User talk:John Reaves/Archive12

This is a Wikipedia user page. If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive12.

Wikimedia Foundation

Archives

---

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Last update:
18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

John, I noticed that you deleted the "Poseur" page because of some vandalism or whatever reason. I cannot create this page now as it is protected...

A poseur, in the hipster community (and many others, in fact), is someone who purports to encompass the community goals and/or values, but only does so on the surface. This use of the term has previously been on wikipedia, but no more.

It can also be spelled "Poser" but that page is taken entirely by some computer modelling program.

Hope you might be able to help and let me create the "Poseur" page. 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Jpickar JP - 6/11/07

John I know this is a talk page so why did you delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwonderous (talk • contribs) 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Deletion

Sir, with all respect I still protest the deletion of the Ceremonial Snips entry on the basis that the judgement: "18:39, 15 July 2007 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ceremonial Snips" (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance)" is wrong. Between the article and the talk page the significance of the band is both 1) the proliferation of ska-metal (where in the article I re-iterate the difference between ska-core and ska-metal that most Ontario publications have. And 2) That they are a cornerstone in the punk music revival in the Niagara region which includes Wikipedia approved bands such as Alexisonfire.

Once again - it is also needed to set the record straight on their history from before their new label picked them up. Could you please revisit this decision and if possible recover some of the old article. If not, could I at least ask for a better explanation than 'that popular band that you know, they're insignificant'.

--SamichX 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page request

Hi, I saw that you provide copies of deleted articles. I am interested in seeing the deleted copy of SaGoh 24/7, in the interest of recreating it or merging its content with Anberlin. Could you please userfy me a copy of it? Thanks Chubbles 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Deletion redux

It's tagged for speedy (again?) and I was going to wield the axe, then saw that you had already but restored it. Is there a reason (other than deference to you, which I am happy to grant) to not delete it. I read the post above but that doesn't convince me. I'll defer to you, please advise. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John,

You recently deleted a page that I started and intended to contribute more to. SmartKart.

Other than it being a brief description, how did this page differ from other pages that describe commercial products. I see little difference from the page I created and Glidescope, LMA or Kleenex.

John

• I just listed it at Afd. It seems easier than second-guessing ourselves repeatedly. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

HP7 full protection

I don't understand why you chose to full protect the Harry Potter 7 page. I mean, I understand the reasoning, but I don't understand the action, given the course of debate at WP:ANI and the decision at WP:RFPP. I've started a thread on the talk page about it; would you be interested in discussing? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you went against the consensus achieved in the above links without participating in the discussion. What gives? There's plenty of meaningful edits to be made in the days preceding the release of this book; the rationale that you doubt anything will happen in the next few days seems flimsy. Granted the vandalism is bad, but full protection is pretty onerous for a current event. Besides, if this is anything like past harry potter releases, the vandalism will remain equally noxious and prevalent after the book's release, but surely you wouldn't want the article protected then? Hemidemisemiquaver 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely unaware of any sort of Wikipedia policy against spoilers; indeed, every single book article on Wikipedia contains spoilers. I am also unaware of any sort of Wikipedia policy against spoilers before the release of the book; if there are any, please point them out to me. As-is, it seems you have simply protected the page because you're worried about it being spoiled. If you don't want it spoiled, why are you even reading that page? The book has been leaked online, and there is no policy against leaked information being included in Wikipedia articles to the best of my knowledge. Titanium Dragon 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy that information be based on verifiable, reliable sources. I doubt that the leaks satisfy those criteria. The question then becomes whether repeated introduction of unverified spoilers warrants protection. I don't think so. There's lots of unverified information in Wikipedia articles. I am inclined to lift the protection but I hesitate to do so until John has had a chance to read the above messages and respond. Keep me posted.

--Richard 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any of the discussions you refer to (and as it happens, I seen no consensus). Common dencency/sense should tell you that Wikipedia shouldn't spoil the book. Honestly, it's unlikely that anything that should (i.e. not spoilers) be in the article will occur prior to the 21st. Were this to happen, {{editprotected}} could easily be used. I set the protection to expire at what I thought was a good midpoint in the day (UTC) so no complaints should be had there. -- John Reaves (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Protection

Thank you for allowing more time to fill out the Ceremonial Snips page. references to news articles, reviews and anything else will be in place as soon as possible to ensure that this article offers the most extensive information available, and if that still doesn't mark it for notability then I'm not sure what would.

Allow me to emphasize my thanks again while inquiring about how long or how much information it would take until people stop sending in speedy deletion request.

Have Fun,

--SamichX 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

smartkart deletion

I am new to Wikipedia. I don't understand your action to delete the article that I started and had planned to add to. Would you please respond with your position on this.... Will I have problems if I try again?

Thanks,

John JohnRSeitz 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted on the grounds of being blatant advertising. Presumably, SmartKart is the brand name of an endoscopic cart rather than being a generic name. Yes, you will have problems so long as you are trying to write an article about a specific product which is not notable. If you describe the generic product category (e.g. endoscopic cart) rather than a specific product, you should not have a problem.

--Richard 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice this message. Thanks for the reply Richard. -- John Reaves 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Neutral Deletion

Hi, You deleted a page at "conflict neutral" citing copyright violation from blood-diamond.com There is no violation of copyright in this case because conflict neutral is under the umbrella organisation of Blood Diamond Ltd as is blood-diamond.co.uk. They are the same company so there can be no copyright issues (I run both).

Please reinstate this. If you wish for a copyright waiver to be given this is fine.

Msinternet 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

HELLO??? Anybody there? Msinternet 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one. The text needs to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License to be used on Wikipedia. -- John Reaves 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FF RfM

John, why the wheel warring? I'm restoring the deleted edits so I can give diffs that people are asking for. The case was rejected, and I need to link to that rejection, but you keep deleting it without discussion. Can you explain? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, John. There is nothing in those edits that requires them to be deleted, never mind oversighted. Daniel is an admin and they are his edits; he could remove them himself if he wanted to. They are simply him rejecting the case. Also, why do you undo my undeletion just because Armedblowfish who no longer edits Wikipedia and is not an admin, asked you to? Please undelete this material, because I need to link to it for a discussion on AN/I. Wheel-warring over something like this at the request of a third party is unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows 3RR issue?

Isn't that what we're up against with the table issue in the Deathly Hallows article? Claudia 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• A serious consideration for you as well, was my point in posting here. Claudia 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tranche (software)

Hi John. I just wanted to discuss your deletion of this page, since I was about to close it as a keep (I know nothing of the subject itself, I'm just looking at the discussion). As far as I can see, the only voice for delete was the nominator of the article, and despite the vote canvassing that might have taken place, two legitimate editors did say to keep. Did you see something I didn't? CitiCat ^♫ 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the result. What was behind your decision? Owen× ☎ 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for deletion were more compelling than the keep comments. -- John Reaves 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit arbitrary. Are you willing to discuss this, or should we just go straight to WP:DRV? Owen× ☎ 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion. -- John Reaves 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the AfD, here's what I see: Roger, the nominator, brings up several valid observations about notability, which I acknowledged there. Another editor, not as experienced as Roger or me perhaps, makes a valid point regarding the level of sources provided. Then I add my opinion there, again with a solid basis on the amount of references provided.

Now, having closed hundreds of AfDs myself, I realize that AfD is not a vote, but a reflection of community consensus. Looking at the AfD you closed, with a total of 3 opinions--2 of which were to keep it--one can only wonder how your decision reflects community consensus. Even if you applied your own opinion to this AfD, which as the closing admin you shouldn't, it's still a "no-consensus" situation, at best. Unless you consider your own opinion to have far more weight than anyone else's on this AfD. I know Roger doesn't consider his own opinion any more valid than mine, and the fact that another admin, User:Citicat, was as surprised by the result as I was also hints to the conclusion that this AfD was closed improperly.

As a compromise, I'd suggest re-opening the AfD for 5 more days, or until a clear consensus builds up. Owen× ☎ 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When closing an AFD, one must also consider the validity and strength of the arguments in relation to relevant policy. But whatever, I'm fine with reopening...in fact, I'll do so in a moment. -- John Reaves 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Since you protected the page because of the constent reverts,I suggest that you tell the two parties involved to discuss their issues in the articles talk page and that you as the administrator who protected the page mediate and try to determine who is right. Tony the Marine 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I know what the problem is. Since all Puerto Ricans are American citizens, one user considers that placing "Puerto Rican, American" is rebundant and that by just stating that the person is Puerto Rican it is understood (and explained in the talk page) that he is also an American citizen as a fact. You know how it is. I think that you can unprotect and if they continue with the reverts then invite them to the talk page to discuss the issue and if you feel the need place the page under a semi-protect after notifing them. What do you think? Tony the Marine 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

JosephASpadaro, I have protected this page from editing due to repeated abuse of the helpme template, and personal attacks upon the helpers. This protection will expire, and once it does, do not continue to abuse the template. If it does continue, lengthier protection or possibly blocking may occur. Please review our policies on civility and no personal attacks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Joeseph, your talk page is unprotected and you may continue to user the helpme template in the same manner you have using it. You might consider using this (or go to java.freenode.net and to channel #wikipedia-en-help) for a real-time direct chat about your questions. Do try to be more civil when interacting with other users. Continuous incivility can lead to a block. -- John Reaves (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat belated ... but, nonetheless, thank you for your intervention in this matter. I appreciate that. (JosephASpadaro 19:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

My erroneous post to another user's talk page

Thanks for advising him how to do follow-up. I have already apologized to him. --Orange Mike 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee, Alabama

I think someone is adding spamish content to Cherokee, Alabama, and he's started to undo my reverts. Before risking 3RRs on either side, I'd like to check to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Can you check? -WarthogDemon 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page without any templates adn he seems to have stopped. I was just worried it might've been an edit war, but my fears weren't realized fortunately. Thanks though. :) -WarthogDemon 22:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA Brian New Zealand

Was your vote meant to be in the neutral section? (Just really relaying a question someone else asked under your vote) Orderinchaos 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Liero Xtreme

Hello John. Based on the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liero, I'd like to know if you have any objections to me undeleting the page so that it can be appropriately merged into Liero by the interested editors. Thanks! Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok will do. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef IP block

I know that, but this IP was a likely sock and I thought the policy was to block all socks or suspected socks indefinitely, IP or not, especially where a user is clearly using them to evade a block. Is there a better way of doing it (block for ten years with no right of correspondence?) Daniel Case 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, in the future I'll just give out six-month blocks. Daniel Case 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

CARE EXTENDER page? Its not an advertisement. its a volunteer site, like charity... like Unicef

good job

Good job on banning the vandal tonyjeffmatt. I'm actually dealing with an IP vandal now, I'll report him if he vandalises something again. MMAfan2007 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage layout

Hi! I've recently been away on holiday and so I've not been able to update or check any internet accounts I might have, including my wikipedia one. I see you recently decided to delete User:Rlest/Userpage/Layout because it was not needed. I can't see why, but anyway, now I am unable to retrieve my past layout because it being a template or whatever. If you could, I'd appreicate if you 'd be able to re-iterate the page under a new name with the appropriate username, as mine. Thanks. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the situation, I've renamed it appropriately now. Once again, thanks. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LAMPS

John, I saw you deleted the entry for the band the Lamps. The Lamps meet at least 2 of the criteria in notability guidelines for musicians:

1. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

The Lamps are on In The Red Records, which is one of, if not the most prominent independent record labels for garage punk. They have released two records on their label, which are available at any indie music store, along with an array of singles on ITR and other labels.

They have also toured the USA and Canada extensively.

If bands like the Intelligence and the Deadly Snakes (also on In The Red) can warrant entries then certainly the Lamps can too. Thanks for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fullmetaljacuzzi (talk • contribs) 16:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call

Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

page on Prof._Fazle_Hussain

Why is this page for deletion i did not break any copy right laws. So what if pervious page on this topic has been deleted, this page has nothing to do with the older one.

Can u please give reasons why this content has been deleted? And what Can i do to prevent the deletion of an page in the future of this topic?

I have not been been given any specific information on what i can do to stop this from being deleted.

Bangali renaissance 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prof._Fazle_Hussain"

John, I've seen this on the talk page, which was on the CSD list you forgot to delete it. But quite frankly, I do not think you should have speedied this article. It makes the assertion that he is a professor at a college and has received several awards. In the absence of information about publications and so on I cannot tell if he is in fact notable but it does make the assertion, and that makes it ineligible for speedy A7. Perhaps you wee influenced by the irrelevant material also included? or by the prior deletions of poorer versions? I suggest you undelete it and give the author some specific advice. DGG (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have not got any of his publications but he has been on the News letters of Collen College and another reputed educational institution...

My second attempt was a little rough and i was half way through editing it, by the time i finished it was deleted for some reason that is unspecified to me. Something due "ascertain" and this page has been deleted before.

Can someone give a clear specification to y? I am very new to the editing of wikipedia.

Bangali renaissance 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding Your Friend the Rat

Hey John -- I saw that you removed the speedy delete tag I placed on that page. In a nutshell: (a) the page was created based on a single sentence describing the upcoming DVD release for Ratatouille where the WP author is making a large assumption that it is a Pixar short film (a la Mike's New Car on the Monsters DVD). The press release contained no plot info, no director info, nothing that would require the expansion of this onto a newly created page. (b) The particular user who created that page has a long history of adding unsubstantiated and poorly cited, if at all, edits to WP, so the speedy request is a continuation of what the Pixar-editors do as a normal point of business with that person's edits to ensure that the Pixar articles contain as accurate information as possible. Considering that the page fails notability and substance, wouldn't that qualify for speedy delete? SpikeJones 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could remind you. The only reason I'd suggest deleting vs redirecting is that we really don't know if the short is worthy of being a page in-and-of-itself in the first place (as I said above). Of course, all this falls under "yet", as things could change in Nov when the DVD is released. SpikeJones 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, even if I disagree with the execution for this particular page. There is one (possibly two, unless it's the same person) overenthusiastic Pixar fans who like to post the mere mention of a rumor heard whispering the breeze as fact in WP. This page is an example of such, so the normal turn of events in Pixar-ville would be to be diligent about deleting until such time comes when the group feels like it could stand on its own. Still, thanks for at least recognizing that the page was lacking in meaningful content. Cheers! SpikeJones 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from telephone number

Hi John, you move-protected +44. Could you move it to +44 (band)? +44 could then be a redirect or as a dab have a reference to Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom. Thanks a lot - best regards NoGringo 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting. I moved to +44 (2005 band). But better would be +44 (band). Admin action needed. Could you do this directly, so the process via WP:RM is avoided. I think this is uncontroversial. And involved editor wrote to me at User_talk:NoGringo#.2B44. I myself am not involved with the band. I only came to it via telephone numbers editing. NoGringo 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks a lot for your help. Best regards NoGringo 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For cleaning up my first (and hopefully last) piece of vandalism on Wikipedia - keep up the good work. Guest9999 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I assume that is sarcasm? -- John Reaves 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Fiction

By what criteria are you judging the current fiction no longer current? I cannot seem to find any wiki info supporting that conclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)>

As you are well aware, one man's common sense is another man's unreasonable leap of logic. ;) I am not reall bothered by the removeal, but there should be some standardization. As you are an admin, when you remove something, it appears as with the color of authority, an authority which you are assuming. Why not 45 days, when the book is supposed to have suffient world-wide release? Why not 60? Why not 90? I think 45-60 days is common sense. See how this plays out? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Basketball fan24111

With all due respect, that was a very bad unblock. These are clearly the same two users; additionally, I tried to make a note on his talk page saying that all of his contributions were vandalism; unfortunately, he kept removing it. Not only that, but neither of the two accounts, or the IP address, has any contributions until two days ago. It's very obvious these are all the same people. If anything, the account should have been indef blocked and the IP blocked longer. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello. Look, I haven't come along here to rant at you for your inaction; certainly, I should at least take into account that we're not all expert in the same subjects, so an individual may not have the same confidence that a sequence of edits constitutes vandalism. But I am going to register my disappointment at this response — it was, to say the least, unhelpful. It would be nice to live in a world in which everything could be solved by reasoned negotion. But when faced with someone who willfully adds fabricated "facts" to articles in the face of being warned not to, it's unlikely that inviting them round for a cup of tea and a cosy chat will do even the remotest good.

There. My bile has been vented, I can leave you in peace. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I make relatively few such reports, and was trying to observe the "keep it short" guideline. Next time, I'll risk erring on the side of detail. Pax. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Hi John_Reaves! Thank you very much for taking care in the elimination of "Redirect Delete" that I am responsible for. I will certainly avoid this mistake in the future. The article on Judith Brown is correct yet I would like to "clean up" the article according to wikipedia's requirements. Would you be able to give me some hints? Thank you very much. Sincerely, (Salmon1 20:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmon1 (talk • contribs)

User:Chiefsfan364

I think you deleted that page by accident, since the page had a cabal tag (which was deleted per request of the author) and the speedy deletion tag was transcluted with the tag. Cheers, Lights 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this better?

NHRHS2010 ^Talk 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 3

Hi! Thanks I will follow your advise. Yours, (Salmon1 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salmon1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmon1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for unprotecting Kiryat Gat

Thankyou for unprotecting this article about an Israeli town. I think you should be aware that the protection was not due to any edit-warring going on, I'd last participated a month previously and there had been just 4 edits in the previous 11 days.

For 8 months the article was relatively stable showing "Uniquely in Israel, the city is founded on land meant to have been protected by an International Agreement, under an exchange of letters that were filed with the United Nations and became an annex to the Israel/Egypt armistice agreement of February 1949". ...... The agreement made was that "those of the civilian population who may wish to remain in Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya ... shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects. .... United Nations observers reported to UN mediator Ralph Bunche that the intimidation included beatings, robberies, and attempted rape. .... Moshe Sharret (Israeli Foreign Minister) protested, and Quaker observers bore witness to the beatings. .... Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that the decision to cleanse the "Faluja pocket" population was probably approved by Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion .... the order to demolish these (and a string of other) villages was made 5 days later by Rabin.

This information (as we'd most certainly keep if it was some other minority so treated) has been hived off to a different article on the basis that the new town only abuts the old, therefore there is no connection. PalestineRemembered 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

JobsinStockholm.com

Hej. Can you tell me why you deleted JobsinStockholm.com?Ageorgegal1 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) ageorgegal1

Aug 26th prods

I saw you deleted the prods expired as of August 26th, but not all were deleted. An IP removed the prod from Rat-Cha after it had already expired, so it needs to be deleted. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be so terse with me, or treat me like I've never prodded an article before. I understand the normal prod process. Part of that process is that, according to the template's instructions, an article can be deleted any time after the prod has expired. Anyone objecting once the template has expired doesn't get to simply remove and contest like normal. If the prod has expired, it may be deleted. End of story. If you bothered to actually look at the template before knee-jerk reverting, you would have noticed that it clearly says that the article should be deleted, as the prod expired. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't ever insult me with terms like "giant dick." This clearly violates WP:NPA, and if it continues I will seek appropriate recourse. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

==FIVE (5) PROTESTS:==   

John Reeves, In reference to:

"*(1) It remains very difficult for me to repeatedly reestablish my credibility within the Wiki Community.

• (2) It is extremely difficult to maintain continuity when my talk page is constantly moved by Wiki.
• (3) Reserved for future use.
• (4) A page that I keep creating: "PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE" has been subject to constant RfD and speedily deletes, while an almost identical article: "PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE" has remained unscathed.
• (5) It appears that my requests for adminship are repeatedly prejudiced because of my dynamic IP.

- - Please provide your comment on these issues."

This is a good faith effort on my part to table the difficulties that Dynamic IP users are having in todays Wiki enviroment.

Please refrain from disruptive reverts and allow the community a chance to respond to my inquiry.

I appreciate your diligence in policing Wiki, but let Jimbos desire for the community to develope through consensus.

Blocking me is not the way to move the project forward.68.244.170.210 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted user page

This user page was created so that it could be tagged with a sockpuppet template, it should not have been deleted [1]. Please reand the sockpuppet related policy and processes before deleting any more of these, and it would also be polite to contact the creating user in future, to allow discussion (I only saw this because another suspected sockpuppet came to light). TigerShark 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for that page to be created. It's a a waste of time, energy, space, etc to create pages to glorify vandals. The sockpuppet notice can go on the talk page though the block log is all that anyone really needs to see. -- John Reaves 01:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you please stop deleting it. All this talk of wasted time and glorifying vandals is your own idea of what the process should be, and your repeated deletions are what is wasting time. Do you understand what the notice is for and, if so, why do you think that the block log is a suitable alterntive? I know that you are a relatively new admin, but PLEASE read and understand the sockpuppet related processes, and speak to me, before taking further action. TigerShark 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delition of JobsinStockholm - second inquiry

Thanks for responding to my message. Were the external sources submitted for JobsinStockholm.com insufficient? Ageorgegal1 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)