User talk:Indubitably/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Request for Comment about Problem

Hi LaraLove, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! -TabooTikiGod 06:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

regarding the Elvis article

You may wish to review the following pages: [1], [2], [3]. This situation is a replay of previous events and has two things in common: the Elvis article and a certain editor. If it was me, I could not not rationalize spending time trying to come to agreement with 141, who has shown no willingness to discuss things, and would just let the article degrade further. I don't know how much longer Rikstar, whose efforts all but one editor support, in general, can keep this up. Again, I believe arbitration is the only reasonable path at this point. -- Steve Pastor (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from London. Amazin' what a lift a lil' old barnstar can give when you're on your sickbed. Much appreciated...! Thanks for your overview. -- Rikstar (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty userpage!

You have one of the best userpages! --❤☺❤Hugs And More Warm Hugs to the HEART! ❤☺❤ (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

question

Wanna adopt me?

Strang Article

Lara, if (and only if!) you have the time, could you please take another look at the James Strang article (you redid the footnotes on it--and I heartily thank you!). It's been nominated for FA, but an objection was entered (on the FA talk page, not the article talk page) about the footnotes. I know I added some after you had finished, but I'm really not sure if I screwed them up, or what this gentleman is talking about (as footnotes aren't my forte'!) when he says they're in two different styles, neither of which (according to him) seems to be correct. Could you give me some insights or pointers if you have a minute? Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Arthur Douglas Merriman

Please can you restore this stub? I removed the speedy tag from it, as George Cross recipients are inherently highly notable, yet you deleted it anyway. The article as it stood was short, but by deleting it you are inhibitinh its development. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once the article has some content and some assertion of notability, it can be recreated. The page being deleted has not inhibited it's development. It can be written on a user subpage, as a word document, ect, and then the page created once it is ready. One sentence is not sufficient, even for a stub. Lara❤Love 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The George Cross IS an assertion of notablility. I am upset that you ignored the removal of the speedy tag, and chose to delete without discussing with either the original author, or the editor removing the tag. DuncanHill (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The George Cross is not enough to assert notability. If recipients of this award are notable, then an article that lists the recipients would be appropriate. A simple Google search revealed nothing on this man. If they aren't notable outside of this one award, they don't warrant their own article. Lara❤Love 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that you, as an admin, are aware that the lack of google hits is NOT evidence of lack of notability. As you are unwilling to reconsider your deletion, please could you copy the deleted text to my talk page, where I can start to work on it? DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Lara, receiving this award is an indicator of notability. Also the list that you refer to is List of George Cross recipients which you kindof destroyed with this diff. Could you please check what your tools are doing? Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Snap. I don't know what TW is doing. Thanks for point that out! I'll go check over my edits today to make sure that's not a recurring problem. That aside, I don't agree that the award alone asserts notability to warrant an article. Who is he? What did he do? I could be wrong, but although it was originally tagged as non notable, I believe I deleted it for lack of content as it was one sentence to state he got this award. Lara❤Love 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a scientist (not a bomb disposal expert) who removed a bomb from Regent Street during the Second World War (contrary to your assertion above, a quick google search DOES reveal this). He was awarded the George Cross - this is the highest award for gallantry for Commonwealth civilians, and is very rarely awarded, and then only for acts of the very greatest bravery. I believe you are wrong to claim that it is not notable. DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is probably a script problem, I remember Mercury having a problem recently; he nominated AIV for deletion and unblocked people who weren't even blocked! Every person who is awarded the MOH, the VC, the GC and other similar awards are deemed to be notable. I think it would have been better to tag for expansion rather than delete for lack of context. Also, given that an established editor created the article, an established editor removed the speedy tag, it would have been better to nominate it at WP:AFD. Woodym555 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Okay, first to DuncanHill: I'm sorry. I don't think you are understanding me, and that's my fault. What I'm saying is that stating the he's received this award is, in it self, not enough assertion of notability for an article. I deleted it for lack of context, not because of non-notability (as it was tagged). The article needs to be more than his name and that he received this award. Once it has been expanded to include this information of who he was and what he did, the article most certainly can be recreated without fear of deletion for non-notability.

To Woody: I checked over the other edits, none seem to have done anything similar to that. I'm not sure what that was. The others just removed wikification for the deleted articles. Very strange. As far as establised editors creating the article and removing the tag, I didn't even look. I was just going down the list. It was one sentence providing little context. AFD seemed to be unnecessary. Lara❤Love 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Far enough, I have done the same. Ogene is a good example of that. I am working on the Merriman article in my sandbox. Thanks for replying so promptly. Regards. Woodym555 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased Third Party Opinion Requested

Hi Lara, there is a bit of a discussion on the Brassiere talk page, which I started about a month ago. At that point, the article was exceedingly anti-bra, and I posted an unsigned comment on its talk page regarding its dubious neutrality. Since then, a good deal of work has been done, but the later half of the article still seems very biased against bras. User Mgoodyear feels that his citation support this stance, and that they make the article more balanced as opposed to biased. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? As always, many thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx spam

Thank you, LaraLove, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude. Best regards, Húsönd 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

[4] Hot damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, fuck... might as well be real about it. :P Lara❤Love 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been loved by REDYVA

Hey there! REDYVA has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, Master Redyva (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AllOfMP3

Just to say thanks for your attention to this article, and for removing the external links. It seems like a good solution. I'm going to work to try and integrate any of the relevant (non-spammy) ones back into the article text, but in the meantime I just wanted to say thanks. Vl'hurg ^talk 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Lara❤Love 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

clarification

Hello, can you clarify this edit? [5]. I reverted it but am open to discussion if it should be unreverted due to a policy I'm unaware of... Cheers,AndrewGNF (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You were right to revert. I'm going to have to go through my edits from today and fix mistakes. I just reported that and another bug with TW. It has been automatically removing uses of images that I've deleted for being redundant of Commons images. Because they have the same name, usage should stay the same, but it's doing that anyway. Thanks for the note. I appreciate it. Lara❤Love 17:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! AndrewGNF (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Hi Lara. Saw your comment, edit summary and pipedlink [6] but I'm still confused as to what your trying to tell me! Could you just tell me in plain English instead - I'm old and crusy and get confused! Cheers :) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying, Pedro, is you're hilarious. Your constant bullshit since day one of my RfA amuses me. Lara❤Love 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cummon Lara that's harsh and unconstructive. . Are you still wondering why I ended up opposing, as did a number of others per my rationale when you come up with responses like that? I thought we were all on the same team here. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Whatev. You neutraled over something ridiculous. You had more co-noms than I had pre-transclusion supporters, hypocrite. There was nothing in my responses that warranted an oppose. You're so funny. Just drop it. You're not getting my tools, so get over it. Go threaten to block some more people that disagree with you like you did in my RfA, but save it on my talk page. Lara❤Love 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry we can't agree. But one point - you do realise the (poor judgement) block I "threatened" was at someone who was being unconstructive within you RfA. Exact entry was;

However you will not use a respected Wikipedians RFA as an opportunity to attack and disparage other deeply respected Wikipedians. Your "minders" comment is not within the spirit of discussion and I will block for disruption if I read something similar from you. Sorry, but the candidate and community deserve beter.

I'm sorry Lara, to violate your talk page again. However, as ever of course, my very best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So is it worth it so far?

So are the admin tools worth the trouble of adminning so far? I'm trying to convince someone who's reluctant to accept several people's offers to nominate him as an admin. Wryspy (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. It's nothing special, really. A week of mostly bullshit character bashing by people you end up helping. But it's something different. If s/he doesn't want it, let them wait until they do. Lara❤Love 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Wryspy (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Are you aware of the recent instability of the Elvis Presley article? See [7] etc. etc. If these many removals of well-sourced information continue, we can forget the GA status. See also [8]. Onefortyone (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's taken care of. Hopefully we can get all of this sorted out soon. Lara❤Love 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Golduck

Odd, I thought that article was kept as GA according to the GAR. I also question a few of TNN's other contributions... _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really involved anymore. I'll look into it tho. Lara❤Love 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In looking over the edits, I'd recommend contacting TNN on his talk page and asking him about it. I'm not sure what project he's referring to, but I don't believe it's GA. Lara❤Love 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment

You voted for one of my prior proposals to institute a List of the Day Proposal. I may have already alerted you to an experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD. Now that the experiment is running I can point out the benefits to the project of the method I am experimenting with that other alternatives don't offer. First, there is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.

There are several other advantages that will improve the project:

1. Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
2. Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
3. Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.

Again come by and consider adopting one of our orphans this month or in future months either adopt an orphan or give feedback on the candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I now see your are supporting the latest proposal at WP:LOTDP, I am just reminding you that there are various proposals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Harter Fell (Eskdale)

Hi, you commented out an image in this article that had been "speedily deleted". However, I can see no evidence of this or even a basis for proposing its deletion, the image is still present so I have removed the comment. Halsteadk (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I'm going to have to stop using Twinkle. It's a bug in the tool. I don't do it. It does it automatically. I deleted the image on Wikipedia because it exists on Commons under the same name. For whatever reason, TW randomly chooses to remove the uses for some of the images I delete. Thanks for the note. You were right to revert. Lara❤Love 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah!

[9] Lol... ya overrode me!  :-D Jmlk17 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline declined. :P I protected and then, when I backpaged and clicked edit, that's when I saw you'd declined. Too bad. I'm the HBIC! Hahaa. Lara❤Love 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*Disclaimer: The above is intended to be funny. It is not evidence of a rogue admin on a powertrip. Lara❤Love 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! It's all good... just giving you a hard time. :) Jmlk17 05:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Snowshoe Hare.jpg

Resolved

why did you delete Image:Snowshoe Hare.jpg? It just got removed by an image bot from several articles where it was in use, including the main snowshoe hare infobox. if it was a duplicate, you should change the image links before deleting it. and if it wasn't a duplicate, it should be nominated at WP:IFD--having a better image available somewhere is not a valid speedy delete reason. thanks, 209.113.152.82 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

image followup

it looks like you deleted several other images for the same reason... when you're deleting it would be much better to specify the exact name of the duplicate image in the deletion summary so other users can track it down. it would be good if you could undelete and redelete so that you can write a better log entry... and undelete and WP:IFD where the images aren't exact duplicates or obviously and ridiculously horrible. 209.113.152.82 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The images I deleted for that reason have the same name on Commons, so any uses of the image should be unaffected. However, I was (it's since been removed from my monobook.js) using a form of TW that was randomly removing uses of some of the images I deleted. I thought I went back and corrected all of those mistakes, but I apparently missed some. I'll go back through my recent contribs and fix any I missed. Thanks for the notes, and sorry for the inconvenience. Lara❤Love 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, that wasn't it. All the images I removed had been checked my Miszabot as either being good to go or only having an issue with a difference in names. Any that had a diff name on Commons but were still in use in articles, I renamed to the Commons name myself. Obviously, either Miszabot or (most likely) I made an error. I apologize for the inconvenience. I will attempt to find the image on Commons. Lara❤Love 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I found it, Image:Lepus americanus.jpg. I went through the Bot contribs and corrected all uses of the image. Once again, sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Lara❤Love 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubone

Resolved

Are you aware that Dubone (talk · contribs) is the name of his band? Or the name he uses as a DJ, at least? I thought we weren't allowed promotional usernames on the Wikipedia but I will not override your unblock. Note, though, that the user was also blocked by another admin for 3RR violations, and that you have lifted this block as well. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As his DJ name, or whatever, I don't think it's violating policy. As long as he doesn't turn his user page into an advertisement, I don't think it's an issue. If he does, the page will just be deleted. He's not notable, so I don't think it will be issue. Lara❤Love 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. He has tried repeatedly to create an autobiography for himself but these pages were repeatedly deleted. Thanks for your comment. --Yamla (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I see the warnings, and I also restored the 3RR block. If he continues to create the NN bio, he will be blocked again. Lara❤Love 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If the user agrees not to edit the article he was blocked for and not to continue creating autobiographies, I would support you unblocking him immediately. Or even if you think he has got the point now. It's not my block, mind you, but it may be a good idea as a gesture of good faith toward this user. I feel he's sort of been piled on already today. I leave the decision up to you. --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As the original blocking admin, I concur with Yamla's idea, providing Dubone reaches a basic understanding of WP:BIO & WP:AUTO. Drop me a line if you have any concerns. Caknuck (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lovemakers image - speedy of 051706lm12.jpg

Resolved

You just speedy deleted Image:051706lm12.jpg, but as I noted at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 16#Image:051706lm12.jpg the image does appear to be uploaded by an individual who is using the same username as the original photographer does at multiple other sites. Is the watermarking what is causing it to be deleted? I don't mind it being deleted because of the watermarking making the copyright unclear, I just want to get another user's feedback before I start trying to contact the individual on other sites to try to clear up the licensing. - Optigan13 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted it because I was in speedy mode and moved out of the speedy CAT. Uhm, yea. The watermark basically prevents it from being freely licensed, so PD-self doesn't work. Even if it's the copyright owner who is uploading it. So it really should be nuked. There's another image similar to it (same subjects) that don't have the watermark, but I think it should be deleted as well. Lara❤Love 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw right after I posted this you did the undelete. I did the same thing initially when I saw it, because a new user uploading high quality photos with a watermark set off my copyvio alarms too. I removed from the page only to find all the other info when I was trying to find the exact url to cite in the speedy tag for the image. I was hoping the uploader would respond on Wikipedia just so I wouldn't have to contact her. If she doesn't soon, I think I'll try via flickr since that is easy to re-upload with a verifiable consistent license tag. If that fails I can reupload the cameraphone picture of mine until a better image replaces it. - Optigan13 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd replace the image. Watermarked images are not acceptable. Lara❤Love 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and take down that image, I will contact the uploader via flickr so we can clear up licensing on another image. I've replaced the image with a poor quality one of mine for the time being. Thanks. - Optigan13 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

You moved a message I placed on User talk:Duggy 1138 into the unblock template [10]. I indicated in my edit summary that I did not remove the template. I did that to allow another admin to review the block also. I did not specifically decline the block therefore neither my message or signature should be within that template as I did not put the message there.--Sandahl 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. It started with "Decline:" so I thought you'd just forgotten to move it up. Sorry about that. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Lara❤Love 06:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I can why you thought that. :)--Sandahl 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fingerskate

Hello Lara. Congrats on your new mop. I'm letting you know that I've reverted your deletion of Fingerskate. The version of the article you speedied was indeed awful but the article has been around for two years and there are ok versions in the history (see the current one for example: not great but not deletion-worthy). In general, articles with long histories are best sent to AfD, particularly when they've been edited by numerous editors. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pascal. Sorry about that. I'll be more careful from now on. Lara❤Love 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Globalexpans

Hey there.

I see you declined the block request by Globalexpans (talk · contribs). He has asked, by email, to retain the current account for some reason. I'd be inclined to let him (if the 'crats will allow the rename) as I'd prefer the user didn't just vanish underground (for obvious reasons); indeed, he's got little history but I think it'd be better if it remained attached to his account. I'm not going to overturn your deny, but I wonder if you'd reconsider? — Coren ^(talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point considering he's only got something like four edits, but I'm not opposed. Just seems like a waste of time and procedure. However, you're not stepping on my toes to undo it. Lara❤Love 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I sent you email. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied. Lara❤Love 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hakushusai yanagawa 2005.jpg

I think that your deletion of the local copy of this image was not really according to the rules. CSD I8 has the condition "The image has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week. Waiting one week is not necessary if it was the uploader who moved the image and marked it." I figure that is why Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons has subcategories by date. For this image it was less than a day since it had been marked. I think it's probably not a problem in this case, but the condition must be there for a reason, right? Arthena^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. All the images I deleted were marked as ready for deletion by MetsBot. Considering they have the same name, I don't understand why that criteria is even there, but I'll look into it. Thanks for the note. If you need this or another image I deleted restored, just let me know. Lara❤Love 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Images

Resolved

On November 16, 2007, you said on the Elvis Presley talk page,

• The images are not all properly tagged. Some lack sources, some lack adequate fair use rationales, the infobox image should not be a fair use image. As far as the images go, I'm seeing that some of the fair use images are used in various articles and in userboxes. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each articles it is used in, individually. And fair use images are not within WP policy to be used in userboxes or any other templates. I'm giving one more week on this article. If it's still not up to standards at that time, I'm delisting it. I'll also be deleting the images from any userboxes at that time.

As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See [11], [12], [13]. However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the current protection, I've extended the period. I'll discuss on the talk page and remove the images in the next day or so. Lara❤Love 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the fair use image from the infobox, replacing it with a free use image. I expanded the fair use rationales for all other images, as necessary. So image-wise, the article is good. Otherwise, not so much. For that reason, I've delisted it. Lara❤Love 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:RFA

Thank you for the heads up, i didn't know. I would like to note however, that there we're no dashes anymore after the previous edit, which i wanted to fix. Just didn't know that i not only need to move the new template to the top, but also leave dashes at the bottom. Thanks a lot for the info! ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.

I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.

If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, well, this is partially your fault ;-))

And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?

Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)

Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Yo Mamma!

This is the best edit I've seen all day. the_undertow ^talk 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ma'am!

Hello LaraLove. I noted that your user page is the 5th most viewed user page. That's great! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm actually tied for 5th with like 20 people, but I noted it in my milestones anyway. :p Lara❤Love 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

email

On way to you. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied. Lara❤Love 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Marquis (album)

You recently deleted Sunset Marquis (album) as a copy of another article, Nobody's Daughter. That's not exactly true. The content had been moved around to a bunch of different articles. Sunset has the edits before about October 8, 2006. Not sure what should be done here, maybe a history merge, but under GFDL I don't think the Sunset edits should be hidden. The version of Nobody's from October 11 appears to be a cut-and-paste from the Sunset article. If you haven't tried a history merge before, this might not be a good one to start with. Gimmetrow 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the contents of Sunset Marquis pretty much matched Nobody's Daughter, but the name of the article itself was incorrect. Nobody's Daughter is the name of the album. "Sunset Marquis" is a song on the album. If it's necessary to restore Sunset Marquis (album) to merge it into Nobody's Daughter, I would appreciate it if whoever does it could get onto IRC or Yahoo! and talk me through it perhaps, whether it be to tell me how to do it, or just tell me how they did it. Let me know if that's unrealistic. Lara❤Love 03:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll do the history merge if we agree it seems useful. The annoyance is that one article has about 400 edits, and the other has about 100. Also I made a small edit to your monobook. Hope you don't mind. Gimmetrow 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'm not sure what the point of merging would be. The article has been renamed several times. Officially obtaining the current (and accurate) name of Nobody's Daughter here. Sunset Marquis (album) was recreated after that move. It holds no accurate information that is not already included in the valid article.

As far as my monobook, as long as it still works, you can edit whatever you like. Lara❤Love 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this content has been moved around a lot. The oldest edit at Nobody's is October 8, 2006. The edits before October 2006 are listed with the deleted article Sunset. That's why I think the histories should be merged. Gimmetrow 03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I looked at the years wrong. I thought that SM was created after the move to ND. But it was a year before. My bad. You're right. It should be merged. Lara❤Love 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For helping resolve misunderstandings with a number of users recently. Yamla (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Lara❤Love 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For your support. :) Durova^Charge! 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm logged in now, where are you

? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I went to bed. :/ Lara❤Love 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Tkguy unblock request

Resolved

You blocked this guy for a 3RR violation. However, he is now requesting an unblock on the grounds that he wasn't made aware of the rule (he has less than a hundred edits total since September, so it's plausible), and he apparently wasn't given a talk page warning that he was approaching his third revert.

I am tending towards unblock, but since you were the blocking admin (and congratulations on the mop! I didn't know you had been nominated; I would have added support) I will defer to you if you wish to review the situation. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to east for a few minutes on this. He's got the unblock message ready, trigger finger in place, but I'm looking into something first. Upon reading his unblock request, I looked further into the history and contribs of all involved. I just need few more minutes. And thanks for the belated RfA support ;) Lara❤Love 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)