User talk:Haemo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Question AfD Decision

Where do we find the information for appealing an article deletion? I've never done that before and can't find the info. I don't actually care whether Dick Donato has an article or is just a redirect, but given the improper AfD discussion, this needs to be done over. People turned it into a redirect repeatedly during the discussion. One person who was not an admin proclaimed it closed. The AfD tag went missing for four days -- and the damage from that is illustrated by the fact that no new voices weighed in on the discussion during those days. Regardless of Donato's notability, procedure must be followed. Any information would be appreciated. Travislangley 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can request a new discussion at deletion review. I'd personally be okay with a new discussion, but the current one appeared to be stale, so I just closed it. --Haemo 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stale? Actually it had been pretty heated for the last 24 hours. Travislangley 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really; I'm not seeing any substantively new points being brought up. If you'd like me to reopen the discussion, we could try that — given the zaniness that occured. However, the debate might quite honestly be better served from a "do-over", given that (apparently) the tag was missing for something like 4 days and the subsequent exposure was lost. --Haemo 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the following before your latest reply. Yes, I agree, a "do-over" is really all that makes sense.

Okay, according to that link, I should first ask you to reconsider the close. We have two main issues:

(1) AfD was improperly handled along the way.

Several people kept blanking content and turning the page into a redirect before discussion was over. People must see the article to discuss it.

One person who was not an admin proclaimed it closed.

That person removed the AfD tag. During the four days the tag was gone, conversation died. When the tag returned, people started voting again. Tags must not be removed.

(2) Notabiltiy.

People can debate notability of a Big Brother winner, but the AfD nomination was based on the fact that this person was simply a contestant. During the four days in which the tag was missing, he won the competition. Notability of a winner is a different issue from notability of a mere contestant, rendering previous discussion potentially irrelevant.

Nomination should be closed with a keep and invitation to restart AfD properly (or however a "do-over" set-up gets worded).

Thank you. Travislangley 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like to get an outside opinion before we do this. File a request on WP:DRV, and I'll chime in support of re-doing the discussion. --Haemo 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do (as soon as I read through the instructions). Thanks. Travislangley 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; just drop me a note when you're done, and I'll wander over. I might not respond promptly in about a half-hour, but hopefully it should be wrapped up before then. --Haemo 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Here's the notice the instructions say I'm supposed to give you:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dick Donato. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Travislangley 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I commented. Hopefully the next one goes more smoothly. --Haemo 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hello! You blocked an editor that I just reported at ANI, should you wish to close that thread as resolved. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll never guess what tipped me off ;) --Haemo 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

:) By the way, why did you think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-off characters on South Park (2nd nomination) was "delete"? It looked more like a "no consensus". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "keep" votes were not policy based, or otherwise unconvincing. Your argument was probably the best of the bunch. :) --Haemo 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so take my suggestion with a grain of salt, but I think it is good to indicate some kind of policy or something then in the closing note, because that way, editors like myself will be less likely to question it. I understand that these aren't votes, but unless if I see a policy justification in the closure, I'm apt (as was this case) to add up the keeps, deletes, and merges. Also, thank you for the kind compliment. :) (We should be able to have emoticons, here!) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes in only vaguely contentious cases, I err on not providing a clear summary when the arguments make it themselves, since it leads to people criticising the summary I gave as an argument. Oh, and we have emoticons . --Haemo 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV on "Accumulate and fire"

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Accumulate_and_fire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Caudax 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking into my 3RR report on User:72.195.179.48 (diff, since it disappear: [1]). If this happens again, shall I post on 3RR, or to you directly? Unfortunately, this particular user has a habit of making one or two edits once or twice a week, so it's never really obvious to those who may monitor RC and stuff like that. Thanks again! Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Post to me directly; I'll handle it. You pretty much need a specific admin to handle extended disruption problems. --Haemo 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's baaack! [2] on the talk page again. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about citing policy

Given that you were the overseeing admin in our "incident," you were the first person I thought to ask about a continuing dispute between Hoponpop69 and I about citing sources on the deathrock page. The main point of contention is that I don't believe the article needs citations in three particular cases. You can see my rationale on Talk:Deathrock#2007, which I'll re-summarize here:

1. He wants a citation verifying that some bands use drum machines. I think that this is pointless, as you can follow the bands' wikilinks and see that they do or don't use drum machines.

2. He wants a citation to back up the statement that deathrock is not associated with death metal. I think that this is folly for two reasons. First, the statement in the article is just to prevent confusion; it's clear that both pages have sources detailing their musical origins, and show that they are separate. Would you ask for a source to verify that acid rock and acid jazz are not the same thing? Second, it's asking someone to prove a negative, which can't really be done.

3. There are places where citation tags have been placed after band names, apparently to verify that they are part of the genre. I don't see how this would be a positive thing in any way. The point of citations is that the user can click on them and follow the link (or find the print media) and verify it. The bands mentioned on the page have citations on their own pages. Adding a verifying citation to every band name on the page doesn't improve usability or verifiability, because it takes no more time to click on a band's wikipage and possibly visit a source linked from that page than it does to click through to find a source than to click on a footnote link and then visit a (probably less information-rich) source just to verify that yes, Band X is a Genre X band. I've looked at Alternative rock, Drum and bass, and Soukous three genre articles which are official Good Articles, and neither of them have a citation after every mention of a band name.

Bear in mind that none of the issues/statements for which he wants citations appear to be contentious; there's no debate on the talk page. He just wants more sources for the (ostensible) purpose of improving verifiability, and my opinion is that adding these sources would just be a lot of work resulting in no improvement in verifiability and decreased usability. However, he says that I am just "making up rules" and wants to see Wikipedia policies to back up my logic, and it appears to me that the guidelines on when and when not to cite have little to say on the matter. --Halloween jack 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I don't really want to get to pulled into the matter, but the following occurs to me

1. If a source is requested for a fact in a linked article, you should just be able to pull the citation used in the subarticle for the fact. If no source exists, then it need a source somewhere. For non-obvious facts, it's worth citing them in both the main, and linked article.
2. Citations for proving the negative are generally reversing the burden of proof. The linked articles should provide enough context for the genres to provide a cogent background, which would not require sourcing; the statement is, in essence a summary of the material in the subarticles.
3. Again, I would just err on the side of sourcing it; if it's non-trivial that Band X is in Genre Y, then you might as well source it using the citation on the other page. --Haemo 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Project (band)

You recently closed an AfD for Alien Project (band) by re-directing the article. I was surprised by this move as there did not appear to me to be a consensus decision in the debate. A consensus was not found initially, and when the discussion was extended, two more people weighed in on each side of the debate, which seemed to me to demonstrate that there still wasn't a consensus. Might you re-consider this decision? Bondegezou 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I counted 4 "delete, merge or redirect" arguments which all made the same point; not notable, should be covered under Steve Perry. I counted a single policy-based "keep" argument which disagreed. The general consensus seemed to be that its own article was inappropriate, though not inappropriate as a part of another article. Thus, a redirect with the possibility of a merger was the best option. --Haemo 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might contest your maths... Z00ropean (who created the article) and I both presented arguments for the article to be kept, plus M.V.E.i. also supported keeping the article (but presented no further reasoning). That's against delete/redirect arguments from Precious Roy (who proposed the AfD), David Mestel, Ten Pound Hammer and Melsaran, plus MarkBul also supported deletion (but presented no reasoning). faithless was ambivalent. Z00ropean put significant further work into the article during the debate: on comments since then, it's 3 vs. 3 (Precious Roy, Ten Pound Hammer, Melsaran vs. Z00ropean, M.V.E.i. and myself). Thus, that's why I felt there wasn't a consensus. On the merits of the arguments put, I obviously agree with myself. :-) Bondegezou 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The quality, not quantity of arguments is important; arguments without justification don't factor into a proper accounting. --Haemo 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Issue

Hi Haemo, Is it legal to commit copyvio for a short time on wikipedia like here [3] [4]- see talk page bottom as done by user snowolfd4. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically I don't think that's legal. However, since he's going to delete it I'll let him request deletion when he's done. If you're worried, ask him to request a deletion and just email them privately to other users if they request the source. --Haemo 20:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi,

I succeeded at my RfA self-nomination.

Thanks for trusting that my work will be "intelligent and mature". It is very encouraging. I shall not disappoint you! --Amir E. Aharoni 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear Haemo, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate...

...block conflicts? :-)

See [5]

- Philippe | Talk 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider them super-blocked. --Haemo 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have GOT...

...to stop meeting like this [6]. I guess that means this page is super-protected? - Philippe | Talk 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mega-protected, even. --Haemo 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your protection was longer than mine, and you were there first. I'll roll mine back. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg

Sorry that I haven't thanked you for judging replaceability of the image rationally and favorably. The editor who tagged the image originally never answered my polite argument, except for repeating himself. And, now that you have judged it irreplaceably, he has tagged it for deletion again. Though the image description page provides the source and a link to the source, he still claims the source is vague. I guess it should be noted that this particular editor has been trying to get almost any fair use image I upload, making use of all the possible automated processes. Image tagged for prod by him has been judged fair by experienced editors/administrators. Whenever I attempt to remove tags like the one I'm discussing now it turns into a game of reverts. Whenever I attempt to ask for clarification or something, he responses in four well practiced ways - ignoring the question (there's one on the image talk page already), repeating himself over and over again, rude responses or, if it's on his talk page, removing the question. It is fairly difficult for me to assume good faith here. Therefore I am seeking you third party opinion. Please, make haste, or the editor will become successful for third or fourth time to make use of automated/semi-automated processes to harass another editor. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't make false accusation. It's considered to be lack of Civility. BTW, provide the specific source. It's not clear either.--NAHID 11:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The source is clear to me, and the copyright claim appears valid. If you have some serious issues with the source, you should nominate the article for a deletion discussion, and not just re-tag the article with semi-speedy tags. Those tags are meant for uncontroversial deletions; it's apparent that this deletion is controversial. --Haemo 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of JJJ999

You reviewed and upheld the block of JJJ999. Another admin and I are interested in lifting it if the editor reviews the copyright policy. I wanted to get your OK before implementing (assuming the editor ever responds). Is that alright with you?--Chaser - T 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Haemo. I am an admin (not one mentioned by Chaser). The block reason given was "Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy: copyvio, recreation of deleted content, reupload of copyvio)" If JJJ999 was blocked only for one image license misideitification and one article copyvio, two weeks seems much longer than needed to protect the encyclopedia, particularly since JJJ999 indicated that he read Wikipedia's copyvio info. If you look at JJJ999's talk page, he seems to be tearing up Wikipedia so there may be justification for a two week block. However, unless someone particularly identifies those reasons, the one copyvio and one creation of deleted content do not seem to justify two weeks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Something's not right. JJJ999 has been with Wikipedia only since September 7, 2007. His seventh post included an edit summary that attacked an Australian actor. His eighth post was a PROD. His 12th post was a listing at AfD. He also has built up an unusual list deleted items for being here such a short time. Would a check user run be appropriate? -- Jreferee t/c 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need a suspected sock to request CU. As helpful as fishing is...--Chaser - T 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) BTW, there are some diffs my adoptee collected, but I'm not seeing it from those.--Chaser - T 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My block was contingent on his failure to understand copyright. If you feel he's learned, and isn't a sock, then go ahead. --Haemo 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley Kazim Uchea

As noted at the COIN post, I deleted the article and its talk page per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea, I added the redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea, and readded your protection. If this was not correct, please feel free to revise. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Haemo 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm really sorry to bother you, but I was personally rather upset by the deletion of the "One-Off Characters of South Park" article. I will admit that I am rather new as a user to Wikipedia, but I have been using the site for a long time. I was very fond of that particular page, since there would always be certain characters that may have made a special appearance in another episode, or a character that I wanted to look up and see which episode they were from, if I couldn't remember. Also, I'd like to note that South Park is a rather popular show, and there are far more obscure t.v. shows (for example, anime) that give tons of useless information about the characters, one-off or regular.

You could say I care too much if you want, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But is it possible to still get a hold of the article if I wanted to, save it on my computer for instance? Or perhaps in could be merged into the specific South Park Wikia, for those that really do want that information?

Anyway, thank you for your time.

-Leetie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetie (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I can provide you with a copy of that article if you'd like it. Just post here and request one, or email me. --Haemo 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DURN IT!

Stop. You're making it look like I don't even watch the pages. :) (Seriously, though. Good work you're doing on the project. Cheers!) -WarthogDemon 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The cabal needs many voices to shout down the little guy. --Haemo 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gale Pollock

I wanna translate this article to french but I can't find enough information, particularly the date of birth of this charming lady. Since you contributed to it could tell me when she was born. Mitch1981 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really only added some cleanup tags, but I would note that not all public figures make their birthdates public — especially women. --Haemo 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war or vandalism

FYI, the edit that you reverted by the IP that you blocked was restored by another apparent sock. I'm not as convinced that it is vandalism as opposed to an edit war. Regardless, it looks like protection will be needed. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like that's the way to go. --Haemo 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The section does not belong. Its only source is a user-created submission on urbandictionary, which is not a valid source. IP 71.225.245.85 has used wikilawyering and sockpuppets to attempt to justify its inclusion in the article. I think it would be best if the protected version was the STABLE version of the page that has existed for over 3 months rather than the version with the controversial text included. -Drdisque 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, that's not how protection works. After a week, we'll have a consensus. --Haemo 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I don't feel like dealing with this article anymore and I'm going to unwatch it. I'm fine with its inclusion as long as the urbandictionary post is removed as a source (since it isn't) and a {{citationneeded}} is added to it. -Drdisque 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'd just toss in those 0.02$ on the talk page before you go. --Haemo 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

hi what's up jonathan :) Dejaburn 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Happy editing! --Haemo 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

how are u doing today? Dejaburn 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but just so you know, user talk pages are not forums for discussion; they should relate to editing, and editing-related issues — see the talk page guidelines. I hope you have a good time here. --Haemo 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

where can we have casual conversations then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejaburn (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any one of the innumerable chatrooms online, or on Wikipedia's IRC rooms. --Haemo 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks! plz dont block me for breakin the rules im sorry i didnt know we couldnt talk here Dejaburn 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

Hi Johnathan. I am writing in hopes that you will reconsider (at least temporarily) your decision to delete this entry.

I realize there has been a debate about whether notability has been established, and I clearly believe it has. I believe that national press coverage about a person who created the most successful modeling scam and then the most successful phishing scheme established that.

Regardless, several editors and I have been working very hard on this article trying to get it into Wiki-shape and keep it there despite repeated vandalism by Mr. El-Difrawi and his employees. I believe a lot of progress has been made, and much more can be made. I think this is an article that needs more time. Documentation is sometimes difficult to find for someone who hides behind numerous aliases.

Those who argued for deletion fall into essemtially 2 camps. 1 El-Difrawi and his employees who are trying to keep his name out of the press. And some editors who would absolutely never be satisfied no matter what documentation was provided. One such editor referred to the Washington Post and LA Times articles as "Filler for local newsprint". This editor was not evaluating the evidence properly. That same editor said that criminals are included in Wikipedia based on the scope and nature of their crimes, despite the existance documentation that El-Difrawi was ran two of the most widespread and successful criminal operations in history.

I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the editors arguing were all in good standing, so I don't really see any reason to discount their opinions. You're welcome to work on another article in userspace, with the hopes of reposting in the future. --Haemo 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec

I'm not really sure how one back and forth automatically means it's an edit war. The page has already been locked for a month too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the continuation of the same 'ole edit war, so I don't hold any faith that it will stop. --Haemo 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On deletion of Artificial cornea

Hi! You've deleted the page artificial cornea recently. I became interested in creating at least a stub under similar name, based on news reports, PubMed info, etc. I have keratoconus so naturally the topic seems interesting to me. Why did you delete that page? Maybe the theme is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia or you had other motives? Best regards, CopperKettle 10:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because the sum total of the content was the word "honestly". I'm not joking. --Haemo 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood blog

It was I who contacted the Bollywood blog and got the license under 3.0. User:Riana and several other adminstators contacted the site also and recived an email of verification ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep! I actually thanked you for this a while ago. Good work! --Haemo 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

File:DianaJohn.jpg in List_of_Torchwood_minor_characters

Hi there, I see this has been speedied and I must have missed the notification, so I can now no longer go to the image page to see if the Fair Use justification can be fixed. I've never had a problem with my own uploads elsewhere, and did not upload this image. Is there a way of looking at the FUJ? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image had no rationale whatsoever. If you'd like to add one, be my guest — I'll restore the page if you would like. Just respond here. --Haemo 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear whoever uploaded the image didn't take Fair Use seriously, but my philosophy is that if it can be fixed, it should be. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is located here: Image:Dianajohn.jpg. Remember to put the name of the article it's being used in on the fair use rationale. --Haemo 22:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, will fox fix --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Have added FUJ. Would be grateful if you have time to check it out. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Haemo 00:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik program

oops! - Alison ^❤ 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Happens all too often ;) --Haemo 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About the Zeitgeist Article

This is about the documentary called Zeitgeist. I was Just wondering how it is exactly that it is, and i quote, "Not Notable" enough for the article. I'm not here to flame, not at all. But i would just like to say that the documentary should be allowed on Wikipedia.

It is very notable, or famous i should rather say. It has been viewed by thousands upon thousands of people. It is on a 911 blog site, its on Google videos, its got its own site, and people spread the news about it as often as possible.

However, it has also occured to me to think that perhaps you also might find it to be some kind of propoganda... If that is indeed the case, i would like to merely state that it does offer a full resources page on the website. They had real sources, such as CNN, Historians, Theologists, scientific evidence, etc., etc.

I understand, that many people would disagree with the things in the movie, but it should still be open to the public through wikipedia, so that people can have the chance to watch it and decide for themselves.

sincerely, Anon-Rex

--Anon-rex 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see our notability guidelines for determining what is, and is not, notable. This was discussed earlier, and the community determined that the film in question failed these guidelines. Despite innumerable reviews since then, insufficient material has surfaced to change the communities mind. --Haemo 18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedias notability guidelines before, and i understand this was disscussed earlier, and i still beleive that it is considered notable.

allow me to explain in steps~

1) It is technically a discussion on three highly talked about subjects, which have also been discussed on CNN, Discovery channel Documentaries, History Channel Doccumentaries. So the subbjects involved are significantly covered, and comes from reliable sources.

2) Almost all of its sources are secondary, which is supposed to be the sources which "provide the most objective evidence of notability", and also has a few first hand interviews from people on ground level of 9/11.

3)(and i quote) "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles".

So i beleive that it should be reveiwed again. if it cannot be part of the subject article of Zeitgeist, then it should be part of other related articles. --Anon-rex 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's super, but I'm not the guy whose going to make that decision. What I would suggest is to write an article in your userspace, say at User:Anon-rex/Zeitgeist, complete with verifiable reliable sources which give non-trivial coverage to the film, in line with our notability guidelines. Then, when you're done, you can take the case to deletion review. Doing it now, without having an article to present will not end well, because of the numerous reviews its already had. --Haemo 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

alright, i'll get on that. thanks.--Anon-rex 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum

Just FYI, it's still ongoing here and here. • Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've given him a final warning. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

I've been gathering evidence for a while. BusterD 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd file a request for checkuser as well. You've got enough evidence for that. --Haemo 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You think? I think the evidence against Kraken7 is compelling but circumstantial. Checkuser would give more info, but if Kraken7 is not the culprit, it's a further slight against an innocent user. However, if Kraken7 is a puppetmaster account, then I think we've only scratched the surface of this case. Checkuser is supposed to be a last resort option, and we haven't exhausted other remedies yet, IMHO. BusterD 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. Just so you know, I found thirty other sockpuppets of Ghost account X. --Haemo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Only thirty? I thought the user was more dedicated than that. But it's not over, and won't be for a while. I do think we should keep the semiprotect going for the full 18 days. Will give us some time to sort this out. Was there a User:Kraken? Kraken1? Kraken2? BusterD 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, only one Kraken, apparently. I'd be interesting in that checkuser, though. --Haemo 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When and if it's appropriate, I'd likewise be interested in just exactly how many levels of puppetry are present. BusterD 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I requested checkuser when I posted the sock notice in open cases this morning. Thanks for giving my case evidence a glance. Don't like this a bit, but it seems pushed upon us by some culprit. BusterD 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to comment at the checkuser case? Since this is unfamiliar territory for me, I'm not certain what Deskana is requesting. BusterD 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hoping we can get some resolution now that I've all but announced this process on talkspace. BusterD 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm way confused and disappointed. I thought I'd provided enough information for an admin to start with. If these processes which are designed for exactly these purposes can't help us, what long-term solutions do we have in front of us (assuming the perp is going to take this as tacit approval, and continue the vandalism). BusterD 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the SSP case is obvious — we know who the socks are. However, we need a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppeteer. I'm still waiting on that. --Haemo 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Undog

I've left a message both at Talk:Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and Undog's talk page asking him to relax with his ownership issues of the article and to consider branching out to other areas so he can get a better idea of how Wikipedia works. I think I've been quite cordial in my request, but a second pair of eyes and another opinion is always a good idea when it comes to these sorts of things. I don't think I've ever had to deal with such a contentious topic or a talk page that was such a soap box (though my brief foray into Sparta and trying to stop an edit war there comes to mind). It's hard for me to know if I'm being objective or not with Undog. I generally agree with what he says, but the way he says it and operates here is really frustrating to me. AniMate 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. --Haemo 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Same complaint but some one elese at ANI

See this thanksTaprobanus 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he actually emailed me earlier and told him to "ignore it". This doesn't look like ignoring it to me. ;__; --Haemo 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Why do you do this mindless reverting to things that will only cause confussion to the article. Don't you care about wikipdeia and clarity of knowledge, gianno and gustav have wlake away read gustav page. They were wrong- stop reverting to something that has already been established as wrong. Enough- leave Barbaro alone. Thank youSave venice 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not. Provide verifiable citations and cease blanking my talk page comments. This is exactly the same kind of trumped-up dubiousness that resulted in the last nest of hoaxery, and I will not see it start again. --Haemo 05:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yale post-graduate degrees n' all.

What do you make of this? Marchesi di San Giorgio? Seems to mention one of the people the user's trying to add in the same context; I'm not an expert, so I haven't weighed in. Just saw you pop in, thought I'd point it out to you. I get -zero- Google hits on the other name they're trying to include, but all kinds of them for this one. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet it's dubious. Request reliable, verifiable source for the material and don't let them back down. Last time we had similar trumped-up claims being bandied about and they amounted to nothing. I'm not being lenient with this topic anymore; the last nest took ages to sort out. --Haemo 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not getting involved. The users talk pages just wound up on my watchlist 'cause I'd moved an edit earlier. I'm off to bed. Happy editing, Into The Fray ^T/C 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro

I have to go to bed at the moment. I've reported SV to AIV for talk-page blanking; when this nonsense settles down, I'll weigh in with my thoughts. Deor 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic will never end, will it? --Haemo 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Fixing the Farm Bureau Logo Rationale

Thanks for fixing the Farm Bureau logo rationale. I've pretty much given up trying to defend the non-free items even they are logos because I always seem to screw up the rationale. Thanks Americasroof 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually going through a gigantic backlog of them, and fixing ones with rationales. Good work providing a rationale, though! --Haemo 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Television shows considered the greatest ever

Thanks a bunch for putting it under protection. Me and AKR have already had one of these disputes before, and I wasn't looking to repeat one. Perhaps now we can talk about it....--Plasma Twa 2 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the plan! --Haemo 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling ref list?

I have no objection to your reverting my 9/11 edit where I add the scrolling ref list. However, if it's not MOS compliant, why is it even an option? I think it makes sense to shorten the list, doesn't it? Was there an MOS discussion saying to not use it? Thanks Timneu22 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:REFERENCE#Scrolling reference lists; yes, it was discussed, and rejected. Why it's an option, I have no idea. I chalk it up to the innumerable quirks of MediaWiki. --Haemo 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, you wont be disappointed.

I hope not. --Haemo 05:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for text of deleted article

As you suggested when you closed its AFD, I'm contacting you for the text of Society and Star Trek to consider merging or transwiki-ing whatever may have been worthwhile in it. Please paste it into my empty Sandbox3. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hmm... will have to think about it, now... - Fayenatic (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

I placed a revert violation notice. It turns out there was one right above it. My mistake. Do administrator have a way of identifying sockpuppets? Mrshaba 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. We mostly have to use the duck test; only checkusers have extended powers. --Haemo 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar power

I would prefer it if you blocked User:Mrshaba for a week for blatant ownership, and let other editors work on "his" article instead. And chance of doing that, and unprotecting solar power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.109.27 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that would be counter-productive. Please discuss, and cease the edit warring. --Haemo 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten tired of beating a dead horse. I'll come back to the page occasionally, but I have no interest in editing a page that suffers from that sort of protectionism. 199.125.109.27 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six

Hi. My suggestion would be that this article be unprotected (or at least just semi-protected) as the dispute seems to have been between only two users, who have been blocked for their edit warring. Any further transgressions could be handled with a further block of the users and full protection seems unnecessary. Cheers TigerShark 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree; go for it! I'm washing my hands of this whole affair, due to the unmitigatedly hostile response I got trying to review some of the blocks on that page. --Haemo 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks, I have unprotected it. Sorry that you had to endure the response you did, but hopefully this is now resolved. Take care. TigerShark 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

...Regarding delete

So what if it references sources from its own site. so does the phpBB article.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you please provide a link? --Haemo 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Im referring to the Futurion Power Systems article that got deleted.

Yes, but I'm just the closing admin. I didn't actually argue anything. The consensus in the discussion was that the subject was not notable. If you disagree with my decision, then you can ask for a review at deletion review. However, I stand by my assessment of the debate on that page. --Haemo 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests from 76.178.68.210

I think User talk:76.178.68.210 is abusing the unblock function (which I thought he got to use only once) to play with the admins. The same arguments being replayed now are also in earlier portions of his talk page. This guy is incorrigible and unlikely to respond to reason. Might be better to just semi-protect his talk page. If you're having fun playing with him, however, then never mind. --NrDg 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with that. I don't have time to waste on that kind of nonsense. --Haemo 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation of WP

I read an article in the newspaper about manipulation of Wikipedia a few months ago. A few days ago, I saw a message board about someone banned from WP by a moderator just because he didn't like what was said (even though other message board contributors failed to see anything bad about the edit).

I just came across an article about an American presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton being one of them. The moderator there is bullying others and striking out comments. He claims socks but this is just an excuse for eliminating any discussion. As far as the comments that he objects to, they are nothing radical.

In fact, I just put a suggestion there and I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to eliminate me. If so, you should make the correction to the Prentice Position article. It has a major error. MD12752 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The user was a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Haemo 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is just an excuse. The user was banned because of lies by moderator Jersyko. He claimed the guy had false medical credentials so the guy downloaded his degree to prove it. Jersyko just deleted the information. I know because I was with this guy and he told me what happened. After banning the guy, he can claim that everyone is a sock of a banned person and people will assume that this moderator is honest and rubber stamp his decision. Jersyko has at least two people pissed because he says that they are socks of one another.

What this moderator has always failed to do is give proof of disruption. Where are the posts which are disruptive? Based on my knowledge of the other guy, he is a very non-disruptive guy.

By doing nothing or supporting this moderator, you are just playing into his hands. MD12752 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is also another Dereks1x sock - the third one uncovered this evening. Tvoz |talk 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me...

When some one is blatantly using wikipedia for LTTE propaganda, the same organization is responsible for the killings of thousands of innocent tamils, how on earth it is in-civil to point out that? If some one has the right to condemn my government my country my people and get away without ZERO warning, why should I be warned of saying the right thing in reply to those bogus claims ? And if you scroll further up, You can clearly see, others have attacked a neutral editor who voted to keep this.Such as bogus claims of stalking,npa and civil, and still end up with no warning from you!! When an editor blatantly beached WP:COI there is no warning from you!!. In my reply I never mention names, all i said is there are some tamils who wants tamils to be dead,because they are supporting an organization responsible for the killing of many tamils.And deos this deserve a finalwarning??!!!Also, please explain what do you mean by my behaviour hasnt change ? Are you taking this one incident to judge my whole behaviour?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusing another editor wanting to see Tamils dead is not "civil" and you don't seem to understand that. I'm familiar with your behavior, having previously seen similar attacks, with identical rationales before — and reviewed your block for them. Here's some advice — no matter how much you feel that another user is a racist, or wants to see Tamils murdered, or what-have-you, you should keeps your remarks to yourself. Your claim that you "don't name names" is totally vacuous; you say that supporters of the LTTE want to see other Tamils dead. In the same breath, you say that another editor supports the LTTE. Anyone can put two and two together. --Haemo 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have see once again you are interpreting things as you want. You did once before when you made your unfair decision to support my block even thought there were absolutely no civil attacks, i just said he write to racist web-sites and he has violated COI, but instead of the violator it was me who got blocked !!Coming back to this issue, even now you are making same mistake,making same misjudgments and making same mis-interpretations. LTTE has killed many tamils and they have vowed to kill more, do you agree with this ? And if someone support LTTE, which means he or she support the killing of tamils, isn't it ? No where I have specifically said any thing of wiki raja, all I have said IF anyone supports LTTE, he automatically become a supporter of their killings..Where on earth I have called anyone racist?? Where on earth I have directly call he wants tamil dead ?? And why you always make your own wrong interpretations and make bias judgments base solely on this ??? And I have seen you making more issues at ANI, for a second take a look at the same UB debate..Where you can clearly see, some users accusing and insulting even neutral editors just because they voted to keep this. blatant false accusations have been made here,such as WP:STALK. And yet no warnings have been made at all!! AM i seeing duplicity here ?? Once again I am asking you not to mis-interpret things. If I am engage in uncivil activities I am more than willing to admit them and apologize, but here I dont see that thing..at all.And I would appreciate if you can show my other in-civil behaviors unrelated to this? Could please justify your decision to give me the final warning instead of all the other existing levels ? Since wikipedia is not dictatorship I think I have the right to know that.Thank you and I Look forward to your reply.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have resorted to the same argument as before; rather than accept that calling another user a racist, or that he wants to see other Tamils killed, you instead argue that you are correct in making that labeling. This is unacceptable, and why I warned you before, and warned you again yesterday. I suggest you reflect on this. --Haemo 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you may call it the same arguments, but I would like to add ,the right part in front of the arguments. I have never called anyone racist, but I do call those tamil net,tamil nation ,sites racist. And who wouldn't after seeing what they do behind their sites ?For that I was blocked for 48Hrs even though that was my very first block!! For the rest, I think at the ANI snowolf has summarise things excellently,and I even see you stance have changed. Thank you for accepting that you (some how) were wrong in your decision and I even see you have promised to retract your warning.Well,I am relieved and happy that, this misunderstanding stopped here without getting worst.So, could you please strike out(delete) the warning you gave at my talk page(You said you will retract ,right?) ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to see the attacks(barbaric as you might think),please take a look at the following edits made at my talk page by some anonymous IPs, probably from the courtesy of LTTE henchmen

• 1[7].
• 2[8].Even though they got the identity wrong(I hope this persons family live safely from the LTTE murderers), I still wonder,why would people go to such a low level ? Isnt this a proof that ,LTTE and its supporters wouldn't even dare to kill Wikipedian editors and their families ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

However, I am a reasonable man and would dearly like to see this whole conflict de-escalate, so in the future you are welcome to bring any and all attacks, stalking, or harassment to me in person. I give you my promise that I will do my good faith best to see that justice is served. --Haemo 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as LTTE supporters want all of others to be dead ,its kina hard to achieve peace ,isnt it ? At last , I hope You have understand what I was trying to say all these times. LTTE supporters want ,not only tamils, but also wikipedians and their families dead !! hard to believe, but its the sad truth.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning given to Iwazaki

I think the warning you gave Iwazaki was inacurate and a gross assumption of bad faith. Therefore I have brough it up on the admin's noticeboard here. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, but I must note my disagreement. --Haemo 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

It's not an edit war if a user keeps violating one of our non-negotionable policies in excess. Will ^(talk) 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I misread this. I'm unprotecting the page, and sternly warning Grande13. --Haemo 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have provided valid sources for every episode. How is that violating a policy? Its not my fault that the user sceptre thinks its an invalid source as that not his decision. It was already proved valid and reliable in the past. Grande13 20:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also listed my reasons and sources various times in all the discussion they setup on the issue, yet they dont reply to them there they just revert the actions thinking their way is right, even though they can't back that claim. Grande13 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not properly sourced. Multiple editors have told you as much, and I am telling again. If you disagree with him, then find a source and put it in, don't edit war. --Haemo 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

actually its only 2 editors, Sceptre and Matthew. Everyone else that has contributed to the discussions are in favor of it being a valid source. Its an official source. If they take the time to go out of their way to copyright a title you can be sure they aren't going to waste that effort. so how were they not properly sourced? Grande13 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should file a request for comment, rather than edit warring. --Haemo 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that option. I'll do that. Grande13 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

User:Hiloor an possible sock,troll is making severe personal attacks on me at the ANI.The user is calling my edits fanatic. The User has no other edits than ANI posts ,and I strongly believe this is a single-purpose troll made specifically to attack me,and disrupt our discussion at the ANI.Thank youIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your assessment here, but I tend to believe that they're an editor returning in good faith. I've warned them about the comments they've made, and hopefully they'll take my advice seriously. --Haemo 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are helpful. Thanks. Hiloor 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki's attack

Please take a look here. Watchdogb 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page, and elsewhere etc. --Haemo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the earlier edit by myself. I acted out of irrationally. I think your decision is actually very good. Sorry and thanks Watchdogb 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:17.221.13.236 and Libby, Montana

Guess will have to block User:17.221.13.236 for 48 hours this time. Then see what happens... Thanks. WikiDon 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep; it looks like it's static, so go ahead and block it for a long period of time if you need to. --Haemo 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Me no have block'n rights. You'll have to do it. WikiDon 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait for him to re-offend, then hit him with a block. --Haemo 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.195.179.48

I once posted to you about User talk:72.195.179.48, and you asked me to post again if he pops up. I did reply to my original post [9] but you have a very busy talk page! In any event, he's back again (and again), so hope that maybe you can help? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but right now it looks like he's listening to my warning; hopefully he'll stay away from disruptively editing the main article and stick to just talk page comments. Hopefully. --Haemo 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, the reason he's stuck to editing the Talk:List of characters in Camp Lazlo page is that List of characters in Camp Lazlo is on full protection. I'm not sure about policies on talk pages, is it Ok if I undo his edits there? Thanks again for your time, I realize you're busy and this must be just like a little gnat in your ears :-/ Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if I were you I would leave them alone. They're not great edits, but you run the risk of just provoking him if you do. WP:DFT et al. --Haemo 00:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of content on Economy of Sri Lanka

Hi Haemo, You may want to take a look at whats happening in this article (Economy of Sri Lanka). Content well sourced is blanked completely because snowolfd4 and lahiru_k don't seem to like it. The repeated claim is its "nonsense". A similar trend occurs here, where Media in Sri Lanka, except this was added by admin Black Falcon, who by all counts should be considered neutral. Regards, Sinhala freedom 01:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page in the state I found it for a week, or until you guys can come to an agreement. --Haemo 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in Sri Lanka

Haemo, can you please comment on the article on its talk page. I wanted to have the here instead of the current version of the page. My reasons for the addition of extra text is to make the article more of a wikipedia article (encyclopedic with the addition of the paragraph). I added the fact tags because the claims are missing an RS backing them up. PS. I am sorry to bother you again but you offered to help cool things down a bit. Instead of edit warring I have decided to get third opinion on this matter as you suggested . Watchdogb 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A better idea would be to get some people from a request for comment instead. --Haemo 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done ! I also appreciate your comment. I do not understand why you claim the tags are over done. Wouldn't every claim need a citation. I have only placed citation needed tags on each subsections that have no citation (by creating a subsection the editor acknowledges that the part under the subsection is a different subject that is related to the topic at hand thus wouldn't the editor have to provide a citation to back the claims?) . Watchdogb 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Every claim does need to be referenced, this is true. However, a single "unreferenced" tag suffices for the whole article. It's pointless over-kill to add {{cn}} tags to every claim in the article when a single tag accomplishes the same amount. --Haemo 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, thanks. Can you comment on the other conflict ? The inclusion/exclusion or a compromised inclusion of the paragraph that was added and warred over removal. Thanks Watchdogb 13:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I'd prefer not get involved in a content dispute. I'm comfortable giving some general guidance about tagging, but I'm sure you understand. --Haemo 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is understandable. Sorry for putting you on the spotlight. Thanks Watchdogb 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Troy Cory related pages not deleted

Hi, I nom'd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Troy_Cory which you deleted, but I bundled other articles with it to also be deleted. The main article was deleted but not the bundled ones. Did I not correctly nominate these others or were they overlooked in the delete process? Just trying to learn all the ins and outs of the AfD process.... Specifically the articles are:

   :The Troy Cory Evening Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Troy Cory Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :List of LPs and CDs and Singles Recorded By Troy Cory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks. --Sc straker 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Deleted. --Haemo 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. --Sc straker 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why WYPS Page should not be deleted

The WYPS = World Youth Peace Summits organisation was created by the United Nations World Council of Religious Leaders : picture for proof: Bawa Jain President World Youth Peace Summit Organisation Kofi Anan www.wyps.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is with respect to. --Haemo 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dslam

I've already given a final warning to User:Dslam, but perhaps he should be blocked? His contributions do not appear like he plans to edit constructively anytime soon. -WarthogDemon 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let's give him one more chance. The vandalism is annoying, but can be done in good faith. --Haemo 00:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that and the "final warning" on my userpage. This time he decided to vandalize it as well (probably to "get back" at me) by reverting it to an old version. But at any rate, one more chance sounds fine. It was rather thrilling to finally be able to increase my vandal count. -WarthogDemon 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Back early? Just thought I should keep you updated. -WarthogDemon 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I could soft-block the IP, but I don't think it will help. It looks like he just wants to be left alone. If he re-adds the material, I think we can actually take some functional action. --Haemo 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:SugerMagnoliaBOT

You recently blocked User:SugerMagnoliaBOT. This was a user who impersonated User:Cluebot, and was masquerading as a bot, presumably to reduce suspicion as they vandalised pages. It is not a bot itself. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought as much. They're blocked indefinitely, regardless. --Haemo 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Haemo--thanks for unblocking me; I guess I got stuck with an old IP. It is much appreciated--Pariah 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, someone had indef-blocked a dynamic IP. Eventually, someone was going to get dinged. --Haemo 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

request for administrator attention

Hi Haemo. We've run into each other a few times, so your name popped to mind when thinking of who to ask for help. I've got a user who's basically berating me at every turn about some images he uploaded ([[10]] and [[11]]). He is using them as a source. That's fine, except he only needs to cite them - they're protected by copyright, and there's no need to upload sources to Wikipedia (that's why we cite them!). A reasonable complaint about his behavior was posted here at the WQA, and I responded. When responding on the article's page, I also noticed the images, which are not being used properly under fair use guidelines: it's not illustrating the DVD in question, it's not used in conjunction with critical commentary, it's not necessary (citing the DVD works fine), and fair use equivalents are possible (it's just an episode list). That and it's substantially more than a single front-cover of the DVD. Anyway, this user is persisting, launching some pretty serious accusations at me on, among other places, his user page. It appears to be a collection of attacks on various editors, and while he asserts they aren't directed at anyone, it's obvious this one was directed at me (he added it in the middle of our ongoing discussion), and it dosen't matter - personal attacks are personal attacks, incivility is incivility, and this is way out of bounds of WP:USERPAGE. I was wondering if you could give me some input on how to deal with this matter (should I just ignore him until the MfD and other things are settled?). I was also wondering if you could take care of SD'ing the images and/or MfD'ing the page. Both issues seem obvious to me - if they aren't to you, I'd still appreciate your input on either matter. --Cheeser1 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC) For an example of his flawed logic, see the edit summary here. It's not necessary for us to archive or upload our sources. I don't see why he keeps insisting we must, or why it's escalated to personal attacks and incivility like that found on his userpage. --Cheeser1 04:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on most of this, and I've commented on the page, and elsewhere about this. In the future, when you have disputes like this, try WP:IFD; it will be much less of a two-man discussion. --Haemo 04:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that would have been helpful if I'd seen it initially. Thanks for the link, I'll keep the IFD in mind from now on if I have image/media issues. Could you clear this up: am I right to think that that userpage is highly inappropriate (e.g. Wikipedia is FULL of mostly young people who, because they have low self-esteem and haven't made any significant impact in this world ... Many of them have nothing better to do but edit this site and they spend an awful long obsessive time doing so.) ? --Cheeser1 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's borderline. I'd comment to delete, but I don't want to feed the accusations of a cabal going on here. --Haemo 04:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A smaller, unrelated request

There's some changes going on at Talk:Emo (slang)#After all that..., and we're trying to move some pages around, but one of them is move-protected. Could you move Emo (music) to Emo for us? Thanks for all your help. --Cheeser1 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Cheeser1 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SP

Do you think a checkuser should be run on this one? I agree with your analysis of the case - not sure if there's enough to take action against Netmonger or not - I'm new to the process. I have to say that the evidence is very compelling, though... Dreadstar † 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't already commenting on the case, I think the evidence is strong enough to just go ahead and block the user. I'm going to bring it up on WP:ANI first, though. --Haemo 23:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Good outcome. Thanks for confirming my opinion... Dreadstar † 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop

Would it be possible to reset the block on the above user's talk page to, perhaps, December 15, 2007? I only ask this because User:Dweller indicated on that talk page that he might be willing to consider unblocking that editor around the first of the year, and that it might make sense to allow him to discuss whether he would be willing to abide by Dweller's terms before he was allowed to edit. Of course, I leave that matter entirely up to you, and maybe Dweller, if he's still interested in doing as he said earlier regarding unblocking Bus stop. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not; I've done so. --Haemo 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Identical indeed

How could you see this[12] as sockpuppetry but not this?[13] Hoponpop69 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't deal with suspected cases of users who I'm involved in mediation with? Conflict of interest, et al. --Haemo 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It seems like an open and shut case.Hoponpop69 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have made my thoughts about the LahiruK's Sock issue. And let me tell you that, I am not rally convince with your actions and non-actions.(I am using wikipedia as a Source to back me up).I would appreciate it a lot, If you can make a reply at the relevant place and address what I have raised there. I strongly believe a great unjust has been done to me and a couple of other SL based editors.Thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

comment

And could you please take a look at this.This actually is a good proof how the IPs are dynamically allocated and how this alone should not be used to(Wikipedian article says the same thing)identify users. Hope this would help to make justice to the blocked users.thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he was not using a dynamically allocated IP address, as the 124.43.xxx.xxx addresses are. The discussion here backs that up. As you can see, the addresses he uses in his sandbox are non-portable, while the one which he used to sockpuppeteer with is an allocated portable which is not dynamically allocated. --Haemo 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. I am not even sure what he says there!!I have quoted from Wikipedia article and if you need me to quote from books,I would do that too.If you accusing lahiru for using arsaths IP, then you have to prove it here ? They made a huge mistake before and I believe its the time to correct it this time. You don't sentence innocent people to death ,right? even if you do, and realize its a mistake, you would definitely correct that. As long as you can't prove arsath and lahiru_k had same IPs , you have absolutely no right to block them. And regarding the rest, kaushini uses school IP, and I have seen many school/shared Ips are allowed here(for Cambridge Uni), so your actions might contrary to the Wikipedian policies. And if you allowe certain schools and blocked certain schools from third world country, I am sorry I don't see anything more than discrimination here.

And for dynamic IP issue, Seems you have fathom it. And you know from my evidences,Lahiru ha use 20+ IPs in 30 minutes.So why the block still remain??

Regarding the others, You also haven't prove everyone is Lahiru_k..I have even interacted with a couple of those blocked users, and believe me, they were here just to edit, voluntarily, just like all of us. As soon as they knew they got blocked, probably they have lost interest and never edited at all!! So, lahiru_k has served his punishment before, and his alleged socks never bothers to come back after the block. Hence, there were NO violation of WP:SOCK. Hopefully, everything become clear now, and justice would be done for all the blocked users. Thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm talking to a techie friend of mine. I'm going to try to get to the bottom of this. --Haemo 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, could you please explain why this user has taken away certain accused from the list ? For my knowledge no other than an admin can remove names from a SSP. BUT here we see an ordinary editor has taken law to his hands and removing names he wants !!

And could you also explain why there is currently unblocked thing after my name ?? Is it is quite evident, from this SSP and the one before(which clearly say UNRELATED), I am not a sock of anyone. And I believe having that kind of tag gives an impressions that I might be a sock and might be blocked.Thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a mind-reader, but probably because the user was indefinitely blocked for having a misleading username. Thus, it really doesn't matter if he's a sock or not — plus, the only reason he was suspected was because of his similar username. He's not trying to be disruptive, and his actions help clairify the case, so just let it be. I'm not aware of any rule prohibiting uncontentious, good faith removals like that. I've trimmed the comment after your name, since it's un-necessary. --Haemo 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Known sock

Pls check out my new listing at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lahiru k (2nd), Arsath is definitely a sock too. Sumoeagle179 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He's already been blocked by another admin. I would, however, like you to explain where your interest in this whole debacle comes from. --Haemo 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection for : F. Scott Fitzgerald

Hola! Okay, you protected F. Scott Fitzgerald for seven days on the 10th, the protection is up. If you check the Revision history of F. Scott Fitzgerald you'll see that we have had ZERO edits in the mean time. Now, let see what happens in the next seven days. I would like to SEMI-it forever. Because, unfortunately, as long as school kids are told to research Fitzgerald, they will vandalize the page. Thanks. WikiDon 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision history of Image:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg

I tried that, but it did not get rid of the bad image & now there are two images in the file. I am trying to start over. FieldMarine 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the image? Because it correctly uploaded a new version, which is like 400k, as opposed to 2 megs. Was there something else wrong? --Haemo 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It keeps showing the old version, not the new one. FieldMarine 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's showing the new one to me. I just checked the file size, and it's the small one. What's probably happened is that your browser has an old cache of the file — it hasn't updated yet, and so the image is still saved as the old version locally. If you're on a Windows machine, hit ctrl-F5 to clear your cache. It should fix the problem --Haemo 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleared my cache already several times. I know it says the small size, but the image it shows is the old one. That is why I said there is something wrong. 74.244.130.24 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird; how is the image you are trying to upload different from the small one that is currently displayed? --Haemo 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's cropped differently & centered better. FieldMarine 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll delete it. Hopefully this will fix the problem. --Haemo 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I got 'er fixed...thanks for the help! FieldMarine 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

I commented at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_16#Gay_and_lesbian_retirement, which I would normally not even get involved in, as I don't like to revisit these debates. Thank you for userfying it. I am especially sensitive to how much unfair abuse you dealt with in your RfA. I'll have to make a special barnstar for you. :-) Bearian 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. They're much appreciated. --Haemo 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia of Centreon

Dear Haemo, I would like to make a wikipedia page for an Open Source solution named Centreon. My first attempt was deleted by you, but I did not really understand the reason behind your action. Centreon is Open Source, just like Nagios, Cacti and many more Monitoring solutions, I do not see any advertisement on my page. Besides, it was merely a version translated from French to English. Could it be that French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia's standards are somewhat different? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Best regards, sylho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylho (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Every Wikipedia makes their own standards; in order for a page to be retained here, you need to make sure that it asserts notability and that it is written in a neutral, non-promotional tone. --Haemo 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs to close.

I'm not sure how long AfDs usually last, but I think some of these may be ready for closure:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation in World of Warcraft
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player versus player in World of Warcraft
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft)

The first four have all been started on October 11th, 2007. The last one however was only started on October 15th, 2007 (as separate AfDs, but Melsaran has merged them together).

It would be appreciated if you would close the AfDs ready to be closed. As for the last one (Dwarves (Warcraft)), I'm not sure if it is ready to be closed (especially since the discussion is a lot higher in that one), but when the time comes, I would like for you to close that one also. Thanks. IAmSasori 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I closed the two contentious ones; now I'm tired and don't want to try and figure out the other two. The Dwarves one is still under discussion, as part of a bigger one, so I'll leave it. --Haemo 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)

Just wanted to say thanks for closing that discussion. Even if I personally disagree with you, your closing notes were well thought (I feared a Delete per WP:NOT#CRUFT closure to be honest ;)). -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty sure that you could write a good article on the subject, with sources and everything — in that sense, I agree with you, and thought your argument was the most persuasive of the "keep" rationales. However, my job was really just to figure out consensus there, and it seemed clear that most people did not agree with your (my) assessment. --Haemo 17:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexian-American War

About your comments about the socking -- not only is it lame, it's obvious. Check the user-creation logs of the more recent socks, and you'll see something most interesting. I have to go to sleep now, otherwise I'd be putting a sock report together. Gscshoyru 05:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's hit up a checkuser request to root out the sleepers, other socks, and sockpuppeteer. This is getting obnoxious. --Haemo 06:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Classes in WoW deletion

Perhaps I missed the appropriate AfD discussion, but the only one linked to off of this article was one in November 2006 with a conclusion of "no consensus." I've undone your deletion of the article's content but I may be in error. If this is the case, perhaps the discussion page ought to direct to the appropriate AfD discussion, not the November 2006 one. RobertM525 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it seems like I have misstepped and my undeletion will need to be reverted. But steps should be taken to make sure this doesn't happen again. Like actually deleting the article, if that's what the consensus really was... RobertM525 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the "third nomination" part of the name. My bad! --Haemo 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka issues

Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You closed that mediation without answering a question I posted the other day concerning a source I found

Could you re-open it? Please look at the edit history before you close one in the future. Hoponpop69 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Done --Haemo 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalmunai massacre

Hi an Admin User:Blnguyen claims that this article is Unsourced, MOS violations and the like. also sourced POV in any case. At the T:DYK [[14]]. However, fails to claim what is unsourced and what MOS are violated and what the pov source is. You see, this admin is someone who I have had dispute before. Can you please take a look at the article and comment on what the problem is. I am going to ask this particular admin what the problem is. I am still looking for another opinion on this article. Watchdogb 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If this particular user is talking about UTHR when he says that this source is POV Please read the below

UTHR

Here are what other reliable sources claiming about UTHR

• [15]
• [16]. Here they are called "Leading righs body"
• [17] Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
• [18] If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
• [19] More people using UTHR.

This is something another admin has found:

• PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
• BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
• Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
• International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"

Last, the two people who are running UTHR right now have won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders for 2007. IF these are not enough to show that this citation is Notable and is IS NPOV I have no idea what is. Watchdogb 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where this is coming from. Perhaps you should just discuss this on the talk page. A Tamil human rights group is probably not the best of source, but they certainly aren't hopelessly biased or anything, given the commentary that a number of other sources have made about them. --Haemo 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So would you agree that this citation can be used especially because it is explicitly attributed in what claims are made by this citation ? Also would using this special citation be grounds on not giving a DYK on this article ? Watchdogb 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation looks good to me. I don't see any compelling reason to reject it, right now. And no, it shouldn't. --Haemo 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Watchdogb 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Skateremopunk mediation

Hello there. I did not want to comment directly on the mediation page itself, because I am not an involved party, but I wanted to give you some additional information that may be helpful. Basically, it comes down to two points:

1. Skateremopunk is basically an WP:SPA. Nearly all of his edits are to take emo or hardcore bands that have been classified as Christian, and remove the Christian classification. I'm not really sure what point he is trying to make, but this seems to be his primary goal in editing Wikipedia as far as I can tell.

1. Even if we accept that the genre re-classifications posted by Skateremopunk are valid, a huge fractions of his edits are counterproductive anyway. I have Underoath on my watchlist because it has been the scene of a long-standing edit war over genre classification, and that's how I noticed Skateremopunk. I don't actually revert people's changing of the genre, I only watch for 3RR. But in Skateremopunk's case, I had to revert, because of edits like this: [20] [21] [22] So even if we assume good faith here, that Skateremopunk really is trying to fix incorrectly classified bands, there is still a problem, because he is doing so in a way that literally breaks Wikipedia (e.g. linking to non-existent categories, citing sources that have nothing to do with the fact, etc.)

I do not believe Skateremopunk and Hoponpop69 can possibly come to a consensus, and this is not an indictment of Hoponpop69. It is clear to me from Skateremopunk's edit history that he is either acting in bad faith, or if not, his lack of understanding of Wikipedia mechanisms and policies, together with his apparent communication difficulties (perhaps due to English being a second language), make it highly unlikely that he can really be a positive contributor.

Do with this what you will, but in any case, I think you need to make some kind of ruling in the mediation. Thanks for your time. --Jaysweet 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He's 16, and he's kind of inexperienced. He's acting in good faith, he just need a little guidance. Perhaps you could suggest mentorship to him? --Haemo 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see... yeah, it was hard to tell whether it was bad faith or bad execution... I can suggest mentorship -- but I'm not going to be the one to do it! I know that is selfish of me, but I just wouldn't have the patience.

The SPA-ish behavior still concerns me. As a music fan and an atheist I have to say that I am baffled by his obsession to de-classify bands as Christian. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.... I struggle to figure out what his point is...?

And the sockpuppet incident is still really disturbing...

Ah well, I already commented once on his talk page (or was it his sock's talk page?) so I'll mention the mentorship thing... Thanks for the quick reply! --Jaysweet 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

afd - diskussion - Claudia Ciesla

Hi. I see that you forgot deleting stupid nasty personal attack by CClaudia against me. See WP:NPA#Removal_of_text Or do you legitimise personal attacks?? So if you are going to consider please deleting CClaudia for personal attacks!! WP:NPA See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Claudia_Ciesla Thank you! Wiki-nightmare 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked it. --Haemo 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Wiki-nightmare 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sri Lanka issues

I'd like to support the proposal to end this mess, but I'm not going to blindly support a proposal I don't completely agree with. I'm still waiting for someone to addressed some of the issues I brought up. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad; I'm not really sure what you disagree with, but perhaps you could clarify this on the talk page? --Haemo 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lexipedia article's speedy deletion following an AfD closed as "keep"

Hi. I was looking at an old AfD which closed as "keep" and happened to notice you later speedy deleted it. Should it have gone back to a second AfD instead? I wonder if the version you saw was the same that the AfD participants were working from? --A. B. ^(talk) 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy lol, I'll fix that right away. --Haemo 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't have a dog in that fight by the way -- I just happened to stumble across this one. I suspect it likely looked spammy when you saw it -- I wonder if the version extant at the time of the AfD was any better? If not, it may merit a second AfD. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just add an AfD note to Talk:Lexipedia. Afterwards, I realized there had been an earlier talk page that was also speedied -- can you restore that too? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep; I've fixed it. --Haemo 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, --A. B. ^(talk) 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Proposal

Hi,

I have went ahead and took your advice on signing here. Regards. Wiki Raja 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good deal! --Haemo 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Business Publication

You just removed a CSD from Metropolia magazine. The article, as well as a horde of duplicates were created by User:Business Publication who has since been blocked for spamming. This user even overwrote other articles while creating all of these spam articles. If you can, I would urge you to check this user's and it's sockpuppet's contributions for verification. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked valid, but given his promotional spamming, we'd better not take the chance. --Haemo 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for Speedy deletions. I'm sorry for my poor English. Cannot My contributions be deleted? Is the account deletion impossible?--Sasanoha 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately for legal reasons we cannot delete your contributions, or your account. Your userpages are acceptable, though. --Haemo 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will register another new account. I do not intend to use This account "Sasanoha". This account "Sasanoha" is forever neglect？--Sasanoha 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just leave it alone, and never touch it. Eventually someone will want the name, and it will get re-assigned or something. Sasanoha has vanished. --Haemo 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka resolution

Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Victor Willis Photo

Hello,

The image problem has been resolved. You can contact Mr. Gustafson to verify. Mr. Willis has a major ocncert tomorrow and we expect alot of traffic to this page in the next day or so. The picture is OK'd. Hotcop2 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Wyatt Mann

Seeing this name dropped on a few racially charged pages minutes after creation led me to the article. The only link is to a collection of the comics, and the only reference is a cartoon itself. I'd say it's absolutely advertising and an effort to get this author of comic strips noticed. It the sense that it was immediately tagged with categories and inserted as internal links, it is very remniscent of a band creating an article and dropping it on several genre pages. I still feel it's advertising, but I respect your opinion so off to AfD it shall go. After dinner. It's sushi time! the_undertow ^talk 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just prod it instead. Also, it's no fair having sushi without sharing :) --Haemo 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Nelson Hood, 4th Viscount Bridport

it's not a big deal to me as i'm personally not that bothered about the particular person i'd written about (Alexander Nelson Hood, 4th Viscount Bridport ) but i'd put the article up online because of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Bridport

Viscounts Bridport (1868) Alexander Nelson Hood, 1st Viscount Bridport (1814-1904) Arthur Wellington Alexander Nelson Hood, 2nd Viscount Bridport (1839-1924) Rowland Arthur Herbert Nelson Hood, 3rd Viscount Bridport (1911-1969) Alexander Nelson Hood, 4th Viscount Bridport (b. 1948) ****this is the one i'd created

you will notice that 1st and 3rd viscount bridports do have wikis they link to.

i'm not really sure why you don't think this article is something wikipedia should keep?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfyre (talk • contribs) 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the article does not assert notability. Being a noble is not inherently notable; the 1st and 3rd Viscounts were famous politicians and soldiers. The fourth is a banker for a small firm in the United States. This is an important difference. --Haemo 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

F. Scott Fitzgerald > Protection

After you added the protection to F. Scott Fitzgerald there were ZERO edits to the article during the seven days that the protection was on. Since it has come off, there have been 29 vandal related edits since the 21st, 80% of the edits. I wish we could keep this article in semi-protect mode pertinently. School kids all across the country are told to do some homework on F. Scott Fitzgerald, and as long as they are, they will vandalize this article. It is heavily trafficked by school children. Please? ~ WikiDon 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeppers. --Haemo 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Danke, gracias, شكرًا, merci, ευχαριστώ, תודה, takk, спасибо, mòran taing, it what ever language you want....thank you!!! ~ WikiDon 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix my talk page?

I noticed you blocked User:Eedyjones for vandalism, but he redirected by talk page, and I can't seem to get it back. Jauerback 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I got it. Jauerback 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it for you, and then you moved it. You need tools, my friend. --Haemo 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was having a brain fart. I couldn't figure out what he did, because I couldn't revert it. Then I finally realized that he created a whole new page. As far as the tools... maybe one day. I probably don't have enough experience, yet, though. Jauerback 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your notice. Sorry for not really getting involved in the action for past couple of day. I ve been busy with my school work/research stuff and my mind was not in a mood for non-school things. I ll be free from this Friday and would definitely join the discussion. Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)