucasian and her father is African-American). Her self-identification is a result of the ignorance of her peers and her mother's influence. She is quoted as saying, "I was raised by my white mother and every day of my life I have always been aware of the fact that I am bi-racial. However, growing up I was aware that even though my mother was white, I did not look or "feel" very white myself...Many times my classmates did not believe me when I said my mother was white. I soon grew tired of trying to prove that I was half-black and half-white and learned not to concern myself with what others thought. I began to relate to the other "all black kids" at my school more because quite simply...I looked more like them...After having many talks with my mother about the issue, she reinforced what she had always taught me. She said that even though you are half black and half white, you will be discriminated against in this country as a black person...why should it matter what color anyone is or what heritage they identify with? If people would just learn to look at everyone equally and stop trying to label one another the issue of what we are all made of would be null and void...We are all members of the same race, the HUMAN RACE!"

How is that? please feel free to give ur input

"Many times my classmates did not believe me when I said my mother was white. I soon grew tired of trying to prove that I was half-black and half-white and learned not to concern myself with what others thought" --- Isn't that the definition of ignorance? How is it POV if she says it herself in the quote? Shakam 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchism
Hi, Mike. Sorry if the heading alone makes you nauseous! I'm probably being naive here, but what do you say we archive Talk:Anarchism, and post a prominent threat to delete all mere holding-forth that has nothing to do with editing the article? With, say, a quote from Wikiquette:
 * The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.

And then we both watch it, and do delete all soapboxing? Not forever, of course, but for a week or so. Note new user Anarcho-capitalism especially. Btw, I noticed a familiar face, Doctors without suspenders (=wolfie sock), and left a message on their page, and got the usual "don't know what you're talking about" in return. It's unmistakably out of wolfie's drawer, but I'm also getting a nasty feeling that there could be several wolf socks on Talk:Anarchism. What a nighmare of a page. Reply by e-mail if you like; I'm not using it because I think it's all to the good if Anarchism editors see this post. Bishonen | talk 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

Thank You
I just wanted to say thanks for merging my new "My hovercraft is full of eels" into "Dirty hungarian phrasebook". I was shocked there wasn't an article about this sketch already, I clearly just didn't look hard enough :) Mrjeff 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Zeppo75.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Zeppo75.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got an award
See the latest edit in your awards gallery for details. Scob e ll302 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection for NLP
Hello kitty, Hope those claws don't have to come back out. The NLP article still needs a lot of work. While most recent edits were positive, some edits from an IP address were not so helpful. I think that reinstating the semi-protection temporarily would reduce the chance of returning to the status quo ante. Best regards, --Comaze 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. It is probably best if I do not get involved again. There are many unchartered waters to explore. --Comaze 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:GoldwynFollies.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GoldwynFollies.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Year and a half later.... Yeesh. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU
Hi

so you're back then?

I am just working on the archiving of the BKWSU discussion page and contributing entirely in line with policy. Give me a few minutes to get it tidied up please before making arbitrary reversions!

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that should have read "pages" because when you update archives, it takes time to go back and correct the template boxes of other pages.


 * Conscientious to the least detail, you see ... 195.82.106.244 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:GreatestHitsLive2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GreatestHitsLive2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Woohookitty, (if you are online) & (have time) would you please comment on the reliability of sources used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#My_Sources per WP:RS. Thanks very much in advanced, --Aminz 10:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce
I added the article Politician to your desk. Please look at it and accept, reject or let me know and I'll reassigned it. Thank you. RJFJR 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on RPJ
Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby ← 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

False article
Can you look at this article please. It seems to have been made by a troll trying to advertise an unaccredited "educational institution". Thames Valley College, and its talk page. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians
Hi Woohookitty,

I feel that the decision to delete this article is unfair and erroneous. It has been deleted twice, although the second time it was because I was unfamiliar with the undeletion process and I simply posted it again to plead my case. I explain why I feel it was wrong to do so on the talk page of the article Spanish Gibraltarians. Could you please take a couple of minutes to read my arguments and the article (which is posted on the talk page) and at least explain to me what is wrong with it. The material is well sourced, NPOV, uncontroversial and it duplicates no material in Gibraltar related articles. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks alot.

Burgas00--Burgas00 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have done so. I only restored it on the talk page temporaliry while the undeletion process lasts so that users can read it more easily. I hope this is allowed?--Burgas00 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks Woohookitty. If I break any wikirules its only out of my own ignorance...:-)--Burgas00 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

naming lost episodes
The ones tagged for speedy deletion are so moves can be made.

The episodes that don't need disambiguation will no longer have it.

See WP:TV-NC for guildlines involving how to name episodes. And WT:TV-NC for discussion that's led to the current group effort to get a lot of TV episode articles moved.

Please stop redirecting the pages tagged with speedy deletion. -- `/aksha 07:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problems. No harm done. -- `/aksha 07:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Woohookitty, just as a heads-up, please be aware that Yaksha is acting without consensus, and trying to force through moves against the clear objections of other editors. There has been an elaborate conversation about this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television).  There are also concerns that Yaksha may be a sockpuppet, since the account is being primarily used for page moves (hundreds of them so far), with very little activity elsewhere on Wikipedia.  --Elonka 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * oh please, Elonka, this is really going too far. First you assume i'm stupid by trying to convince people with lies about me behind my back. Then you also assume other people, like Woohookitty, is stupid to actually believe you. The elaborate conversation finished a long time ago, currently with you being the only one trying to stir up discussion and about half a dozen other people (not including myself) actually trying to do something productive - that is, getting thousands of articles moved.


 * as for me being a sockpuppet, i've said this before - there's nothing inheritely wrong about using many accounts. Our own WP:SOCK policy makes this quite clear. Making hundreds of page moves, out of more than 10 times that many edits, doesn't constitute "primarily used for" -- `/aksha 02:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

NLP article may have some problems
Hi user Woohookitty. I am fairly new to Wikipedia but I had a good look around at various articles for the past year and scouted round the policy pages as per recommendation. It took me a few days to get up to speed but I noticed that there are some problems with the NLP article that could be long term problems. I read what you said about it on the discussion page and I quite agree with your statements there. I have quite some spare time and enjoy copyediting. I looked up (and even purchased) some source information presented and found there was actually far better versions of the NLP article in the history tab. I started verifying the information and presented it properly on the article. There does however seem to be a huge amount of resistance to the more reliable information. The user Comaze especially is quite persistent in altering straight scientific information to create promotion points. There are scientific statements pretty basic to psychology that unnamed editors want to delete. Reasonable discussion or obtaining valid reasons for those actions seems to be a million miles away. I'm not sure how to handle these problems. Could you advise? AlanBarnet 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Five Miles From Woodstock
I see you prod'ed Five Miles From Woodstock. This was recently deleted through AFD. -- Whpq 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Round Ear Spock
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the prod tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Mango juice talk 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Notice Removed
You deleted my request for blocking of User_talk:scherfk because 'it was 3 weeks ago'. The kid has committed obvious and childish vandalism on at least 3 different articles,Peter Hollingworth, List of english Baronetcies, and Australian Air Force Cadets - are you saying he just gets away with it because nobody picked the vandalism within 24 hours? That says if you want to vandlise an article, vandalise one that isn't constantly being watched and you can do it indefinitely. That just seems crazy. Can I get some clarification on this? RichardH 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

vandal
User_talk:84.53.80.194 is at his vandalism again. Scoutersig 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo disappeared
HI! Long time! I hope everything is going well with you. I took a several month wikibreak but am now active again.

Hey, was suddenly deleted. We had used it for a long time in Nuclear reactor. Could you check on it, maybe restore it? Getting these pictures is difficult as the plants are very touchy about having their picture in the media. Thanks, Simesa 06:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?
I went to the deletion log and your deletion statement didn't make sense. Why? (more specifically). Why did you in the first place? It's called 'NHL cards' or 'foot hockey'. (Check with caps lock on) Hasek is the best 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng
I have asked at WP:AN for a review of your indef ban of SuperDeng. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but it appears to have been done without review, and since Deng has e-mailed me and who knows how many others (plus posting to some of the arbitrators' talk pages) I think he at least deserves the courtesy of a formal review. Thatcher131 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I think he's back, as you predicted. See User:Rocketlauncherman and his 12/15/06 edit of Eastern Front. DMorpheus 15:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And User:Pinkgreenvelvet also, probably. See Battle of Stalingrad. Same style, same page, and probably the same old edit. DMorpheus 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aahead2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aahead2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen
Hi Woohookitty :) I extended your block after seeing the PA. I left him a message about our policies on civility.  After the week block is up I plan to monitor this user and give the user a much longer block if warranted. Could you let me know if you see a problem? Thanks and Take care, --FloNight 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Hey s'up.. I don't want to make this a big thing, but your response to my report for 3RR really baffled me.. I mean, it is not at all because of the merits of that particular report, but it suprised me with regards to general wiki rules. I replied to you on that talk page. However, i have always been under the impression that a "revert" is a simple edit that "plays" with the work of another editor, and since the first revert concerned a delete (and since another had to put the deleted section), it was still a "revert". Plus the three other reverts , all in the space of six hours. As far as I know this is the case, and I have made other reports on the 3RR board before on the exact same grounds, and they were always treated as 3RR vios. He has a history of 3RR vios + incivility blocks. I mean, I really would like you to take a relook at your decision there, or at worst explain to how the first "revert" isn't a "revert" for future reference. From the WP:3RR page: "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark)." Baristarim 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
We have met smth like that already, haven't we? Let us keep an eye on this new user, just in case.Constanz - Talk 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea?
I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // Fra nkB 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hey, I've been contacted by Deng to enquire about lifting his indef ban. I told him I'd look into it. It appears you were the one who indef banned him, so could you explain why? Also could you point me to the WP:ANI discussion, and to the WP:CU for User:Lokqs. Thanks :) - Francis Tyers · 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I kind of figured. I emailed him back saying I looked into it and there was nothing I could do, considering the pattern of behaviour. Thanks for the explanations. - Francis Tyers · 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add those to my watchlist. - Francis Tyers · 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW
Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out at WikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 09:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Heracles
The Heracles article is a huge, disorganized mess, half about Hercules, half about Heracles. Why shouldn't it be marked for cleanup? At least post a response to my comment explaining why I'm marking it for cleanup instead of just reverting it. Mswer 10:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Er...whoa. I cannot imagine how I managed to deleted most of the article in the process of adding a clean-up tag. Sorry! Mswer 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM Change
Hi, I noticed you reverted back a change in the web page of IIPM. I'd like to request you to kindly note that a lot of the details on the IIPM main page are copied from the IIPM Controversy page and it seems insensible for the same to be repeated. That is why I had changed the same. Request you to kindly look into this after surveying the connected page on IIPM Controversy too. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Vandalism by Editor User:LeeHunter to the quackery category.
It seems like an entire category has been removed by LeeHunter. Please look into it.
 * CAT was deleted via cfd. Viridae Talk 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mo probs. Viridae Talk 11:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Phony admin using your name
I just wanted to point out that I blocked user:System c0ntr0ls for pretending to be an authority figure here. He mentioned you so I just wanted to let you know. I am sure he just chose an admin at random. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove a link?
Hi Woohookitty, I took the time to add a valid link to the TidalForce electric bicycle owners group yesterday, under the Pedal Assist link which is a virtually identical group (many members use both groups). Why did you remove it? It's not an ad. TidalForce bicycles aren't even being manufactured at the moment, although they have a huge following of highly enthusiastic owners (like myself). This was my first ever contribution to Wikipedia. I feel like we've been robbed. Did you even bother to look at the TidalForce owners group to see what it's about? Did you look at the Pedal Assist forum? Do you know anything about Electric Bicycles? What authority, what knowledge, did you draw on to hit the revert button and delete good work someone else contributed? You needn't bother to reply. I'm sure you'll just delete this. I'm done wasting time contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Information and Communications University (protected)
This school has turned its Wikipedia page into nothing short of an advertisement, and the advertisement is full of false bravado. My "short and simple" version of six or so months ago went unchallenged and unchanged for many months. Then, the school started editing out my version. I tried adding only the link to the ESL Blacklist, where information about the legal problems the school has had with its English teachers in the past can be found. This is vital information for any foreigner teacher of English doing research on the school when considering taking a position with the school.

I want the page to be less of an advertisement and more of a simple statement of fact. I want one of those facts to be the fact that the school has problems within its English department, with its foreign invited faculty.

Instead of allowing the truth on this matter and about its position in Korean academia, the school has arrongantly built the site from something basic to a grand advertisement, and has not allowed any version of the page other than their own. The reverts were in response to this attitude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CharlieDD (talk • contribs) 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Temple Towers Residence Hall
I did not remove an AfD notice (not that I can tell). I believe it was a PROD and understood that it was acceptable to remove it if I listed why (per "Contesting a proposed deletion"). Please re-check and let me know if I'm incorrect. Drew30319 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nadia Kittel
Hello.

I am the third or fourth user trying to tell him why and in which way he is breaking copyrights. Please try to leave him an advise: You will see that he is deleting every copyright warning after seconds. And he is going on uploading untroubled. Geo-Loge 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you took him to any further investigation page as said on my user talk? Now that he has finished his upload jobs he has returned to Dresden article dumping it with an huge list of (old) facts. He never leaved a comment where his data is from and he is destroying referenced data as like a clear structuring. My advise to stop (or even justify) his changes was blanked right now (as like all the other warnings). I have worked in the Wikipedias for years right now but never saw anyone like him. ;) Geo-Loge 16:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have requested an investigation of him here.
 * Thanks for your help, Geo-Loge 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
I couldn't find any great pictures of parades, but happy wiki-birthday anyway. I hope you are here for many more anniversaries to come. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford's hearse
See the talk page on Ford's death and please lend your opinion on this. Thanks. Veracious Rey  talk  ↔  contribs  18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BC Legislature Raids cat
Hi; saw your removal of the uncategorized cat; it had been there when I added the Politics of British Columbia cat, but didn't feel it was my place to remove it; thanks for doing so as I'd forgotten to check back.Skookum1 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully sick
Hi. I'm fairly new, and don't know why you deleted my entry without leaving an explanation. I would agree it still needs work, but it is a real phrase, and other encyclopedia have entries on it. Reillyd 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, but I actually had a reference
You said neologisms are okay if there's a reference, and I had one already, and another one ready for my next edit. I still don't understand why it was deleted without giving me time to respond. Reillyd 05:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo of politicians
They are being deleted b/c they are illegal, breach copyright and therefore must deleted. Destryoed. Exterminate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DalekBot (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

You have dealings, would you like to perform the username block? Viridae Talk 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Clown
I didn't attack the user clown, generally, I was just trying to help wikipedia, the reason I added the page for deletion, is because it contained "All I know is that he's a bad motherfucker" Also that the userclown, hasn't edited for a while know. Sorry about all this.--Rasillon 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists with problems
The following three pages are in my view violating Content forking. I have not been able to dig up what to do. These three pages should be merged into one or two of them deleted. Now it is just a less than desirable situation created by people who couldn't agree. The topic itself is really too complexe to be handled by a simple list. But in my opinion the first one is the best one and should be kept. It gives a short explanation to each entry and allows for multiple listings to reflect the shifting nature of what we today regard as a nation's status as independent. The second one was even created as Alternative List of countries by date of independence. I had a long conversation with the main creator of that page on my talk page here which let to almost nothing. What do you think?Inge 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) List of countries by date of statehood
 * 2) List of states by date of self-determination
 * 3) List of countries by date of independence

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 * Glad to see you around, now and then. Truth be told, I still look up to you, even if the locale of our first meeting is essentially deleted, these days. That's life on the wiki, eh? ;) Chin up, and such. Luna Santin 12:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Martin181
Hi, just to let you know a known sockpuppet acoount which you recently blocked has returned and now continues to mke the same edit (on the Lesnar article) which he was blocked for in the first place as well as uploading unsourced photos of the subject --- Paulley

I'm a 'phone-based tech support person' too! Wouldn't mind your shift, bet it pays more than normal hours!;o)Halbared 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spam only sock account for actionbioscience.org Hu12 08:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Though controversial, I would have argued the links were useful. The site seems to be non-profit and each individual link goes to a relevant article. Asterion talk 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your rationale. The editor still has the chance to request an unblock and explain their reasons. Regards, Asterion talk 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great. Fingers crossed! Asterion talk 09:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A deleted ext. reference at Cambrian explosion
The ext. reference was deleted by User:Woohookitty. It reads like a perfectly mainstream, though rather basic, explication of the Cambrian explosion and the kinds of evidence available, presented by Jeffrey S. Levinton, Ph.D., State University of New York, and including a useful series of responsible webite links. Is there a factor here that we ignore? This note is copied at Talk:Cambrian explosion. --Wetman 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence and the Cambrian Explosion &mdash; ActionBioscience.org interview

re: Your edit to my userpage
Hey. It's an improvement so I have no problems with it. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! Snoutwood 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a copy of the movie "Fool's Parade" made in August of 1971 with Jimmy Stewart. Is this movie available at all. The movie was made by Columbia Pictures. CR-Corgi

Firestone International
What is wrong with you people. What is so hard to understand here. Firestone is an International Company with plants in many countries. The article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company is about Firestone USA. It has been hijacked by user Travb to try to force attention towards political agendas such as the Liberian Controvesy, Roll Over deaths and other items from the Stop Firestone.com website. This page has been in an edit war because user Travb refuses to accept majority discussion on these items.

I have tried to discuss these issues as well as user Travb having that article blocked. User Travb is not interested in discussion. To stop the edit war, a New Higher Level page was developed titled Firestone, on this page were links to everything firestone related, including people named firestone, schools, libraries, countys, golf clubs etc etc. At the top under the section Tires, were two links, One to the page Firestone International and 1 to the Travb version Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

To create Firestone International I used the other page as a starting point and I was reworking it to remove non relevant information and expanded to include Firestone Indy car racing and a 100 year History Page plus the other Firestone Plants around the world. User Travb did not like this comprimise and so deleted all My work on these pages pointing everything back to his version and then had the page protected.

This I have tried to correct today, only to have you come along and revert it all back again. Please explain why you have done this, and why this compromise is being deleted in favour of user Travb and their political agenda.

Surely you should be able to see what is going on here and realise that these articles are being used to further a political agenda and not provide true and unbiased information on this company. Take the time to look at what I created and what is being placed on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. Mobile 01 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Firestone

Once again you have reverted the Firestone page back to a forced redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and your comment is rather hypocritical. You wrote "Dont see why discussion is so difficult" which is rather strange given that you have failed to respond to my messages on your talk page or even discuss them.

I dont understand why you keep calling it a content fork. There is nothing forked about it. The article under edit dispute is Firestone Tire and Rubber Company the article you are referring to is Firestone. As you know the word firestone refers to more than just tires. There is a firestone high school, a firestone golf club, a firestone train tunnel in the UK, plus lots of people named firestone. I am trying to create a page that is the primary starting point for firestone where users can then branch off to all firestone related articles. By continually reverting this page back to a forced redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company you stop people using wikipedia properly and force everyone looking for firestone related information to go to the tires page. If anything, by redirecting the [Firestone]] page to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company you are probably more guilty of content forking than I. I have sent you and the other admin a message to the talk page but you dont even respond. Please explain why you believe this is a content fork as I have provided links to all firestone related wiki articles including Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Mobile 01 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I didnt see the original message because it went to an ip address rather than my talk page. That was when i was at my brothers house and used his PC, I corrected the original message tag with my userid when I got home.

Content forking was not my intention, I was trying to start an article about Firestone the International Company which is now owned by Bridgestone. I used the protected page as a starting point but never got to finish it. I had tried on several occasions to place information about the International company on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article or at least point out that the problems and criticisms he puts on there are related only to Firestone USA and not the International Company, but always got reverted by user Travb. I have tried discussing this with Travb but he does not want to compromise and seems only interested in turning this article into an extension of the StopFirestone.Com web site. He has placed so much information on the discussion page that it is no longer of use to anyone in trying to follow a discussion. I have decided to just give up on the whole issue as user Travb has the admins convinced he is right and no one will listen to my or other editors POV. He has even started a vendetta page against me user:travb/m and tried to have me booted off wiki. Frankly its just not worth the stress of it all. I just wanted to make this article NPOV like other editors on the discussion page had tried previously. Now I will find an alternate hobby and leave wiki editing to those that can stomach it. Mobile 01 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer
Since you placed the article under protection, how long do you envision it being so? I think about a month should do. I don't need the aggravation again until about Valentine's Day. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will get worked out. I'm trying in good faith and am willing to make one or two concessions.  But I don't think the two editors with whom I've been butting heads will let go of the things I object strenuously from being included in the article.  If this article needs to be protected for 6 months, please let it be so.  The longer is goes protected, the better chances they'll forget about it and move on. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I had to change a flat on my car in your hometown about 6 years ago when driving from Chicago to Edina, MN with my ex-girlfriend. Stopped at a place up there named Culvers...which is ironic because Culver's Lake is right next to where I grew up in New Jersey. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's the chain...great sourdough melt. As for mediation, I'd prefer not. More probably because I'd prefer not to have people show up and say "yeah, you're right on issues of policy, but we're talking about only a few words" and justify being contrary to the policies I support.   &mdash;ExplorerCDT 11:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also an interseting town in which to be compelled to stop change a tire rather late in the evening on a dark winter night. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pwnd
. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBST is your friend. *smirk* &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Superdeng sock
See user:rollaround. Check Battle of Budapest Looks link you old friend. DMorpheus 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And another possibility....user:tanksarethebest at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kliment_Voroshilov_tank       DMorpheus 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this IS his hobby ;) Good thing he's not very clever. DMorpheus 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Probably most of the vandalism over the next few days to my talk page, Nishkid64's or Majorly's will be from Molag Bal socks. Thanks again, Mart inp23 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The same here for Indo-Oz plate - appreciated SatuSuro 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A Moment like This
Just thought I'd let you know that I've reverted your changes to A Moment like This and remerged the two versions of the song. All versions of the same song should be covered in the same article, for example, I Will Always Love You, It's All Coming Back to Me Now and a thousand other examples I could give you. Several articles still remain unmerged. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1993 "Maize & Blue" University of Michigan Solar Car Team Members
If you ever have a case like this where the information been merged and you want the page deleted, your best bet is to put a speedy deletion tag on the article instead of putting "Delete this page" on the article. The article could've sat there for weeks with that message on with no action being taken. But. You got lucky. :) I'll delete or redirect the article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I ended up just making the page a redirect. That's usually what we do after merges. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Woohookitty and thanks for the advice. I freely admit I'm a newbee and appreciate the advice.  Keep up the great work! FN 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)fnazeer

thanks
Hi Woohoo, Thanks for your good work on AIV. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
The current vandal at History just from their edits today look likes they really want something... I could be wrong, but it might be attention SatuSuro 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

getting accused by a user
hi i just want to let you know that the block you did on me was fair beacuse i keept deleting the tags on Brock Lesnar without noticing it but theres kinda an annoying user who dosent let me provide good information better writted and more stuff and wants me to get blocked i know all about Lesnar and i want his history to be correct not by some user who is a noob when it comes to knowing about Brock Lesnar so please understand i am not doing anything wrong Thanks.

Query - brief "best practice" advice sought
I've been asked to oversee a dispute on Philosophy, a few days back, to try and help a 2 or 3 way edit war cool down. I'm not myself involved, but I am attempting to act as an outside help to all those involved. The participants overall seem to be generally okay with my approach so far in trying to figure out what's up (going by my talk page).

I'm watching revert and edit warring, I'm thinking the situation is similar to edit wars on pages I've seen, where admins in the past who tried to help, gave the page full protection for a short while to try and get some calmness into the matter.

I am minded to summarize the reverts of the day, and let the current editors know it's not helping, and request they stick to the talk page and discuss issues, and not revert in this manner. If it isn't listened to, I am minded to protect the page a while, as was done with the old NLP, and earlier with the old-old zoophilia articles, when they came under the impact of intense edit wars.

As this would be the first time I've used admin access, I would like to check your guidance on this and similar situations (if the matter's "obvious", if I myself am not a direct participant but am trying to help clarify and move forward the situation, whatever often comes up when informally mentoring disputed articles and the editors in the disputes) WP:PPOL states "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over", and I want to make sure to what extent this isn't intended to prevent appropriate protection when one isn't a direct participant but is attempting to help those who are, in general.

WP:PPOL also states "Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection" -- and this I haven't done. My focus is on editor conduct, rather than content, and I haven't a preconcept or any expressed view beyond noting that one editor has added what seems a history of mathematics to the article and this seems very tangetial - but anyone might ask that, and I'm asking its relevance and if it is appropriate more to see what was in the editors mind, than because I have a bias. I do have a feeling this particular material is inappropriately minor and unbalanced, but that's not quite the same as having an opinion on Philosophy per se.

See Talk:Philosophy for my comment to which this relates, and concerning which I'm hoping to gain a "how do you see it" view.

Can I have some detailed guidance on this and similar situations? So I know how experienced admins in practice are guided? Many thanks.

And - on a different note - thank you greatly for your help and support. I hope to benefit from your advice and example to do right here. FT2 (Talk 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick answers: Admin access is confirmed. Neutrality in the matter - for myself - is also confirmed, if I felt I had a stake in a specific viewpoint or in the article, I'd take that as good grounds to edit, and no more. I've mediated other articles as a non-admin so I agree with the comment on that which you make. The judgement call is, "Philosophy" needs protecting, or may well need it soon, as I've seen other pages protected under similar circumstances. I'm getting emails from ex-participants saying they see it as hopeless as well, which is always a bad sign. Editing protected pages, or protecting specific versions - got that one.


 * I think overall what brought me to ask is not so much these things, which I think I have got under my belt mostly. I'm used enough to dispute neutrality that I doubt taking sides or acting partially and using admin powers to back that will ever be an issue. It's just not "me", if you know what I mean.


 * My question is really, much more for guidance on best practice. The lines I want to learn about are things like this:
 * If I'm helping with a dispute, as opposed to a "stake" in the article, does that make me "involved" for PPRO and BP purposes?
 * If I'm clearly there just to help it flow better in response to a problem, am I at risk of being hauled over coals if I take (appropriate) action after warning or making the problem clear, on protection (edit war) or blocks (if one party is visibly persistent with personal attacks or other policy breaches), etc?
 * If I'm already involved with an article, and a problem blows up (some heavy duty POV editor arrives on the scene and such), wheres the line where you would personally say "I'm too involved, I won't block or protect even if the behavior or edit war is outrageous, I'll post on WP:ANI instead"?
 * If a banned/blocked editor that I was involved with (such as our sock-vandal from last year) appears to come back, would you say that blocking the new sock was appropriate, or should I ask someone else to because I was previously involved in that dispute before the block/ban?
 * It's mostly about the first and second of those - where do you personally draw the line, and your personal "stay out of trouble" criteria, for "I'm involved too much, so I wont block or protect even if outrageous"? I don't have a difficulty with calm neutrality, and I've never taken harshly at anybody even if we differed editorially, so I'm confident I can make the judgement call of "neutrally and calmly, it would be reasonable if this were blocked a while or page protected". So its more a sense of when, despite that, you draw a line and wouldn't anyway for fear of being seen as being "too involved".


 * One reason I'm asking is, you were mentoring NLP and working quite heavily in it and yet various editors were blocked for attacks or other negative actions. So clearly the two aren't incompatible. Obviously it has to be crystal clear there was a good reason, but beyond that I'm after the way you judge when its is or isn't for you to block/protect, if there's clearly good reason or ongoing repetition of a pattern, and the matter clearly deserves/warrants it.


 * I hope this makes sense :) Somewhere in there is the question I'm hoping to gain your insight on :) FT2 (Talk 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, that's helpful. And yes... I do tend to give good length leashes, so thats a good point and one I agree with and have taken a view on before as a non-admin. The people I took to ArbCom got significant leeway and many reasoned explanatuions of the problems they were heading for, on the route to deciding that they were not and likely never would follow reasonable policy and practice. My concern is a sort of informal sense that there's a rule #1 - "If given extra accesses, first make sure you know what they're given for and when not to use them. Then forget about them until appropriate. And if they have to be used, make it a last resort, sparingly, and appropriate."


 * I'm not too concerned that I might act non-neutrally or unreasonably. My concern is more to get a sense of the line of "shouldn't take action even if the conduct justified it, because of being involved" which other admins might have. I don't mind POV warriors making unreasonable claims of bias. I do wish to avoid treading the line in any way that might be seen as a case of "even if neutral it was still wrong/bad use of admin judgement (for whatever reason) not asking others to do it for you".


 * So the impression I get is, if I am there as a dispute-cleaner, or the behavior is only now blowing up in an article I'm involved with, likely best to ask others. But if I'm there specifically as a neutral party to help the article on course, or its someone I clearly haven't had a content disagreement with but only an "editorial handling" disagreement with, then it's more likely safe to act if the matter continues to persist. Is that closer? I suppose my concern is, I regularly help in disputes. I'm not worried about flames. I am concerned to have a better idea when its okay and when its not going to be perceived as okay, to use admin tools in the event of clear unreasonable behavior.


 * Talking of last years sock-vandal, may I throw him at you for the purposes of this question?: This user was rated as "block on behavior" by several people. Over the period June - August 2006, I spotted many of his new socks, and reported them for action. The first few I reported on RFCU but was told clear match, nonetheless after submitting much other evidence privately the decision on RFCU was reversed and the user was blocked. So I have a good history of accurately spotting his footprints. If I see him again, and the conduct evidence is clear enough that I feel confident I could show it to any admin as clear support for the case its the identical guy if I had to, should I feel safe setting the block myself?


 * I ask since in practical terms, his socks are tricky to spot unless you know him -- so in effect I was the only one spotting most of them in the first place, judgements that were pretty much 100% agreed by others when I asked for action. FT2 (Talk 09:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

!!
Hi Woohookitty,
 * ''WOW! I think you are my new hero. :)

Wow here too – you must be omniscient (or a word like that; not sure)...!

This table has been sitting in my userspace for months now (see history) and I've finally got round to launching it. I know it already needs some updating, but first I'm going to add a few links to it elsewhere and also give it one or two categories. I think I'll also start the talk page with a post recognizing that it's long and so might benefit from splitting (A-K, L-Z, etc). Any recommendations/ideas gratefully received.

Thanks for the instant acknowledgement! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''New page patroller here. :) Yeah that's a very very much needed table.


 * Ahh, of course... I guess I'm not thinking sufficiently Wikipedia-ly. Maybe time for a glass of... Yours chuckling, David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not great with tables and such but if you need any assistance with the links or anything like that, let me know.


 * Thanks; will do. I reckon (hope) it'll mostly be a case of what I've overlooked... Yours, David (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry
I saw that you put this article that I help create under deletion. I am strongly opposed to this because their is an article that talks about the same exact thing on it and they talk about the rivalry there too. Many high school articles talk about their rivalries and I don't think they should be deleted because they use a local high school rivalry. I am strongly opposed to this and I urge you to remove this article from deletion or your going to have to delete all the high school articles on Wikipedia. P.S. I just got of of a very heated editing war I don't think you want to start me ok so please just remove it from deletion. --Gndawydiak 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

high school rivalry
Yes but I also see their is a Yankees and Red Sox rivalry article. Why doesn't that get deleted when it's devoted entirely to their rivalry and why can't a high school rivalry get the same respect as professional or college rivalries?
 * Yes but San Francisco is a metro-area and local is in nine huge counties spaning over 150 miles and is a notable rivalry in the area and has a newspapaer that talks about the schools that is distributed all over Northern California. This rivalry is bigger and more notable than an unknown rivalry in the middle of the country that's only in one tiny town and not known anywhere else. I even think that even the small rivalries should get noticed. Many people in Northern California see that this is as a huge and notable rivalry. Why can't it be treated like the other notable one's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gndawydiak (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi
Could you review this again? –. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I see that he reverted another user. He already has a history of revert-warring on the talk page, if you check the recent day edits. Instead of discussing it on the talk page of the article, he was intent on revert-warring over the issue. And hence came the block. Thanks. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, OK. Since you have been an admin since the past one and a half years, your honest and unbiased opinions are solicited here. I hope you don't mind. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

SuperDeng
I am going to unblock so that he can pursue an appeal from his indefinite block. He has permission to edit only Requests for arbitration pages and his own user talk page. If he edits any other page, feel free to reblock him, if I have not done so already. Fred Bauder 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD/speedy
I'm still trying to figure out procedures, and I am a little puzzled at closing an AfD as a speedy delete after less than half an hour. I'm thinking of Debugging Stored Procedures, but I have no particular interest in that particular article. It's just a general question.DGG 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. Now, I have no doubts that you used reasonable criteria; i wrote to you in the 1st place because I consider your AfD & edits responsible (and any prejudices similar to my own (smile).) But not quite everyone who closes debates does it judiciously, and with a closed procedure, who can tell? Unless the page is actually harmful--which happens--I'd think you'd want to demonstrate the reason for the decision, because doing it in public is the point of AfD.    DGG 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoothbeats
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smoothbeats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hafree 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit: deletion review was posted [here].

You expressed uncertainty as to whether or not you, as the admin whose actions are under review, can !vote at deletion review. You can, but it is important to 1) make it clear what your role is and 2) explain why you did what you did. As the deleter/closer, you know best why you did what you did, so we ask you be notified to participate, via the template that was used above. Good forms to use begin with "Endorse as deleter" or "Deleter's comment" or "Closer's comment", for a few examples. GRBerry 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Woohookitty. Thanks again for the encouragement the other day on the ANI NLP section. I’ve been delving through the talk archives and I came across some of your suggestions. I think at least some of them still apply to the article and I am going to work on presenting them to the others. I notice you're a Cleanuptaskforce member. I've been looking at their general suggestions on other articles. Its a useful exercise. As Guy said – pro NLP editors are pretty much dominating with some promotional moves. It seems to me to be very odd that they should want to add so much argumentative writing to the article (loads of howevers) – considering their stated veteran status. Its reasonable to give them some leeway and the benefit of the doubt I guess. Well you seem to have many other articles to edit on. Your advice from the archives seems to be helpful as is your scrutiny and encouragement on ANI. The Cleanup taskforce on NLP seems to me to have given plenty of good advice. I’ll do my best to calmly work on the solutions with the other editors for as long as it takes. AlanBarnet 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the fast revert on my userpage Bugtrio | Talk 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

=)
Re your message: Glad to bring a smile to your face. Awhile ago, I decided to try to bring a little fun to an otherwise negative area (nobody like vandals). Hence the smile with my "list CLEAR" notes. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, with the MediaWiki software putting the edit summary within parenthesis, it kind of looks like I have a double chin or perhaps a bad case of the jitters. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins
Can you confirm on my talk page that you are "woohookitty" on IRC, so I can allow you access to the English Wikipedia admins channel? Thanks. - Mark 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. You now have access to the channel. To get in, make sure you have identified to NickServ, then go:


 * /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins


 * ChanServ will invite you to the channel and you can join it. It is useful to add the above invite command to your IRC client's perform-on-connect section. If you need help with that, just ask. :) - Mark 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thaks for you help with User:Ipodsweepstakes's user page, I hadn't realised that I'd put things in the wrong place. 212.85.28.67 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my Listing
Gotcha. What I was really doing was trying to find out where to list it, which you accomplished perfectly. Hopefully it gets dealt with. I've been trying to help this user along; out of curiosity I glanced at his user page and it raised a strong objection in my mind of our supporting such rhetoric. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 11:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption
Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help. Frank van Mierlo 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar
Just to let u known User:Martin181 is a known sockpuppet of user:Coolvanillaboy... which is evident with his recent Lesnar edit --- Paulley
 * He is making the exact same edit, and uploading the same un sourced images.. and the messeges left on user talk pages (as seen here) are very simmilar to Coolvanillaboy. -- Paulley
 * lol well this morning he has done the Brock Lesnar and Paul Wight thing 3 times even after being warned just to let you know... ok give him one more chance... it wont take long --- Paulley

hmmm... "i suggest you stop waisting your time on that page beacuse i wont." that sound like a pesistant vandal to me --- Paulley 11:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanxs.. oh hey can you put a "sprotect" on Paul Wight's page just he comes page with another anon user --- Paulley
 * Thanxs, yea i know but what else is there to do.. he wont listen or give reason for his edit... its as if he is completally oblivious to what he is doing wrong... quite frankly its wierd --- Paulley

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mughutz.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mughutz.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Unblocking_of_User:SuperDeng
A user you blocked has opened a request for arbitration against you, and they asked someone else to inform you, since they can't edit any page but RfArb and their user talk. So here you go. -Amark moo! 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please respond to SuperDeng's appeal at Requests_for_arbitration. Fred Bauder 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite
We could always use an admin.  T ennis  Dy N ami T e  (sign here) 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco
Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Srinivasa Ramanujan
Why is Srinivasa Ramanujan fully protected because one IP has been deleting stuff? I'd like to restore additional deleted content but can't. – Outriggr § 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deng the Great
Yes, I have a arbitration of my own, so I saw Deng as well. I have Operation Barbarossa in my watchlist and if his numerous sock puppets are to cause trouble, I'll take up the issue. I'd be surprised if he hadn't edited it already. Constanz - Talk 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Volksgemeinschaft and New Radicals
You gave a last warning to repeat vandal User talk:212.219.117.82 on 25 January and he's back at as I write hitting two articles with mutliple instances of crude and vulgar language. HJ 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I left message for you because you warned this IP address last. Regardless of whether it is same vandal, this person is still at it and I'm getting a mite tried of chasing him. He just hit William Blake with more crude and offensive vandalism. THis person has had two last warnings now and they obviously mean nothing. If you don't want to take action say so. You have a vandal on the loose and this makes Wikipedia a taunted resource. I don't want my kids using it with crude language lurking in the articles. HJ 11:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal is now up to 6, count 'em 6, vandalism hits on William Blake making it a total of 11 for today. Last warning was disregarded after first 5. Over to you. HJ 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand my plea to you. I fully understand that this IP address could be used by multiple users, but when a vandal is attacking and I can't even keep up with the attacks while trying to place another last warning on the userpage that is obviously being ignored....what is your advice then. All I can do is warn. Result is unchecked vandalized articles. HJ 11:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to require school users to log-in as this seems to be quite the sport and the downside is I am starting to recognize some of these pranksters by their "signature" (type of foul language) and they seem to be moving from computer to computer in some cases. I moderate several forums and they are pristine compared to the rampant vandalism here due to open editing policy. Like I said, this is not the type language kids need to see when using Wikipedia for a resource. THanks for assist, I'll head back to Mr Blake and see what the damage ended up being after the attack. HJ 11:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for feedback, but I simply haven't seen the responsive that you allude to. When I tried to stop a vandal several days ago, I was told that no warning, no block and so i have reverted as you suggest and then checked for warnings and seen nothing. likewise, I stumble on reverts and now check for warnings and check IP address of vandal to see if they have hit other articles and in both instances, usually find no action at all. I came here to edit and contribute. I find myself doing way more reverting and warning than contributing. It's getting old. HJ 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help reqd on Torry Harris page
Unaware of the deletion practices of Wikipedia I tried uploading the article on Torry Harris. It has now been deleted & protected for editing by you. I request you to permanently delete the article but allow me to use the term 'Torry Harris' and link it to another article 'Torry Harris Business Solutions' that I have put up on wikipedia. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataprit (talk • contribs)

User:Rockaway360
Im tryin to assume good faith.. but i dont like the way he is using the same I.P. and uploading the same un-free images, and asking for the Brock Lesnar page to be un protected for "updates"... cus as far as i know Brock hasnt done anything in this last week, so other than a few format changes that have been disscussed on the talk page their is nothing to update. Anyway it will be intresting to see what happens when the protection lifts off. --- Paulley


 * The user requested to have the autoblock on their IP address lifted. Which was declined as it was the same as Martin181 -- Paulley
 * Ok, thanxs for taking a look -- Paulley
 * Yuo may want to take a look at this Suspected sock puppets/Verdict this is a list of the other accounts that did the Brock Lesnar edit. --- Paulley

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I  (Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 

Question about 3RR reverts
Hi Woohookitty, there’s no action to take, and this is just a matter of my own curiousity, but I wanted to find out from an expert (you!) if these three edits were leading the user to a potential violation of WP:3RR. The user is a long-time Editor and believes these are not reverts that would count towards a 3RR violation:.

The edit war has stopped, but I wanted to see if I was right and these three edits would be counted towards a potential 3RR violation, and if a warning on his page was suitable before the editor hit the fourth. I made the warning and but he denied it and said his edits were a "Gradual change to an article", and "is emphatically not a reversion, and not covered by any of the definitions of 3RR." Am I right about this? Thanks much! Dreadlocke ☥  05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the awesomely fast response! Glad to know I'm not crazy!  The other editor's user page says he is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I was afraid I had the whole darned 3RR thing wrong.  :) Dreadlocke  ☥  06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:82.42.83.143
Just when you really need admin action; there you were. It took 3 of us to try to keep up with him. Bravo. HJ 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages not in English
Hi. Just in case you didn't know this -- we don't just delete articles just because they're not in English. Someone might be able to translate it, or it might be useful for the Wikipedia in the article's language. This is why we have Pages needing translation into English. &mdash; Timwi 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spammer
Indeed, the spammer was posting to User talk:Pilaf/wiki/User talk:Pilaf/Live Preview/w/index.php. I have listed the address to be checked at WikiProject on open proxies. - Mike Rosoft 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, there was a warning on the user's talk page; I deleted it as well since there was no point in warning a spambot, and blocked him instead. - Mike Rosoft 11:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Henry William Carless Davis was successful
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:62.254.173.99
I note you blocked the above user yesterday for 3 hours for repeat vandalism. Today they were back at it and no block has been put on despite a request from myself. You will note the user had a 1 month block on the 20th of September followed by repeat vandalism leading to a 2 month block placed on the 30th of October 2006 and again within 1o days of it ending the vandalism started again:- 47 contributions since the 9th of January, all of which were vandalism. This occurs daily during breaks at the various schools using the IP, which is registered to Kirklees Metropolitan Council for staff use only. Who recently provided a high speed link, through the IP, for all schools within the Borough, which is where the vandalism is coming from. As this is usually during the school breaks a block for a few hours, or even a day, is none effective as the block has ended by the time the offender has his next daily session on the school computer. I am currently waiting for a response from the Mayor following an e-mail about the problem, however this takes time with local councils passing the problem around between committees. Could you please take another look at the account and consider placing a further 2 month AO block for this account? Richard Harvey 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Warning
On Dobrotitsa page i was just repairing vandalism (how else would you call removing a tag during an ongoing discussion on the talk page?). I didn't try to evade 3rr, i just chose to temporarily ignore it. If you look through that page's history you'll se that i've already broke it several times in the last few days, but Gligan and TodorBozhinov, the other 2 main contributors, did it too. So if you block me, you should also block them. ;) Anonimu 12:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"List of articles related to scientific skepticism"
Greetings The new and different list did not qualify as a speedy delete. The deletion review will more than likey reverse this misunderstanding. However, if the deletion review does not reverse this decision I would like to know if there is any options or remedies left. I am interested in contacting Wikipedia direct or whoever runs Wikipedia to inform them of this misunderstanding. Some edtiors who have a conflict of interest or oppssition to scientific skepitcism do want to see any list anywhere on Wikipedia. They even tried any failed to delete the lst from projectspace. There are many lists in project spaces. A list of interest is perfectly acceptable but not to a few editors. Also, I have mor ideas for lists. I would like to creat a different list but this time I would like it reviewed before I submit it to articledspace to avoid any future misunderstandings. I do not want to have a repeat of another deletion review by a few editors who have mislead other editors. This is a difficult case but there is a history of the different articles. When the list of articles related to quackery was in articlespace it was just a very long list with an intro. Then I gradually organized the list. Everything has its own specific category. I rewrote the intro lead paragraphs. Now, I understand the list needs experienced editors to trim and narrow the focus even more. This can and will be done. Trimming the list is simple to do. Just highlight and click (delete). I believe it was premature to speedy delete when the lists were in fact different and the article never had time to develop. I believe there should be a fair amount of time for articles to develop. The topic of scientific skepticism is notable. My goal for now will be to have a narrow focus for the list for article space. The list can be made into a NPOV. Every article on Wikipedia was once a newbie article. If I just create a newbie list for the list of articles related scientific skepticism that too would be a different article from the List of articles related to quackery. For the List of articles related to scientfic skpeticism, I was thinking of creating a narrowly focused article. A very focused list. Since it would be very different from a super long list that was in article space before, then would I be allowed to add it to article space. Also, is there any place for a workshop where editors can contribute before it would go into article space. Thanks, --QuackGuru 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The majority of the voters voted delete based on misinformation it was the same article. It does not matter if 100 to 1 voted for delete. There were given false information it was a recreation. The article can be listed again for deletion in a fair manner. Voters should vote base on truthful information. The article were different. Also, it does not matter if it is 100 to 2 at the deletion review. It is about policy. The deletion process was unfair because the voters were given false information. You thought is was largely the same article but it was not. Voters were confused. --QuackGuru 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not about consensus for the deletion review. This is about the deletion process was unfair. The voters were mislead it was largely the same article. That is the reason they voted speedy delete. What is the official policy when voters are mislead in this type of situation. Also, is there any place I can show a new article to before I put it in artcle space. --QuackGuru 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I create a different article I would like to take it one step at a time. I want to take this slowly and discuss before I do anything. Or I could add it to articlespace today and you can overview. If I am allowed to add to articlesapce then I will go ahead and do that but I would like an admin. to review first. Is there any place for review of articles before submitting to articlespace. --QuackGuru 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Take a look at my user page. Forget about the old list. Now it will be a very very very narrowly focused list! Thanks you so much. --QuackGuru 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC
 * Scratch idea. Thanks for your help. --QuackGuru 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Please take a look at this article. After about 4 years the list does not even have 10 references. If the same type of voters were there that are here now I wonder if they would of deleted that article too. Thanks for for help I asked from you. You have been informative. --QuackGuru 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TroyMcClure.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TroyMcClure.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Always amuses me. I uploaded that picture 2 years ago! :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stochastic Oscillator
Hi I rewrote the Stochastic oscillator page in the temp link that the copyvio banner provides. COuld you move the rewritten page to the article and get rid of the copyvio banner? Thanks, Mrdthree 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD syntax pointer
Thanks for closing so many TfDs, the backlog was getting to be quite large. However, just one small pointer on closing them. When closing a TfD, the {subst:tfd top}} template is placed below the subsection heading for each nomination. This is different from AfD, and trips up a lot of admins who are not accustomed to closing TfDs. Anyways, thanks for all of the help. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the Super Bowl rosters I added to Super Bowl X, I added them when I first started here and wasn't sure how to use the templates. I originally planned to add them to every Super Bowl. However I added them wrong and would have had to start over, since it's such tedious work I stopped. Thanks for fixing it though, now that I am getting around to do them all right it's much appreciated. Quadzilla99 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW and New Warnings
For what it's worth, I noticed that you're using the old ->  warning system. There's an entirely new system out there on WP:TT. I just figured I'd give you the heads up. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Random Hippopotamus 10:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Data collector
Thanks for letting me know how this works. I came across it because I am trying to clean up the articles listed under D in Category:Wikify_from_September_2006. It was one of five left. Guroadrunner 10:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The way prod works is that after 5 days, admins go through and review the prodded articles and (usually) delete them. So there is no need to alert an admin or blank the page

Why do you care if I post an article about somebody you don't even know?
Why do you care if I post an article about somebody you don't even know? Seasidemist 07:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New to Wiki and I am confused about deletion
I searched for the Biker Dogs Motorcycle Club on Wik and only found Hells Angels and Outlaws etc. So I created an account and posted historical info about the our club and then added the citations to show it was bonafide. Within minutes it disappeared, tagged as blatant advertising. I tried to stick to basic facts and citations. What did I do wrong? Our club doesn't murder people like the other clubs in this category yet they get their negative image posted for the world to see? In creating our post there was no attempt to "advertise" anything. Please help me understand why our club, which has existed in peaceful harmony with dogs and people and has been featured on TV is not worthy of mention on Wikipedia? Help me figure out what will work; that's all we ask. Here is what was posted (tell us what is objectionable so we can understand this, please! I have reread it and cannot find any advertisement, blatant or otherwise.):

"Billed as the world's first motorcycle club for dogs, Biker Dogs Motorcycle Club ("BIKER DOGS MC") was founded on September 27th, 2000, in Oakland, California. As of 2007, membership spanned five countries across three continents. Members consist of canines and/or humans that ride motorcycles. The club has been featured on TV, most notably CBS's "Evening Magazine" on May 20th, 2005, and in many newspaper publications, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Thunderpress, Oakland Tribune, and the Montclarion. They sponsor an annual "Biker Dog RunTM" for a charity that trains dogs to assist disabled people. Unlike other motorcycle clubs that have local "chapters", Biker Dogs MC has local "Packs" with colorful names like "WOOF PACK" and "OUTPAW PACK". Their website is at . Canine member, "Houdini" is the International Pack Leader and human member, Jesse Lane, is the founder and International Pack Guardian. Here is link to CBS "Evening Magazine" segment featuring the club:. Octamedia published a recent article about the club:.

Other misc citations: Biker Dog rights: ; CD Baby biography: ; official US Postage stamp for the club: ; Goggles for dogs reference to club: ." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jessecarllane (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Template:OTA
So I have to ask: how were you able to rally support for the deletion of Template:OTA? Twice I nominated it for deletion. Twice it was kept, in my view, inexplicably. If anything, the version that was deleted was less obtrusive than either of the versions I proposed for deletion on account of being obtrusive. Any general tips for navigating the bureaucracy are appreciated as well. -choster 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3rr/Ed g2s
I saw you marked the 3RR incident result:warning, but I don't see where you (or one of the other admins at 3RR) actually gave him a warning. Did I just miss it? FYI, he's still continuing to revert war on the article in question. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you had in mind?
Hi Woohoo. I understood you had had your fill of NLP. Can quite see why. All the current editors believe AlanBarnet to be HeadleyDown again. Thought you ought to know he's now quoting you as a supporter of his (after having claimed credit for other peoples work). Not sure this was really what you intended!Fainites 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

American Idol 6
Or course I'll help (I've barely had any time to get on Wikipedia these days). I've added a hidden comment in the article that might help.  T ennis  Dy N ami T e  (sign here) 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Freecycle Network
Thanks for locking the page The Freecycle Network, which has had a concerted campaign of vandalism over the past couple of days. Unfortunately, as User:Razmear notes on the discussion page, the page was locked in its blanked out state rather the last known consensual edit. Can you revert this to the 18th Jan edit which the other guys have suggested? I for one am fed up with the petty attacks, mass changes and would just like to get the article moved on. SagePose 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks as well for locking the page to calm things down. I really appreciate your stepping in. To clarify there's no concerted campaign of vandalism going on here. That's just SagePose's finely tuned sense of hyperbole. And in case it hasn't come to your attention, there's an AMA pending on this one. Hopefully this will all work our for the best in short order. Cheers! Dharmaburning 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP - Calmly persevering with message to summarize as per NPOV
Hi again. Just a note: Further to your message encouraging summarizing the NLP article on my talkpage - there seems to be continued incivility towards suggestions to summarize properly as per NPOV policy and Comaze seems to be continuing to marginalize such suggestions in fairly uncivil/disruptive ways - e.g.. I'll continue to calmly persevere with cleanup recommendations - and NPOV summarizing. The pro NLP group do seem to be inclined to disruption - so I'll keep up the reminders as constructively as possible long term. I have found that keeping people informed on ANI is constructive - though I'll make announcements elsewhere also. Reminders of outside scrutiny seem to be a moderating and helpful influence. AlanBarnet 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This one was sooooo HeadleyDown! Fainites 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Smeelgova 3RR error on your part
Hi. You made an error in calling my listed (5) reverts on the part of Smee as only (3) actual reverts. There were indeed (5). I made my comments on the 3RR board. Take care. --Justanother 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um. Wow.  This is really quite creepy and prolonged, and feels almost like a spiteful personal attack, and quite frankly I am surprised at these further actions after the fact.  What's done is done.  See Woohookitty's further comments at WP:ANI/3RR about my behaviour after the fact, as in comparison to this editor's...  Yeesh.  Smee 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Hey Smee. Sorry but I could not let it stand that I had somehow tried to commit a fraud on the admins by falsifying the number of reverts. That is not what woohoo said but someone might like to "make hay" out of woohoo's error. Yes, well done on your attitude. I do not think that you are a bad guy, Smee, I just wanted a point made to you by someone "neutral" but I did not get that so "there you have it". No hard feelings on my part and hopefully none on yours. Sorry if you think I was being spiteful or attacking you. I do not think that is what was going on myself though the response to my simple report of (5) reverts was quite spectacular and the person that was truly the subject of a creepy, spiteful attack was me, not you, IMO. --Justanother 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would accept your apology, but it does not seem like that is what you are trying to do here. In any event, I will not take up any more of Woohookitty's talk page.  Smee 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * What would I apologize for? You reverted (5) times in 24 hours and I reported you because I had just given you a warning for a similar event. And while I am not thrilled about having this exchange here, you have quite pointedly in the recent past told me that discussion on your talk page is unwelcome. So all I am doing now is refusing to play the Catch-22 game, so if I cannot talk to you on your talk page then I will talk to you wherever. I found your idea when I first warned you nicely that I needed to give you diffs a bit "odd" and then your idea that other editors should keep track of your 3RR violations for you "odder" still. The fact that all that went by without so much as an "err, ya know" from an admin kinda staggers a bit but again, "there you have it". If you want to move this thread starting with your first response here to my mention of the error; if you want to move it to your talk page or mine then that would be fine with me. Or just drop it. There is no apology forthcoming; all that is forthcoming is acknowledgement that you were not warned and the incident is over without prejudice and a willingness on my part to still "be friends". --Justanother 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)