User talk:The Evil Spartan/Archive 2

RE: COMCARE

Specifically RE the most recent COMCARE deletion: content-wise, is the information I included really all that different than the wikipedia entry for, say, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA)? Like my entry, NENA's entry is taken practically word-for-word from their mission statement. It then follows with a brief description of what the organization does -- and in fact the NENA entry even encourages people to visit the organization's website.

Is there anything substantially different, again in terms of actual content, between the NENA article that has been kept up and my most recent article which was speedily taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by COMCARE (talk • contribs) 15:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The first time the article was deleted was because it was taken directly from your website. Please see the directions under template:sd-copyvio for information on why we can't accept copyrighted material. The second time, if I remember correctly, the text sounded like an ad (see WP:CSD#G12) - however, the reason the administrator decided to delete it was that it didn't make an assertion to notability as a corporation (see WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CORP for instructions on how to go about this). In fact, you are correct, and the NENA article sounds somewhat spammy; thus I have marked (though, in fact, it doesn't appear to be insalvageably spammy, thus not qualifying for speedy deletion). Please feel free to write a neutral article that doesn't use any text immediately from your website (unless you follow the directions listed above for releasing the information's copyright). You also might want to make sure the company follows the notability guidelines. Alternatively, you can try deletion review, but I would suggest just recreating the article from scratch. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:That unblock

I didn't actually do anything, it appears that the autoblock expired, I was just removing him from CAT:UNBLOCK. -- John Reaves 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, I must have been looking at the wrong contribs page. But I'm still suspicious. The Evil Spartan 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Swimming pools

As you've noticed, I declined speedy because the author asserts permission, but it's basically a how-to guide so I've placed it in AFD. Thanks for helping to keep WP clean. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GriPhyN

Sorry for the faux paus. I noticed that there was no article and tried to start it, and I understand cut-and-paste was a poor choice. I'll try to fill in something later which is not an exact copy.

My further research shows that the project seems to have ended, so it's not as important anyway.

--Wormholio 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright

You should check these for deletion though. They either don't give detailed information or include copyrighted material or have doubtful tags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spn.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famoita1.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:4Shqiptaret.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norwegians.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swedes.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hrvati1.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sln.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TurkishPeople.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grms.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Polacy_znani_w_swiecie.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portuguese_People.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Danish_people_2.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jugosloveni.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scots.jpg

--Avala 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged all that are suspicious - I left the Germans alone, because they're all clearly pd-old. The Evil Spartan 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thanks --Avala 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

L&N Milton, Florida Depot

Although I still feel it was necessary to cut and paste Louisville and Nashville Depot to Louisville and Nashville Depot (Milton, Florida), I apologize if it caused any trouble. In case you didn't notice, there are multiple articles with similar, if not identical names. Since it's already clear that you've moved the history between the former version of the article and the current one, do I still have to post the fact that I did so on the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? I can't think of any others I've done specifically. ---- DanTD 01:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? [1]Cholga^talK! 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste Xavier

Whoops! Sorry! I'm still new and I didn't know how to use the "move" function. Thanks for your catch. Another (smarter) user has managed to fix the history problem already, so I think that page is good, and I promise not to make that mistake again! The CONSTANT VIGILANCE around this place makes me feel good that I can't really mess anything up too much without being corrected and instructed. Now I have to figure out what to do about my wiki-addiction. SlackerMom 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

'resolved' stamp on AN/I about Irishguy and maniac cop

hey, I was reading through, and found that the editor in question added a fairly attack-ish screed to his fansite's mainpage. I noted that in the discussion. Since you marked it resolved, I'm bringing it to your attention, one, I psoted there because after all the link following and back buttoning, i didn't see or note the tag, and two, because such actions may indicate escalation or perpetuation of the problem. ThuranX 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not quite following what you're saying happened: let me give you the history. Last night, an editor kept on being reverted by Irishguy because he was including his fansite as a weblink. He brought several editors from off WP to back him up, and eventually complained at ANI. Frankly, I thought we could have included the site, but the editor was completely taking things a little too seriously. He started hurling around insults and swearing at Irishguy, and eventually he got blocked. At that point, I marked it resolved. FayissIf (sp) then blocked him indef for continuing to act poorly (threatening sockpuppetry, etc.), but then relented, and lessened the block. It was very clear this guy just needs to cool down. If you believe it needs to be brought up again, you could say something to Fayis, or you could paste another note at ANI. I'm frankly not surprised that the editor has made an attack site over the issue. The Evil Spartan 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael wines section in the eXile

Glad to finally get a response from a real user on this. I'm sure you can appreciate my frustration after posting multiple times on the talk page for over a week and getting only reversion in response. I apologize if I seem somewhat prickly as a result.

Regarding the actual issue at hand, I have commented on the WP:BLP noticeboard page. Please put the text back if you feel I've convinced you, otherwise a response there or better yet at talk:the eXile would be greatly appreciated. Dsol 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize you may be busy with other things but I would hope if you have time to blank the section, you have time to check the two references I noted and put it back. You are already the second editor (after user:SlimVirgin) to blank the sections and then vanish without so much as a word after hearing my explanation and references, leaving me to edit-war with an anon ip with less than 10 edits. If you have any time to revisit this I would be most grateful. Dsol 09:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not me. Thanks for reminding me, but I'm well aware of WP:SOCK. If anyone has doubts I would certainly consent to a checkuser. Dsol 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please weigh in after reading new discussion comments at the BLP noticeboard whatever your opinion if at all possible. I feel I am being left alone to debate with the anon who is not really being reasonable. Dsol 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

dsf

no, you didn't talk to me about it. Mghabmw 03:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] The Evil Spartan 03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

?

Not sure were your comment was meant to mean but that conversation was 2 days ago and has passed.Sparrowman980 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

9 Parts of Desire

Fair question. I felt enough of it was copied to satisfy G12. -- But|seriously|folks  18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of COMINT metadata and Electronig order of Battle

before taking any further actions, please refere to the talk pages of these articles, or to this comment or perhaps, please contact me on my user page.
regards. Comint 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Comint, and thanks for the response. I believe you may be looking for WP:DELREV- a way to ask for a deletion to be reviewed. You might also try asking the administrator again for his deletion rationale. However, if you use deletion review, you will probably need to talk about the concerns brought up at the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis EW. For now, I see that the concerns are that the page does not reference any other sources to prove its notability: in this case, you might be interested in WP:RS and WP:CORP, especially for Genesis EW. You will certainly wish to prove the notability of the subject with third party references. I hope this helps. The Evil Spartan 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Europe topic

UK constituent territories are already present in the template and can be made visible in pages using this template by adding |show UK countries=true to the template code in the page using it. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

unblocked controversial editor

I received your message. I checked his User: YoSoyGuapo account and I think that he is not even aware that he has been unblocked. I wanted to give this guy a chance and I pointed out your concerns in his talk page User talk:64.131.205.111. He is going to have to learn to discuss matters in a civil manner, however if he ever uses other accounts as a sockpuppet, I would totally agree that he should be banned once more. Tony the Marine 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Spartan. I marked the IP I sometimes use as another account. I also marked them. I actually filed for an RFC and was asking for other editor opinions to help alleviate a situation. ( I wasn't aware of the proper process) Is RFC and mediation the same thing? If not I would appreciate any help. Once this situation is resolved (on Josh Gibson I'll clear out my talk page on 64.131 and move on solely with YoSoyGuapo. Also please look at this. [3]. and [4] 64.131.205.111 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 64.131 (and Tony). Thank you for your polite response. RFC is different from mediation; an RFC is request for comment, in which you're asking other editor's to come in and give their opinion on a dispute. Mediation necessarily brings in a mediator, and the disputants talk it over with each other. RFCs take a long time to fill out properly (more overhead work), and usually still leave bad blood when their done. Mediation involves an ongoing commitment, which is more work, but is more likely to arrive at an agreeable solution. I hope this response clarifies everything. The Evil Spartan 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

I would like to nominate you for adminship via the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship process. Please respond on my talk page if you are interested. Shalom ^Hello 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am truly and deeply honored. However, before you consider anything, you would probably be interested in this comment I made, as well as the fact I've had a history of being somewhat snappy and taking controversial stances (e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff). The Evil Spartan 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the comment particularly troubling, and the BDJ arbitration case has been courtesy blanked, so I don't know what you said (it can't have been that bad). Generally, the way I handle RFA nominations is to write a paragraph in my userspace, and allow the candidate to copy it when the candidate is ready. If you'd like me to write a recommendation for you, please leave me a note. Shalom ^Hello 15:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarikakeov

Sorry but i don't know how to add any resource because there hasn't been any on western society about this bird or their enclopedia. "Sarikakeov" If you would search it on google video or youtube, u'll see the bird in action. Ozzie osbourne had one in his episodes where he was trying to bite the head. That was the bird that cussed him out. People claim it was a raven but it really wasn't. It was a Cambodian bird "Sarikakeov" because his son went to Thailand for training. Delete if you want but I will continue in effort to put this online. Thank you for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElideN (talk • contribs) 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

the eXile

I'm at a loss on how you can conceive of an article saying that a named person has two vaginas is not against WP:BLP. And how can you revert this "information" back in? It is not a case of verifying that the eXile has said this (even though the sources provided are laughable - A New Zealand student criticism paper?!), but whether the material is conservatively presented or whether it is simply tabloid sensationalism. I'll revert any such obvious BLP violations whenever they occur without discussion, as provided in WP:BLP 24.127.156.41 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The section I reverted was mainly about the Pie incident - I was not going for the vaginas section, though that section is equally well documented, as was apparently known in the media (the fact that it is explicitly mentioned, name and all, in Pravda, is important). The pie section is extremely well sourced, and it is not a violation of BLP if it is well sourced. The crux of the BLP page states, exactly, Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. And yet it is well sourced, and it fits all the three main criteria - WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I am cross posting this on the article talk page. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RSV Catholic Bible

Thanks for uploading that image. I did, however, note your disclaimer about doing it myself in the future. And that's the problem. I don't know how, and the instruction page is confusing. How do you do it? --JoBrLa 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will admit it is a lot. Bt I will do my best to try to give you some information on how it's done. First, You click on the "upload file" link on the toolbox on the left side of your screen. It has a type of wizard there which will help you figure out which license to give the image. If this is confusing, you can do it manually after you upload the file by fishing through Category:Image copyright tags. In the case of fair use images (i.e., images for which you do not upload the copyright and cannot release it - i.e., images of television shows or books), you will need to give the source of the file (where you found it online), as well as a fair use rationale. This becomes more difficult, but you can probably just copy and paste from the most recent one I uploaded, or see the syntax under {{Non-free use rationale}}. If all of this is still confusing, you can try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where people will be glad to give better instructions. Hope this helps. The Evil Spartan 16:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool Blue

Hello. Thank you for your work for AFC. I saw you created Cool Blue for the project. Please remember to tag the articles you create for AFC with {{WPAFC}} and try to wikify them as much as you can, since that is the point of AFC. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the response. I was unaware of the WPAFC template, and I it already seemed to be wikified enough for my tastes: [5]. I did add a stub and categories, so it was pretty decent for a starting article, IMO. You will notice, that I did give credit to the IPs in the edit summary, which a lot of users forget to do. ;) The Evil Spartan 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks :-) I've wikified it some more now; do you like it? (see before and after; comparison) --Agüeybaná 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The Evil Spartan 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

George Wells/Dean Higuchi

• Dear Sir,

With all due respect I can assure you the text of both George Wells and Dean Higuchi is based on my own original work. If there are any similarities between the previously deleted articles and my own submissions, I can only give you my word they are coincidental. Regardless of the reasons these articles have been deleted in the past, I believe I've provided more then enough references to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. I should also note that similar articles I have submitted which had been previously been deleted, such as Ricky Rice, were approved after passing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 72.74.196.194 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

stay away from Igero bus

why does it bothers you so much an article about a bus? you have some strong feelings on the matter or why?--Igero bus 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For that, you might be interested in reading up on WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. Wikipedia just doesn't include every bit of information about everything. I'm sorry if that's a problem; I didn't meant for it to anger you, but that's just the way we do things around here. The Evil Spartan 06:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turgut Özal

The guy died when I was a child. How can I take a picture of him myself :) We added a "Non-free / fair use media rationale" under the image which is used when there is not a fair use image around. It would be nice if you check it mate :) Deliogul 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AFC - George Wells (wrestler)

Just a note to let you know I created the article based on the submission, which you originally declined as it was previously deleted via prod. I have had a look at the version found on Answer.com, which is presumingly the previous now deleted version and am satisfied it is so far different that simply new creation is better than undeletion. The submission also seems to me to satisfy notability concerns that caused the article to have been originally prod deleted. KTC 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The user a few notes up said something similar to what you're getting at. You'll notice that he also provided another article you might want to look at. Frankly, I didn't really want to go to the time of submitting the article, so I didn't do it after declining it. The Evil Spartan 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Casota Frean

Hi, maybe you want to help me with this.. I found that image in the galician project as you can see at http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CasotaFrean.jpeg Jfreyre 14:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have tagged the image, thank you. I've also marked it to be moved to commons. From now on, you might be interested in {{pd-user}}. The Evil Spartan 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion and the U.S. Presidency

The U.S. Constitution does very plainly describe the American government as a non-religious institution. It is very disturbing to me to discover that the current person holding the job in the White House is associating his Christian belief with that of his decisions for Iraq. Something about "God's call". You should do some serious research on what's happened in Iraq - look at both sides of the story and compare them both to see why there's a huge disconnect! I've been following these events now for close to 4 years. At first, I thought it's just a bunch of hippies looking for an excuse to balk at everything the President decides. Then, looking at the aftermath and reviewing what the government officials are saying, I'm beginning to think the master plan is to dominate, destroy, and conquer for the sake of self-preservation.

I am not implying that everyone in the U.S. government should be an atheist. I am pointing out the fact that there are members in government who will use Christianity as an excuse or as a protective shield for their actions (even when it is not the will of God) especially when little children are being slaughtered ruthlessly by Middle Eastern madmen with some major psychological problems. I strongly feel this could have been avoided too if Americans had done the right thing in the first place.

And as for your use of the word "trolling", you especially, should be told that I am not trolling, nor am I an atheist. I am one of those folks who see ordinary, humans using their power which the people entrusted that person to have for self-preservation purposes and then to use Christianity as a shield to cover their "dark side". When people do this, it's an insult to me (and maybe to others) because the message being hammered into my brain is "you're stupid".

I hope you now understand why I am not trolling. 65.188.22.40 18:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is not that anyone is claiming that the US government is, or even ought to be, in any way, shape, or form a Christian government. What we're saying is that the George W. Bush article should state that he is a Christian. There is a large difference - and I think that you will find there is scant support for the idea that no US government official should even list his/her religion in his/her article. As for trolling, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you; I think it might be a cultural problem. A lot of times, we Wikipedians assume that users know they should only be discussing article changes, not the subject itself (please see the note at the top of the GWB talk page, which states that explicitly); I think I failed to realize what you were saying. The Evil Spartan 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delirious logo.png

When an image is deleted just for lack of rationale, you can just ask any admin to undelete it so you can put a rationale on it. I undeleted this image and removed the DRV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion request for "feral cat 4" image

Hello, The Evil Spartan. Next time you'd file a deletion request for one of my images I would appritiate, if you send me the notification about it. Regards.--Mbz1 14:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

I must apologize, but I really can't figure out what you're talking about. I have no such image on my watchlist, which means I never edited it, and I can't find any such image that you ever uploaded. What's more, I usually do notify people if I list their image at deletion. The Evil Spartan 19:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I wrote to you about the image.--Mbz1 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Ah. The file was corrupt, meaning it didn't even work. I usually try quite hard to make sure a file is corrupt before I tag it for deletion. Apparently, it was corrupt on his computer too. Apologies if that was not the case, but 99% of the images on my computer work, and I won't tag an image unless other images are working for me. It may have indeed been corrupt. If I see any more corrupt images from you, I will let you know before tagging them. I usually consider it the uploader's responsibility to look at his/her logs; perhaps you would want to create a template about notifying the uploader and attach a note at the bottom of {{db-i2}}. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the file was corrupt. I sure saw the image after I upladed it and even put it to 2 articles. Maybe it could have been a problem with commons. For few days already some files have not been shown in articles in thumnail modes. I believe they working on it.--Mbz1 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thompson article

Hi Evil Spartan! I just got home, cranked up the old computer to see what's cooking at Wikipedia, and was rewarded by your kind words at my talk page. Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Khalid Yasin

Thanks for your note on the Yasin page about the image. I have given an explanation but I am getting a lot of these comments about images. What am I doing wrong, because I am choosing the correct option from the drop down menu. Please help. Robert C Prenic 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might like to read up on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. In essence, every fair use image must have a rationale explaining a) its source, b) its purpose in the article(s), and c) why it is not replaceable with a free image. See the template section in that article in specific. The Evil Spartan 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear The Evil Spartan,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to Walton^One and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me.

iridescent (talk to me!) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

sock

Okay, I am a sockpuppeter and a sockpuppet of earlier accounts. See my response on the evidence page. Basketball fan24111 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LFMG

Hey, Spartan. I removed your speedy tag from this article. I speedied it once myself, but the article seemed to assert its own notability. Please see its discussion page. I did prod it after the speedy, which they contested. Feel free to AfD it if you like. Thanks. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern.The claim to notability was weak and could have gone either way. I've taken to AFD, thanks. The Evil Spartan 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you don't waste any time! Cheers and happy editing. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Twinkle makes things probably 3 times faster, if not more. Very nice tool; and it actually works, now that the library upgraded to FF 1.5 for Linux :) The Evil Spartan 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem to have actually created the discussion page, which I shall rectify shortly. Been buggy since the overhaul. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Try purging the page. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Learn something new ever day, don't I? Thanks! Into The Fray ^T/C 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You wanna take another swing through the logs?

Just because. -- But|seriously|folks  09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the time. -- But|seriously|folks  00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. The rest look good, all but one, which I had tagged already but he removed, and I simply lost the willpower to keep fighting over it. The Evil Spartan 16:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

About the 90's

I didn't upload a copyrighted article on Wikipedia. The 90's was taken from and old article, The 80's/The 90's. I renamed that article in The 80's and copied the paragraph about the 90's in a new article. It is not copyright violation because the paragraph about that rap song was copied on a forum by somebody after the creation of the article The 80's/The 90's. --Juliuscaesar100-44 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, you will want to make a note in the edit summary indicating where you have taken the text from. This is helpful for reasons like the one I gave above, but is also necessary to comply with GFDL, the license upon which Wikipedia is based. The Evil Spartan 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:deleteable image2

Please don't delete this redirect. I left it because ST47 said his bot uses it, and I will delete it as soon as he responds to let me know his bot no longer needs it. I left a message for him about it this morning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that works for now. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote

User Sicilianmandolin proposed a change you might support in the Scottish people talk page. M.V.E.i. 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Evil Spartan 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing PUI

Sorry about that. I thought I had removed all of the PUI tags. As for the PUIR, is it really necessary on the obviously non-free images that are re-tagged as non-free? -- But|seriously|folks  19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just letting you know what someone put at the top of the page. I think it might be better for images which someone might consider nominating again. Obviously images that were marked free and changed to nonfree probably don't need it. Specifically, I was referring to all the images in the September 11 archive. The Evil Spartan 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Karaman flag image

If you'd looked in the history, you would have noticed that I originally had licensing information, but some vandal had both modified the source and license info. I have fixed this. --Ingoman 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page, and it looks like I misread the history. I saw someone else add the GFDL tag, and in fact that someone else was you. Thanks for the note. The Evil Spartan 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Universe Models

I have listed it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universe_Models. Just a friendly notice since you prod'd it before. --Reuben 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly erroneous A7

Owen Chaim. Not only asserts notability, with two albums he meets the music guideline in any case. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - David Gerard 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The man has almost no notability: [6], and the article questionably asserts it: being a DJ and releasing an album are not claims to notablity. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

It is a free licensed image, and there is a license there. There is a permit from the site therefore users and admins have created the license for images which come from this particular site. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, it's at the bottom of the page. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating an Article

Hi, it's JoBrLa again. How's it going?

I'm thinking about creating an article. But I don't see anything in Wikipedia's options about creating one. How do I get started?

Thanks for your help! :)

--JoBrLa 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jobrla. I think you will want to go to the search box on your left and type in the name of the article you wish to create (make sure the topic doesn't already exist under a similarly spelled name). After you do the search, and it finds nothing, you should see a bold red box saying "create this article" on the search page. As for the contents of the article, I highly suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Your first article. A lot of people make the mistake on their first article of creating a non-notable biography, or one that doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view, etc. However, I hope you find luck with this. The Evil Spartan 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

190.17.147.196

Are you sure we are talking about the same user? I just checked the edits again, and I see vandalism, vandalism everywhere. A possible mix-up? Nishkid64 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This and this are edit wars. This and this are vandalism. Didn't see the last two, though I guess he gave up any right to contribute with those last edits. The Evil Spartan 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum. I was using pop-ups, and I didn't look at the subject of the article. There's 2 possible content-dispute edits, and the rest are vandalism. Safe for a block. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NRSV Catholic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NRSV Catholic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quitting

Please don't contact me, I'm quitting. Too much effort, not enough worth it. The Evil Spartan 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What...what happened?--MONGO 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry about it, it's all good. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll miss you

I think you were a great editor and sysop. You are always welcome to come back. --VoL†ro/\/Force 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boo - Mario.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boo - Mario.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flea (Chrono Trigger).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flea (Chrono Trigger).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

HELP

Many thanks for the tips. Does Presse papier mean cookies (my system is in French) ?--BobClive (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sterling History username block

I blocked because of this report to UAA. It's in how it's used as well as how it's named. I see a change of username is in progress. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:149.254.192.192

I blocked the above IP recently as being part of a weird POV vandal spree (originating from Australia, apparently), but when I saw in the edit history that there were many good edits from the IP as well I shortened the block considerably. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian People

Sorry for the late notice but I should let you know I undid your removal of sourced info regarding Arab leaders who have made statements similar to Golda Meir's statement on the nonexistence of the so-called "Palestinian people."

My reasoning is that only posting Meir's comment, without the historical context showing that it is a common statement by leaders in the region, is an attempt to paint Meir as a racist and therefore violates the NPOV standards.

If you have suggestions on reformatting it, please be my guest. I'm somewhat new and don't know quite how to do all the formatting especially since some of the documents are things like UN records and decades-old newspapers that are publicly available but not available as web links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalReality (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please

do not revert non-vandalism without a proper edit summary, as you did on User talk:JzG. I have re-added my comments - they are legitimate and well-intentioned. 129.170.47.102 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. How's this? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Saad Attiya

Thanks. My error... and I apologize for misunderstanding... missed the remark as I was working on anti-vandalism and it just looked like a page blank. But your point is quite accurate.

I have attempted... and think I have succeeded... to resolve the copyright issue. Please have a look at let me know if you feel I need to do more. Pearrari 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it still appears to be an almost word for word copy, if not direct word for word copy from that website. I've marked it under the copyright problems page for now. It will need a total rewrite. If you think you can do this without worrying about plagiarism, feel free to remove the tag. The Evil Spartan 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

I saw your note on Ryulong's talk page, and I know that you opened the last RfC on Ryulong's blocks. I opened a request for arbitration last week, but it doesn't look hopeful right now so far as acceptance goes - the consensus seems to be that another RfC may be required since it's been so long since the last one. If I opened another RfC, would you be willing to co-certify? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think this will have to be discussed on RFC. 5 people have already rejected the proposal. ZordZapper 03:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am around, I will sign it. If you look at the original list of people who signed the position, I believe you will find at least one other person who will sign. I also suggest you keep it real simple. Doubtless people will come flying in with accusations of a witchhunt, even if you have legitimate concerns; you will wish to do all you can to make sure those concerns are not legitimate. I would stick to keeping the blocks of people who edited Power Rangers/Anime articles (there are unfortunately a lot), failing to assume good faith, blocks of improper length without any warnings for users who likely are just making newbie mistakes, failing to use proper block summaries (I have been aghast at some of his blocks in the past, only to find out they were socks), and never coming before the community with controversial blocks. I'm thinking you could add to that many deletions out of process (look at the astounding number of times he's deleted an image for failing fair use guidelines, without waiting the required one week: always Power Rangers related) and being far too quick to push the block/delete button (equal number of times where he reserved himself); however, with these last two, you will undoubtedly incur the wrath of people claiming it's process-wonkery, so you may want to take care. The Evil Spartan 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Meleniumshane90

He says I'm guilty of edit warring!? I realize I can be heavy handed, but edit warring? I don't think so... --Mhking 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply about User:Varockguys

I did not realised that the user was a vandal, I only saw the user creation on recent edits and put {{subst:welcome}} on their talk incase they did not know the rules as at the time their page was empty. Jerry^teps 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just stating it might be best to check in the future (WP:POPUPS can come in handy for that, if you don't have it installed yet). Thanks for the contributions. The Evil Spartan 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism in Cuba

Actually, I copy and pasted this article from my sandbox, WHERE I WROTE IT, to it's current place. What could be wrong with that? Murderbike (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were significant contributions from User:Skomorokh. ;) I apologize if you two are the same user. The Evil Spartan 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he did add some subsection headings. However, now the article Anarchism in Cuba has a history that will make it look as if many different articles have occupied that article space, since it was in my sandbox, where I write articles. This seems like a bigger issue to me. But I'm not gonna sweat it. It was just a hassle. Murderbike (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:ALE-NYY-Insignia.png

This image has been deleted from Commons before, by User:Durin. —Random832 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakenly; see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yankees logo.gif. The Evil Spartan 03:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

Can you please explain to me what blocking would accomplish in the matter of Mitt Romney, bearing in mind blocks are not punitive? Stifle (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's probably a bit late now. However, in the past I have often seen people violate 3RR with the full knowledge that the page was about to be protected, and that they wouldn't be blocked. In this manner, protecting the page and blocking someone serves the same purpose as just blocking someone: it gets the message across that 3RR will not be tolerated. A long time user who engages in this behavior, IMHO, knows perfectly well that admins usually don't block in such instances, and is liable to do it again if a block is not instantiated. As I said, I believe this is nearly as preventative as just blocking outright. The Evil Spartan 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, is that enough? -- Cat ^chi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Cat ^chi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the message both to his, and clarified the one on yours. The Evil Spartan 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Icp handsjcw.jpg

Sure, I've watchlisted it. The vandalism hasn't reached a very big level, so I didn't protect it. bibliomaniac15 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Rendell

Dude, you're kind of a pain in the ass. If this image bothers you so much, why don't you e-mail my home state's gov't and ask them to verify it? I already did this work once, I shouldn't be asked to do it again. Mr. Vitale (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me trying to be a pain. Please follow the instructions on the template given you. We cannot simply take someone's word that something is in the public domain without some sort of proof. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you do the work of contacting them? I e-mailed them once, now it's someone elses turn. Mr. Vitale (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you still have the email, you will see, on that template, that you can forward that email to OTRS. That will suffice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-abortion syndrome

Hi, happy to have your input on post-abortion syndrome. I think the article has plenty of room for improvement in terms of organization, sourcing, balance, etc. Unfortunately, things were not going particularly productively. I appreciate your efforts to articulate the concerns in more constructive terms. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to improve the introduction. What is your opinion of the new introduction which I submitted which describes the source of the term PAS, the APA's rejection of it, the popular understanding, and the scope of this article? I feel it is much more balanced and more clearly describes the scope of the article, but most of the editors have refused to even discuss it.Strider12 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that's a really good introduction. It would be good if you could change things piece by piece though; large scale edits usually get removed at revert warring. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block Warning

Regarding your block warning, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and the first few weeks were unproductive effort to insert material only to have it cut for insubstantial reasons, and I'm getting a chance to learn of the policies through MastCell, and now you, giving me warnings.

Before discussing the block, am I supposed to answer at your talk page (as I have here) or mine? I'm assuming you don't regularly watch mine, so I'm answering here at yours.

As I understand it, a block is only if one reverts more than three times per day. I haven't. Is there more I should know?

I have made dozens of minor edits over the last month adding new material only to see it deleted with flimsy excuses. MastCell's latest argument regarding WEIGHT is just another excuse for censoring peer reviewed studies. (See my post at the the discussion page.

I learned long ago that when faced with bullying tactic, one should never back down but should stand up for one's rights. As I understand it, I have a right to edit this article and post it -- up to three times a day if I have the stamina for it.

I've made real contributions to this article all cited to factual, peer reviewed articles. My re-organization of the article is also an improvement that allows better delineation between the controversy and the studies, but again no one wants to discuss it because they are happy with their purged article...which as you observed, is slanted to insistently drive home the point that there is nothing to this "anti-abortion myth."

What are the rules that expose me to being blocked for reverting to what is at least arguably a very good contribution? It even retains all of the previous content (much of it which is still very poor, inaccurate, and just wrong) but it clearly in a better organized fashion. Plus it adds (and restores) verifiable information. Why should I waste my time getting permission for every mini-edit just because MastCell wants me to? I see that as just her way of obstruced my material...especially since she has made no concessions that all peer reviewed studies are reliable, or that past purging was wrong, or that ANY of my edits should be supported.

Also, I'm doubtful that the number of other editors is as many as they seem. My gut feel from the edits and sequence of events is that 131.216.41.16 and MastCell, and perhaps IronAngel, are the same person. No proof, but the same arguments, style, and inserts. So I'm inclined to believe a lot of what I'm seeing is a false "consensus" which has one goal: Keep Wikipedia as a source which will deny any validity to "post-abortion syndrome."

If MastCell is trying to work together in good faith, why not use my expanded article as the starting point for changes?

Seriously, why should I play their game and what are the rules that would subject me to blocking and not them? I'd actually welcome arbitration, but am not familiar with initiating the process and it looks like they encourage other avenues first, which is why I sought out other editors for comment.Strider12 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I believe this is where you are confused. First off, I am unable to block you myself, for various reasons, I gave the statement as a warning, not a threat. However, please understand that edit warring alone is enough of a reason for blocking a user. Please see WP:EW. Administrators have often stated that 3RR is not a fence, an excuse to revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours and do so indefinitely. In any case, I have reviewed the article history, and I find it unlikely there is any sockpuppetry going on. 131.216.41.16 made no reverts, and Mastcell is an administrator who seems to be editing in good faith. One of the other three being a sockpuppet is entirely possible, though unlikely, IMO. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

borderline anti-US rhetoric

What are you talking about, out of curiosity? T (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was reticent to post this, because it would make me look like I'm following the very kind of nationalism I'm trying to oppose, but the statement read:

• This Admin does not just want de-sysoping she needs banning completely for all our sakes. Thank God she is not in the US military in Iraq. Giano (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please maintain civility. I believe Durova did serve in the military, so that last sentence may be a bit too low. Please keep the discussion on Wikipedia alone. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• How on earth is saying that low, and how on earth an I supposed to know what someone called Durova does in RL? There is a whole world ourside of USA I suggest you explore it!<'Giano (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a blatantly anti-American statement, and I would hate to see, say an American make that kind of statement about French people. And even if it's only somewhat incivil, it is not the kind of temperament for someone who will be acting as a de facto judge on many nationalist disputes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. I was really surprised and taken back by you digging up Giano's edit diffs. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.

My views have often been called "anti-American", thats why I was curious.

Now a "forest view", a view which most people have no interested in:

Don't worry, Wikipedia will continue to become less and less "anti-American" as the "purges" continue.

I have taken a couple of sociology courses and there is a sociological idea where organizations become more and more conservative and "main stream" as they become older. As Wikipedia becomes more mainstream American , people like me will be pushed out, subtly and forcefully.

I hazard to guess that the admins which controlled Wikipedia 3 years ago, where much more radical than the admins today.

I bet if you took a survey of admins on wikipedia today and compared it with three years ago, today more of the admins would be conservative and hold more traditional values then those of admins three years ago.

The future on Wikipedia for users like myself and Giano are bleak.

On the other hand, I have seen a Wikipedia "purge" of far right views.

Don't worry, in the next five years, Wikipedia views will look more and more like America's (and your) views.

Personally I hope eventually, in the distant future, Wikipedia's views will look more like the world's views, but I am not holding my breath.

T (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

People have every right to an opinion, however, being non-neutral is enough of a sin in my mind to not quality for Arbcom, even if you consider this "purging" (you might notice I have right-wing editor immediately above who used the same word for his point of view). Sorry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate blanking of other's usertalk pages

I was very surprised to see that you had blanked a message on my usertalk page. You must have disagreed with the request that the other user was attempting to make of me. I am not 100% versed in Wikipedia ettiquete, but it does strike me as quite inappropriate for you to leap in and blank a message on my usertalk page. Obviously, I am able to retrieve it and did, determining that I am not interested in the other user's proposition. However, I still find it very inappropriate that you chose to blank the message. B-May (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please understand that I wasn't doing anything to be a problem. In fact, however, the messages sent to you qualified as canvassing, and are explicitly disallowed by policy (the user who sent them almost found himself blocked as a result). It's quite commonplace for someone to revert such messages. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask at WP:ANI, and I'm sure someone will confirm this for you. Thanks a lot. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

IPs

What is an anonymizer IP and how do you tell if it is one? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be like an open proxy or google toolbar; changes your connection IP on a regular basis to a different IP in order to avoid being tracked; this particular one seems to route all information from its servers through one IP at a time. See User:The Evil Spartan/Suspected sock puppets/Scibaby: looks like several users have been using this anonymizer, including one very blatant vandal. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cookie

Fattyjwoods (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

thanks for helping Fattyjwoods (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of help. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, howdy!

I hope this is the place to respond, rather than on my own talk page. Forgive me if not. But no, I don't have an account. I'm just doing a little penance for a couple minor vandalism cases of my own. It's a fun way to pass the time, anyway. - 67.43.240.55 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Durvillaea

Hi The Evil Spartan, thanks for creating Durvillaea, however, the redirect should really go the other way. Durvillaea is the proper spelling, not Durvillea (the previous spelling). Cheers. -203.171.67.232 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been handled. Thanks for the contribution. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template move

Hey TES, a quick question; why'd you move Template:User Support Independence for Tibet? The new location User:UkraineToday/Support Independence for Tibet doesn't seem right. Perhaps it should be moved back? --dotDarkCloud (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Please see WP:UM. There's a big ugly history behind this, but userboxes that are at all political should be moved to the userspace. Otherwise, they will probably get deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

I'm not sure if you saw it, but I did respond to your question on the questions page for my candidacy. Rebecca (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I did, and thank you for the response. However, I don't agree with your answer, and as such I will keep my vote as such. Thank you for your time anyway. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Joel image

I'm a little confused. The only image of Phil Joel that I have uploaded is a photograph that I took, so I don't think it should have been listed as a fair-use item. At any rate, somebody came behind me long ago and replaced my image on the Phil Joel page with one that looked like a publicity shot. Mooveeguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well then. We shall simply revert it. I did not look at the page history. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI - TheDoctorIsIn

What do I need to be warned about? While I admit I certainly wouldn't treat TheDoctorIsIn as I originally did with him back in March, I think I've been very fair and civil with him since. I'm actively looking for help on how to deal with such editors, and hope to write an essay once I feel a bit more successful with situations such as User_talk:Ronz#Another_solution:_Balkans_arbitration_remedy. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring. You jumped into it immediately after the page was unprotected. And you weren't just being bold, becuase you continued to revert after he reverted you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed content per WP:V with a detailed edit summary and long discussions on the talk page. I didn't continue to revert anyone, other than adding back a tag I added identifying another long-running dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was being bold, making an edit that I clearly stated, and discussed in detail, that I thought was consensus. Further, the current state of the article indicates that it indeed is consensus. The editor that reverted it was not a part of the discussions. Someone had to make the first move. I did, just as I had in the talk page discussions when they stalled and completely stopped. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AN Post

I saw your refactored AN post about the power structure. Was it at my comments there and at Mitt Romney that you meant or more in general? Sorry if it was me, it was unintended. Mbisanz (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I even provided the link to what I was mad about. No, certainly nothing about that. Sorry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah SNN

Hi, what is the SNN? I did add a link in the article to the Social Security Death record that I found at Ancestry.com, in case that is what you mean. Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's SSN, misspelt. Duh, you should be reading the sentence for what I meant, not what I said. ;) The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might have meant that, but you never know. Anyway, the SSN is 363-68-1988 and I did link (under "References") to the corresponding page on Ancestry.com. Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That Rfc

Don't worry about it. There was nothing wrong with filing an Rfc on that editor, but raul was correct that traditionally, Rfc's are reserved for established editors. If he persists in being little more than disruptive, edit wars and fails to understand our policies, then he'll probably end up banned anyway. Happy holidays!--MONGO (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh...now you might have a clue why I chose the username MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ze username block

Yeah, my mistake (User talk:F uckBot Mk. 1); blocks per username are normally set to allow account creation, and I forgot to check that this was indeed the case. Fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C Please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia:Song/The Twelve Days of Christmas

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 05:07, December 21 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For tirelessly fighting vandals and reporting them at WP:AIV. Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a barnstar and Merry Christmas all within one day. 'Tis the most wonderful time, of the year.... The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

and me too!

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your "conscience attack" -- for allowing civility to win out over your lesser nature -- I award you this little barnstar. Water it with kindness and it will grow! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)