User talk:Shoessss/Archive May 2007

Dont get your message

I just received a message from you saying that I had delited templates and that I would be blocked. Sorry but dont understand your dictatorial manners. I erased the stub logo because the article was no longer a stub. Good luck.--Jorditxei 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The warning was for removing the speedy deletion tag on an article you were involved with Oxera. The policy for when you disagree with a speedy deletion is to place a {hangon} on the article and explain why you disagree with the speedy deletion. Moreover, an administrator will make the final decision. You just cannot remove the tag. Hope this helps. Shoessss 10:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of this.--Jorditxei 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim Tackett

Hi,

Thanks for helping with speedy-tagging! :) One page you did tag, Tim Tackett, was very clearly not a CSD A7, so I thought I should give you a heads up. If an article about a person asserts that s/he has written several books, and gives the publishing information for these, that is almost certainly an assertion of notability. You may still PROD or AfD for lack of other sources, or other problems; but, speedy deletion is not warranted. Don't worry -- everyone slips up sometimes! Thanks again for your help! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Iguana

Well, It was merged, half an hour ago ;-) I decided to split it up as the captivity part was overwhelming the biological (and IMHO more encyclopaedic part) of the article. As I didn't seem to be alone voicing that opinion, I split up the article. If however a majority wants to lump it again, then I'm not going to be the one vetoing. See it as a scientists (zoologists) point of view... Regards. Lycaon 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1240 3WC

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator tha tit had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is stongly encouraged, and this is mentioend in the variosu speedy deelte templates themselves. please consider notifing article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notify authors about speedy deletion? where this issue was discussed. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hang my head in shame...Thanks for the reminder.Shoessss 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a huge issue, just a reminder. I'm about to delete the article -- good catch. thanks for patrolling. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Iguana Captivity Co-Author

I am the major contributor to the Captivity Section of Green Iguana. I have read the above material, and have no criticism regarding the split-off of the Captivity portion. As I was composing the section, I was very much aware that that it was deviating from true Encyclopedic style, for which I do apologise. However, the need of dissemination of knowledge in this area is so critical, I weighed (the view) infavor of creative license. --Adio11 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in fact, please take it as a complement that I thought the article should be merged with Green Iguana. user:Lycaon explained the situation. Good Luck to you and thank you for your contributions. Shoessss 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Chakraborty

That wasn't the point, what is needed is some quote from a book about literature, or from reviews of the poetry-- works 'about his own books. Thats what establishes notability for an author--that someone writes and published : "He is one of the great..." . I asked because you are obviously in a much better position to find them than I, and may perhaps immediately know of some if you know the author's work. Whoever is able should look. One good quote (or even better two) would settle the matter. DGG 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorryDGG I think you are confusing me with the author of the article. I was the one that nominated the article for deletion. The reason for the recommended deletion was just as you pointed out. I could not find any reviews or references other than a MySpace and Self-Published books on Amazon. Hope this clears up the miss understanding. Shoessss 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Sorry about your user page, just got carried away with the post. --

You are quite right, and I did work too fast. You did everything that could be expected before making the nomination And I, if not obvious, don't know one way or another. I will correct my posting at the AfD, and the author will see it too, and perhaps he may know. So please accept my apologies, . DGG 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi. I'd be glad to help you with advices. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. However, my schedule is a bit hectic these days so it may take a day or two for me to answer. Best regards, --Tone 07:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...I do appreciate the help. Probably the first question would be; in reviewing my edit history, what area do you think I should work on before applying for Administration privileges. As you will probably note, I have worked and been a major contributor on several larger articles. However, a majority of my time is spent working on new articles to review for deletion. Any suggestions? Once again, thanks for the help. Have a great day. Shoessss 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at your edit history. You've done lots of good work already. Some suggestions I have:

• be a little more careful about edit summaries. Back in March and earlier, you didn't use them on several occasions.
• checking new pages is always appreciated. With admin tools, you will probably spend some time cleaning the CSD articles (this is why I use the tools for mostly). But before that, a good idea would be to spend some time at AfD discussions, you'll get experiences there. Often it's better to nominate an article for deletion instead of tagging it with sd, besides, many contributors are not spammers and act in good faith. But you know this already.
• (a technical one) it may be a good idea to write some general things about yourself on your userpage. Like what your fields of interest are and what articles you have heavily contributed on. It will make an evaluation at the time of nomination easier, writing new articles is hard to find among hundreds of reverts and article tagging.

So much for now. If I get some other ideas, I'll tell you. And ask me if you need anything. Have a nice day. --Tone 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the input. As always it is appreciated. Shoessss 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DATASTRUCTURES AND DATABASES

This should be deleted; please dont bother with an Afd. refer to notice I've added to top of the article. John Vandenberg 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up John Vandenberg, too late though. Really doesn’t matter, you right in tagging it for speedy deletion. I was told I’m a little to quick on the trigger sometimes, so I am trying to be a more gentle, sympathetic editor. :-) Shoessss 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about Still Pending AFD

Hi there. I'm looking back through the edits on the Still Pending article and it appears that you "resurrected" a historical AFD discussion that was subsequently overturned. I am somewhat of a newbie to all of this so please forgive my ignorance. The original AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Still_Pending and when I view the history on the article, this is what appears as the edit you made. It looks like someone then came in and moved your nomination to a new location. Perhaps you were unaware of the overturn of the deletion that occurred? Can you please help me to understand what has happened. I did quite a bit of research and writing for this article and it apparently meets the notability criteria since the deletion was overturned. Thank you. Stampsations 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stampsations, I wish I was smart enough to resurrect anything! It seems that what happened is that the slight name change in the article did not reflect the previous Afd nomination and subsequence decision. When I nominated the new article and started the new discussion page an Administrator remembered the previous Afd and was able to pull the archives and place them on the new discussion page. Either way, it looks like a keeper, especially with the new sources added. Hope this explains a little bit if what went on here. Have a great day. Shoessss 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding your "official" Keep to the discussion? Also, you forgot to sign your entry on the discussion page. Thanks. Stampsations 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Stampsations if you look on the article’s deletion discussion page at the bottom, you will notice that I have already added my comment regarding the situation. You may have just overlooked as it appears as a separate item. Once again good luck. I f I can be of any help just ask. Shoessss 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Annie Wood

My bad on that, I think I jumped the gun. I listed on the talk page that the article is in SERIOUS need of re-writing, as right now it's nothing more than a promotional piece for here. I also have a slight concern that the author of the page is "LawsonArtistManagement" Wildthing61476 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have been accused of the same thing and have recently been trying to be a more gentle and sympatric editor, per my coaches instructions. I left a message on the original editors talk page telling them of the situation and if they needed any help to just drop me a line. I have the article on my watch list and will keep track. If nothing happens in a week I’ll re-write to the guidelines. Thanks for your help. Have a great day.Shoessss 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my first Wikipedia experience. Are there users who can fix Annie Wood's bio? I am her talent manager (LawsonArtistManagement)...

Hey User:LawsonArtistManagement,like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).

This guideline covers small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors. It does not cover groups of unrelated people which are covered by the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline.

Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). However, an AfD nomination may result in deletion, on consensus, after a 5 day debate.

In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable. Biographies of living persons are subject to additional rules and restrictions.

Regarding your specific questions, yes there are editors that are more than happy to participate. However, the majority of work in starting out the article should be yours. I’m than happy to give you a hand when I have the time. Good luck. Shoessss 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out.... I hope the page now is much better. LawsonArtistManagement 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the artical. Hope this is not the last time we see you contributing. Shoessss 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Need Your Help Again

Hey Tone got my second question/request for advice. Just ran a cross a situation where I have an editor that is just an out right bigot. While reverting some edits he/she made I noticed their username could be taken as racist, depending on your point of view. What is the best way to handle this situation? Thanks for your help Shoessss 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is a bit tricky. Which user do you have in mind? If a username is straightaway racist, the user probably gets a permanent block at the very beginning. But sometimes it is hard to judge. If you spot a user who is problematic, you should first contact him and try to reach a consensus. If this doesn't work and you are considering a block, the best solution is to report the user to the administrator's noticeboard so a third party can have a look at the situation and perform a block if needed. IMO, it is always better to ask another admin for a block if you are involved in a dispute. I hope I answered you. --Tone 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guy!! Yes you did. Appreciate your help. By the way, not an Adminstator yet! Holding off for a little while before applying. Just to make sure I put my best foot forward. Have a great day. Shoessss 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know you are not an admin but I presume you will apply when you feel you're ready (I can nominate you then if you want). I just tell you some useful things every now and then :-) --Tone 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Black people lol

Hey Edgar181 Thanks for the block on User: Black people lol. What do you thing of this user’s name? I’m not sure how to take it. And if I’m not sure, I know there has to be other people who think the same thing. What is the best way to handle this situation/? Thanks for your help. Shoessss 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That issue is moot as this point - I blocked the user indefinitely for his vandalism. But if he hadn't been blocked for vandalism, he would surely have been blocked and asked to choose another username. Inappropriate usernames can be reported here: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again thatks for your help and the link. Have a great day.Shoessss 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

I would normally agree with you about the race of the suspects being irrelevant, but unfortunately a lot of people on the right think otherwise. Many see this as a rallying cry for white victims of crimes by black perpetrators. Unfortunately, looking at what material is out there, that aspect of this story has legs. The majority of info out there about these two kids does have to do with allegations of the media covering this up in an effort to shield black criminals... and that's what the (semi) reasonable sites are saying. There's also a lot of false articles circulating around the web about black groups planning a celebration over this and other things from hate groups like Stormfront.org. These groups are all over this, and as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit we have to work with the people we don't agree with. I say let them have African-American in the article, and trust me as a black man that really pisses me off to put it in there... but its a compromise I can live with (for now). A lot more information is going to come to light as the trial starts, and I think a lot of the "facts" are going to turn out to be nothing more than rumor and speculation fueled by prejudice. Until then, work with what we have. If you want to read an interesting take this incident, check this blog out. I never thought I'd agree with someone espousing Libertarian views and promoting the NRA... but there you have it. AniMate 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point!Before this gets into an all-out edit war, I would like to take a consensus of the use of race in describing the suspects, which is listed right under their photos. If I am shown a picture of a Caucasian – Asian – Afro/American and a Latino, I believe I do not need a description of race for it to be necessary for me to distinguish the individuals’ race within the group. The only reason I see it used in this case is for inflammatory reasons. For that reason alone I believe it should be removed.Shoessss 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with common sense.

The race of the victims and the suspects IS relevant insofar as the controversy regarding the lack of national coverage of this issue is concerned. The brutality and savagery of the crime IS national news (or should have been.) That it wasn't IS an issue.

Calling the use of pictures or race (when someone keeps removing the mugshots from the page) "inflammatory" is your POV, and it is absurd.

Please leave your POV out of it.

Simplemines 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplemines First, if you notice in my comments, I have never mentioned political leanings. That was a comment by an editor responding to remarks left on the discussion page by other editors. Second, how does race enter into the picture? A crime was committed. Yes, a horrific crime. Does it make a difference if a white – yellow- tan – brown or green thing committed it? How relevant is your point? Are you saying it would be more acceptable by say; an orange person or are you saying that the individuals involved purposely committed the crime to the victims because they were white? I do not understand the point of your argument especially when there a photograph displayed. This was my point. I have seen comments that “….mirror site may show the article without the photos”; So? As an editor at Wikipedia, that is not your responsibility! One, Wikipedia would never ask you to shoulder that responsibility and two; the last person that I know that could handle such a situation was crucified. Lets let the mediators handle the situation and move on from there.Shoessss 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Shoesss, your political leanings are quite obvious from your posts. But that's irrelevant, since no one's political leanings should displace common sense.

Race enters into the picture in terms of the lack of national coverage of this story. Do you know why? I don't. It is an issue, no matter how much you don't like that it's an issue.

Since certain people keep removing the pictures of the suspects, and that this may come up in a search as just text, removing the photographs, the race of the suspects and the victims - combined with the lack of national coverage - is an issue.

You may not LIKE that it's an issue, but that is the reality. Removing the pictures or mention of race is very inflammatory when it is an ISSUE.

Removing the mention of race where it has relevance is absurd. There's no reason to do it, except to insert a political POV by its omission.

I'd be fine with leaving that in the "Controversy" section. That is where it belongs.

But make no mistake. It DOES belong in that article.

Please leave your POV out of the article.

Simplemines 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoessss, I do not appreciate you threatening to have me blocked from Wikipedia.

" Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Shoessss 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yesterday I posted a couple responses on the Channon Christian Christopher Newsom discussion page. Another user pointed out to me that my postings might be considered uncivil, and after consideration I decided that they were not contributing to the dialogue, so I removed only my comments on the discussion page.

I removed only my own comments, NOT page content.

I think that you have too much time on your hands, if a user removes his own ill considered comments from a discussion board, and it gets you so twisted up that you feel compelled to threaten that person with having them blocked.

Who is your Wiki-boss? I want to file a complaint about your conduct.--Douglasfgrego 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglasfgrego removing content, which contain warnings – advise – and other material, even from your own discussion page can be considered vandalism. All editors and administrators first look to the discussion page of an individual to see past history. Both good and bad. That is way it is important not to delete material with out a justifiable reason. Regarding my boss, I guess that would be everyone, including you! If you notice at the top of my User page I have a link especially for comment on my edits. Once again, both good and bad. I believe the open sentence states; “…..A review page for any and all comments on my editing. Please feel free to be candid in your remarks. Like all things in life…..I’m just a moving towards perfection…..not quite there yet. Hope this helps if you need any help addressing any of these issues please feel free to contact me or if you are more comfortable dealing with another individual please feel free to contact an administrator at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Once again, hope this help's.Shoessss 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoessss, this raises additional questions:

1) What is the Wikipedia definition of Vandalism?

2) Why would one user attempt to have another user blocked for removing their own ill-considered remarks on a discussion page?

What's your motivation here Shoesssss? Why are you threatening to have me blocked from Wikipedia for removing my own comments? They didn't contain warnings or advise. You wouldn't be threatening such drastic action unless there was more to this. If removing my own comments had a detrimental effect on the page content, then I can see someone getting in touch and saying "Hey, dude, that's not cool". But my alterations had NO effect on the content, and you rolled up and threatened to have me blocked. It's the exact same thing as if I jaywalked, at 3 am, out in on some country road where there's no traffic, and Shoessss the cop pulls up and threatens to arrest me.

And don't give me the regular standard "You violated Wikipedia policy" BS line. If that's all it is, then this is an uncommon level of anal-retention. You are overstepping your bounds, and your boss needs to get you under control.--Douglasfgrego 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what to tell you Douglasfgrego guidelines are guidelines. I may not necessarily always agree with them, but when I’m editing here I follow the guideline set-up by Wikipedia. If and when I am at another function or job, I follow the guideline as established for that particular situation or function. All I can tell you is everyone is got to do what they got to do. Shoessss 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, if I'm your boss, then you're fired. --Douglasfgrego 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I got to give you credit, you gave me the first chuckle of the day. Thanks for that. Shoessss 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You went and put my deleted comments back up on the discussion page. You're a real piece of work. --Douglasfgrego 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition of Vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

Removing my own comments from the discussion page is NOT a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

I'm going to keep taking my comments down. Go ahead and block me. I'll appeal. You are out of line. It would be best for both of us if you just left this alone. --Douglasfgrego 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of WP Admin Authority

Shoessss has singled me out, and targeted me for blockage from Wikipedia under the pretext of a Vandalism violation, a rule which it does not seem he fully understands himself.

I do not take kindly to threats or intimidation. If there are any other users Shoesss has threatened to block, under questionable circumstances, please share your experiences here.

Also, does anyone know how to report an Admin for abuse of authority? --Douglasfgrego 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch what you revert, deletion is not always vandalsim

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from User:Triddle/stubsensor/20070206/18. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Shoessss 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert almost seems automatic, did you even look at what my edit did. THe stubsensor project is a project that uses both bots and people to remove stubs tags from articles that are no longer stubs. The bot lists articles and divides them into 25 pages of 25 sections, each section has 20 links. A user signs up for the section by putting their signature in the sections heading, when finished, the user delets the section. I finished the section I had signed up for, and then removed it. The instructions on the page (that if you had read you would have known about) tell members of the stubsensor project to remove their secions when they finish.

Your revert was careless because you neglected to take the time to see what you were reverting, and just reverted it. I will re-delete my section, which is not vandalism. If you had even read my edit summary you would have known what I was doing. If you wish to reply you can do so here or on my talk page. Also the history of that page never shows you edited it. What are you doing? Urdna 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry UrdnaI am working with a new Bot that is in the Beta stage, that goes nuts once in awhile. You were right in stating it almost looks automatic. That is way I have the statement “…If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.” Sorry for any inconvenience any way I can make it up to you.Shoessss 15:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, its fine, It would help if you posted something on your user page saying that you were running a bot in the beta phase just to let everyone know. Also a sugestion for you bot; it would probaly work better if it only ran on the main namespace because talkpages are deleted or archived often and the bot might revert these.Sorry for my abruptness in my first post, I understand what happened now so don't worry about itUrdna 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:141.152.158.131 has been warned a third time

Hello Shoessss, just wanted to let you know that an anon you warned two times has been warned a third time. I think he's gonna keep on going, so keep an eye out. Thanks!!--CJ King 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took a day to get back to you CJ King but thanks for the heads-up. He/she has one more chance and the good news is so far they have not vandalized any additional pages. Appreciate your concern and will keep an eye out. Have a great day. Shoessss ^talk

Foxes in fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxes_in_fiction

What I did wrong? Yes, Literature and Movies'other sections are in different format, but all these are about foxes and are fictionaly. I give testable links to Wiki itself and neither offtopic nor origs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.21.43.222 (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Heytalk First thank you for your contributions. In reviewing the history I noticed that the tag was placed when you were in the process of reformatting a section of the article. When I first looked at the piece it appeared as if you had removed content. I see that with your further format edits and additional contributions to the article, that this was NOT Vandalism,but was in fact, a legitimate good faith edit by you. I have removed the tag and noted the situation in the edit line. Once again, thanks for your contributions.Shoessss 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Did you actually follow the instructions on the request for mediation page? I ask because it looks like you just made a new page, rather than going through the process listed on the mediation page. However, I've never filed a request, so I might be mistaken. AniMate 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially in this situation. I’m lucky enough to have two coaches that I can go to for advice. Once again, especially in situations just like this. Also wanted the outside mediation for the fact that everyone is so close to the situation and polarized concerning not only the facts but the implications of the writing, that I thought it best to get a third party involved. Taking my coaches advice. I had actually asked two to three other administrators’ to get involved but two were just leaving on vacation and the third wanted no parts of this. On one hand, I can’t blame him, but on the other it is a situation that has to be resolved one way or the other. Have a great day.Shoessss 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, sorry. It wasn't vandalism. Sorry. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, hey --Pupster21 I know the problem you are going through. I see you are using the same bot I am, that is why I put the disclaimer on both my talk page and user page. It has a tendency to be extremely aggressive at times. No problem, but could you remove the warning. It just so happens I am in a really delicate mediation situation at the moment and do not want to give any ammunition real or implied to either party. Have a great day. Shoessss ^talk

Done. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Pupster21 and good luckShoessss 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation will be rejected

I'm not sure how you went about filing your request for mediation, but you did it wrong. I'm pretty sure you didn't follow their instructions and I'm pretty sure this is going to be rejected. I went ahead and filed an RfC to get some outside opinions. I'm going to hun down an admin to delete the page, if you have no objections, and then file a proper request. AniMate 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AniMate I do appreciate your thoroughness. When I posted everything looked OK, but I do thank you for following up. Let me know when I can repay the favor. Shoessss 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad AniMate and Shoesss are such close pals, and have buds in the WP admin.

This will guarantee an honest, reasonable and true outcome of their overruled (by the majority of WP editors on that page) contentions on the Christian/Newsom murder article.

You guys keep at it. Eventually you'll have the three-line article, sans mugshots, that you both are working so hard for.

And then when people want to know about these murders, they'll do what they should've done all along - go ELSEWHERE, because they sure aren't going to be allowed to find it here.

Congrats, guys. I'm sure you're both beyond proud.

Simplemines 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

word order

Nothing wrong with this edit. I'm not sure why you warned the user. ··coelacan 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey ••coelacan, You are absolute right! There was no reason for that edit. Sorry to say, as I noted on both my User and Talk page, I am currently working with a new Bot that is in the Beta stage of testing. Sorry to say it is a tad to aggressive at times. In fact, I was a victim of the same Bot just today by another tester who is working out the bugs on the on Bot, see above. My apologies to User:59.149.87.17, where I have already removed the tag, and placed a copy of this replay on there discussion page. Hope this explanation is satisfying to all parties. Shoessss 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. =) Just checking. ··coelacan 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot one thing... I really don't know the policies on bots and I don't know how yours is being used, but I know that unapproved bots can be blocked, and accounts running them can be blocked (under certain circumstances? I don't know exactly). Be sure you're approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. ··coelacan 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem ••coelacan Happy, or sorry depending on your point of view, to say you actually have to apply and than be approved by the Administration staff of Wikipedia before you can use this particular Bot.Shoessss ^talk

Re: Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder meditation

Responded on my talk page. Cheers, Daniel 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Iguana in captivity Co-Author

I am the major contributor to the Captivity Section of Green Iguana. I have read the above material, and have no criticism regarding the split-off of the Captivity portion. As I was composing the section, I was very much aware that that it was deviating from true Encyclopedic style, for which I do apologise. However, the need of dissemination of knowledge in this area is so critical; I weighed (the view) infavor of creative license. --Adio11 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in fact, please take it as a complement that I thought the article should be merged with Green Iguana. user:Lycaon explained the situation. Good Luck to you and thank you for your contributions. Shoessss 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the references are an improvement. A bit more structure in the article (with sub headings) would brighten it up even more. Lycaon 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Broke it up with sub headings; yes does look better, thanks. --Adio11 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job guys/gals. Thank you for the contribution and hard work. Shoessss 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If my information added to that page is incorrect, how would you explain my own Iguana's tail? When I got him, it was over half gone, but has been regrowing steadily, albeit shorter and darker than it should be. KaelinCadence 10:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben Sager

Hello !xC | ☎ I didn’t mean to step on your tag at the Ben Sager article. However, it looks like someone is removing it from the page. Just a heads up. Have a great day. Shoessss ^talk

Hey !xC | ☎ , after reviewing the article again, I removed your tag and placed a speedy delete notice in its place. The more I looked at the facts of the young man the more convinced I felt this was the more accurate choice. Shoessss ^talk

Thanks for the note. Actually, I had put a db on it, the editor kept removing it. I was on RCP at that time, so I couldn't keep putting it back, thats why just before leaving I put a notability and went to sleep :P Nice to know theres someone looking over these articles, take care xC | ☎ 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Eutrophication article

Please see the history [[1]]. What happened there (to which you or your bot was a party) is somewhat confused. While it's true that 161.88.255.139 [[2]] was engaged in vandalism, what happened next doesn't seem right. I'm writing to alert you to the possibility that there may be a bug in your bot. William Ackerman 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks William Ackerman for the heads-up on the situation. I went back and looked to see what was going on and you are right. There was vandalism that was than reverted, than re-vandalized and etc – etc – etc.. And sorry to say User:161.88.255.139 got caught in the middle of it. Regarding the bot, yeah it can be overly aggressive at times, especially regarding the placement of warnings on the users talk page. That is why I have included the sentence; “If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.” And placed warnings on both my user and talk pages. I know that this is no excuse, especially when you are the one that has been giving the warning. If it is any consolation, I was also on the receiving end of this particular bot, by an other editor who is using it. I have gone back and removed the tag from User:161.88.255.139 discussion page and replaced it with a copy of this response. Hope this helps. }}Shoessss ^talk

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Sorry I didn't get word until just now that you were editing this page. Glad to hear that things finally calmed down!  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey User:Fablau I happened to see your note on a discussion page that is no longer viable. Sorry to say that the article Virtual Sheet Music® was deleted based on the consensus reached on the article’s {Afd} page. Where you may want to try to get additional information is deletion review. I am sure, one of the administrators’ at this site would be more than willing to explain the situation and answer any questions you may have. Good Luck. If I can be of any help, just drop me a line. }}Shoessss ^talk

Thank you for your message. Have you any idea how to contact John Vandenberg? Thank you--Fablau 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Fablau, do not know this indiviual.}}Shoessss ^talk

Ah --Fablau I figured out who you are talking about. He can be reached by clicking here -- Jayvdb. Good luck }}Shoessss ^talk

VK35

I just blocked VK35 (talk · contribs) because he is a sock of banned user Dereks1x. Some of VK35's arguments regarding "censorship" of banned users aroused my suspicions, and a checkuser confirmed via e-mail that VK35 is using the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks (he was certainly not editing from Singapore, as he claimed).

Somehow, VK35 was able to edit for about a month and a half, rack up over 1,000 edits, and con his way into a RFCU clerk job. I don't know how much damage he has done, but I'm about to start undoing, reverting, and otherwise destroying his edits where possible per WP:BAN. Any help or advice would be appreciated. · jersyko talk 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you just sign up for the RFCU clerk job and that's it. And he only signed up yesterday. —Kyриx 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35 (talk · contribs) has recently entered an extremely contentious situation involving the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article as a representative of the RFC cabal. First, how do handle this situation? Second, how do I get another representative to get involved, since this article does desperately need a non-bias third party representative. Thanks for any and all help. Shoessss ^talk

Any edits made by VK35 should be removed or reverted per WP:BAN if possible. I would suggest attempting mediation if you have not already if the issue is particularly contentious. · jersyko talk 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can remove his/her remarks from the discussion. That is not a problem. The question is, should I also remove the comments left by other editors with regards to answers to the questions posed by VK35 (talk · contribs). Also, I take it honesty is the best policy in explaining why the remarks were removed. Thanks Shoessss ^talk

How about welcome messages? —Kyриx 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is surprising. VK35 mediated a dispute on Talk:Missouri and actually helped solve it, I think. This is not the first time I've seen a sockpuppet of a banned user act as a mediator, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian/Chris Newsom discussion page

You've been asked to clarify one of your comments. Please respond and do not ignore this request. Here is the link if you've forgotten your way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_murder Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and your attempts at contributing to the discussion. And you have a nice day! :) Simplemines 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Shoess, if I haven't made myself CLEAR.

This is the comment you made: "After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people."

Can you CLARIFY (i.e, explain precisely) what you mean by that statement?

I hope I explained that so you can understand it and, hopefully, reply to it for a pleasant change of pace.

Once again, I fervently wish nothing but your continued attempts at trying to succeed at being a WP editor, and I do so much look forward to your actually reply directly to a direct question.

With all due respect and admiration...

Simplemines 14:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Repled at User talk:Simplemines. Shoessss ^talk

I do hate to be disagreeable, but THIS is not a reply to what I DIRECTLY asked you:

"Simplemines I figured it would be better to respond on your personal discussion page, rather than the Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder page for two reasons. The first, is that I did not want to go around and around on why the original discussion page was archived or start posting long explanations that would not have furthered the ongoing discussion as they pertain to the article itself. To find out, just click on the archived section and review the history concerning my deletions to the page for yesterday. With a little investigation, you will see the primary reason for archiving. The second reason was to offer some advice on the way you conduct yourself concerning your responses and treatment of other editors and I did not want every Tom-Dick and Harry jumping in on whether the advice is right or wrong or whetherSimplemines is this and Shoessss talkis that. This would have detracted away from the purposes of that particular discussion page which is to discuss the article. Now, Please, Please, Please, Please stop baiting – slandering – editorializing or attacking other editors. It serves no purpose, other than getting you banned and allowing the comments you make to be discarded out of hand. In other words it is a lose-lose situation from your standpoint. Before responding, take an hour or two and think about your response. Than post! I believe you will find that one, you responses will be more focused too the issues at hand and in a more clear concise manner. Two, they will be better received. Please take this advice as given or discard it. To me it makes no difference."

Now follow me here, okay? HERE is what you said: "After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people."

Now HERE is my question: can you please CLARIFY what you meant by that statement? NOT anything else, not your life story or why you live on WP, just a clarification of that one statement.

Simple request. Please reply with an answer to this ONE question, just this ONE question, and nothing else.

So please concentrate, and try to focus. Thank you again for your anticipated cooperation.

Simplemines 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To the specific question, a sockpuppet had entered the discussion page under false pretenses. See below. In cases, where a sockpuppet is banned

for the reasons stated, it is suggested that the entries that sockpuppet were involed in should be deleted. OK! Shoessss ^talk

Uh, what???? Is this one of those "subliminal message" things??

Let me repeat again: can you please CLARIFY what you meant by "After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people"?

Please explain EXACTLY what you meant by that statement. Thank you again for your (eventual) anticipated cooperation.Simplemines 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Philly Meetup 4

Please help resolve the odd dispute that has arisen at the voting page. Please cast your run-off vote by May 27th. Thank you! --SpiralingMusic 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Testing The Bot

Testing The Bot

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Shoessss ^talk