User talk:HangingCurve/Archive 9

Elctrikchair Deletion Review

An aricle on Elctrikchair was nominated for deletion in June 2009 by our 16 year old son. The page was deleted after review by the administrators and we respectfully ask that you reconsider this decision and review the article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forstbre (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Born Maniacs, apparent Shared Account?

What are you talking about, I am User:Born Maniacs using my friends acount to message you. I do not share my account. I would like to know why I have an Indefinite Ban on my accout, User:Born Maniacs. AustinAsDeidara 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Born Maniacs —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinAsDeidara (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jgheuser

 Clerk note: I've delisted this case. The first two creations were a year ago, not 24 hours ago. Mayalld (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note on one of IPs you recently blocked

173.48.23.38 had only received 3 warnings and had not edited since most recent one. FunPika 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Dinter-Gottlieb

Thanks for your quick work. Must be nice to wield such power! ;) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Simona Bercova

When you speedied Simona Bercova, there was an active talk page. Should that stay? I will watch. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I thought you might be interested in joining a new UNC-CH project. We can use all the help we can get! Go Tar Heels! Remember (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that you have joined. I am going to be pretty busy for awhile so I am not sure how much time I will be able to devote to getting this off the ground, but I figured it would be helpful to start setting it up anyway. By the way, I am also a 00' grad from the school of journalism. Small world. Remember (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My Mistake

Sorry, I did not realize that this user was already blocked, sorry for the mistake Strongbadmanofme (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Shiveringpurple

I saw that you blocked Shiveringpurple, but I think you may have made a mistake in the block summary regarding the length; it reads "you have been blocked for a period of U2". I just thought I should point this out to you in case the user becomes confused in regards to the actual duration. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

user: hank chapot

Hello blueboy96. I was blocked by you a few weeks ago for vandalism, to which I admit, but I have calmed down and wonder if you could help me unblock. (User: Hank Chapot)

By the way, my IP address is no longer blocked, only after I login does the block appear. Please, I have a history of contributions and I only lost it this once.68.164.186.233 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

NHL–WHA merger

Hey, do you have the specific page numbers for the references from the Champions book? We could then convert that reference to the same format for other books with multiple citations. Thanks! Resolute 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

FYI, I mentioned a block of yours at WP:AN#Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks...

...for your quick action blocking Oriolesman. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Persia2

I think this guy's almost definitely a sockpuppet of Iran2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked indefinitely for the same issues and was a known block evader in the past. I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I've just added several of the articles he/she edits to my watchlist. I don't know Iran2's history, but I'll keep an eye on it and probably post to ANI if it continues. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric West

I see it got deleted but there were two different decisions keep and delete. I never got a chance to really clean it up because I only have time on the week ends. I did agree that some of it needed clean up and it really didn't need a lot of the information on it. If I restart it with just the "major sources" (rs) will it be in risk of being deleted again. 24.45.239.234 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

re Centpacrrr

I'm sorry I don't see what you are referring to specifically? Cirt (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, one too many "r's", got it. Well he was obviously past 3RR and editing disruptively, as he is an established user he should know about edit-warring. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User talk page protection

Hi, I've noticed you've protected the talk pages of several indef blocked users lately, don't forget that you can just reblock them with no talk page access, better that way--Jac16888^Talk 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Physician

Hi, thanks for your help on Physician, however you have reverted to the wrong version (possibly) - or rather Dr T N reverted to the wrong version (by mistake probably), and you compounded his mistake... Either way, if you could check you made the right edit. See you on the talk page maybe. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, it got a bit confusing there! Verbal chat 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the backlog at SPI at WP:AN, and mentioned you there. Thanks again, Verbal chat 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Delinking deleted pages

RE: your closure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric West (2nd nomination): this nonnotable person left quite a trace in wikipedia. Please find time and usually remove refs to deleted pages. Of course, in some cases common sense may advise you to do otherwise. But in Eric's case there is no reason for wikipedia to promote him. - 7-bubёn >t 00:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:GrahamBould

User:Cygnis insignis is evidently not going to accept a "banned" label on that userpage unless we go through the full ban discussion. I've put the "indefinitely blocked" label back up, because it is indisputably accurate. I have no problem with the banned label myself, but I think the most relevant point is the one you made that he's gone and his contributions should be viewed with suspicion. If you do decide to go for the formality, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Shojego ...

User talk:Shojego has had an unblock-on-hold for a month now. Could you either respond to his request or close out the template so it leaves the on-hold category? I've just been clearing out some backlogs, and this one jumped out at me. Just figured you'd forgotten it... Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He doesn't seem to get it at all, and it looks as though if unblocked he'd just carry on. I had hoped he'd agree to stop, I'd have no problem with an unblock if he had. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Special:Contributions/12.227.136.62

I was about to decline the AIV request for this ip, with the rationale below:

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. User is being tendentious, but the speedy tagging is not yet vandalism; will leave the user a message asking him not to speedy and explaining how to use AfD, and if the user continues to speedy tag then he can be re-reported. He did make a couple of vandalism edits (like replacing content with "our software sucks") but hasn't done blatant vandalism edits since earlier warnings.

I see that you blocked the IP, though. I don't have a problem with that, but given that the edits were not necessarily blatant vandalism, could the block be shortened (to maybe 12 hours or 3 hours)? I am about to leavea the IP a message about how to use AfD and cleanup tags properly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock block

Hi! It was all of those references to "Kat Lew." I thought I'd remembered seeing that here before and I found it in the deletion log. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism

While I agree that Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a trashcan, we must be careful with our deletions, because, with our imperfect knowledge of the world, it's easy to rashly delete something that is important, meaningful, and possibly helpful information for others.TheRealNightRider (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

HellinaBucket requesting unblock

I see you indef blocked HellinaBucket for NPA and harassment. As far as I can see their edits since the expiry of the prior block (48 hours by FisherQueen, expired 16:40UTC yesterday) has been fault-free; apart from apologising to editors who were previously targets for attacks all edits appear to have been purely productive. My slight interaction with Hellinabucket yesterday (since the block expiry; I had no interaction with them previously) was certainly problem-free. I'm keeping an eye on them for a recurrence of problem behaviour, I'd guess FQ may be too. Might you reconsider the block? Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blueboy, I want to bring it to your attention, that Tonywalton claims you concurred with this unblock, despite the fact that the above message seems to have gone unanswered. (I understand you may have responded through private channels, but I just wanted to make sure you knew, in-case Tony is lying about you).VegKilla (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to point out to you that Tonywalton's talk page shows that he was in contact with HellinaBucket before the block was imposed.VegKilla (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: HellinaBucket, what the hell?

Tonywalton said you supported their unblock of HellinaBucket, assuming that is true:

I wish you had not responded to my post on Admin intervention against vandalism. If you had just left it their a few more seconds, then hopefully someone would have responded to it who have realized how inappropriate it is to do what you have done:

HellinaBucket was indef blocked (by you) for refusing to stop harassment in the form of refusing to stop apologizing. Ironically enough, you chose to support an unblock for no other reason than that HellinaBucket apologized. Don't you remember that you blocked HellinaBucket FOR REFUSING TO STOP APOLOGIZING!!!

Plus, by not even waiting one day before unblocking, you have left me without any time to have a case prepared. In this way, you have insured the success of three of HellinaBuckets unethical strategies: 1. Endless apologies to disguise harassment and confuse who the victim is, 2. Extremely verbose contributions in order to dilute the harassment and 3. Quickly and repeatedly responding to blocks in order to leave the victims whom the block was intended to protect unprepared.

I will contact you again when HellinaBucket acts inappropriately, at which time (or before), I will expect a written apology from you. VegKilla (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Vegkilla to strike from my talkpage their accusation that I am lying ("assuming that is true" above) as an egregious personal attack and I would request that they do so here as well. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you recall a few months ago I was invovled with a dispute with User:Vegkilla and was blocked for inappropriate behavior. I am in no way even remotely interested in restarting that fued and have made constructive edits since. Can you please look at my talk page and make the appropriate reccomendations to VegKilla regarding my actions since and in question. I feel that I am being unfairly harrassed at this point and personally attacked. Last time I was in the wrong I don not feel I am in any way. Thanks. (Hell in a Bucket) There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there again, I'm in the request for rollback. I need another admin to review the request, as someone invovled in something not so flattering I thought I might see if you'd endorse me for rollback. Any comments for or against would help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you I will do my best to represent our community in a positive light.HellinaBucket (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bluboy, I had a quick question for you. Vegkilla is following me around and reverting edits I've made on articles. Specifically The article on Professional Bull Riders. I removed the info because it was trivia and not well wrote, however due to the level of scrutiny I am under I am very hesitant to do ANYTHING about it but would like to get someone elses opinion on the matter. Can you look into it at all? I would appreciate any assisance on this matter.HellinaBucket (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted the incident on the admin board. To be very clear though I didn't paste the warning template on his page as this could be twisted to further harrassment and I agreed to not post there again when my block was lifted.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Now he is following me to other talk pages and erasing my comments there. I have added an addendum to my admin notice board case.HellinaBucket (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ericsaindon2

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ericsaindon2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ericsaindon2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ericsaindon2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey Blueboy, I see you're busy fighting the good fight. Could you have a look at the contributions of User talk:67.172.145.218, specifically their attempt to make Phil Jackson more fair and balanced? I'm not going to revert again, since I've done that three times (or more?) already again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, something may have gone wrong with the edit you intended at the article... Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't scroll down far enough to see what you added--I thought the "J" was in place, accidentally, of a full and verified statement. Thanks again for the good edit, and I also hope that puts it to rest. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:FMChimera and Miami Vice

I just wanted to let you know, I undid the sockpuppetry block on this user. Basically, he openly admitted he was the same user as the IP and was unaware the IP had been blocked. He has served out the time on the original block. Also, I changed the protection on Miami Vice to full protection. At heart, this was an editorial dispute, not vandalism. Mangojuice^talk 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Slam Darts

Please explain to me how Slam Darts "doesn't even come close" to a G3.

"This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism, and blatant hoaxes."

An offensive-username user calling himself the world champion of a hoax doesn't qualify? So we should leave that out there for 5 days for all his friends to see his handywork?

I'd like to AGF, but condescending edit summaries make it difficult.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to you

The reasons why I deleted those sentences in the Toronto section because they were unnecessary information and takes away from the important information on the article. Who cares if Toronto squeezes past Mexico City on the financial centers list? And who has ever heard of some tiny airline company that no longer exists? A page on the airling company can be created, but putting it under the Economy of Toronto seemes stupid. Then again, with all the time you have in your hands making sure that every word in Wiki still looks the same, no wonder your college degree is gathering dust.Prettywoman5 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AlysonBeGoode

She constantly adds information about heritage to articles that's unsourced. I went back and forth with her original account for awhile pleading with her to stop and gradually escalating in block lengths. Finally, during one of her blocks, she started using socks and continued the same pattern. She's pretty easy to spot. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

1987 Maryland train collision

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to 1987 Maryland train collision. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Highspeed (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: How do you reconcile being a supporter of a strict zero tolerance policy on vandalism with being an administrator making un-sourced edits, like the one I am complaining about here? Highspeed (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of banned user BhaiSaab

BhaiSaab is now editing as Wadq . Listspace (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Eagle Mountain, Utah - problems continue

I've just undone the latest insertion from the IP editor(s) intent upon perpetuating their tl:dr municipal squabble on this page. (Semi) protection ended on the 25 May and the problematic (and par-for-the-course accusatory) block of text I've just removed was made on the 29th. Given that it contains contentious WP:BLP issues, as well as WP:SOAPBOXing, I think protection needs to be ongoing as - despite unequivocal warnings - the editor(s) seem determined to add this material and will continue to do so whenever IP editing permits them to. Ta! Plutonium27 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Me, I'm watching it now too (sigh) because although this place means nothing to me, this shanigan is a splendid sample of the sort of thing which Wikipedia is prone to and which ought to be jumped upon with both feet. With Dr Martens on. Banning IP edits did seem to knock it on the head and Matey has evidently not the cojones to get traceable with an account. Can we not do the semi-protection again (and is there a time limit - viz. it'll have to be renewed weekly, say)? Plutonium27 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Air France Flight 447. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 212.84.108.212 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier edit war

since you sound rational, i would like your input asto what should be done with the traub bonacquist and fox section on the Marc Dreier page which has been locked by mr. cavalry, a non-american contributor who doesn't like references from court transcripts or dockets posted on the internet.

you are working on the saylor company block, and since she is paid by mr. traub to delete, she began that last week as saylor company. she then was admonished not to delete sourced material, the complete section in one stroke, and also, as a paid rep, needed her own user page. with her new screen name, User talk:W Cwir at Saylor, ‎she then began deleting line by line without reason, other than she was protecting her client from incrimination. no reason except personal opinion. she is being enriched for her time. the way the section stands now, it has no relevance to dreier and should be removed completely. all it is, is merely free promotional advertising for his new digs, which was her last edit.

i have spent many days researching the page and much time on the section. traub is lawless and was a member of a lawless law firm. his ethics and malfeasance have a direct bearing on the dreier page as the issues continued during his sojourn there. the section just above his names other attorneys in the firm who are being investigated and subpoenaed. in addition, he was partners with Tom Petters before arriving on park avenue. both are indicted criminals for money laundering and wire fraud. ergo, water seeks its own level. all facts were sourced and now what remains is filler ---meaningless dicta, to the perfect satisfaction of traub. i requested ms. saylor to correct the record, or have traub correct any errors, but she ignored it completely. she doesn't want the fraud case discussed because it could open up a can of worms, possibly an indictment. there is no statute of limitations on a fraud upon the court in the usa. paul traub is a public figure with public admissions of perjury and false affidavits as an officer of the court, which are sourced in my contributions. n.b. the time frame of her sequential deletions yesterday early am. she was "sleepless in wikipedia", up all night! perhaps, she had a deadline today. and also, go back to my original insertions before all the reversions.

some have recommended a law firm page, but the firm is defunct and unless that section enlarges, and it is linked, there is not enough material and it is irrelevant unto itself - a dead issue, but the lawyers are alive and kicking all dispersed like red ants. lots of them are bad news and should be covered as the facts are revealed. the page builds as you know.

i have no personal interest or bias in any of the players; i simply enjoy exposing greed in the usa wherever the facts exist.

please check out for up to date details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saylorcompany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marc_Stuart_Dreier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Marc_Dreier_Page_Edit_War_by_a_paid_PR_Agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Revert_war_and_BLP_over_Marc_Stuart_Dreier

thanx for your diligence in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho

I don't think it's necessary to prevent edits to his own talk page at this time. There is a dialogue going on; it's not necessarily productive but it's not necessarily destructive either. I'm not undoing or even requesting you undo...I'm very much "involved" at this point, but it's not harming the project right now.  Frank  |  talk  00:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bosonic dressing

Hi!

I'm a wee bit concerned about the circumstances that let to this user being blocked. I acknowledge that they were edit warring, however it seems that they started simply by reverting (per WP:BRD) to the consensus version on a number of articles, and the other party to the dispute then reverted - and in each case has reverted as many times.

I'm not asking for Bosonic dressing's block to be lifted or reduced (and I'll admit that I've been discussing some of these articles with Bosonic dressing recently, prior to this edit war blowing up), just that you consider User:TownDown's behaviour too.

...and, as always, I'm up for a slap if I'm out of line!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me please what kind of behaviour are you accusing me?, which consensus?, there's not a general consensus, your multiple messages in many articles is not a general consensus to changes all maps without approval. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you also were edit warring, and have racked up 3+ reverts on some of the articles (for example: Sudan 1, Sudan 2, Sudan 3). The consensus I referred to was the pre-existing consensus; the maps used on most of these articles had been in place for some time before you changed them. I have no preference regarding either your new map or the old maps (I'm trying to gather a new consensus for uniform SVG maps across continents to replace the hodge-podge of largely PNG maps currently used, but that's not the issue here). Until there's a consensus I have no intention of making any changes; my concern right now is simply about edit warring in the meantime.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bother this admin, please go to your own Talk_Page.

Well, maybe you and Bosonic dressing think that can change all maps without approval, don't forget that there's not a general consensus or general pre-existing consensus ....where it is?, did you read all talk pages?, because your multiple messages in many articles are not a general consensus or general pre-existing consensus to changes all maps in all continents in all countries and almost all English Wikipedia just because your messages without approval by multiples users registered in their WikiProjects.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am as entitled as you to ask for an admin's assistance. Please don't tell me where I can and can not post, with the exception of your own talk page.

You appear to be confused. I've replied at your talk page. The executive summary is I do not think I can change all maps "without approval", nor am I trying to. I have no opinion on "your map" or "Bosonic dressing's map", merely on the edit war the pair of you appear to had over the two. Indeed, I am currently trying to gather consensus for an entirely different map - one I won't add to articles until there is consensus to do so. Indeed, at this point the new style of map has not even been created, as you'll realise if you check the post I made which you refer to. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Users like Bosonic dressing think so, if you're currently trying to gather consensus for an entirely different map, then you shouldn't say "pre-existing consensus", prove that multiple pre-existing consensus, because remember that Bosonic dressing changed South American maps, African maps, European maps and it needs a multiple consensus approved not "trying to gather consensus" as you said. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Executive summary is that I suspect Bosonic dressing is considerably less confused than you appear to be. "Pre-existing consensus" refers to the consensus that existed at each article before you changed the map, and before the pair of you started reverting each other. Incidentally, there's really no need to echo everything you post on my talk page here, I watchlist both (and yours, too, if that helps). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Please, tell me where's it that Pre-existing consensus to change all maps in all continents in all countries. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. There wasn't one, the pre-existing consensus was for the existing maps; but that shouldn't (and indeed didn't) prevent you changing to a new map. All "pre-existing consensus" means in this context is that you shouldn't be surprised - after being bold - if another editor reverts you. The important thing is that neither of you should then have edit-warred over your preferred map - you should both have discussed the issue. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me now where's it that global consensus to change all the maps?, where's it?, where's it?.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we're having the same conversation in three different places! Replied, strawman. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Hey. I have left a comment over at his talk page expressing my view that he should be unblocked. Your comments are desired. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy

Sorry, but why did you delete that page? The AfD is still ongoing, see User talk:Daniel#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy‎.  Sandstein  21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, you reclosed it. Please undo this, as Daniel did - the seven days are not up yet.  Sandstein  21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam controversy article

cross-edited there and then my computer died - oops! Could you please restore the full deleted version and I'll re-edit that instead? -- Banjeboi 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out, thank you! -- Banjeboi 22:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anfisa Foxcat block

Hi there. Was this a preventative block? If so, could you explain how it is? The recreated article in question had already been salted. Also, in your comment on their talk page, you mention that they are welcome to post an unblock request, but you do not say how (with {{Unblock}}). Was this intentional? Sorry if this sounds confrontational; I am an inexperienced admin and am trying to understand current blocking practice. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That editor had no other contributions outside of that article, and his repeated attempts to recreate it made me think he's an single-purpose account interested only in promoting the subject of that article. He'd been warned several times about it. Blueboy96 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

True. I still don't see how it was a preventative block, since the sole focus of their edits had been protected from recreation, but given the user's repeated unwillingness to comply with policy, a block review is probably not worth the trouble. -kotra (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dublin1994

Was an indef block for vandalism really necessary? I wouldn't describe the editor as a vandal, though definitely POV-pushing, misguided, disruptive and adversarial. I dropped one final ultimatum on his talk page as a last ditch effort to encourage him to clean up, and would have blocked him if he disregarded the direct threat of blocking in any immediate edit thereafter; the indef block was dropped on before he seemed to have logged in again. I'm not contesting your actions, I'm just intrigued by your reasoning. You've been doing this admin business longer than me, maybe its just me still taking a too soft approach. -- Sabre (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's fair to compare two different types of titles. The Soviet leagues had the regular season (most of the time) deem the national champion, and sometimes they had a playoff for a cup to decide the league champion (though it was on and off). It's two different things to compare cups to titles IMO --Львівске (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

care to see about blocking someone?

Hi Blueboy, I saw you were on call with all your administrative powers--care to have a look at the activities of Antares137 on Starchild skull? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Not a great loss to the community, I think. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ffaadstrbdetete

I noticed your decline of the subject user's request to be unblocked.[1] As I indicated earlier on his talk page[2] his recent edits have generally been constructive so I'm somewhat puzzled as why you declined him for being disruptive. As I also indicated, I'm not an administrator so I may be missing something because I don't have access to the information but from what I've seen, I really think this editor should be given a second chance. Granted, he was originally blocked for being disruptive but he now seems genuinely interested in being constructive, as you can see by his edits at FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman and List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes, the main pages that he edits, as well as his requests on my talk page. Am I missing something? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

user:76.211.30.178

I noticed that you blocked this user as a probable Television Radio sock puppet. Unless TV Radio suddenly changed locations from Chicago, IL to Akron, OH, this wasn't him. The edit itself seems productive, it appears to me that the filter may be too sensitive on certain edits. WuhWuzDat 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

An Question from a Curious Person

I've noticed that you've been editing the 2008 presidential election in specific states. In several of your edits, you've stated that ________ County hasn't voted Democratic/Republican since _____. I'm wonder - where in the world are you getting those statistics? The best county data I've been able to find is David Leip's election atlas, and that only goes back to 1960. Your information seems to go way farther back, and I'm intensely curious where I can find it. Hadoren (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

re Wexperts

You are right, I suppose I could have blocked it myself. No worries. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Huggle question

I am having a problem with Huggle. How do I get it to start running? And yes, I do have rollback.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 20:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Got me a sock puppet

Can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Hettwer Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thaank you sir, I hope you see my turn around was definitly worth the unblock.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Connumity Ban

Hi

I would like to have a connumity ban for 2 months please so would you report me?--Sam8521 (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Danras

I'd like to try to bring him back first. I have to run to a wedding right now. I'll respond as soon as I get a chance. ⟳ausa کui ^× 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbialastoki

Thankyou for your quick action and for the link in answer to my question. Keep up the good work. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Sarah Palin

It looked like pure vandalism to me. Why did you remove occupations and replace it with the least notable? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Paki90

User:Paki90 has violated the terms of his probation. [3] With such a name, I think he is obviously insulting us Pakistanis. Anyone who uses the name Paki is doing so to offend the people of Pakistan. I also believe that he is involved in sockpuppetry and vandalism. He is constantly adding Shia stuff to articles on Muslim leaders who are not Shias. This causes great confusion to readers. He is very annoying and should be banned again. Every edit he does is intended to cause frustration to those who are not Shias.[4], [5], I think User:Geogilgit is his sock.--119.73.1.149 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:67.40.131.21

Three edits in total; no deleted edits; only one edit tagged by a filter. How, exactly, is that "Repeatedly and deliberately triggering"? Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wicked Pundit

Hello. You blocked User:Wicked Pundit. I don't think being a spokesperson is forbidden. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He did it again

IP User 66.41.149.58 has vandalized numerous articles after you blocked him. Ranging from his last warning on October,11,2008 to December also he returned on May 1st to vandalize yet another --Meteorman7228 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ALLCAPS

Hi, I was wondering, do you know more on the MO of this fool? Eg, who he attacks, who he might be, etc Triplestop x3 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New page

I've recently created a page for Charlotte cowboy and entertainment personality Fred Kirby. Feel free to contribute and to invite others to do the same. I think I've run out of information to add to the article. Astrochemist (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Cafritz

Now I didn't see the content of the AfD, but the current text says that the previous version of the AfD was available in the History, but its not, someone deleted it. You added the AfD Courtesy Blanking tag, but as you know that policy pretty clearly states that the history should still be available, and that courtesy blanking was to hide it from search bots. Again, I never saw what it said, but it seems like that history should still be there. Thoughts? You can reply here if you prefer.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the history was deleted due to an OTRS complaint--WP:CBLANK says that in extreme cases, the entire history can be deleted. Blueboy96 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Oakwell0987654321 ‎

Hi, I don;t know if you are still online, but I came across User:Oakwell0987654321 at new pages, whoo is sooooooooo obviously User:Hertfordshire1234 (who you blocked in a few different incarnations) back again with the fantasy nobility articles that I reckon it is blatant enough for some summary action, although I can take it to SPI later tonight if needs be. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(reply) Oh, I don't know :). Hertfordshire1234 is nothing if not persistent; I tried a quick search using the common thread that runs through all the articles and found an AFD from May for an article that fitted the bill, created by User:Elliott567, whcih is an account that predates H1234. I was going to suggest to him that he at least try to create hoax articles for people who have actually allegedly done something, rather than merely being born into wealth, but that might be considered naughty. I prefer my hoaxes to meritocratic, not aristocratic  ;) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people?

Hello Blueboy, can you please quote for me the exact policy that forbids fair use images of living people? I have never come across or heard of such policy before, and if it exists, have seen it widely violated by nearly everyone who uploads a fair use image. The link you provided me 1 ---> WP:NFCC#Unacceptable use doesn't seem to mention anything about it (as far as I can tell) ??? Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

Which newcomer did I bite?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, HangingCurve. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Bal537's edits

• Bal537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sir, User Bal537 has been indulging in extensive vandalism on Ramdasia Section.

User:Safwwefe

{{editprotected}} Could you please update this banned user's page with:

{{Banned user|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive543#I'm no fan of Obama, but.......|Discussion on AN/I]]}}
{{Sockpuppeteerproven|blocked}}

...so that a link relating to the ban is visible. Also update the entry on WP:BANNED by fixing the consensus for ban link to IncidentArchive543, the discussion is on 543 (not 544). Regards. -- 92.8.29.134 (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Please respond, and add the "editprotected" again.  Chzz  ►  05:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WJHG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:WJHG.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lute88

I unblocked Lute88 per his review request. On reviewing his contributions, I gathered that he was trying to add sources and Impala2009 was blindly reverting without discussion. Restoring one's content in the face of unexplained blanking is not edit warring, in my opinion. If you think I'm in the wrong, let's discuss. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Orly Taitz

I have has asked for a deletion review of Orly Taitz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dems on the move (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my disagreement with the outcome, I don't understand how you implemented it. I would think the normal procedure would be to blank the content and substitute a redirect. That would facilitate the eventual creation of a better article, with more biographical information (per your closing comment), because the deleted text would still be available in the history and could be used as a starting point. Yet, the history shows nothing except creation of a redirect in February. Can we at least fix that? JamesMLane t c 12:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, where is the historical article? A second point, Blueboy96 used the justification for the deletion that Dr. Taitz is notable only for representing two cases in the Supreme Court. It should be noted that if her case prevails, this will precipitate the greatest Constitutional crises in history. So, even if she does rate a deletion, at any rate, that should not be implemented until -after- the case is heard.

I submit she is also notable for being the subject of a controversy regarding censorship, ironically enough, in places like Wikipedia. At any rate, she is certainly more notable than people like Eric Alterman. Why does he have a page, which is a stub, and is notable for nothing other than being a commentator? At least Dr. Taitz is a Supreme Court Attorney, as well as Dentist. I have a hard time believing there is not an emotional/political motivation for the deletion, and furthermore the redirect to a page that characterizes her as "fringe" is nothing less than reprehensible and vindictive. Killigan (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me one reason

Why I should not demand you be banned from AfD for this close. 3 days? AfDs last for 7 days. Consensus was to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

Hi, I'm somewhat confused at your decision here. AfDs typically last for seven days, and as far as I can tell, consensus was not clear enough to justify WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I counted them, the !results at that point were as follows - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

!Vote	Count
Keep	7
Keep/incubate	1
Incubate	1
Delete/incubate	1
Delete	8

Not sure how you did your math, but it was clearly 11 deletes to 8 keeps. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletes - Ottava Rima (nominator), RayAYang, Narson, Killiondude, Ironholds, Whitehorse1, Pointillist (allows for userfy, but all userfies are deletions), Xymmax (userfies are deletions), snigbrook, Jennavecia, OlEnglish,

Keeps - ViperSnake151 (creator of page), mattbuck, Yellowdesk (page editor), RHaworth, Agradman, DGG, Jeni, pd_THOR.

11 deletes. Userfy is a delete, as you cannot redirect into user space. Two of the keeps are by people editing the page, so they are not objective to have weight. 1, Jeni, is simply following DGG which does not fall under consensus. Most of the keep statements were completely contradicted. So, just on numbers, it was: 58% delete, 65% delete when the two editors from the page are removed, and 69% when the joint vote is counted properly. Clear consensus to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you forget yourself. You are not an administrator here, you do not have the right to undo an admin closing a DR. If you feel it is a mistake, you take it up here FIRST, then you let THEM reopen it.

As for your vote counting, DRs are not votes, they are discussions, and the closing admin has the right to veto anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If I have to take this to DRV, I will ask for you, Blueboy, and ViperSnake blocked for outright disruption and trolling, along with seeking a desysop for Blueboy's constant closing of AfDs after 3 days instead of the necessary 7. Julian, above, is an admin and already expressed how there was no possible way to see this as appropriate. Your comments right now are completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how I'm trolling, by telling you you don't have the right to undo an admin closing a DR.... -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way to close a page before 7 days is through "snow". The justification for a "snow" close is an essay. Anyone nominator who is snowed can restore the process because snow is only an essay. The same is true at RfC if the subject wishes to continue. I have every right to undo the action. The edit warring was completely inappropriate and anyone who knows anything about AfD would have known the above. Thus, actions in support of that edit warring are furthering a disruption of a normal process. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm further intrigued as to when I have edit warred over this. I just said here that you shouldn't revert it yourself, I made no edits reverting your reopening. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If my !totals are incorrect, please fix the summary I've left at the AfD (I was treating userfy as being the same as incubate). I agree that !votes aren't exactly votes, but they definitely are for the purpose of WP:SNOW, so they can be used to query early closure. Personally I am happy to "incubate" or delete the current article: one day this topic will be important but it has been published too soon because there aren't enough facts yet. - Pointillist (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. . I will also be seeking your desysop because I had to go through the hassle of this to fix your blatantly inappropriate action. You have a bad history of closing things 4 days before it is acceptable and that is clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

Hello! Regarding your closure of the deletion debate, would you object to restoring the former article's revision history and talk page (while retaining the redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and even protecting it if necessary)? I believe that this would satisfy many of those objecting to the deletion (including me), as it would enable editors to address the issues said to justify the redirection (by expanding the text and seeking consensus to revive the dedicated article if/when this becomes feasible in the future).
Thanks very much for your consideration. —David Levy 12:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? —David Levy 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On another point, I see no explanation as to why you closed this discussion after less than 4 days, barely half the prescribed length. At the very least, a discussion this contested should have been allowed to run the full prescribed period. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Why _did_ you close that at under 4 days, instead of letting it run for the full 7? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Vartanian, also closed short of 4 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Orly Taitz discussion you said: "In the five days since this debate opened, the article essentially remained a stub, and there wasn't enough biographical information added to prove she is notable beyond the "birther" debate. Granted, there was a fairly large majority of "Keeps," but articles like this are, to my mind, a textbook example of why AFD is not a vote"

Several things strike me as weird about that. First, you say: "five days". But the Wikipedia policies say: "The discussion lasts at least seven days"...

Second, you say: "There wasn't enough biographical information added to prove that she is notable beyond the birther debate." I believe that that is a straw-man argument that you raised to make the "keepers" look foolish.

According to Wikipedia policy, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The "event" is the creation of a movement that has lead almost a quarter of all Americans to question whether their president is legally entitled to his position. That is significant. The woman is the leader (or one of the leaders) of that movement. So yes, she is only famous for a single event, but she can still be noteworthy according to wikipedia policy. -- Prescod —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

User talk:Lubblobba

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. For my part, I'm not sure why we'd block them indefinitely, as they don't seem to have been acting maliciously. Orientation seems more useful in the long run than flat-out banning people for early missteps, both for our content and for our reputation. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, additional point of confusion: you left a block message, but their block log is empty. Might have been a fluke. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD not a vote?

I see that you deleted Orly Taitz in spite of the fact that the deletion discussion revealed, if anything, a consensus to keep. You note that AFD is not a vote, which is true. But that doesn't mean that the closing admin just gets to decide to do whatever they like. It means that we require more than a simple majority in order to delete an article. The only exception given in policy is when the person themselves have requested that the article be deleted - nobody has suggested that Taitz has done so. Your attitude towards deletion basically seems to imply that the closing admin can basically just ignore what anybody has said in the deletion discussion and do what they like. This is clearly absurd. There was no consensus to delete in the discussion. Taitz is not a little known person who has requested that her article be removed. As such, there was no grounds for you to close the discussion with the result being delete. The result was "no consensus." john k (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HangingCurve. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petcalledros.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fondazionebalzanpremio

Fondazionebalzanpremio (talk, contributions) has been making a large number of edits, all relating to the Balzan prize. The name Fondazionebalzanpremio consists of the Italian words "Fondazione balzan premio" run on together, and means "Balzan prize organisation". The user has twice been warned that this is contrary to the user name policy, at WP:ORGNAME, but has still continued to edit. I wonder whether you, as an admin might be prepared to step in? The policy is quite clear: "accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked", so giving two warnings was actually a concession. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tugarasti

Hi. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATugarasti&action=history and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AimalCool/Archive seem to indicate that Tugarasti was blocked, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATugarasti does not. Would you please block Tugarasti? Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

Hello, Blueboy96! As you were previously involved with the List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States), I invite you to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States); I am arguing for some sort of inclusion of the list and would welcome your participation there. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to the value of the information or the question of merging or expanding the list. Thanks in advance if you're willing to vote or comment, whatever your take might be. Abrazame (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

What the....

Why was I blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvinJohanssen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Modusfurniture

I have unblocked Modusfurniture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can change his user name. Fred Talk 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Naoy5

Would you mind also deleting all those weird subpages made by Naoy5 (talk · contribs)? Obviously trying to use Wikipedia as his webhost for his own personal profits. Thanks. -- œ^™ 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wphl2001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wphl2001.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The most unlikely source of criticism

Blueboy,

I don't know if you saw this reference that was recently added to the Orly Taitz article, but now Orly herself has joined in all the people who have criticized your decision to delete the article. I've heard the expression "you can't please everybody", but it seems that in your case, your decision to delete the article better fits the expression "you can't please anybody". I hope that will a once-in-lifetime experience which you won't have to go through again. Yonideworst (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:OriginalFox4.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OriginalFox4.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Naoy5/Sandbox

You forgot to get the main nomination article. I closed the MfD when I saw that they were all speedied and then someone pointed that out. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Juliancoulton got it, no further action is required. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Godman1234 ‎

Seeing as RHaworth isn't around, and you have dealt with this guy before, can you say hello to Godman1234 who rather obviously is User:Hertfordshire1234 back agan with the fantasy nobility articles. I'll drop a note on the talk page of the article he created to show what it is a copy of, but it has the expected putative heir at the bottom of the article. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Errrr, never mind. By the time I made a coffee and came back, NawlinWiki had sorted it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat

RE: Movement for a Better Hungary thanks for the page protection. The right move. Tedhovis (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jds

It is now a week since I posted an unblock request here, with no response, positive or negative. I have found unblock-en-l and will try there now, so this text is no longer relevant.

user:Lighteningluster

You blocked this guy yesterday. However, he continues to abuse his talk page, so if you don't mind, could you revoke his access to it? Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Javért  |  ^Talk 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tonye Irims

I have reduced your block of Tonye Irims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one month after an appeal on unblock-en-l. He has had the account for quite some time. I have counseled him regarding attempting to advertise his business. Fred Talk 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the new Nicktoons Network, Nick Jr. and Nick at Nite logos?

The deletion summary on File:Nick Jr. logo 2009.svg, File:Nicktoons Network logo 2009.svg and File:Nick at Nite logo 2009.svg says "Speedy deleted per CSD F7, was a file with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago." as logos in typeface are Public domain (See WP:Public domain#Fonts) therefor do not need fair use rationale and the uploader was not notified more than 48 hours ago. Why did you delete the logos? Powergate92Talk 04:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

reason?

Would u pls tell me why you Blueboy96 blocked my ip address?i even dont know who is trhat mr abdollahi? may valuable times was robbed by someone. i wanna visit those edits myself and see weather they r really similar or not! which page(s) are/ were those edits? tell me pls how can i prove i dont know that mr abdollahi? who is responsible for this unacceptable blocking? how can i get my times back???

Yeah, I've proposed as much. How do we make the request? Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MadManAmeica

He's gone right back to re-adding the petition link to the UPN article, and I'm at 2RR with him...can we put it on the blacklist so it can't be linked to? Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jds

I don't get this: Jds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited for two years, yet you blocked him for multiple accounts. Could you explain this? Fred Talk 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list of socks somewhere? Why did this become an issue in 2009? Fred Talk 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paki90

If you check the recent edits of Paki90 you will see that he has once again started adding Shia Islam to multiple articles. This was part of the issue leading to his probation. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Dak and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.222.63 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

About the Sockpuppet accusation.

Check my comments on your Sockpuppet accusation of my unapproved bot. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to unblock User:Picoplatin1

It appears that the Picoplatin article wasn't intended as promotion, so User:Picoplatin1 isn't a promotional username and the user should not have been blocked. If this is true, your speedy deletion rationale would be incorrect as well.

I googled the term, and the user's explanation checks out. May I unblock? rspεεr (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Block Evasion?

Hi B~! Please take a look at this, and tell me what you think of it because I smell a big, fat rat and it is now frantically gnawing for page protection at WP:RPP. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Election

Hey. I need a third party opinion on the article regarding the presidential election in California. Please go on the talk page on the last section and share your opinion. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:NewYorkCity101

Can you please check this user's edits and fix the mess they've created? After many warnings from me for going on a quixotic quest to stop the long-stopped BenH, they're now moving to making completely unneeded and unasked for page moves that break templates, uploading junk images to Simpsons articles over ones that have been there for years and making other bizarre and unsourced edits. They've already had a sock account blocked and my patience with them is exhausted. I would do reverting but i'm at work and stuck sending this on my phone. Nate • (chatter) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)