User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Sarcasticidealist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Paul Chalifoux

Franco-Albertan includes anybody of French heritage, regardless of whether their primary language is English or French. Bearcat 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1941

I noticed this on new-page patrol. I then saw that you have created many arricles on individual municipal elections in Edmonton. Why do you think that these various elections are individually notable, and should have separate articles about them? They seem to me not gratly different from the local elections that occur in thousands of towns and cites all over the world. If we were to have a separate articel on each such election in each such munipipality, even Wikipedi would goran under the laod -- and what is more i don't think that these articles pass WP:N. Why do you think that these articles should exist as separate articles? You have obviously put a lot of time into this. DES ^(talk) 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I got your note, and I take the points you made. I still don't think that these articels pass WP:N, But I hate to simply AfD them, and lose your extensive work. (I also don't relish tagging each and every one -- although i would probably use WP:AWB for the purpose. There has been a general agreemetn that purely or primarily media local coverage of inherently local events does not suffice to pass WP:N

Yet when all of these are taken together, there is soem value in the information. What would you say to merging these into a single large article on Edmonton elections, or perhaps, if that would be too long, a single article for eavery twenty or tenyear period? I would like to get your input into this possibility before creatinmg a mass AfD, as I hope this could be a positive way out of the situation.

Oh by the way, if you use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts on talk pages, there will be a link to your user page in your signature, as well as a timestamp. This is helpful to others (or if you have edited your signatuire so as to not include any link, I urge you to restore a link to your user or talk page, or both.) DES ^(talk) 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my general view that fewer larger articles are better than more smaller one. For example, i merge articles on individual books into single articles on the series to which they belong. I think this helps give a better overview of the topic, reduces reposition particularly in articles that would otherwise be quite short, while keeping things in a joint article provides some pressure not to go into excessive detail that is not notable. Here, my specific thought was that while any particular election is quite probably not notable, perhaps the elections overall, as a series, should be considered notable.

I am not holding off just because of your work, but that work helps make it clear that these articles are a good-faith effort to improve the project, so I want to avoid acting rashly, while not letting things drag out overly, either. Of course you don't WP:OWN the articles, and an article on a non-notable subject is not saved just because lots of work was put in, but that suggests being a trifle cautious about the matter.

As to the signature, all i can say is that no link shows up -- you might want to look at what is in the signature field in your preferences, since that is what is used by the four tilde code. I have seen some users who sort of fake a sig while not using the tilde mechanism, and I thought that perhaps you were one. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The signature is now indeed fixed. You can later vary it if you choose -- some include a link to the relevant talk page as I do, some to the contributiosn list, etc etc.

As to involving more people, that is indeed a good idea. There are several possible ways to do this, but I think that perhaps the Request for comment process would be best in thsi instance. i will start an RFC on this topic, and send you amsg with a link. We can see what, if anything, others say about the matter. You are quite correct that this is a judgement call, not a clear cur policy issue one way or the other, and no one person's view establishes consensus or polciy (except soemtimes Jimbo's, but i can't see him involved in this one). DES ^(talk) 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC started

I have created an RFC page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Edmonton Election Pages and briefly stated my concerns there. I hope we will get a number of people discussing the issue helpfully. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While seeking out people who are likely to favor one side, and asking them to comment simply because of their views is generally frowned on (see WP:CANVASS) letting people likely to have legitimate interests know about an RfC can be helpful. Are these people who are already wikipedia editors? If not, perhaps you could ask them to join in on other articles first for a little bit to get an idea of how wikipedia works. If there is a place where they are likely to see a posted notice about this discussion ,but others who might be interested but perhaps have differing views might also see it, posting a notice there would be a particularly good idea. I have posted a mention at WT:N, the talk page of the primary notability guideline, for instance, and will mention it on the village pump. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Edward Carey, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. A tag has been placed on Edward Carey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Coren 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Grandness of President

Well, while I lived over there I used to be a member of the Australian Wine Club of Edmonton, and we always referred to the title as Grand President, but if you really don't like it, i don't mind if you change it back, its just a title anyway!. Tazchook 23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Elections RFC result

The RFC did not have nearly the level of participation I had hoped for. But there was clearly no support for deleting these articles. It is possible that an AfD would get a different group of editors, and thus a different result, but that would be forum shopping to a degree, and I'm not convinced enough that these ought to be deleted to do that. I do think that User:Johntex had some valid points about the benefits of a merge, or perhaps an overall summery article, but that is an editorial decision i won't attempt to impose. Feel free to continue with these articles whenever you choose, I won't be using AfD on them.

I apologize for not re ponding to you sooner -- I've been rather busy on-wiki with some completely different stuff, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Naconkantari and User:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari if you are interested.

I will close out the RfC. DES ^(talk) 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Edmonton municipal election, 1960

Yeah I have no problem with that, it's just that "red" links spoil the page, though if you're going to create articles for those links that's okay. Thanks for letting me know seven+one 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alberta municipal elections

Hi. No need to merge the Edmonton article! The main article is going to be too long as it is. Plus, we have articles on many municipal elections. See Vancouver municipal election, 2005, or Winnipeg municipal election, 2006. You might want to check out previous provincial election pages. I worked a lot of on the Ontario municipal elections, 2006 page and the Ottawa municipal election, 2006 page. Like you, last year I was trying to get info on Ottawa elections and city councils, but unlike you I didn't finish the job (or come anywhere close, really). Anyways, check those pages out for what kind of info should exist. Go right ahead and create articles on St. Albert elections if you want! (BTW, I'm also an inclusionist, so I'll support you along the way) -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ultrabias

I have approached this editor again on this issue, because really, his that I've seen edits are perfectly fine, in fact, quite good. And he seems to know a great deal about the topic. Wikipedia needs more editors interested in making Muslim articles adhere to NPOV. If he would just cut the insulting edit summaries, (and the inflammatory talk page replies when challenged about them) he'd be a valuable contributor to the project. So I suggest talking to him first as we have (he is a bit arch, and certainly coasted along the edge of WP:CIVIL with you, but he's not like, totally out of control). Though to be honest, I suspect he's not going to stop. Shame in a way, but totally unacceptable. Your Wikialert sums up the problems completely from my point of view. Dina 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WQA

I was completely unaware. Thank you for telling me. ColdFusion650 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you are correct in assuming I was joking about exiling users to the Black Sea. ColdFusion650 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, perhaps it wasn't a good idea. The point was to use a joke to lower the tension and show I wasn't angry or anything. Perhaps I should have included the link. ColdFusion650 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya SI. :) Just wanted to congratulate you on a job well done on that particular dispute. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:KieferSkunk) Thanks. I initially did it because I'd posted one and figured I should probably contribute to a couple as well, and because I felt guilty about being a rapid article creator/expander without giving back with many of the less sexy tasks that keep Wikipedia going, but I had fun - I think I'll stick around that page. I'd always appreciate pointers, though. Sarcasticidealist 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Had the same experience myself - see my WQA on User:JAF1970 toward the top of the page. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hiya - I've added a reply to your comments. Glad I could review and I hope it helps. If you ever need anything please feel free to ask if you think I can help out. Very Best, and, of course, Happy Editing . Pedro |  Chat  15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in fairness they do not. I would take the approach in that instance of personally warning the user against abusive edit summaries. It certainly isn't vandalism but it is borderline trolling. I think you did the right thing. Pedro |  Chat  19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, could you help me out

Could you help me out and verify I'm not going crazy. I tried to input my userbox, {{User:Lighthead/Photek}} onto the Wikipedia artists list; but the page went all wonky on me. Could you do it for me anyway you feel would be the way and tell me what happens. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. And trust me this isn't some reverse psychology test; I'm just really frustrated because I've been trying to do this for like 3 days, and I'm going slightly nuts. Well, anyway thanks. þ 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I'll try him but it doesn't seem like you put his username right (for there is a dead link). Either that or he was blocked, I doubt it. But thanks. þ 03:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl Belanger

His info was already merged into the target page. Open your eyes. GreenJoe 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history, someone had removed the information. I checked and reverted it after I got your last note. GreenJoe 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof. GreenJoe 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I've been dealing with anonymous IP's for the last few days, they can fubar things. :-) GreenJoe 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

You rock. Bearcat 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Matthewmccauley.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Matthewmccauley.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie

You deserve a treat for helping provide a neutral third-party opinion on Wikiquette. Thanks! Buddhipriya 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

David Latta

Hey, I noticed that you just created this disambiguation page, but none of the people listed actually have articles. Are you planning to create each of the separate articles for these people? If not, how about you change it from a disambiguation page to an article about just one of the David Lattas? If you need help, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. GlassCobra 08:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a decent solution, considering you changed all the links to their more specific counterparts. I'm cool with that. GlassCobra 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sid Ryan

Hi Sarcasticidealist, I'm just loosely following this editing battle, but I'm unsure why you removed User:Ross Crea's last edit. I understand that this is the same person as the previous anon, but I don't really see how the content is POV. It's written in the first person, but that 's just an editing issue, is it not? The lack of sources is also not a POV issue. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply SI. Sorry if I came across too blunt with the "battle" term. I would agree that this is more of a good faith/new editor issue, so hopefully it does resolve itself. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki alert comment

Thank you for letting me know. I am happy to learn I can participate there. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wong-Rieger

Thank you for fixing my erroneous inclusion of Durhane Wong-Rieger in the category of candidates for the House of Commons; I meant, of course, that she had been a candidate for the Ontario Legislature. (Do we have a category for that, by the way?) DS 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage Shenanigans

I don't know what the cookie thing is about, but I think you deserve one from me as well. I'm a newer contributor, don't have much time at all (to study the full extent of Wiki functions and protocols--have to learn it over time), and as a Wikipedia newbie briefly got lured into a petty pissing contest on a talk page. (Well, I didn't know at first I'd gotten myself involved in the pettiness. I'm honestly so green, I didn't realize that people could or would easily access deleted talk page entries, or hunt down targeted users' contributions, etc.--I just thought delete meant delete (now I know better), so twice when a user seemed snotty and boorish to me, I let myself vent at him on the talk page, deleted the emotional responses, and thought I was leaving neutral responses and cooperating in the Wiki spirit. But he started charging me with sending him secret "messages" in the form of deleted talk page entries (Yikes.), and reported me to the authorities.) I'm glad the authority was you. Sarcasticidealist, thanks for adjudicating respectfully, pointing out the proper protocol at issue, and presenting such a wonderful, Canadian model of keeping on the productive track. I learned a couple little lessons from you there, technical and social--I can imagine they'll even help in other venues. Cheers! Blanche Poubelle 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am new to wikipedia editing, although for information purpose i have been scanning wikipedia for quite some time, but only recently i decided become an editor as well, i have gone through your userpage, and i am sure you will be able to help me understand working of wikipedia in general, like what is ok and what is not, basicly i am an engineering student, and have interest in writing and publishing, i am on my way to publish my first book, and currently doing research regarding the same subject. I thought it will be benifitial for me to start with an article on wikipedia with so many user's here, it will help me a lot to gather information. I am interesting in knowing how wikiepdia works, how its policies are implimented and how is it made sure that article is in accordence with all the policies of wikipedia.

Now that i have accepted you as my mentor, how do we move ahead. Should i remove that tag from my user page ?

Best Wishes --Rushmi 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As such i have no immediate goal, but i am interested in long term goal, as i wish to contribute to wikipedia for long term on subject's which i am interested in like world politic's, semiconductor physics, religious organizations and also helping in keeping wikipedia article detailed, and covering wide range of information related to subject at hand, I have picture of world book (Oxford publication's) when i look at any article. Is it possible to achieve that on wikipedia ?

To start with i would like to learn about policies governing layout of any article. Also can we make a test page somewhere and get it verified by someone if the layout is in accordence to wikipedia standered ? --Rushmi 06:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We had a festival here in india, and i was the co-ordinator for the event, so was busy with that stuff, i will be free today after some time, [ref1] was, actually i was trying to give a link to what is stated there as a reference, but am not sure how to do that, was thinking of looking at some other pages but since internet was a bit slow yesterday so skipped it. how do we provide a link as a refrence to what is stated in the statement ?? --Rushmi 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you noticed the change that i made in sandbox, pls confirm is that approach is ok !

--Rushmi 06:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for the delayed response, I am travelling currently, and will be back in my home town in 3 day's.

Thanks very much for your patience.!Rushmi 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette help

I was wondering if you could give me a hand with this. I was hoping we were done with the whole thing, and now it seems to be a bit out of control. I don't believe I should be the one to respond, but this user's behavior has gone from bad to worse fast. If there's another user or a different WP page to go to, point me there. Thanks for your help. --Cheeser1 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded at my talk page, FYI. --Cheeser1 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox vandalism

How do I remove the sandbox talk one? I tried and failed. Would you please remove it for me.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I reversed what you did and just deleted the things I did not want on the page. I hope this is ok. I need the things to help me remember. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello User:Sarcasticidealist, I would love to be your adoptee User, however I will not be able to serously concentrate on Wikipedia, until October.User:Eley 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Karl Belanger RFC

That's fine. There wasn't a clear consensus either way IMHO. I don't consider the opinions of anonymous IP's. GreenJoe 00:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion re: Wikiquette board

I noticed that you've had to ask others for diffs too and I think this is partially why many editors who post there or WP:ANI are unsuccessful getting their message heard is that they don't know how an ideal post should look in order to help uninvolved volunteers get each side of the story. So what I'd like to do is create a small series showing examples of good and not so good ways to post in the spirit of the instructions for this template {{OOCOT}} with input/collaboration from editors who volunteer on these boards often (starting with Wikiquette.) Anynobody 06:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette? Try respect for living people

The comment I removed made wildly inappropriate and demeaning statements comparing the actions of the subject of the article to the actions of a mass murderer dictator and a disgraced ex-president. Not only is that utterly without a single shred of validity, it maligns and attacks a real, live person who deserves our respect. Talk pages are not free-fire zones on living persons. FCYTravis 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the BLP noticeboard if you want to discuss this further. It's not a Wikiquette issue in the least. FCYTravis 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How much time have you or anyone else on "WQA" spent dealing with BLP issues on Wikipedia? I would guess none, because you don't seem to have a clear grasp of what the policy means or how it's interpreted. The ultimate intention of BLP is that on Wikipedia, before any other considerations, we consider the impacts of what we publish on the lives of living people, and unless there is a compelling encyclopedic reason to do otherwise, we leave out controversial, titillating or negative material. Whether the comment was maliciously intended or not, extending the comparison from a kid dancing in a home movie to the actions of a mass-murdering dictator is so clearly insulting and inappropriate that I cannot fathom how you cannot see it. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on a Talk page, and most certainly there is no right to compare the actions of a boy to the actions of Hitler. We are above that sort of slime on Wikipedia. There can be no compelling encyclopedic reason to allow a Wikipedia user to make that Talk page post, and that is the real Wikiquette violation here. I shall waste my time with this matter no more. Do not, repeat, do not revert those comments, for the sake of all that is good and decent about Wikipedia. FCYTravis 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Three people represent a consensus which can justify violating the BLP policy? Are you joking? You must be. FCYTravis 10:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is it possible to use a scanned copy of a national newspaper as a reference to support a statement ? can that scanned image be uploaded in any article to provide cradible reference ?

For example i have a High Court judgement regarding a report published in a national newspaper, the judgement in itself has that report, and court order was that it will not comment on the report but the case of defamation is baseless and was subsequently quashed by the court, this in a way confirms that court did not regarded the report as baseless, on the contrary confirms that newspaper is well known for its intregity and longitivity. Can the High Court judgement be used as a reference in any article as a reliable source of information ? if yes then its OK otherwise can a scanned copy of the same report be used in the article as a reference ? Rushmi 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, regarding WP:OR if we quote directly from the judgement, then i guess it will not violte the the OR policy, also incase i don't even need to upload the scanned newspaper cliping, so i guess same report can be used as a reliable source of information, as the said report is present in the copy of the court judgement. this is just for confirmation.Rushmi 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption program

Hi! I see you've been making lots of adoption offers (good for you!) Could you do everyone a favor though and follow the instructions at the top of Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user - which says if you offer adoption to someone on this list, please change their adoption request userbox to read {{Adoptoffer}}. That removes the user from the 'offer requested' list which makes it much easier for the rest of us to see who still needs an offer. Thanks! SteveBaker 20:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock case

I just wanted to notify you that "new" user Rushmi, whom you adopted, may be the sock of an old experienced user misrepresenting himself. If you have feedback you may review this. Best wishes, Renee 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sarcasticidealist,

Because I was following Rushmi/Shashwat's posts I checked out your contributions. I was actually very relieved that you were his adopter; I could see that you were balanced, detached, and acted with integrity. Because of this, I would value your opinions at the following Afds, if you were so inclined.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Chennai%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Sri_Ram_Chandra_Consciousness

I look forward to future interactions with you! Renee 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid

BLPN isn't looking very interested, but it's slightly closer to a consensus. Thank you for sticking with this. I know this is a minor issue, but if a complaint isn't made somewhere, FCYTravis might remove a similar comment in the future. Once the BLP issue is resolved, I'd like to see FCYTravis unlock at the very least his talk page, but he didn't respond to the request, so I would assume the admin notice board would be the place to go. 69.12.143.197 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually have an account I use when I need to upload an image or create a page. Other than that, I'm just too lazy to hit "Sign in." Sometimes things come up, but I guess it's good to look out for the interests of anon users, too.

The Admin noticeboard convinced FCYTravis to unlock his talk page. 69.12.143.197 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support taking it somewhere else, and I could see WP:RFC/U being an appropriate place.

I said it before, I don't care about the comment; I care that a user (admin or not) feels he can remove a comment from a talk page, ignore a consensus (from the notice board HE wanted to go to) stating that there was no reason for the comment to be removed, not be open to another interpretation of the comment (always claiming the comment compared Hitler and the Star Wars Kid), and placing the burden of proof on us. He's acting like he can unilaterally edit talk pages. That's not how wikipedia works. 69.12.143.197 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across this: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 69.12.143.197 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reguest for comment at WP:WQA

This is just a courtesy note to let you know that I'm really busy at the moment driving family members everywhere (I've done 220 km (137 mi) in the past 4 hours alone) so I'm unable to focus on what you need right now. I'll try to add something in the next 12 hours. Cheers. --AussieLegend 10:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd better revise that figure to 24 hours. I've actually just now finished the draft version but it's 7:14 am and I haven't been to bed yet. I'd like to review it before posting when I'm properly awake and I'll try to do that this afternoon. --AussieLegend 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Would you be willing to look over a discussion that User:GoldDragon and I are having on the Joe Volpe page? Our differences are primarily centred around a single paragraph in a section marked "Other Controversies", having to do with Volpe's interactions with the Career Foundation.

GoldDragon and I expressed our views on the matter several months ago, in a section of the talk page entitled "The Placement Agency". I am now prepared to accept a compromise proposal that GoldDragon brought forward several months ago; GoldDragon, however, is no longer willing to settle for this version.

GoldDragon has also added a line about pizza to the main article, that I believe to be gratuitous (and perhaps a little insulting, as regards Volpe's ethnic background).

I should clarify that I am not familiar with your political views, and I'm not making this request because I expect you to "take my side" in the discussion. I would simply welcome your input in resolving a contentious, if minor, controversy that has been vexing me for some time. CJCurrie 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the compromise version that GoldDragon supported in April, but now rejects: [1]. CJCurrie 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I actually did not implement the compromise proposal, and I'm not prepared to do so now, as it omits relevant information, and also in light of new advice from GroundZero who moderated a later dispute. Second, I'm puzzled about how CJCurrie would over-worried about pizza being "gratuitous" and a "slur", when he has no reservations about maintaining similar content on Mel Lastman. GoldDragon 17:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, first for accidentally wiping out some of your Talk page, and second as the above debate should have been on Joe Volpe. With regard to Volpe, I see it as more than just about that paragraph, its about setting a precedent for several other articles that CJCurrie and I have had disputes over. GoldDragon 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Clarke

Hi, I actually meant by-election, thanks for correcting me sorry about that. --Cloveious 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow! Thank you! Having spent a particular lot of time on that area in the past couple of days, I am especially grateful. I'm off to put it on my front page. :D --Moonriddengirl 00:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Thanks for offering to adopt me. Unfortunately, the major issues I'm looking to learn about specifically involve formatting and mark-up... I've got a request in with another adopter, but if that doesn't pan out I'd be happy to learn from you. Bdhook (talk · contribs)

Hey!

Hey, thanks for offering me adoption. I would love to. I'm Emily. Should I refer to you as Steve? (EMH88 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Hi Steve, for now I live in Gibraltar but decend from Wales and have a home there ect and will be moving back there soon and would love to make pages on the regions of Bridgend particually the small housing estates like Brackla (where I come from) and other small regions and estates in the town. Would also love to actually take a decent enough picture for the Bridgend article when I go back, that will be a good challenge. Have also made some minor edits to the Education section of the Bridgend page and plan to expand on the Bridgend College page (the college I study through). Not too sure about the devolution of wales, I'm only just old enough to vote, so I don't know much about politics- yet. But have a fair understading of British Politics overall (pretty much right wing). I'm not going to get into British Music just yet because for now I am primarilly interested in one single music article - Kelly Clarkson (who clearly is not british) with editors who have tought me alot just by observing! Would love to do some edits eventually on Muse and Joy Division once I have some good enough info. I am a Health Studies student and study online right now so interested in expanding my knowledge and bringing it to Wikipedia at the same time. Particually in the Research Methods (just realised there is actually no page for Research Methods, interesting), Socioeconomics and Environmental Health section. But wont be doing anything just yet. I appreciate you are lacking in some departments of editing, I am pretty much lacking in all departments. So perhaps we can learn from one another? :) (EMH88 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

still available?

I am definitely intersted in being adopted. I want to make sure I learn how to do this right. I think I'm doing ok, but I know there's a lot to learn. Thanks for the offer! Are you still available? Nat1 NatalieOne 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, You are welcome to call me Natalie (even though it is a fictional name). I am on wikipedia because I have a job that provides me with a lot of free time during the day and I prefer to be productive with it. Wikipedia is more constructive than youtube, myspace, or online quizes. I hope to help in any way I can to make wikipedia more complete (fully understanding that a knowledge base with never be truly complete). I have skills in mediation and plan to use those as I get more experienced on wikipedia. Right now, I'm searching the stubs and seeing if I can add more imformation and provide active links to other articles in the database. I have already updated few pages and look forward to learning a lot more.

I have one request and one immediate question which isn't crucial, but has been nagging at me.

Request: As my adopter, I would appreciate your help in checking my edits to ensure that I did them correctly. This way I will learn by your feedback as well as my questions.

Question: How do I get this whole section to indent itself with out a bullet? I can see that others in talk pages are able to indent a section to separate it from the previous comment. NatalieOne 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I figured it out.  :-) sorry. NatalieOne 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ATA sources. There is a published Instructor Manual of which I have the latest four versions. But they are not accessible online to protect the ATA from their programs being stolen. Thank you for the advice and feedback. I knew that when I copied the info from the website for Luzern County that it might be problematic. But, I wanted to add some useful information and am looking forward to someone rewording - changing it around so it sounds more like an article and not a promotional blurb. NatalieOne 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve

Yeah, I'd had a pretty productive weekend. I found a reference for that My december tour page and also edited a few other pages and yes, reverted a few bouts of vandalism on that other article. Bloody pains in the arses. That article has seen alot of vandilism. I don't know where to put a request in for semi-protection from anonymous users because I'd love for it to be protected, even if it was just in the meanwhile so me and the editors of the page could spruce it up a bit. Thanks for stalking my edits :) Hope we talk again sometime too! (EMH88 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Eyes Wide Shut

I hope that you have looked into the history of this link farther than just what is written on the discussion page. The original link (which was also removed as spam by a previous editor) was to a different webaddress and was added by an anonymous IP so there is no way to know who added it. That is a violation of the EL policy. It was readded today by User:Ouillah, an editor with no previous history at wikipedia who has come on the scene only to take part in this situation. When you take a look at this persons edit history, combined with the messages that they have left (all containing the same personal attacks on me that Scrooby has made) it is obvious that this is a sockpuppet of Scrooby. As both editors have edited their comments without signing in it is easy to find that they both are editing from a London, England IP. It is possible that a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet is involved, but, that does not alter the situation. The violation of the EL policy of not linking to your own website is obvious to me. Combine this with the violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA and it would seem to leave no doubt that this editor and their sock/meat puppet (who have never added anything to wikipedia but the link to their website) does not wish to work within the wikicommunity. However, if a number of editors feel that these external links should be readded then that is fine I can accept that. I would add that I feel that I should have been invited to the discussion at the etiquette page especially as the attacks on me have contained much unnecessary vitriol, along with huge inaccuracies. MarnetteD | Talk 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Now Scrooby feels that he has free rein to re-add all of the links to his website even though no final decision has been rendered. This is just one more reason that we (I should have typed "I" my apologies for putting words in your mouth) cannot assume good faith. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you note I have been busy filing a notice about this situation here [2]. Please feel free to add anything that you think will be of value when you have the time. Please be aware that I think that you are doing a good job of trying to deal with this situation. Also, you have not gotten off on the wrong foot with me and I want to make it clear that the only abuse of a sockpuppet that I feel has taken place so far is in the putting of the link back in at the EWS page and having the same sock make some of the same insults to me as Scrooby made on that films discussion page. I am planning on filing a sockpuppet request at the appropriate page but have been so busy with my note on the ANI page and with this reply that I may not have time to get to it until tomorrow. I would just add that his refusal to take you up on WP:THIRD or WP:RFC combined with the already noted jumping of the gun on thinking the of situation as resolved again take away from my ability to AGF. Thanks again for your note and for your efforts in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have had to rearrange my evening because you are now accusing me of refusing to file my sockpuppet case [3]. As noted above I was planning on filing one and I have now done so here [4]. It may turn out that this is a meat puppet (ie Scrooby asked a friend to do this) which is still a violation of wikipolicy. You are also incorrect in stating that this was my main objection to the link on the EWS page. The objection to all of Scrooby's edits was, and remains, that you are not allowed to link to your personal webpage (I don't know why I have to keep retyping this). The fact that SiobhanHansa has pointed out that Scrooby is not a noted Kubrick expert only adds to the reason that this policy is in place. He may become one in time but Wikipedia should not be used to help him acheive this status. The fact that it is self published also adds to my feeling that the initial anon IP addition of this link was connected to Scrooby in some manner, but, as you quite rightly point out that is just my feeling and I hope that we can agree that we disagree that his changing of the address was/was not part of his pattern as a single purpose account. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I just saw that you added the anon IP's to the list. I had noted them in the text of my message but I appreciate you adding them to a spot they should have gone. MarnetteD | Talk 23:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are messages just crossed thanks for your note. MarnetteD | Talk 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just got back from one event and am about to head out for another but I have to take a moment to say thank you for your recent edit. Your note about what my stake in this is could not have put better what my positive motives have been in this situation. I know that they are yours too. I apologize that I have let the insults get to me and let negative motives cause me to post things that were rude on various talk pages. You will see that I made a further post to the sockpuppet page. I hope that it does not sound too rude but let me know if you feel otherwise. Thank you again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It has now come to my attention that those who use the true name behind an anonymous username get banned immediately. If this is true, then editor Sarcasticidealist should be banned immediately, for he has repeatedly used my real name on various pages. I am now in correspondence with Wikipedia on this issue.scrooby07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New note

I hope that I can make this joke without causing offense (and, of course, I apologize if I do) but here goes anyway "Eye maa knot hav gud grmmr ore spelin butt Ei am a dab hand at reeeserch". It was his ego that did him in. If he hadn't felt the need to brag about Citizendium I might not have found the Sheffield connection.

I do have one question that, since you work at the Wikiquette page, you may be able to answer. There are several personal attacks (with wildly inaccurate statements about me) on multiple wikipedia pages left over from this situation. After my initial bad reaction to the earlier ones I tried to not respond to the new ones. While ignoring them was the best policy it does dig at me that there are so many rude words about me floating around. I know that they can't, nor should, be blanked out. The ones on my page and at the Wikiquette page will eventually be archived. My question is can the ones on other talk pages be archived too? I also suspect that it would be considered bad form if I archived them since I would be trying to hide something so is there a forum where someone else might be asked to do this? Any advice that you can give will be appreciated.

One last thing. I may not have perfect English Language Rules grammar. Another of Wikipedia's strengths is that those editors that do know all of the rules can come along and correct the edits of those of us that don't. Please feel free to correct any grammar, spelling or punctuation errors that I have made when you come upon them. Cheers :) and now we can get back to editing :-D Yippie! MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Can you please make a comment at Talk:S-400_Triumf because discussion seems to be stuck? Necator 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Happy thanksgiving than! =) Necator 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Good morning Sarcasticidealist. I have just seen all of Scrooby's threats while taking his messy leave of Wikipedia. I am sorry that you have had to take this nastiness from him. As you pointed out he was the first one to use his name and he, his IP, Ouillah (why isn't he attacking this editor for using his name I wonder?) and Ouillah's IP used it repeatedly over the course of this situation. While I don't know what the outcome of this will be I hope that you are okay and if there is anything that you need me to do please let me know. MarnetteD | Talk 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PS One little chuckle :) in this ugly mess - the signature that he manually typed in links to the town of Scrooby rather than his user page. MarnetteD | Talk 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New Information

You will have noticed on the sockpuppet request page that wknight94 found this as the first time that the website was entered on the EWS page. The IP was from Montreal, Canada. You will note that the entry was made on August 8, 2006. Upon doing a little further research it turns out that there was an earlier attempt to add the webpage in question. In fact it turns out that the first time that it was entered was here [5] on July 4, 2006. CRCulver deleted it as linkspam (unfortunately it looks as though this member is no longer editing at wikipedia.) A brief edit war over its inclusion ensued culminating in this [6]. You will note that the IP address is 143.167.143.177. This address tracks to Sheffield, England. When you combine that with this information [7] you will find that it is possible (I would say probable) that Scrooby was involved from the start. The connection to Montreal will remain unknown, but, it may have been easier for Scrooby to repeatedly swear on a stack of bibles (which may be shrinking) that he didn't make the original entry when he was aware of who had made it. I have noted this on the sockpuppet case page (in an altered form) but rather than make you search for it I wanted to put all of the information here in light of the numerous legal threats that Scrooby has made. Especially since (per your post on his talk page) you may now be dealing with Scrooby off-wiki. MarnetteD | Talk 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you will be able to justifiably say that I am beating a dead horse here but I came upon these two little gem [8], [9] today. While it is highly unlikely that this situation will come up again here at Wikipedia I wanted you to have this just in case anything else happens off wiki. Thanks again for your time and assistance. Happy Thanksgiving day to you :-) MarnetteD | Talk 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Update!

Sorry I havent had a chance to get back to you, I've been sick with a lung infection and to top it off I have to go back to Wales at the end of month and been crazy busy here. Thanks for your edits to my edits on BTEC ND they were appreciated and I've noted your advice and will get back to editing ASAP. (EMH88 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Referendum map

Shoot. Well, we can always update the map :). Not that anything's different though. Man, what a night... never thought it would fail that badly! -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheney article, provocation, civility, time & temperature

thanks for your comments re the Cheney article. Yes, I became uncivil after being confronted with an assortment of intemperate ALL CAPS comments flung my way. I used the civility 'stick' with user wikidon, then resorted to incivility myself, so i take full responsibility for that. and I appreciate your understanding of the caveat on my talk page, which you interpret correctly. cheers, Anastrophe 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve, would you adopt me?

Fellow Edmontonian here, already sort of figured out my way around, but I need someone to possibly write an article about me *yeah, it was a shameless self plug* and I feel like nobody likes me on here :( MarkMarek 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve, I will hit you up with some notability report (hopefully) next week. MarkMarek 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

at wikiquette alerts

Hi SI, I'm writing wrt the complaint filed at 'Wikiquette alerts' concerning Bamadude. I don't know what the next step is over there when you can't get someone to see that their comments are insulting/rude, but in case your interested, I'll actively support any action taken to check this behavior (I've got diffs). If you get the chance, it might be good to back up Cheeser1's actions taken so far (moral support is good and I'd do it myself, but I've had a previous, brief run-in with BD at Village Pump and the Larry Seidlin talk page -I don't think he'd be very receptive to what I would have to say). Take care, R. Baley 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC) PS In case you're racking your brain -trying to place me, you once commented at my talk page. R. Baley

Actually SI, Bamadude is persisting in his complaints, and has also been accumulating his own laundry-list of personal attacks on his userpage. Would you mind giving some input on this matter, either at the WQA, the image talk page or at this MfD. Thanks. --Cheeser1 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ontario Electoral Reform

Hi Sarcasticidealist - I agree that my edit was incorrect; however I believe that sentence is incorrect as it stands too. I believe replacing "for each seat" with "for a seat" would remove the most serious flaw. More work would be needed before it would be become altogether clear, but I'll leave it for those who understand it. Eugenwpg 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Hudema

Hey Steve, I added a line of Litle Known Fact for Mr. Hudema but I noticed you removed it. Why? This is a true statement from someone who attended school with Mr. Hudema in both Medicine Hat and Edmonton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcpw (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Korea U and related pages

Hi Sarcasticidealist, thanks for your interest in the matter. Aside from the 2 user talk pages I have added some diffs and a short summary on the page below. I may have put them poor form,as I am not familiar with needing to do this sort of thing, but I hope it helps. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&action=edit&section=24 Epthorn 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your warning for User:Patriotmissile. User:Patriotmissile might refrain for a short while thanks to your warning, but I guarantee that the user will behave rudely again after the latent period. I remember he mentioned that he would have a trip (when I had reported his illegal sockpuppetry [10] and User:Boromir's Regret left "Please refrain" warning [11]) and then have had been calm down for a short while but came back, doing things seriously uncivil again. I think this user should be blocked because the user does not adopt any edit about Korea University page the user wants to own and then does threatening reacts. Please refer to pages about such behaviors of the user in [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and so on. Brincos 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

cats 'n' things

actually, yours is the first mention of that page - never noticed it before. Anastrophe 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Woodchuck Draft Cider

Your edits to Woodchuck Draft Cider ([20] [21]) constitute vandalism. Please do not persist in these edits, or you may be blocked. Sarcasticidealist 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It's not vandalism. Please resolve disputes on the talk page. 71.63.88.166 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mystified?

Mtstified by my position? How so?Metal Head (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Aha, sorry about that. I know I purposefully checked it was from the most recent Registered user edit, but I hadn't realized that that was also vandalism. Sorry.

Thank you for catching this. All the best. Bobo. 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Politican infoboxes

There is no universal concensus on this, but the more people I've talked to, the more it seems we should be including all offices a person has held during their career in their infobox. (see for example: Stéphane Dion). That's what I've been trying to do to Laurence Decore and Talk:Nicholas Taylor. I think we should do the same for Charest, and Stanfield, not to mention Ujal Dosanjj, Stockwell Day, etc. However, it seems to be only offices actually held. Being a failed candidate doesn't warrent mention in an info box. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You should include all parties that a person held office with (only) in my opinion. But that's only my opinon, I have nothing else to go on. The modification to the ifobox you asked about sounds complicated and technical; it's out of my depth. You'd have to mention that one the talkpage for the infobox {{Infobox Officeholder}}. If that doesn't answer your question try: the biographies of politicans group and the Canadian politics group. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: G-Mac. How do you get to chair the student's council if you don't go here? Ahh, the mysteries of student governence. Anyway, that's good to know. Now I know where to complain when the cafeteria runs out of something (kidding [kind of])... go grifs. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What else should be done to meet wikipedia standards?

What can be done to improve the Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician) entry so that it meets wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanpatriot1976 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiequette on TharkunColl

My apologies Sarc, I didn't notice the 'Stale tag'. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have to go that route (in future), as my 'trick knee' tells me we haven't heard the last of Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright information for pictures

How can I find the copywrite info for the pictures for the Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician) entry to make it so it comforms with wikipedia's standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanpatriot1976 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment

Here - [22]. I admit that last comment I made to Dlabtot was rude. I was getting frustrated at being accused of incivility when I would make a point that couldn't be answered. I will try to be more patient and less "snarky." Thanks again - :) Starkrm (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more complex way to edit just the introduction

You recently mentioned there was a "slightly more complex way to edit just the introduction". I can handle complex—could you elaborate? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WQA closure

Greetings. It looks like the WQA w/Izak and Egfrank is closing. Still, I'd appreciate some feedback about my involvement, if you have a chance. My request at end of this section. Below that, see also their parting shots, esp Egfrank about me. Be well. Thanks, HG | Talk 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow Discussion page

Would you please rejoin the discusiion. your input would be helpful. David in DC (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Civility Warning

I agree that your [warning] has some relevance to the said segment. I agree that the language was impolite. I also agree that this would normally be against the approach of building consensus. But I had my strong suspicions that this man was one of the regulars, in fact I felt it is someone I have cited/referred/quoted in past, more than once, but nobody bothered to do anything about him ever. He appears once in a blue moon, to help a particular editor or two with an established POV with absolutely unencyclopedic logics and nonesense, deletes/reverts certain things from the other side, and then goes on a sabbatical. I did not know the means to check. The frustration comes from the fact that in past due to his ways, I had already given up on Wikipedia once, and it was already [mentioned] on the same page. In any case, when you are discussing an event of history, 60-70 lines quoted in boxes of various sizes from a review of a film on the same subject should tantamount to vandalism. And behind a common login used by a certain company with millions of users, it amounts to sock puppetry, though may not be called so because of wiser men like you who have been here longer. So I apologize for the language, but not for the person whosoever. If he was serious, he should have logged in and made it official. I would have apologized all right, and I would talk logically, argue, discuss and try to build a consensus. What is expected of me in this case, talk to a dead socket which goes alive only when someone wants to remain invisible? --Bobby Awasthi 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If User:Bobby Awasthi is referring to me - no, not me. I always login to post. And funnily enough I dont have much time for wikipedia these days.. that sabbatical he's referring to is for this - ITU Botnet Mitigation Project. I started a process that led to one of his buddies User:DemolitionMan permbanned from wikipedia, a ban that was later rescinded with a 3 month edit ban that prohibits him from editing India related articles .. so he simply carries on the usual edit warring on the talk page till the 3 months are up. User:Bobby Awasthi is still busy though. You want to treat his actions as a breach of WP:Civil go ahead and cite it as such.. I really have no time to go through another lengthy Arbcom process right now. srs (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Epf

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I have three statements, each of which should be taken independently of the other. First, I admit I behaved uncivilly; I was wrong and regret that. Second, I believe firmly that Epf is a POV-pushing troll. This belief is based on months of experience with him. During this time he has sought to impose his POV on several articles. My edits never deleted substantive content he added, but always sought to ensure that his POV was not privileged over other points of view. However, he has sought to delete content I have added, or to re-write it in ways that distorts it. It is evident that he is not wwell-educated in the topics he has chosen to work on. I have gone to great pains to explain - respectfully and constructively - where his misunderstanding were, and to correct his mistakes while doing justice to valid content he has added. However, he has shown no respect for me, consistently ansists that because my view is different from is I am wrong, and has never assumed good faith in my edits. He has reverted every edit I have made since we crossed paths. I will not stand by and see him degrade the quality of some good articles, nor will I accept his utter lack of respect for me, or failure to assume good faith. Third, this was my last message for him and you can judge for yourself whether I have made a good-faith effort to work with him. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as content disputes, I am not sure an RfC ould help as there are not many people at Wikipedia with expertiese on this body of literature. I know of two editors who are professors of anthropology but one (Alex Golub) has long been inactive and the other (Mdfisher) is also inactive; I know of one professor of sociology but as this is hi shoby he does not edit sociology-related articles. Moreover, both user:Alun and User:Ramdrake commented (and both have higher degrees in the life sciences) and in both cases Epf was dismissive of their views, ultimately, he suggested, because one of them agreed with me [23]. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The most authoritative and notable sources on the topic, in social science and historical research are books (most of which I do not believe are available electroinically) and articles (many of which are). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Careful there

Watch 3RR at The Great Global Warming Swindle. Note this person is likely a sockpuppet of banned User:Scibaby. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

From Zymoticus: Newby here, so apologies in advance for not knowing how to navigate even the communication features, also the multiple-undo thing - but only for that. Apparently this (above) is a reference to my edits? I can assure Raymond that I'm nobody's 'sock puppet' - rather, just a big, big fan of facts and reason.

"Sarcasticidealist" has, for comically obvious ideological reasons, been reverting my edits of The Great Global Warming Swindle entry. The edits involve correcting the logically presumptuous and flat-out false wording throughout the entry, of scientific "consensus" without the necessary qualifier "alleged."

This is not, as he asserts, the addition of tangential information relating to "the wider issue rather than the film itself," it is a correction of wording that by its very nature represents an inherent bias against the topic, which is the film. It is Sarcasticidealist, not me, who in protecting an inaccurate and ideologically-motivated premise in the entry's wording, is interjecting his tangential bias to this entry. He clearly does not agree with the content of the film, this entry's subject, therefore is engaging in a kind of censorship of factual data which he finds ideologically uncomfortable.

Unless he can switch his allegiance from his own ideological proclivities to acknowledgement of the entry's inaccurate wording, this will presumably have to go to mediation, once I figure out how to do the process.

Adoption

Thank you so much for the adoption offer, and I accept. I try to come on as often as I can, but I cannot come on all day. Thanks. Independent147 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the adoption offer. I accept. I try to come on as often as possible, but I can't come on everyday. If I do come on everyday, It's for a very brief time. I usually come on here often when I'm off from work. I'm not sure how the whole adoption thing goes, I know that your the adopter and that you can help me with anything related to wikipedia. If I have trouble or have a question, I can ask you. Am I right? --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations! I really appreciate your help. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you like us to talk to you on our own talk pages? I would mostly like to stick to what I'm doing now, minor editing for grammatical correction purposes. Maybe I'll try to do more later, but not right now. What would you recommend doing to find pages to clean up? Thanks, Independent147 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks card

Hello, Steve Smith, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your kind and constructive comments, I hope I meet your expectations. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

you're right of course, and i have no intention of escalating the matter. i really hope i never do have to escalate a matter about an admin, so far only one other admin has gotten 'under my skin', and i let that go too. i don't want to be one of those cheesebrained policy wonk/nutjobs who files RFD's (or whatever they're called) six ways to sunday. i prefer to argue my own points and win hearts and minds (so to speak) on my own. i do think the guy is overreaching his adminship by culling fact tags because he doesn't like them. Anastrophe (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Luck. . .

Hi SI, long time no see. . .I wish you the best on your RfA. I meant every word and am only sorry I didn't know you wanted it, because I would have nominated you myself. Sincerely, R. Baley (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on your RFA. On my RFA, which is only a few days older than yours, I wasn't asked the consensus question. I don't define consensus as an absolute support/oppose or keep/delete. Sometimes, there is minor common ground in a discussion. This is sometimes the key to getting an agreement, that is, building on the small points that isn't disputed. This strategy is more useful resolving disputes than AFD's. As far as your RFA, I'll read over it soon and will probably leave support after that. A cursory review of it looks good. Archtransit (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Double-wing2.gif

The image title is Double-wing2.gifBill Spencer (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about capitalization. I had to change the extention name from ".gif" to ".GIF" to make the image visible. Thanks for the help. --Bill Spencer (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

copyright picture?

like say I wanted to sell a jersey on the internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliewilson2003 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

Thanks for the help on the Frank LaGrotta article. I still cannot figure out why that user wanted to censor that information. Oh well, the system works. I see you're not from Pennsylvania, which makes your contribution especially valuable as an outsider. If you have the inclination, I was wondering if you would take a look at 2006 Pennsylvania General Assembly bonus controversy or 2005 Pennsylvania General Assembly pay raise controversy. I usually write biographies and I woud appreciate some help with these articles. Thanks! --RedShiftPA (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Ritchie

Excellent work on this article, Sarc. The only thing that could make it better would be references. Ground Zero | t 11:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ritz 88s

Hello, sorry, I just posted my complaint on your user page, I will go remove that. But can you explain your citation for deleting my page on the Ritz 88s? I did not redirect to any page, let alone a non-existent page. This article relates to a group which is part of an interesting and significant music trend in Prague. Do you consider that from across the ocean, or simply make a blanket rationale on what you think? I really tried to keep the info very factual and informative, and in no way tried to sell the music group or redirect it for any purpose. Thanks for your input. Damendowse (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just a note; I don't think this is uncivil. True, it isn't very constructive, but the user is stating that the vandals are all from 4chan. The board where all Internet memes originate from is called /b/; users of this board call themselves /b/tards. I'm explaining this because I don't want the user to be wrongly accused of incivility. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it, it's all good. Good call apologizing, too. Oh, and let me congratulate you for becoming an admin in advance! (P.s. I voted for you :D) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FatChris1

This user is STILL adding unsourced material: [24], [25], [26] The SSP case hasn't been reviewed by anybody yet. What can be do about this? Reply here, thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's such a backlog at WP:SSP. I've taken the request to WP:ANI, where action should be a little swifter. Thanks for your work reverting him in the meantime. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. If you ask me, the user will create another account even though the block is for 7 days and will keep adding unsourced material. Let's hope I'm wrong. This is frustating. Took me one month to finally deal with this account. How odd nobody replied on the SSP case. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, since that's usually the way with socks. Somebody will get to the sockpuppet report eventually, it's just that there's a huge backlog right now for some reason. If you see another sock pop up, let me know and I'll add it to the sock case (it also looks like I'll be an admin in a few hours, so I might be able to help with some blocking then too, if circumstances warrant). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Hudema

The article Mike Hudema you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mike Hudema for things needed to be addressed. Kakofonous (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 07:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tally-ho then...and off to do some admin stuff....

Or...this...congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most gloriously insane things I've ever seen. Well done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Spencer^T♦C 11:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And don't worry, I have full faith in your abilities. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) GlassCobra 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! And you're very welcome; I did enjoy reading your answers, they were thought-out and reflected all the prized qualities we look for in an administrator. Chris.B 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats! Tiptoety ^talk 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and your unanimous RfA! 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

page deletion

hi there, just wondered if you could explain about the speedy deletion of a page that I was in the process of creating? thanks! Cath sal (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Army training Team Vietnam Insignia

Can you please explain to me why you instantly deleted this image (Image:aattvpatch.JPG.jpg) when I had stated in the fair use rationale that it's use in the article Australian Army Training Team Vietnam had been granted by the copyright owner? Rac fleming (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had uploaded the image, stating why I thought it was free use, and that the copyright owner had granted permission to use, then added it to the infobox, saved the image link to the infobox, only to discover that the image had already been deleted. I went away and tried to upload the image again a few hours later, and the link had been removed from the infobox by a bot, so I uploaded it again, went to the infobox to restore the link, and you had re-deleted the image! I tried to pick "the copyright owner has granted me permission" etc as the justification, but it has now been deleted twice! Am I uploading it in the wrong category? Rac fleming (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, did I select the wrong category for it though?? It must have somehow been flagged to be deleted instantly twice? Rac fleming (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

already thought you were an admin

I don't remember exactly where we first ran across each other, but it was more peripherally than direct contact. We've never crossed swords or anything as arcane as that, but for some reason I was of the impression you were already an admin. In any event, congratulations -- I'm sure you'll do good work. I'll definitely stay in touch.... --Mhking (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thx, congrats and whatnot

Hah, thanks! And also congrats, FWIW. As to your username and best contribution: Of course I like it, but what else would you expect from someone who calls himself village idiot? User:Dorftrottel 14:26, January 15, 2008

deleted by you Sansei yamao -> Sansei Yamao

Hi there. Could you please undelete this new biography you apparently zapped a few hours ago [27]? I just retrieved an email from its author, a brand new Wikipedian or maybe even still an anonymous new Wikipedian, don't know (this was her first effort) -- asking me to take a look at it and correct it if need be, as she just posted it on the English and Japanese wikis. I assure you that Sansei Yamao is notable, as he is an exceptional Japanese poet. Any faults of the article (capitalization of the title being one, and the lack of asserted notability, per your description in the log of deleted articles) can be fixed. Apologies on behalf of the author, but she is completely new at this. She will only get better at editing Wikipedia, given the chance. As for me, I was asleep, and could not intervene earlier. Much obliged. --Mareklug ^talk 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You earned it, friend

The pleasure is all mine. I had no second thoughts on supporting you. --Niyant (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey! I didn't know you were up for RfA! I would have voted for you! :) Congratulations on becoming a fellow admin! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!   jj137 ^♠ 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido/WQA

Could I ask you for a favor? I need a second opinion (other than Cheeser1's) about the WQAs that Guido den Broeder started, against OrangeMarlin and Cheeser1. I've given my analysis of the situation (that Guido essentially provoked the remarks and accusations about himself) and said that he appeared to be working against consensus in Talk:Fibromyalgia, and he claims that I'm totally off-base. So if I could trouble you to review the OrangeMarlin(2) WQA and the discussions on the Fibro Talk where Guido was involved, and then let me know what your opinion is, I'd appreciate it. I'm pretty certain I'm understanding the situation correctly, but I've been wrong on such things before, so getting another opinion will help either way. :) Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cairnsy

Why did you delete this page?

I (Cairnsy)am famed amongst the CSS community for being the highest skilled downs syndrome player of the game. I find it unfair that you immediately delete the page when you don't know the facts, maybe you could have just reworded it into something more acceptable?

I look forward to recieving your response /// Cairnsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRNSY90 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Barn*

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Nice article work, particularly on articles dealing with Politics. Good work and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I noticed that your awards section was...nevermind ;D. Malinaccier (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks/db-userreq

Thanks for taking care of three pages I self-requested deletion from. I wanted to ask if you could also delete associated Talk pages here, here, here, and here. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

A user by the handle GaurangaUK is reverting edits that I have made to the Vaishnavism page that are duly cited and appropriate. I intuit that this is due to religious intolerance. What may I do? The user has a history of doing this on the page.
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your 'kwikstix' throughput.

In sincerity

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for removing "Speedy Deletion" from Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 12:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

your a tool

if you had any idea about the hip hop scene in melbourne you would know that 3styles is very influential to alot of people you retarded cowgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabba1987 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC) hey mate (Sarcasticidealist )how come ur admin page is more important to other people than any other page you delete??? i dont understand how that picture of a admins t shirt deserves to be on this site more than anything else.... it seems like this kind of thing should be more democratic rather then just delete shit you think isnt important and keep what important to you...well thats all i got to say you never even gave me a chance to finish my article or nothing im not even gunna bother doing that article again cause your just gunna look for reasons to delete it i think your page should be deleted i dont really give a fuck what articles you done or or what you can and cant do your just a fuking cocksmoker who gets off getting reactions out of people fuking COMIC BOOK GUY yea you should change your name to comic book guy you fuking nerd burgler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabba1987 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

You recently deleted the user page for ScienceApologist as per their right to vanish. Am I within my rights to ask what became of this user?

I'm asking because there was a recent arbcom ruling limiting them to one account and I'd be interested to know which account they settled with in the end so that I know whether or not I'm editing along side the same user or not? - perfectblue (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. There was a bit of a skirmish the other day which put this user in peril of breaching an arbcom when a consensus about civility went against them, if they left to pursue other interests then I can't argue with that. I was just a little concerned that they might be trying to get round the restrictions placed on them by taking on a new identity.

At the end of the day, though, it's not my call. - perfectblue (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I'm not an admin. I just edited entries alongside this user for a while. I don't really have the tools to gather evidence or the authority to act if I were by some chance to find it. If any action needs taking, and I have nothing to suggest that any does, I'm not in a position to do much. - perfectblue (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they are back. This is the second time that this has happened with this particular user. - perfectblue (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A perfectly acceptable statement. I'm pleased to see that the user's edit history was restored when their user page was restored along with all of their diffs. I'm working on the basis that whoever restored the user identity is the same person as set it up in the first place on the grounds that they appear to have started right where they left off, and nobody has told me anything to the contrary.

perfectblue (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a lot of bother to go to. Maybe they just wanted to nix the history of that one page. Don't know why though. - perfectblue (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Town councils

Thanks. You've alerted me to the notion municipal politicians of any larger or notable city maybe shouldn't be speedied without a bit of heed first (only for context, it would be easier if one wasn't faced with a one-line stub onto which someone, trying to be helpful, had slapped an A7). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

urgh

i removed some (rather comical) personal attacks from the page, but now i'm not sure whether i should have mucked with it. seemed to clearly violate WP:CIVIL, but since this is your talk page, perhaps i should have left the decision to you. but the 'damage' is done, so i'll leave it to your discretion whether you want to restore it. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Signshare

The thing about that is that it is MY userpage and I have the right to display whatever I feel like on it. You need to stay off of MY userpage. I mean nothing by my list except that I am involved in alot of controversy and you have no right to do anything on MY userpage. I will repost it and if you remove it again, then we have an issue. Signshare (January 21, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are too funny, I don't ever want to do anything with you just NEVER talk to me again, NEVER go on my user-page, and I will NEVER work with the likes of you. The best thing for you is to leave me alone. Thank You, and have a very nice day (Signshare January 21 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

lrt map

Thanks very much for the help. Kevlar67 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image in public domain?

Hi SI, when you were up at RfA, I noticed that one of the images you uploaded was quite old (this one of Matthew Mccauley). I was thinking that it might be public domain material instead of Fair use, what do you think? I remember reading up on it a while back (seems like there was material on Quadell's (sp?) page. Anyway I thought you might be interested in looking in to it. . . R. Baley (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'd like my user talk page deleted because the contents in the edit history may have been written under the influence of drugs and---the content has nothing to do with editing articles here. I'm kind of new to Wiki and I was abusing/misusing the user talk page. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your declined speedy of Tyler Padalecki

Hi there,

The reason I nominated that article under CSD G3 is that it's a copy/paste (losing the wiki formatting) of Sam J. Jones (to clarify, this revision of that article), with a misleading/incorrect title. In the past, it's been my experience that such articles have been speedy-able, especially since the "blatant and obvious hoax" clause was added to G3. If you prefer, I can take it to AFD, however - let me know.

Thanks, JavaTenor (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-investigating. Some brief googling led me to believe that this edit is probably related vandalism - I've reverted it. JavaTenor (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Voxpopuli08

Endorse block, of course, as you blocked while it was still sinking in here what they'd written.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phantom arcade

ok then, added notability so please DONT DELETE IT ok? thanks Matster9090 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Stupid question

I hate when that happens! Your name is familiar to me as well, but I'm not aware of any times we've came in contact. Maybe watched it by mistake? I just checked my talk history (the last 5,000) edits and you're right, no comments from you. We may have spoke at an XFD discussion? Wish I knew. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if anything comes to you though. I've looked in a few places, but cannot find any interaction. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Grace Ling Liang English School

A two-sentence article that doesn't even give the location of the subject has sufficient context to avoid a speedy? That seems to fly in the face of common sense to me, but since you've removed the speedy tags twice (OK, the latter actually had a better reason for removal), I've put the article through the tiresome AfD process. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Check your inbox. . .

I sent you an email. R. Baley (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Rancic

Please stop your edits to Bill Rancic. They are violations of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and you may be blocked if you persist in making them. If you wish to discuss this, please take it up at the article's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it a violation? The show is struggling. Do some research & you see/know that. 70.108.122.10 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Negative material about living people must be backed by reliable sources. That's a completely non-negotiable component of WP:BLP. Even if you sourced it, I would still say that including the word "struggling" would be a violation of WP:NPOV, but I confess that that (unlike the BLP bit) is a judgment call.

Besides that, why do you also persist in removing the date from the citation needed tag with your edit? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It isnt neg toward Bill. Its a fact about the show he is on. Did u check daytime tv reviews and rating reports? What is BLP ? 70.108.122.10 (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"BLP" is WP:BLP - Wikipedia's policy on the biography of living persons. And yes, it's a fact about the show (or, at least, I'll take your word that it's a fact), but there are hundreds of other facts about the show. By choosing to mention this one instead of the others in the Bill Rancic article, you're effectively inserting negative material in to his article (it would be like if I said that somebody was the CEO of a corporation that was hemorrhaging money - technically it's a comment about the corporation, but it would still need to be sourced per WP:BLP.

So yeah: for that to be in there, it would have to be sourced somewhere. Even if it was sourced somewhere, I'd say that it's not necessary for inclusion in the Rancic article - put it in the article about the show instead - but not everyone might agree with me on that, and we could bring some other editors in to comment if you strongly felt that it should be included (I think the other editors would probably see it my way, but I can't be sure). But sourcing is an absolutely necessary prerequisite before we can even consider including it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to undo your edit again. This means that we'll each have reverted three times over the last twenty-four hours, meaning that one more revert by either one of us will violate WP:3RR, which is likely to get us blocked. If you really want to see that included, despite everything I've said, find a source for saying it's struggling, and then we can start getting some other editors involved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a fact about the show he is on. Did u check daytime tv reviews and rating reports? U demand I give a source, y dont u ! Sheesh ! 70.108.122.10 (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I don't provide a source is because I don't want the material included. You're the one who wants it included, so it's incumbent on you to demonstrate that it's verifiable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pick fights w some 1 else now ok.70.108.122.10 (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I step out of line at Gwen Gale's RfA? Your opinion is valued.

I wanted to ask someone who supported and someone who opposed. Was my questioning overly harsh? I agree with the somewhat statistical point you made at Gwen's talk page, that the sheer number of edits was high. I made 36 edits myself (which I knew was a bunch). BusterD (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A friend frequently uses the phrase: "Less is more." Hard to argue with the advice. I didn't actually know why Gwen chose to do what she did re: her edited archives, and that's why I asked the questions in a somewhat leading way. It did feel a bit like "Argument Clinic." Thanks for the critique. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0! I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Steve Smith/Archive 1 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima/talk/ 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disamb

see here senior L'Enfant name is incorrect. It will not let me move him to the correct one, and I am unsure how to make the disamb, I am not sure there are supposed to be piped links in DAB's. Thanks - Dureo (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, from what I can find historically, the fathers name was just Pierre L'Enfant with nmn, so I am unsure how exactly that would work, that is what is confusing me. Dureo (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright I think the first option is best, as I feel the same(actually feel almost 95 percent will be looking for Jr. let me work on it, I'm certain I won't break anything,) we'll see how I do in a minute. Dureo (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright I believe I did that right, checked all the links to make sure they worked, mind checking and tell me if I missed something obvious? :P Thanks. Dureo (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah alright, I wasn't sure if there was a template for that for other things of the same name, wasn't sure if that template worked with the boat in there. Thanks for the help, been wondering if there was some secret to that for a while now. Dureo (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Sarcaticidealist, I just wanted to stop by and give you a quick thank you for your kind words and support in my RFA. I was taken back by the amount of support I received, and will try to live up to those expectations. Thanks again, and if you ever need any help, feel free to stop by and ask me!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Point

I notice you Speedy deleted the article Hurricane Olympics per criteria G4. The article had only been previously speedy deleted (criteria A7) and WP:CSD states of G4 "Articles that were only previously speedily deleted do not fall under this category." and "This does not apply to... speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).". Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist

I was trying to create a new page on Naresh Sonee Sohum Sutra but if you feel the page should not continue,fine. but don't you think the author of Brhmand Pujan deserve a page or two line of info. Your good self guide me how could i do it? or your good self help me out technically if you can, please do a favor by helping me out? --Dralansun (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Urge-Notice Pls. helping Brhmand Pujan to grow

Can you pls put my page again as it was there since dec. & only needed extention due to orphaned or stub.Kindly help me out --Dralansun (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

re:MCQ

You are correct. Megapixie (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Winona Ryder

Thanks for you message. I added something on the Talk page. What 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) conveniently neglected to explain were the reasons for my actions. He began edit warring with another editor (not me) over the issue, so I asked for discussion on the talk page before there were additional reverts. He posted a comment on the Talk page in response to my request for discussion and four minutes later began edit warring again, claiming that he did not need consensus. All of this can be seen in his edit history. Although I disagree with adding the category, my biggest objection was that 87.126.142.54 (talk · contribs) was edit warring and violating 3RR without allowing adequate discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Joan Beatty

Just to let you know, the others that you changed are fine, but I undid your change on Joan Beatty, because candidacy in a by-election does count. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. We all have our moments. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just a note to let you know that I left a comment in a reply to your talk on my user talk page. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD Bio tag of TriPod the band

Hi, I tagged TriPod the band with db-bio, and you removed the tag saying that notability is asserted. I have re-read the article and still cannot see where. For one, basic notability is determined by third-party references; being unique or doing something special is not "notability" in Wikipedia terms. Can you please explain your reasoning to me? -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Thank you for the barnstar! It is very much good to know that my effort has been appreciated, especially when they relate to matters so hotly contested. LinaMishima (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for having to walk away from the homeopathy articles so soon after I seemed to be beginning to make make a difference. The way things played out after that however simply continued to cause me harm. You might be amused to learn that it was watching Star Trek: First Contact that made me realise that the article and the discussion was doing me no good at all and that I needed to withdraw and go have some real fun :P I do have to apologise for being extremely unfair by nominating you as my voice in absence without first asking for your permission. I did need to get out of there fast, and so I did not feel able to wait. You are, of course, more than free to decline, and I would not only understand, but perhaps also approve (given the state of the discussions there). I hope that some form of eventual solution can be reached there even with my departure. Thank you for your own reasoned inputs. LinaMishima (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A good film :) Might I recommend the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer the original, it's more film noir with the voice-over (although the strapped on happy ending isn't so good) :P Thanks for the suggestion, I do need to pick up the new complete collection of blade runner! LinaMishima (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Thank you, and I shall simply say that, as almost every sci-fi states, mankind's greatest ability is its boundless capacity for hope, something I too share :) LinaMishima (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Would you please fully protect Rudy Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 and Template:United States presidential election, 2008 until Giuliani actually drops out.--STX 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

I wouldn't call it wheel warring if you protected the articles after other people declined. But I appreciate that you didn't rush to do it. I appreciate the desire to not have to patrol the articles, and if the level of activity increases I wouldn't object to a short protection, but right now I just don't see enough activity. Also, if we leave them unprotected we will draw out some single-purpose accounts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour

Hi! I don't believe we've been introduced, but apparently we have made a common new friend in the last week. I thinks it's sad what's happened here with LinaMishima, and I don't really know how to proceed on the Homeopathy page. Although the article isn't that bad, the process seems to broken right now, and I can't see it getting better. The talk page is almost unusable. Feel free to email me or get in touch with any suggestions, ideas, or for a chat; on this or any topic. Cheers, --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:TigerManXL

I think if he goes at it after this block then definitely. He is arguing over such a stupid thing that although he is being disruptive, its just so stupid. I think after this block we put him on a very short leash and if he is disruptive at all I will support an indef, heck Ill even do the block ;-) That said, if you feel it is warranted I will not take offense to you extending my block to a longer period. So if you feel it is needed, go ahead and block him longer, although I feel he should get one more chance before an indef.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, yeah I am still confused at why s/he feels so strongly about this. And I did see your warning, thats why I blocked without warning him ;-) Im about to go leave a note warning him about how not to act after his block expires and the consequences of doing so. I wont be around much this weekend, so if you can keep an eye on things that would be great. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New Strategy for IP vandals

I've noticed that a WHOIS will quickly stop about %50 of all repetitive vandals I encounter. I don't suppose you know a runbook add-in that would scoop one automatically? --mitrebox (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you can see a 5 edits on the users contribs. First user moved candidate to the withdrawn pile, I did a quick google and reverted. User then kept changing the spelling of Gravels name in the Image tag, which makes the image unreadable. I just kept reverting every change to the image tag.--mitrebox (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Previously a lot of people wanted to place BO next to HC or reorder the candidates. Some think that having candidates ordered alphabetically (which is how they are done on ballots) places their candidate at a disadvantage. Its all about pageviews to some fanatical supporters.--mitrebox (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes

The difference is no one cares about Keyes anymore. He's done this every election since 1992 and only does it to pay off past debt[[28]], pay himself out of Federal matching funds[[29]], and to get speaking fees. He's never held office and never had a real job. He even moved across the country to run for Senate in a state he's not from. Its like someone from BC moving to Toronto to run for mayor. Gravel at least is running for the first time (and its Alaska not Arkansas). When people read WP years from now they are going to want to know who was important, obviously people with 4% aren't but they at least got votes. Putting in people who don't deserve to be here distorts history. --mitrebox (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion of COI of editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned from Homeopathy for One week by East

I've been banned from the homeopathy talk page for 1 week. Anthon01 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Sarcasticidealist! :) Hope your doing good. I want to know how you think I am doing on wikipedia, since being adopted by you. Let me know. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your purpose here

See here. Who do you mean by "a few editors here", and where were the "concerns" expressed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Miller (Yuba City)

Hi there, I might have been a bit hasty there. It seemed such a clear-cut case, with a clear consensus, that I thought I could close it earlier. However, if you think there is an argument that he is notable I could re-list it. What do you advise? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I will be a bit more careful in the future. Thanks for the advice. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Blocking seems like it might help. I didn't know how to ask for that. Are you an admin? Angela Harms (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. Thanks. Hoping I can learn from this is Wikipedia really can recover from this sort of thing. Rumor has it that consensus works, and it can. :) Angela Harms (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, see? Here I've been carefully avoiding words like "jackass." :) Angela Harms (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just reread the Request for Arbitration page, and discovered that it's been multiple IPs, not just one. So I'm thinking that means blocking won't help (and today's work, like all the previous work, will just be reverted). What happens then? Angela Harms (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article EPIC FAIL

Hello. You have deleted the article mentioned in the subject today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=EPIC_FAIL

It wasn't mine, but I saw it an hour or two before it was deleted, and laughed really hard :D Anyway, I didn't save it, so I just wanted to know if there was any way to see it again, just to make a screenshot or something, because this thing was really worth of being in some funny articles list. So, if there's a way of seeing it, could you please provide a link. Thanks. unimatrix (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The ip with the limited vocabulary

OK - mind you, I was thinking that a selective undelete (just the warnings, etc. remaining) would remove any attempt at bringing back the past. Admins would still have access to that, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... sort of, as I only thought of it after I had deleted the page, and found the other responses at ANI. Only then did I go back and found the page had been restored. Since my re-deleting (even if to selectively restore) may appear to be undoing another sysops actions I will not do so, but if you want to do it then please be my guest. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Improper deletion

Hi Melesse - I just wanted to drop you a line to advise you that your deletion of Image:SethPubPhotowithcopyrightinfo.jpg was in error. There was copyright information on the page; it just wasn't in the form of a image copyright tag.
Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know, because I like to be informed when I make mistakes with my buttons, and do unto your neighbour and all that. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, I feel dumb, I read that whole thing before I deleted it and thought there was no reply, but I missed the reply at the top, eek. Thanks for catching my mistake. Melesse (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Serio

There was a very similar case, as I recall, in which Fark.com was ordered to link to a particular news story which was, in the words of Antonin Scalia writing for the six justice majority, "clearly cool". I hope the Foundation's prepared to pay its lawyers overtime on this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a legal threat for me to tell you that I'll send my lawyers after you if you don't replace the keyboard I just sprayed with Pepsi? Gladys J Cortez 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Curses! Foiled again!!! ...the legal team of Gladys J Cortez 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fin stats

If she hadn't posted it 10 minutes before him, I wouldn't have been able to go to bed smiling as wide as I am. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow I did not see that blank turning into a week long block, although it probably wasn't the best thing to edit in the projectspace as the third edit after being unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving A talk page

Did I set up the archive on my talk page correctly? --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Grr. >:(

why don't you try putting all your time and effort into a wikipedia article and have it deleted. of course im mad! just put yourself in my shoes for a second and think before you type. and an apology would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matster9090 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

phantom arcade

thanks for your assistance , could you pass this on to the other members of the discussion

thx,

it said in this discussion that it was a hoax. I clearly stated that the site was TO BE RELEASED STILL. what, exactly makes you think that you will have priveledges to view it before anyone else? I request that you restore my page that was under construction and stop having a negative impact on my futur articles i make, assuming they arent auto deleted like on my friends account, froggerr3k.

Thank you Matster9090 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

oops... srry

srry for blaming u, i must have misunderstood the situation... let's just put that behind us, k?

Matster9090 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matster9090 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out!--Gazzster (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Honestly, I did not count more than three times. CuriousOliver (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian EMR Page

I've read through the guidelines and I understand why the Canadian EMR page I tried to create was deleted. However I think now that I have a better understanding of what is acceptable, I think I can create a better page showing why Canadian EMR is notable and should be included here. However I'm confused as to whether you have to reinstate the page or if I can post a version with new text? Thanks for you help. Englishcanuck (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo

Hi. The user's response to the RFC has been to remove the notification on his talk page with the comment, 'removing disruptive note'. Would it be appropriate to ask that he be blocked for a certain period?--Gazzster (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

K. Thanks.--Gazzster (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this editor was since asked twice to not comment on my talk page, yet he did so anyway.[30] [31] Said notes were rightfully removed, and I will not hereafter engage this editor or participate in these witch-hunts. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In response:

• BTAIM, I can and will remove unsolicited, unwarranted, or unwanted comments as needed from my talk page, particularly those (for instance) from an editor who has initiated two examinations so far of my editorial behaviour, with the RfC being launched during the Wikiquette, all in response to being referred to as 'an ally' of another editor. Both procedures have little purpose. Consequently, I want nothing to do with this editor, and will avoid hereafter. This is perhaps an over-reaction, but given that the same could be said of the above, if not this entire situation, it is what it is.
• I do not reject dispute resolution, but believe it to be useless given the intransigence of the opposing editor(s) involved and efforts to date. There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. While you've glanced at 'Dominion', you should head on over to 'Canada' and glimpse the current morass and the prior one beginning in Sep. -- all over one word in the lead and inaugurated/stoked by one of the aforementioned editors. I and others have summarised my comments in an abortive request for arbitration launched by the offending editor (only to have the RfA rejected/withdrawn shortly afterward) -- please read. This has been wholly frustrating: I have found certain editors involved in this debacle to be rather obtuse, pedantic, and simplistic in behaviour and exceedingly biased regarding topic matter, and believe proposed modes of resolution would be unsuccessful: this comment pretty much sums it up. I also make no apologies for not treating them with kitty gloves, but really have no time to play games with them.
• Given the above, despite efforts by some to foster amity (User:GoodDay), I affirm my commitment to not participate in these witch-hunts and will not ascribe to them.

I hope this helps. Quizimodo (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I dropped the arbitration request because an administrator suggested I try mediation. I'll take words like "obtuse, pedantic, and simplistic" as insults that are par for the course when dealing with this editor. One can add those to "bad faith", "Wikipedia is not your mother" and "hypocrite". Literate, but no less insulting. --soulscanner (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. If you identify with and relate to personal traits in the comments above and take offense to them, that is not my problem. And we wouldn't be at this juncture if it were not for perceptions -- by me and others -- of your obstinance and lack of good faith. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

I've already added the lead sentence and I'm working on adding more links. I had no idea making a Wikipedia page was this complicated. Englishcanuck (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Being banned from an editor's page

Having seen your 'advice' to Quizimodo, it answered my question about User:One Night In Hackney. ONIH banned me from his personal page (last month), because I used the term Belfast, United Kingdom. If he'd informed me that it was offensive 'before' asking me to stay away, I could've had a chance to patch things up with him (even though I feel he over-reacted to the 'Belfast, United Kingdom' usage). Could you ask him to lift his ban on me? (he's always invited to post at my personal page, as I've no ill will towards him).GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- If ONIH still wishes me to stay away? I'll continue to respect his wishes. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope someday, ONIH will change his mind. Thanks for your time, Sarcasticidealist. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

help with Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank please

Hello, as a knowledgeable person on copyright issues, can I ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank? This is a slightly older thread that was recently updated with new information. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Patricia K. Robertson

This is an article built from scratch, which seemed to use an opponent's article as a template as it was being built. I happened across it earlier while surfing Recent Changes. I was concerned about COI, especially since the text initially was being taken directly from the candidate's site. When your tag was put up, I was interested to see the response. A speedy takedown by an IP looked pretty suspicious; few if any articles link there, so it seems that someone besides me was watching it. I was hoping for some honest feedback from its main, almost lone, contributor, so I set the tag back.

But you're right, anyone can remove the tag, and I shouldn't have let my curiosity get the better of me. I'm still wondering who is adding this political article, and whether COI is occurring. Circumstantial, though; nothing to prove as of yet. --Yamara ✉ 05:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (added a verb to my note -Yamara ✉ 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Remember FatChris1?

Hello, hope you remember that user. The account was indef blocked for being a sock and adding unsourced material to biographies. Anyway, there's an IP address that has been adding the same content to articles. I suspect is the same person. The IP is the following: 65.191.188.171. What you think we should do? Warn the user? This will be useless seeing what the both blocked accounts have done. Reply here. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously the same user. Because I'm feeling generous, I've issued him one warning; if he continues to violate after that, I'll block him. Thanks for catching this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you.

I moved your reply here, I like to keep things in one place. Hope you don't mind. I'm not sure if you read that sign with orange background in my talk page at the top. Check it. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I didn't - sorry. I'll try to keep an eye on the I.P.'s contribs, but if you notice more shenanigans from it, please let me know. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. And remember the user was always adding Category:Entertainers with Crips affiliations, which is now deleted (here is the CfD). I think Category:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations aswell should be deleted. What do you think? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've nominated it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back: Kam (rapper), Domino (rapper). Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

South Central Cartel Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the I.P. for two weeks, as a starter. Unfortunately, we can't indef-block I.P.s, since we don't want to prevent innocent people from editing, but if this keeps up I'll hit him with a serious of increasingly long blocks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Some different IP address is adding the same content to some articles (71.243.204.141) and by searching in the Tennessee Ernie Ford article history I found another IP address adding the same content (76.20.101.23). I'm confused about it, some IP users add the category, others remove it. Just letting you know. If you wish to reply, please do so here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, did you have to remind me to respond here? When I saw the message was from you, my first thought was "Okay, this time I'm going to remember to reply at my own damned talk page." But that's hardly an impressive feat now that you've reminded me.

Anyway, as to the actual issue, I've given a warning to the first I.P. The second one hasn't edited in more than three weeks, so it would be kind of pointless to warn it now given that the I.P. might belong to a different person next time it shows up. If either one persists in its behaviour, though, please let me know and we'll move to blocking. I can appreciate that this must be irritating, but unfortunately we can't block I.P.s without warning, and we can't block them for extended periods of time. Plus, since our Fat Friend seems to manage to get a new I.P. every couple of weeks, blocking I.P.s for long terms isn't likely to help anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the dirty job of warning him. And yes... it's irritating, but now that the category above that was CfD'd is deleted now, just adding Category:Bloods it's useless, because that category it's about the Bloods, so it can be easily reverted because it's not related. What do you think? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, revert like a maniac. Even if you have to past WP:3RR I'd say you're fine, because I think that's a pretty blatant WP:BLP violation, and BLP violations are 3RR-exempt (I can't promise you wouldn't get blocked for doing that, mind you, just that such a block would be unjustified). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't rollback anymore, now I gotta go back to the old fashion way. I wasn't awared that you only use rollback for vandalism. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can get me the rollback edits at the moment? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done so, but please make sure you use it only for vandalism. If you don't, not only will you get it revoked again, but you're going to make me look really stupid for restoring it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. And don't you worry about that, I will use it for vandalism or clear policies violations. Other than that, if I revert, I'll use the edit summary. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a 3rd opinion

I got your message regarding the Arbitration. I am relitivly new and am not sure of the exact channels and methods to go through. Probably what we need is a 3rd opinion as both of us are very set in our views and are not getting anywhere. If you would have the time to evalute the situation on the Lisu page- it would be most helpful. Wwind (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Best pic I've seen

Re quotes and punctuation

Sorry, I didn't realize. On a related note, I've noticed typographers in Britain beginning to use punctuation within quotes; this is similar to the British conversion from single quotes (back in the 80s) to double quotes. (A period standing all by its lonesome with white space around it just looks worse than having the closed quote after it. ["Example". vs "example."] It's the same aesthetic reasoning behind superscripts (for citations) being after punctuation as well.)

Anyway, now I know. My apologies. Thanks! –TashTish (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. (Good one.) As for being a jackass, nothing could be further from the truth: You pointed out a solid Wikipedia policy, one that I was not aware of, saving me further embarrassment, at least in the near future. So in reality, you did me a favor! –TashTish (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0 Problem

User:Tasc0 was reported twice, once by User:Chubbles and once by me for the abusing the 3RR on the articles Bloods & Crips and Bangin' on Wax. I had tried to explain to him that the info on that page was not about the album but about the group Blood & Crips. He contiued to revert. User:B responded by taking away his rollback due to inappropriate use of the rollback, User:Sarcasticidealist gave the rollback back to Tasc0 and despite warnings by Chubbles, B and myself, Tasc0 continues to revert, stating the group doesnt exist, when it clearly does. I don't know how many time I have to explain it to him. If Tasc0 won't get blocked, then can you at least block the article Bangin' on Wax, he's been warned before about the 3RR. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The result of both results ended of no violation of the rule. That means I didn't break it. And I have reverted you edis providing an edit summary, wich is clear I did not rollback your edits. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the rollback rights. I will only use it against vandalism. This is user just wants to see me blocked. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A Stab in the Dark

Hi. I apoligize if I am doing this incorrectly, but I think this is the correct way to contact you. I wanted to raise some issues in regards to your deletion of a professional theatre production but your inclusion of contentious amateur articles such as Adelaide Repertory Theatre and Windmill Theatre Company, Melbourne. As I am Australian and my family is involved in theatre, I feel able to tell you that Wikipedia's policy in this regard is completely upsidedown and incorrect. The Adelaide Rep is an amateur company of extremely low - zero notability. Adelaide has many such companies and they tend to overpromote themselves and blow their own horns. I have suggested that all such articles of this ilk be merged with a main article on amateur theatre. I have also pointed out that such articles seem to have been emphasized over the State Theatre Company of South Australia, Windmill Performing Arts (a national company) and Brink productions, which is totally ridiculous, even embarrasing! Wikipedia should never preference amateur theatre over professional, government-backed companies. Their inclusion is not in-keeping with the standards of the site. Amateur companies are, by definiton, amateurand non-notable. The articles and awards they cite are taken strictly from within a very narrow, very select amateur community and are not acknowledged by the theatre community or the city at large. With this in mind, there is no justification for deleting the article on A Stab in the Dark, which was targeted for its poor notability by people who no connection to or knowledge of Australian theatre. Whilst that article did demonstrate the notability of its cast and associated artists, and did cite non-biased articles, the amateur companies do not. I ask that you review your decision to delete this article or show some consistency by addressing these other articles. At present, Wikipedia is out of step. Best wishes, and thanks for your hard work. (Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

• James Aubrey (actor)

Also, an editor has tinkered with the page on James Aubrey, a noted actor. He/she obviously wanted to add aditional information, but the page almost looks vandalized now. May I request that the page be cleaned up or "undone" to an earlier stage? Won't bother you again! All the best(Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Me Again

Thank you for your speedy reply. Forgive my newness, but can you assist with merging the articles? I have initiated discussion on talkpage. Also, what happens to the deleted articles? My sister is actually reviewing the show in question for a reputable paper and can add that in due course to help assert notability. Would the article exist for me to work on off-line and put up agian in an improved form at a latter date? Oh, I just re-read your response and it can. But, how? Please forgive the newness of me! I would send a smiley if I knew how! (Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Rust Never Sleeps Betty Unger Alton B. Parker Harry B. Chase Whitelaw Reid Year of the Horse David Eggen Edmonton Calder Francis A. Walker Wooden Ships James Cash, Jr. Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) Arthur Lewis Sifton Edmonton Gold Bar Brian Storseth Don Getty Robert Colin Marshall Communist Party (Alberta) Wayne Cao

Cleanup Alberta Liberal Party Alexander Cameron Rutherford Jarret Stoll Merge List of U.S. state insects Wyatt McIntyre List of U.S. state fossils Add Sources List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States Levi P. Morton Bruce Stubbs Wikify Pat McCallum Immigration law Tree spiking Expand David Vitter Emmitt Smith Richard Lindzen

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Roggeveen

Hi Sarcasticidealist. I feel that John Roggeveen's wikipedia article should be kept at least for the duration of the Alberta General Election 2008 given that he is a candidate for a major party. As well, John is a member of numerous law associations and has been an active community member of Midnapore. If wikipedia policy is that nominated candidates should be deleted, I didn't know that and then the article should go. However, that's pretty unfair in the middle of an election that only the incumbent be allowed one. Is it official policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gakrueger (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 February 2008

B'nai Brith Canada

Hey Sarcasticidealist, B'nai Brith Canada and its members feel that the current entry for the organization is extremely biased, and rather than keeping it redirected to B'nai B'rith International like you suggested, the user CJCurrie has continued to post his biased version -- and continued to keep it from being deleted for these stated reasons. Can this be locked down until somebody decided to take an objective crack at writing the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaler (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

James Aubrey

Sorry to bother you again. This article appears to have been messed up again. The editor seems to be trying to help it but increasingly vandalizing it. Is there a protocol for dealing with this?(Moviefreak26 (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

User:Tasc0

After a series of escalating blocks, he came back with this little gem and I indef'ed him. I just wanted to give you a heads up that rollback is probably not an issue at this point. Ronnotel (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your self. I'm not a vandal. Tasc0 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)

I'm not accusing you of vandalism. I believe that you were a good faith editor and an asset to Wikipedia. But I also believe that nobody who posts the kind of thing that Ronnotel linked to above has any business on Wikipedia. Also, please note that your posting here constitutes a violation of WP:SOCK, since you're doing so in evasion of a block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Also check the AN/I report. I haven't got any response from Ronnotel, he's not willing to do nothing. Can you please talk to him? Thank you. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recall process

As seen at User:Sarcasticidealist/Recall ... "a Bureaucrat is hereby requested to de-sysop me." That may not work, as 'crats don't have that authority. A request would need to be made to a steward, and it would need to be made by you. The details of why have been discussed before, see the talk for WP:AAA for example. Best wishes and hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Philippine STAR

How was this CSD'd? Can't you find a good revision from the history page? --Howard the Duck 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Burgh House limited

Perhaps you would like to either call me on (+290) 2044, or email me at john@burghhouse.com to explain why you decided that my page should be deleted before I had a chance to establish its relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgh House (talk • contribs) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Piedmont High School

I don't know how to use this talk page, but please help me. You are the only Wikipedia person who seems to actually want to help me rather than attack me. The fact I have put up on Piedmont High School and Piedmont, Ca is really a fact. I live in Piedmont and am not lying. If I show proof of residence, will people let me keep it on? Will you please try to help me with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhamenehpour (talk • contribs) 4:31, February 20, 2008

I don't think that wholly the liberalness of Piedmont has gotten into a newspaper, but I remember very well that people have written letters to the editor of the Piedmont Post regarding different aspects of such a liberal city. The most memorable for me are education and taxes. The Piedmont Post doesn't have an online archive though. Thank You for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhamenehpour (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem uploading image in Kirikoketa

Hi, I have licensed as GFDL, the upper thumb of Kirikoketa is alright as for the license, while they are of the same type; I've uploaded the same image five times with different description, license etc. but they are always ruled out as candidates for speedy deletion. Maybe changing the description? (detailing that not only for wikipedia, but for all uses?). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iñaki LL (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Transformational Defense Industries

Did you put this article up for discussion before deleting it ? If so, can you provide me with the discussion. Chessy999 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dale Martin D'Silva

Thanks for pushing through the RfD of this article. As a side note, just out of interest really, I'm interested in your slight clarification of what I said. Are you saying a candidate can be notable, even if the only notable thing they've ever done is be a candidate, provided there has been substantial coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject? Can you point me to the reference in the Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks! NostinAdrek (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations - very informative. By the looks of it, you've got your hands full; the Alberta General Election page could spawn a page for every name listed there! Keep on fighting the good fight! I'll watch that page and help out if I can. NostinAdrek (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some advice

Sarc, I saw on a talk page, you intervening about a feud between John Celona and other editors. He made an edit on my first page "Larry Sinclair," and suddenly another editor jkp212 seems to have come running. I don't want to get between them. Could you please give me an idea of what is wrong with my page, and where I can go to be tutored on how to clean it up? I really want to. It's an important issue, and I think someone wants to remove it for political purposes. I am really green here, and don't even know if this is the appropriate way of messaging you. There's a lot of density to this community, and the tools take a lot of time to grasp. Is there any way to have email exhange in private without revealing emails over the air? Matteblack (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0

While still sickened, I'm at a point now where I can contemplate an unblock of User:Tasc0. I refuse to have anything to do with him. However, if there is a consensus that he is unlikely to re-offend, I would not oppose an unblock. Ronnotel (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinly veiled social networking comment

Was going through Mayors of Edmonton and noticed the tremendous work you've done on those pages. Just wanted to give you a pat on the back and tell you how awesome you are. Sasquatch t|c 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidates

No worries...

There's never been a clear consensus on how to handle people who've run in multiple elections. My own personal preference is to copy/paste, and then link directly to the appropriate candidates list (i.e. putting [[Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election#John Smith (Riding)|John Smith]] into the results table) instead of turning the person's name into a redirect, although obviously under GFDL we can't do that if the article has already been created. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article's already been created, then we have to keep the redirect in place. It's not that we can't bypass it by linking the same way from the election article, but the redirect itself would have to stay in place even if it's no longer being directly used. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Kauffman

I noticed that you removed the {{db-nonsense}} tag I placed on the Samuel Kauffman article with the explanation "not nonsense". I was wondering if you could explain how you reached that conclusion. Before I added the tag, I did several searches using Google and other search engines and found that:

• "Samuel Kauffman" gives no links to anyone having anything to do with Iraq
• "Colonial Governor of Iraq" gives no links whatsoever

I also checked the Wiki article for Hendrix College and found that Samuel Kauffman is not listed in the Notable alumni and faculty section, which is unusual for someone with such an important role. And I noted that User:Nash4cash8, the article's author, is new and this is their only contribution. My conclusion is that this article is total nonsense and a fabrication attempt to artificially create history. That is why I tagged it. What would you suggest we do now? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Although I have been patrolling for a few months now, I am still learning. I had seen other similar "hoax/vandalism" articles tagged as A7 "nonsense" and deleted by admins ... that is why I tagged it as "nonsense". Thanks for tagging it as a hoax. I think I'll keep an eye on it for a few days and see if someone can add the requisite reliable sources. If not, I'll PROD it unless, of course, someone does that before I do. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing speedy deletion of Hitashi Nakamura to PROD

Hi. I was rather surprised to see that you overturned the speedy deletion notice I placed on the Hitashi Nakamura article and PRODed it instead. While the comment I wrote there was admittedly rather brief, I wonder it you looked at the Talk page? I thought that the article might be a hoax when I first saw it for a number of reasons (such as Hitashi not being a real Japanese name, and the total lack of web references to the subject or any of his "famous" works), which is why I simply tagged it as a possible hoax. Further investigation however showed that it was simply a copy of the Izumi Aso article with names and details changed. It is therefore clearly an intentional hoax which should be speedily deleted. While the article creator will no doubt be overjoyed to see his vandalism remain on view for another week, I find it embarrassing as a Wikipedia editor that something like this is left hanging around any longer than necessary. I will delete the faked sections from the article, but I would ask you to reconsider speedy deleting this. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ALEGRIA HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC

Hello Sarc- I am kindly requesting your help in including my article into wikipedia. It was speedy deleted due to A7. Can you please advise what changes I can make or additions to have this article included? Thanks, Ivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Id8252 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 28 February 2008

Why was iitjobs deleted....It deserves to be put back.

I am going to answer every question about whomsoever felt that the article should be deleted.

1) Notability - Getting endorsed by government institution's and universities is am ample indication of notability and as a matter of fact i challenge you to name any ....even a single website that is similar to this.Isn't it pathbreaking idea.while many job boards are fragmented and focus locally.There is not even a single job board in this world that is similar to iitjobs.

These guys are unique and one of their kind.These guys deserve to be listed.

3) Damcks told it was advertising and iit means india it jobs.While it is clearly mentioned on the logo itself that it stands for "international IT jobs" and btw if it were india it jobs why would it show job openings from all over teh world.

Did you even bother to check the site first before deleting it ???

Jason thenerd (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings pertaining to iitjobs

The problem is misunderstanding... people have said that iitjobs stands for " india it jobs " ,while it is clearly mentioned that it stands for "international IT jobs"

this was the reason for one deletion argument and the other was that its a non-notable company...well a company which caters to agencies like The United Nations ,fortune 500 companies isn't notable....isn't that a joke ?

what notability does naukri.com have ?....please be aware i am not questioning any site but i am asking for explanations.

Jason thenerd (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Would this be notable enough -

http://openpr.com/news/14094/itjobs-com-International-Information-Technology-Jobs-Inc-A-unique-global-IT-specific-job-board-is-here-to-serve-global-IT-community.html

http://www.pr.com/press-release/23577

http://www.bc.edu/offices/careers/careers/careerfields/computers.html

Once again i would like to stress on it,iitjobs is the worlds first IT specific job board,isnt the fact that its unique and a one of its kind notable enough ? and what explanations do you have about the recommendation's from government agencies and educational institution's ?

Jason thenerd (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kristopher Diamond

It's been deleted more than 10 times, I see. I suppose the user creating these has been blocked, correct? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You work very quickly, I see. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 01:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

O_.

For a second I thought I was seeing double. O_O You ok? Lol. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Marion Giant 1999

Sorry if you feel I am feeding the trolls; I have not said anything that is not already listed on my user page. Regardless, given this editor's rather rough start, I would prefer to take the "good cop" approach. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fort Edmonton Article

Hey there,

I'm just looking for feedback from an Edmontonian editor. I've been of the opinion that Fort Edmonton and Fort Edmonton Park ought to have separate articles -- one dealing with the historical, real-life Fort, and one dealing with the modern-day infrastructure which contains a facsimile of that original Fort (if you've been there, you know that the park represents a fair amount more than just the Fort itself). I've started a prototype article in my sandbox [[32]]. I just wanted to bounce the idea off an editor. Obviously I need to do more research, but the framework for what I see the article becoming is there. What are your thoughts on this? RPM (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

Thanks for initiating the mediation process for the Yarrow page. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think David is just as guilty as those 2 are. I hope Aleta and Will join us too.: Albion moonlight (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Accept it

Accept it I Come From the Future (talk) and I know the next 3 presidents will be John McCain (2009-2013), Tim Pawlenty (2013-2021), and Gavin Newsom (2021-????) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your reply. In response, in time I do intend to expand the Fort Edmonton article to reflect the history of the Fort to an extent that would probably seem digressive in an article about the whole Park, much as I feel that adding this much detail about the Park would be digressive in an article about the Fort just by itself. It'll just take time to find it on the net -- I'm already pretty well-read on the topic, but finding good, detailed sources is hard, and obviously I must avoid WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpmullan (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. There's definitely enough info to make a full Fort Edmonton article -- what's there presently barely scratches the surface. Meanwhile, should I wait to see if there is discussion of opinions on the split, or perhaps finish up Fort Edmonton Park to a point that it is acceptable and publish it as a new article? RPM (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes vs. succession boxes

There isn't an actual hard-and-fast policy about that, but my own rule of thumb is to not include a succession box for positions that are being listed in the main infobox at the top of the article or those which have a dedicated template such as {{ABPremiers}}. It's more of a design philosophy than a firm policy at this point, but I generally follow WP:TCREEP on that question. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:CSD instead of WP:VPP

I thought about that, but thought (due to bigger themes than just CSD) WP:VPP might be better, and might get a bigger audience. If you're confident it will get a reasonable discussion there, I can move it myself; no need for you to have to. If not, I'd rather leave it here. I'll defer to your judgement since I was kind of on the fence. --barneca (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I agree. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Village pump vs. other pages

When is it good to raise a subject at the village pump policy page rather than another forum, such as the talk page of the policy in question? I've been trying to figure that out for awhile. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thomas O'Grady

Thomas O'Grady is a recreation of an article that was deleted after in AfD in February. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas O'Grady (2nd nomination). It falls under CSD G4. Noble Sponge (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Motari David

Sorry about the edit conflict, you didn't give me time to finish my rationale. Anyway, I think we agree on the substance. If it goes to DRV, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow

I will put my agreement up on Tuesday night to avoid playing with the Wednesday deadline. You understand the immediate flurry of false material which is going to emanate from "you know who" immediately upon mediation opening and I am really not able to deal with that for the next couple of days. John celona (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

Can online news journal source be used

I would like to edit the Tony Rezko page Tony_Rezko to include a picture showing his connection to Senator Barack Obama. I was told that if a credible news source posted the picture, then said picture should be fair game and usable on Wikipedia. As things currently stand, I feel the inclusion of photo-op with only the Clintons is suggestive of underhandedness in light of the fact that there is zero published evidence of Rezko having any sort of connection with the Clintons. It doesn't seem fair that edit rights to that page should be controlled by proponents of a single candidate.

The story URL is here: [33] URL to story image: [34]

Thanks! Ddweb (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I did that because those were my IP adresses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 March 2008

Just bored on that one—Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 March 2008

I told you I wouldn't do it again, but you don't need to get an attitude—Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 March 2008

Noah Lemas

Sarc-

Hi. First, I wanted to thank you for the most objective opinion offered yet on my page about Noah Lemas.

I realize that, at this point, the deletion of Mr. Lemas' page is probably inevitable and I do understand why. I'm hoping, though, that you could answer a question or two for me.

First, Mr. Lemas' situation is rather unique. He appears to be the ONLY Democratic Party candidate for the Congressional seat in Oregon's 2nd District (the only other Democrat that filed is 20 years old...not old enough to sit in Congress). Mr. Lemas' candidacy has been covered intensively by the Bend Bulletin (Bend, Oregon). Unfortunately, with one of the newspaper industry's only trends of growing circulation, Bulletin editors have chosen to make their web-site fee-based/subscription based. This means that the coverage that Mr. Lemas is getting in the Bend Bulletin (the largest newspaper in the 2nd District) NEVER shows up online and, in turn, NEVER shows up in Google searches. Since Google searches seem to be the only reference used by other editors, Mr. Lemas very much appears to have little or no "notability." Such is most definitely not the case. Mr. Lemas has been covered numerous times in the Bend Bulletin in the last year, but such coverage never makes it to Google or to Wiki editors.

I will (as I believe you've essentially advised) contribute a new biography of Mr. Lemas when "significant media coverage" develops. However, my fear as that my contribution will be tossed aside simply because of the idiosynracies of Mr. Lemas' regional newspaper; that hardly seems fair. The question(s) here? What would you do in such a situation? Just how has this type of situation been dealt with in the past (if at all)? Is winning the Democratic nomination sufficient for entry at Wikipedia? Okay, okay, long enough. Any advice you can give is greatly appreciated.

And, again, thanks for the objective and rational opinion re: the original entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonChange (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemas...again

I am indeed in charge of Mr. Lemas' campaign. I wasn't aware of the page you linked to until I followed the link. Admittedly, and as is obvious by now, this is my first foray into the Wiki world. Thank you very much for guiding me in the right direction. Even though I'm clearly affiliated with Mr. Lemas, I tried to be as objective as possible (and actually feel I did a pretty good job of it ;)). I'm more aware now, though, of the concerns, which will undoubtedly help me in the future.

The Bend Bulletin piece was the "front page" of the "Local" section (March 13, 2008, C1/C7). It was a relatively lengthy article and interview written by James Sinks, the Bulletin's state politics reporter in Salem. Every other major district newspaper has, at the very least, listed Mr. Lemas' candidacy and, in the case of the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, biographical information as well (the biographical information wasn't provided by us; it is available in the public domain at the Oregon Secretary of State). I tried to list all of these references in the "discussion" portion of the AfD page, though I'm not sure that's the right place for it(?) or if it can even help at this point.

Would you recommend that I pass this project off to one of Mr. Lemas' dedicated supporters (assuming they are not part of the campaign)? It seems odd to create a messenger, as it were, when one isn't necessary, but I'd gladly pass the project on if it would change how it might be accepted by editors.

Also, I'm grappling with a notion introduced by this very debate. What are the bounds of "notability?" In other words, Mr. Lemas is certainly "notable" locally, certainly recognizable, as both businessman and, now, politician. There then is a geographical radius from that locale at which point Mr. Lemas is no longer recognizable. Perhaps somewhat further out is a geographical radius at which point Mr. Lemas is also no longer "notable." How does Wikipedia define this phenomenon? It would seem then, that Mr. Lemas' "notability" relative to Wikipedia standards is very much a product of these terrestrial radii (heretofore undefined ;)). For some reason, that strikes me as odd (the irony perhaps being that the web is supposed to make the world smaller but, in this case, it seems to be making the world larger, or at least is acheiving a 1/1 scale ;)).

Okay, one last thing...sorry. If the worst case scenario developed at Wikipedia (that is to say everyone and their bitch's whelp suddenly had pages on Wikipedia), how does that really hurt anyone (no, that's not what I want from Wikipedia, I admit)? People are only found when they are searched for. Wikipedia stood alone at first; you went to Wikipedia and you searched for someone/something. If you ignore Google for a moment, as though it didn't even exist, then, theoretically, as soon as someone typed someone else's name into Wikipedia, some level of "notability" exists. I keep thinking that, perhaps, Wikipedia should begin to measure notability by how many unique IP's (and I'm no IT guy, that's for sure, so I could be totally off here) search for any given person. At what point do unique searches within Wikipedia alone constitute "notability?" (the reason that I'm struggling with that word is that it seems a purposeful substitute for the clearly more appropriate term, "popularity," which, too, is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify).

Mr. Lemas is a progressive political candidate with a growing support base in one of the more interesting races in the upcoming election for United States Congress. He is also the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination in the primary. That's pretty heady stuff, and definitely "notable." Ironically, the same things that limit Mr. Lemas' campaign (finances (in the sense that political warchests buy candidates "notability" through sheer self-exposure) and media idiosyncracies) also limit his ability to be properly recognized at Wikipedia. That might just be the toughest part to swallow ("Wikipedia...it's like politics, only more political").

Sorry for the rant...I obviously feel strongly about this candidate and this issue. Thank you again, for your reasonable (and of course very helpful) voice in this and for reading until the end ;). I intend to do exactly as you have suggested and will either re-submit when more media coverage is available online or hand this idea off to a Lemas supporter not directly affiliated with the campaign (if you think that's best). Thanks so much. (OregonChange (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Noah Lemas

Sarc/Steve,

I can't thank you enough. Your patience with my newness is striking and appreciated.

My concept of Wikipedia has changed quite a bit as a result of all of this. Wikipedia has you to thank for that. Wikipedia needs more editors like you.

You've answered all of my questions directly and patiently; I'm more impressed with Wikipedia than ever before.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonChange (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just stopped by to commend you for your work on WP:MCQ and thank you, in particular, for your response to my query. Following your clarification I uploaded 9 images onto the commons and added them to several wikipeia pages, such as, Hyderabad, India, Lala Deen Dayal, Chowmahalla Palace, Falaknuma Palace‎ and Bashir Bagh Palace. Moreover, User:XcepticZP at the Graphics Lab helped remove the British Library tags from the images.
A fine example of how collaboration worked to improve article content! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Give me 2 minutes, I'm just writing to ANI about it. Black Kite 01:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page and blocking impersonator User:BoilRoyal. I was unaware until I found it on my watchlist! Royalbroil 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

I'm not a person to hold a grudge, and I am a person who - when in the wrong - will admit it. I would be honoured to accept mentorship if you proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

nevermind, I am done with wiki. ByeThright (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting of David Patterson re: St. Patrick's Day

Ok maybe it was goodfaith or vandalism, whatever, but the fact remains the day was actually St. Patrick's Day and not "traditionally" St. patrick's Day. "traditionally" implies it was not actually the day. I'm not looking for an edit war, but it should be changed back to just St. patrick's Day w/o the "Traditionally".EMT1871 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is true then the article should not mention St.Patrick's day at all as it is not universally true that today is or is not St. Patrick's day. It may not have been St. patrick's day in some places, but it was in others like the U.S.EMT1871 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Annie Loyd Article

Ccb2115 is mine. One of the IP Addresses is part of my network but is a post from my mother who was very offended by the way you guys were handling the situation. I have no access to the other accounts or IP Addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbenton2679 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Robertson

I found some references for Grant Robertson. Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Robertson? --Eastmain (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Annie Loyd 2

I have responded to your question on my talk page. Jan Ziff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janziff (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mbstpo incident.

Thanks for your kind words in the AN/I report. Socrates was condemned to drink hemlock, and everyone assumed he would simply slip away, leave town. He drank it, because he believed in the force of law and community process. Even when the conclusion of the process was wrong. Did Socrates make the right decision? What I can say is that the society which condemned him died. Socrates would have died in any case.

If you are interested in what I've mentioned about reform projects, please let me know. We know what to do now. Mbstpo discovered it, and it essentially drove him temporarily crazy. I know this response well, I have the same neurological condition, the implications are vast and they cascade. The question for any society is how to integrate the crazy wisdom of people like him; societies which punish Rule 0 violations become incapable of change; on the other hand, when the change artists are given the reins of power, they can do enormous damage as well. Modern societies have largely learned how to do it, at least to some degree, but the semi-anarchy of Wikipedia is not to that stage yet. Classic solutions would suggest the formation of hierarchical power structures, but this, of course, would lose some very important characteristics, perhaps the soul of Wikipedia. There is another solution, and it can be quite difficult for most, at this point, to see it. But it is real, it is happening, but, at the same time, there are contrary tides that have been going on for quite a while and which are, shall we say, cresting. Please respond on my Talk if you are interested.

If we are not having fun, we are on the wrong track.

If we want to change the world, it has to be easy. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Freaky Bean Coffee Company

I would like to know the difference between the page you deleted for The Freaky Bean Coffee Company and Peets or Starbucks. A blatent advertising excuse can be used on any other business with an entry on Wikipedia, yet thousands, if not millions, exist. There is from what I can ascertain no rhyme or reason used, other than the admin's opinion. The Freaky Bean is a great company (the largest coffee company in Maine) that deserves a page. --Magicmonkeymeat (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Yesterday you removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bloodlila without closing it per WP:SNOW (or for any other reason noted on the page, for that matter). Just wondering your reasoning for this. Useight (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, please post your reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Question so we can centralize the discussion. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'm fine with the insta-close RFA; just wanted to find out your thought process. I know you didn't block the editor, and I'm still waiting to find out what FayssalF has to say about it. Useight (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite parl

Could you please take a look at this template? I reverted back to a version that I thought would work, and after checking a couple of pages with the template they seem ok, but on the template page where it says what the template is supposed to produce, it still looks messed up. I know nothing about the coding, so I don't want to try to fix it myself, if indeed it still needs to be fixed. Thanks. Neutron (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem has to do with caching of the transcluded documentation page. It's always a bit tricky. If you make a minor edit to the documentation page, then it will update. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that worked. You learn something new every day. Neutron (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote

I went ahead and added your excellent quote to Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad? Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Can you send me the text of the deleted article Coptic Rain? Thanks. J3az6u (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, i'll try to improve it and re-create it with more references. BTW, why there's not enough for WP:MUSIC - line 5 - 4 albums at one of the more important indie labels?

Glad you like Ljubljana and Postojna caves, hope that you'll come again to Slovenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J3az6u (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You've made it to my highly coveted quotes page! Consider this a high honor as so very few have achieved making me laugh hysterically. Something you've said somewhere recently has warranted inclusion. Cheers to you Sarcasticidealist. Nice work! To see which of your posts, in all its glorious wittiness, saved eternally (unless you delete it) for posterity, made it to "the list", click here. Newer entries are at the bottom. Last, though, is certainly not least. Just most recent. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OM on ANI

Were you thinking 87.112.87.215 is OM impersonating Fredrick Day? Its a UK address and OM is US based. 87.112.22.139 & 87.112.87.215 are both the same British ISP. OM usually edits from 71.x.x.x a US based concern I won't WP:OUT. Fredrick is usually a consistent 87.x.x.x. Just an FYI in trying to keep these two straight. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on...

User talk:Refactory. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:28, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

... and now User talk:Abuv the law. Let me know if you want me to stop informing you of this. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:04, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Check it. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - formulating reply now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again? Yes. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Aldana

You recently closed this discussion as "keep" and whilst I think this does on balance represent the views of the participants I don't think the primary issue - that there are no reliable sources with which to verify the information about this living person - was dealt with. I think that the policies at hand (WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP) are an accepted representation of the consensus of the community and with this in mind I intend to take the article to deletion review. As closer I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this approach or if you think I should reconsider any action. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After a bit of thought I've decided to take it to review. Discussion started here. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the encouragement. Cheers, PositiveSpin (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OM is back: User:Power tree

He's making an attempt at reconciliation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sarsaparilla's stuff. IMO he should be blocked again, but he should perhaps be offered some form of communication to try and get himself unbanned. Perhaps leave a user talk page unprotected, as long as he behaves. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:06, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty. It's OM but he's not interested in an unban. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User is now socking from 129.174.90.121. I closed the MfD and am reverting further edits. He's edit warring with me on the closing. Just letting you know. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:12, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he edit-warred, that's something he never did as a legit user. I was going to undo your closure myself, but ... because he did that, it is now protected. No rush, then, I can go to DRV tomorrow. (The closure, by Equazcion, was improper, and the "violation" by the banned user only technical. As others said, those items could be speedied, ordinarily, since he was the only author.--Abd (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, he seems to be bored, check my logs, the last string of anons coming from the same range are all this user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the blocks were anon-only, they shouldn't affect any unrelated account on them, but this guy is seriously disgruntled, he used all of those IPs to harrass Equazcion around as well as edit war against him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, I understand that you were disappointed by Sarsaparilla, and why. I consider your actions correct, though, in a sense, they may be serving the wrong "master." I wrote on AN/I about what happened. Sarsaparilla did not accept your very kind offer to support his going to ArbComm because, I believe, he has become extremely pessimistic about this community. He had become an embattled user, every move subject to intense scrutiny. Remember, he is a long-time, very experienced user, he'd been here since, I think, 2004. (I've seen his edits in 2005, and they begin as an obviously experienced Wikipedian, not a newbie.) In the old days, if an editor created a joke article, people laughed and deleted it. The atmosphere has changed, and I don't think he can breathe here. I don't approve of the article, Easter Bunny hotline, but it was not as it was represented. It was real and it was not legally obscene. It was, however, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back. Except that all that was on the camel's back was a few other straws. You saw that this was true about the other straws, but somehow this last one loomed large in your mind, perhaps because, I would guess, you felt some level of personal betrayal. Sarsaparilla, though, is going through serious withdrawal. His actions are erratic, he has been very dedicated to this place for a long time, and you can expect him to bounce for quite some time. He will find more welcome, I expect, on meta, where, reviewing the pages, I find much commentary similar to his. And mine, for that matter.

I still have work to do here, or I'd leave as well. The same user who fomented the response to the Easter Bunny article has attempted to stir things up against me, now. It seems to have fallen fairly flat this time. He did snag one admin who deleted a page of mine, but that's harmless and I'm certainly not going to get exercised about it. --Abd (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

your comment

thanks for your note. I put the "minor" edit without thinking much. I thought the change would be clear, and I am open re: my intentions. That type of detail gives the incident too much weight, but I respect your thinking on it, and if we can expand the music section then my concern becomes much less valid. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree w you on transparency, and will strive to do better on that. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Helen Shivers

Thanks for letting me know. Not sure how I missed that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:My user page

Check my talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I've been clonez0rd. :D GlassCobra 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi, sorry to take your time, but I'm a relatively new editor and I wanted to ask a an admin how come the edits I make don't appear unless I'm logged in. If I visit wikipedia just as a normal viewer, without loggin in, the edits I've made to pages, say, the previous day, don't seem to have been registered, even on the edit history page. Any idea why? Thanks loads.Thedarkfourth (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help, it was actully a puurging of the casche that was required.Thedarkfourth (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hi and thanks again for helping me with the photo. I clicked on your name out of curiosity and was surprised to see that sign that says you have been blocked. I couldn't figure it out. At first I thought maybe you put the sign there yourself as a joke. Is it too personal if I ask why you've been blocked and also how you're able to keep editing even though you've been blocked? If you're too busy or don't feel like answering, please just ignore this post, I won't mind at all. I'm just asking out of idle curiosity. Daniela Morton (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do find it very funny. Thanks for explaining! Daniela Morton (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to copyright question from Geek45

Thanks! I'm new here so I don't really know how to put uploaded pictures into an article. Another thing, the wikimedia copyright tag that you gave me didn't work. --</post> Geek45 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

thanks! (now it's at the bottom of the page!) --</post> Geek45 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

It's alright with me! --</post> Geek45 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I'd like to first learn the basics, and then get into the more advanced "language" that wikipedia uses in the edit section. From there I would like to edit/create pages on sports teams and emerging businesses and internet phenomena --</post> Geek45 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question (last one)

I put the picture on the article! I can remove the deletion tag now right? --</post> Geek45 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help. Indeed I'm nominating myself for adminship. --Inspector Mortimer (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• A few thousand more edits? ZOMG. Thanks anyway. Now I'd like to withdraw my nomination, but I don't know how to do it. --Inspector Mortimer (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks a lot. --Inspector Mortimer (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: This might amuse you

[35][36]. Seriously, are you the only person who ever does this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the good word in. I do most of them, but I see sometimes other people do a few. Melesse (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks and congrats on your adminship

I did not realize that you had become an admin. And thanks for the heads up on the heads up. :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

help with user page please!

Can you help me with templates and stuff like that for my user page? --</post> Geek45 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My Questions

I was just thinking about the "this user is a native speaker of english", "this user is a fan of (insert sports team here)" and organization of templates (as opposed to having them strewn about my page--</post> Geek45 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• how's that look? --</post> Geek45 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • no, I'm actually a Flames fan :P --</post> Geek45 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK

I'll ask you, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Military_scandals is totally unresponvive.

Am I doing right to add main categories to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_scandals ? I just thought it should be just Category:Friendly fire incidents and the rest just articles.

Please decide something and tell me on my talk page or fix it yourself. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept

Hi SI, I appreciate the nomination, and I've decided to accept. As far as I know, this week will be fine for me in terms of time. I'm still not sure that editcountitis won't be a factor, but if that's all I have to deal with, well that's not much really. Thanks again, R. Baley (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind , I'll leave the transclusion up to you (formalities and all). R. Baley (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

watchlist

yep, got it --</post> Geek45 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation open

I'd like to announce that the Peter Yarrow mediation is open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Yarrow#Opening_the_Mediation. Please visit that page to read the issues and make your opening statement. Thanks MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Britsound

Isn't a podcast web content, making this A7 eligible? I understand you found a claim of notability (though I'd personally and politely disagree), but I thought I'd ask about the content angle since you raised it. Erechtheus (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, gotcha. My skimming caught up with me on the "also" part. I know where you're coming from on the claim of notability. Thanks for the answer. Erechtheus (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gmail group

Ping! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my copyright question

I'm really just new here so I don't really know anything about those things. Thanks for clarifying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicartery (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: SSP report and checkuser request filed for User:Fredrick day

Not seeing any response to my email to you, I went ahead and filed the SSP report and CU request for Fredrick day, see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day‎. The newly discovered socks are User:Fredrick Dayton who is currently active, and, unfortunately, User:Seddon69, a participant in the Mediation Cabal.--Abd (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked, Fredrick Dayton, that was pretty obvious. So far, nobody has asked for the spreadsheet that is what actually shows the account connections, it's like a jigsaw puzzle fitting together. Would you like a copy? --Abd (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nom

Hi SI, this is just a note to let you know that I greatly appreciated your nomination. I had been re-thinking my earlier decision not to. . . and your offer gave me the little extra push I needed. Thanks for the vote of confidence, it meant a lot, and I wanted you to know that. Best, R. Baley (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Sarcasticidealist, I would like to thank you for your response to my Wikiquette alert regarding RomanHistorian. I didn't think I had done anything wrong... RomanHistorian's comment on my talk page made it seem as if there was something I could have done to prevent the situation, but as we've now seen, I guess it was just some technical unawareness. Anyway, thank you again, and I hope you have a great day! Paradoxsociety (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have marked the issue as resolved on the WQ page so you don't have to worry about it. :D Paradoxsociety (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is a good suggestion

Thanks for the feedback...that you left on my talk page. I have been cautious, taking time to understand the Wiki philosophy before I burst out boldly. ...but, hey, I already have two weeks of active editing... time to take off the gloves, you think? As long as I stick to my field of interest, it will be hard for anyone to challenge my work on verification grounds (which I understand is a major tenet of Wikipedia) because I am sitting within easy reach of thousands (and thousands) of reference books in my field. Parlirules 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material request

Hi, could you provide me with a copy of the deleted User:DuncanHill/treasuresoftheearth please? DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

I am posting this on the talk pages of the editors (mostly admins.) who are keeping Wikipedia:Archived delete debates up to date most frequently: Consistent with the recent rename of Wikipedia:Deletion debates to Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (largely to have a title that is more civil, hopefuilly encouraging a more civil tone in them), I would like to rename Wikipedia:Archived delete debates to Wikipedia:Archived delete discussions via a move. Any objections? Reply here, and hearing none I will let you know when complete so you can continue your good work of keeping the page up to date at its new location. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ringing indifference from this corner. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Move completed. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Theprominence

Can you help out in cleaning his/her mess? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Working on it now - could take a few minutes to untangle everything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Howard the Duck 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sirblew

He just re-added more of the POV statement here, which was then reverted by another user. He doesn't seem to want to discuss anything on the talk page, and doesn't respond to messages that are left on his talk page, or acknowledge them. FusionMix 00:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This happened again today (diff), despite the final warning. -Clueless (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Monkeyshine

Hello Sarcasticidealist. Yowza! you are quick. I was wondering exactly the same thing. I was going to finish going through my watchlist and then I was going to go back and find my SSP report and pass it on to you and Wknight94 who were both so helpful last time. It would be just like him to test the waters and see if he, or a friend, could enter them again. We might leave it for the moment and see if this new editor or someone else tries to reenter them or tries to reopen the arguments on the talk page. It has been awhile since we went through this. Would you want me to go to SSP first and do I reopen the old report or start a new one? Thanks for keeping an eye on things and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Interesting info. MarnetteD | Talk 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And again thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see if he replies. Congrats on becoming an admin. As I sometimes follow your work on Wikiquette, Admin and Admin/Incident pages I think that you deserve a dozen or more barnstars for your patience. Keep up the good work. MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

--In answer the question, no I am not Scrooby this is my only account. I created an account a few years ago but never had the courage to submit a final edit until recently. I am unsure if I am even replying to the question correctly so forgive me if I do this wrong. (I am aware that there is a backchannel but I don't know how to use it other than to click to edit. ) Am I doing something wrong or unauthorized? You must have a record of the things I have done... I tried to add some personalities for future researchers to provide info on in the Palestinian Nationalism pages but most of the names I submitted got deleted. Then I recently added some links for Stanley Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut. If I am doing something wrong I apologize. Admin can email me at my address on file and I will do some more reading on the etiquette and please accept my apologies if I screwed anything up.Monkeshine (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeshine (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: There is no Y in my name I think I tried to get it with a Y and someone else had it first. Oh, and I just learned how to sign my name! Admin feel free to email me at my email address on file Monkeshine (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is no need to engage in speculation and "it would be just like..." - the world is watching, and that includes the individual you are having a go at. Tone it down, please. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

hold onto your hat

If I'm reading this correctly, abd is about to accuse you of being.... me based on the fact that a) you shut down sariprilla's socks pretty quickly and I'm guessing because you say you are from Fredericton (tying into the fact that my user accounts are always "fredrick something". Just thought you should have a heads up. --87.112.39.93 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Email sent.

Sent. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wiktor Poliszczuk

Thank you for comments and edits. Do note that some of the info you removed is actually well referenced but I agree that some should be removed. PS. List of publication is surely ok even if not referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Responsible Editing Pledge

Care to restore the history of this also? I believe Risker made a comment. -- Naerii 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I see you erased my addition to the Ralph Nader article, and you said my source was not valid. You are mistaken. National Review is a legitimate magazine that has been around for decades. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

I see you recently identified another user name as a potential sock puppet. Just to let you know that I left a response concerning that same username at Talk:Proxy_voting before I found you had documented your suspicion. ~ Parlirules (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

what you think this isn't going on without Abd's explict instruction? don't be silly... --87.112.64.32 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread on you

As a head's up, someone's posted an ANI thread about you. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bfigura advised me that I should have left a note here on this, my apologies for failing to do so. Please understand that I have no problem with you personally, I don't really know that much about you, but I do find your actions in this case to be a poor example of how any admin should behave. -- Low Sea (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fat friend is back

Hello, I hope you remember this "person". If you don't, check your previous archives. Is the user who keeps adding Category:Bloods to mostly rappers' articles. Just one diff. Also, you should read his question here. It seems he can't understand that the category it's not to categorize "possibles" persons who have affiliations with the street gang. Reply here. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia philosophy on influencing behavior

At this time, I would like to wax philosophical by giving some observations and analyses of Wikipedia philosophy on influencing behavior, particularly of those who are no longer considered welcome to edit, and dealing specifically with their application to my case.

Wikipedia seems to follow the classical conditioning model of influencing behavior. In the laboratory, this can take many forms, such as "Push the correct lever, get sugar water; push the wrong lever, get an electric shock." On Wikipedia, it takes the form of WP:DENY and other policies which seek to remove stimuli viewed as rewarding bad behavior. Undoing the contributions of banned users on sight is often seen as a way of discouraging them from continuing to edit, by taking away whatever benefit they sought from having the contributed material be on Wikipedia.

This is not particularly effective in influencing me, because it doesn't help me if my contributions stay, and it doesn't hurt me if they're deleted. I am not paid for my work here, and I get no byline, so there is no positive reinforcement for you to remove. My contributions are in fact a purely altruistic venture. If reverted, my contributions remain in the history, which anyone can read. If deleted, the content still remains accessible to any admin. And even if they are oversighted, copies remain in people's memories. Moreover, I learn some new things as well from the research I conduct in order to make and source my contributions. There is nothing that can take that away. Indeed, Wikipedia could completely purge all of my past contributions from Wikipedia, and it would not deter me from editing.

Part of the problem is that people think along the lines of, "If I were a banned user, and they undid all my work, I would stop editing," or "It worked on other banned users, so it will work on this one." Both of these are fallacies. Not everyone has the same motivations, and what influences one person may not influence another.

You will probably continue to undo my contributions on sight, because you are motivated primarily by wanting to uphold principles, rather than concern for whether your efforts are actually effective at getting rid of me, or whether the contributions in and of themselves are worthy of reversion. If I were not so stubborn, or if you were not so stubborn, or if I had made a serious effort to elude your notice, this all would have ended. However, the irresistible force has hit the immovable object, and we will likely continue to clash until one of us finds a way to get the upper hand in a more decisive way.

Interestingly, there are some other people wandering around with some unusual motives. Fredrick day I still haven't really figured out. I suspect that he, too, is ultimately seeking the good of the encyclopedia, although I believe his efforts to be misguided.

So long, for now.

Your friendly neighborhood chinchilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.91.115 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's right, you know. At least he's right on principle, but when he imagines your motivations, he might be wrong. Is he? (He's not clearly a banned user; to my knowledge that decision hasn't been formally made, he could still be unblocked at any time; but, of course, he is effectively banned if nobody is willing to unblock and especially if he has a crowd watching for any resemblance to his ideas and interests....) what I really wonder is why he merits this intense scrutiny and effort, and far less is devoted to Fredrick day, his main adversary, who harassed and continued to harass other editors, with vandalism and personal attack, and whose main activity, before being blocked, was AfDs. And who was really, pretty obviously, a uncivil, bad-hand sock from the beginning, if you look at his contributions. A real sock (i.e., simultaneous account). Who has used IP edits to multiple vote, to carry on conversations with himself, and all the rest. And who claims to have other undiscovered accounts, and I believe him. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't you just come out and accuse SI of being me? I notice your last grand sockhunt went quiet after your attempts to frame the wrong editor went wrong. --87.112.25.154 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla, Fred, please go away. You are not welcome on my talk page, or indeed elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you feel a compelling need to communicate with me, please do so via e-mail (my address is in a userbox on my userpage). Abd, you continue to be welcome on my talk page, but please don't respond to comments from banned users and indefinitely blocked users who should be banned. Same goes to anyone else who may be reading this. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you know, SI, that we agree more than we disagree. Even if I respond here, you are welcome to delete my response together with theirs, I won't be offended. But I also think that Sarsaparilla's comment to you was cogent and sincere and not offensive, and it is a shame that it is considered *by you* "not welcome." Sarsaparilla, you should follow SI's request and communicate with him by email. If for some reason you cannot do that through the Wikipedia interface, I'll assist by forwarding. As to Fd, well, there is no suspicion of any connection between him and SI. None. As to other possible socks, I'm working on careful exploration of advanced sock detection techniques, and nothing will be released on that until it's nailed down and clear. The last SSP report I filed resulted in the block of another Fd sock and was otherwise "inconclusive," and that is where it stands. Fd's use of a wide range of internet providers creates the hazard of false identification of socks through use of coincident IPs, and I personally regret that suspicion might thereby be cast upon the innocent; but nobody is going to be harassed or blocked if innocent. And Fd continues to vandalize and harass and troll.

SI, I reverted your removal of a Sarsaparilla edit to the parlipro wikiproject, because it was a useful and clear edit, and I expected you would not mind. Fd reverted it out again, no explanation.[37] Pure harassment. Another user reverted that, properly, as vandalism. Fd also edit-warred with vandalism of my user page, so I had to have it semiprotected. SI, you are right. He should be banned. It could make a difference, not immediately, but when other socks are identified. He's claimed that he has other accounts that can't be touched, he's been careful. But he makes mistakes. And there are certain signs that cannot be concealed. That's what I'm working on. Yes, quietly. If my results are negative but inconclusive, you won't hear anything. If they are conclusive, either way, you will. (I.e., I'd love to be able to clear Seddon69, who is either a good-hand account, or a just plain good editor. And, since at worst he's a good-hand account, and Fd wouldn't dare to use it for his tricks, no harm is done by delay. That's why I've told Seddon69 not to worry, carry on, nothing bad is going to happen to him if he is not Fredrick day. He tried hard, though, through Durova (by Skype chat between Durova and I and voice between them), to clear his name. (Durova had no specific advice to give about the evidence, she's much too busy to look at it, I'd guess.) The mud on his name, though, wasn't cast by me, it was cast by Fredrick day, who habitually used the same IP as Seddon69 occasionally used. Nobody legitimate complained about the SSP report or the checkuser request, and Seddon69 specifically noted it was proper, so ... Fd is just being Fd, dredging up whatever looks like mud to toss. In the past, too many times, he was believed, and that, my friend, is part of why Sarsaparilla is blocked.--Abd (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ministers

Hi, your doing excellent work on the List of Ministers. I had started that project on the opposite end going up, but didn't have the patience to complete it at the time.--Cloveious (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I throw in a few little contributions to that list here and there. The Our Future Our Past pages should still be there, but I think they changed address system awhile back. I was kind of smart to actually date the links, so they should be easy to search in the Alberta Gazette. I got frustrated when I found later Alberta gazettes did not list the cabinet appointments anymore. --Cloveious (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This search page should get you most of the Ministerial Appointment pages from 1905 to 1962 in the Alberta Gazette. --Cloveious (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

question

What are the types of user and which has more power over the other? I've seen terms like sysop, admin, things like that. </post> Geek45 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with a deletion (moved from userpage)

Sorry if this is not the proper way to contact you - I am a bit new at all this. An article I wrote has been deleted because the person felt it was advertising, another person also questioned if it was a conflict of intrest. I have read your opinion on conflict and see you favor error on the side of assuming conflict - but I still think you may agree any percieved conflict is really just association, not conflict - at least when you really take the time to investigate.

Firstly, I would ask that you provide me with the original content so I may hopefully apply some of your own recommendations if conflict or advertising is determined. Secondly I would ask you to consider in your evaluation that BrokenEarth.org is in fact much less "commercial" than Wikipedia, in as much as Wikipedia solicites donations, uses funds for administrative expenses and I believe pays some people to run the site. To us this is profit diguised as charity as many non-profit directors are driving around in Rolls Royces. While I am not challenginf that structure I do wih to state that our policy is far more charitable in practice. We have no salaries, no solicitation of donations, no administrative expense (excluding those expenses people pay for directly to obtain our free services and the items we offer are to make them available as many of them are hard to find. If their were other sources we would simply direct people to those sources. Our Trusts are therefore more like a charitable donation whereby all the money is held as a trust and used directly to help others with no deduction for non-profit administration, salaries, etc. You can see our written public policy at:

http://www.brokenearth.org/noprofit.htm

Given the above I do not think it is fair to say this is advertising and if it is then why take down the entire article without addressing the issue and providing time to resolve it. Onion Juice Therapy, while not widely accepted in the Western world has been practiced for centuries as verified by refrences in the article. I have recently found new support of evidence of the practice in India. Given that Broken Earth is in fact one of the preimere experts on the subjec tshould not necessarily mean that including a link i a conflict. Nor should an expert on the subject who actively volunteers to see that this work is diseminated to others who may enjoy knowing about it - grounds for conflict.

I am interested in your thoughts.

P.S. This also started minutes after the first post of the article - so I was left spending my time defending what I perceive to be a biased assult than perfecting the article and including more content and refrences.

Much thanks.

James—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs)

moved from your userpage to here --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)