Since the individual in question was deemed individually notable, don't you think his article should stay where it is? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you find a link or diff to this consensus? I am only for redirecting player names if they are not individually notable according to WP:BIO; that is generally notable by receiving in depth coverage by independent and reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
User: gjr_rodriguez
editAll of the minor league player a stubs are in their proper place, as stated in WP:Baseball. The focus is on the player, not on the roster or position. Therefore, when you click on any player, it sends you to the player profile, rather than a team roster page. Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
- MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or approval of the Committee.
- MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
- MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
- MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
- MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
editYour name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw, no comment, also I'm not a minor. Secret account 12:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Mergers for discussion really the best place for the article? According to the Wikilink, it's not even ready for use. I was told at FAR to try AFD, and now that looks like the wrong idea. It doesn't seem like there is any place to discuss an article like that, which is a shame since there are some people that disagree with its existence/featured status. Should I just continue the FAR, or should I just accept the frustration of being unable to have a complete and thorough discussion? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Mergers for discussion is the best place, because people will keep the article without commenting on the notabilty of the subject, because the process is called articles for deletion not for a merge. Usually when articles get merged in AFD, the nominator wants it to be deleted first, but here is not the case. Try your luck there and delay the FAR for now. Secret account 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Jamarcus Saunders
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just make sure you say exactly what you mean next time, and it should get through no problem, provided that it's really not controversial. - Mgm|(talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As you made the original nomination for this article, you may be interested in the above. Black Kite 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
New image project
editHi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Selena's Classic Series albums
editHi. Being listed as a major contributor to the Selena article, I thought you might be able to help with this. I was bordering on an edit war with User:Crodude86 over the articles for Selena's Classic Series of albums that were released in 2006/2007 (I've seen sources listing one or the other). There are five articles for each of five volumes from the Classic Series. As stated in these articles, they are re-issues of earlier albums from Selena's teen years, remastered and available digitally (CD and download) presumably for the first time. As they are re-issues of earlier album, it was my intent to merge each Classic Series article with its original release. The rereleased versions are not necessarily notable enough for their own article and, as they are updates to original albums, I felt a merge was warranted. I was working on Volumes 1 and 2, but the changes I made to the original album articles kept getting reverted. As I created redirects from the Classic Series of albums, Crodude86 though would keep creating new articles with a new disambiguation title (from Selena album to Selena's album to Selena Quintanilla album) rather than reverting the redirects as well. This was never going to end, so I halted and decided to seek third party advice.
According to what the album articles say (as independent sources were difficult to find), the albums I'd like to see merged are:
I apologize for the length of my message and I hope you can help. If not, could you suggest where I can take this to? Thanks so much! --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Stuff
editSemi-protected your talk page for a bit; I don't want to leave it indefinite, since there could easily be valid reasons for an IP or new user to need to contact you.
Also, I noticed a couple of log items that outed you in various ways; I took the liberty of suppressing them. Hope you don't mind. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea I understand, I used to have a page for IP address to contact me, I'm not sure if I do now. Bleh 3,000,000 articles now, and 20,000 of them in either AFD or Prod. Secret account 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Specific appetite
editHello Secret, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Specific appetite has been removed. It was removed by Uncle G with the following edit summary '(Removed notice.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Uncle G before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Happy Birthday!
edit
|
Hey, RenamedUser jaskldjslak901. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- GrooveDog (oh hai.) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
Steel Guiliana (disambiguation)
editHi, I'm surprised you declined to speeedy delete Steel Guiliana (disambiguation) due the presence of a keep on the AFD. The Steel Guiliana article is at the correct title, and contains the exact same text. Regardless of the outcome of the AFD, the so-called disambiguation article will still need to be deleted as it not a disambiguation page, and not a valid redirect. I won't press the issue, but please reconsider. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Erin
editHi. You deleted my A7 speedy deletion request for Andrew Erin with a simple "not a a7". I am not sure where the article "asserts the importance or significance" of this person (even less so how he satisfies WP:ARTIST). Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Admin rights
editI am sorry but I have serious reservations about Andre restoring your admin rights given EVula's previous refusal to do so. I have raised the matter on the crat noticeboard: [1]. WJBscribe (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Question
editWhy do you say "desyropping" instead of "desysopping"? Enigmamsg 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was just about to ask the same thing... thought it was a typo or vandalism on your talk page, but then I saw you used it twice. Didn't see a reply on Enigma's page. Any hints for us? 7 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Heads-up
editDiscussion about one of your A7s. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 17:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
MogileFS
editI request to undo the MogileFS deletion, if you see the discussion is by no means, spam. The page itself can be considerate weak, but the Software itself is considerated the best Open source option to Google File System. The article is linked inside Wikipedia by other pages about Distributed File Systems.
Deletion of valuable reference, because other causes is not good for the Wikipedia. Tuqui (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I was doing quite a bit of research into alternative file systems, and when I noticed the confused, erroneous and missing information here on MogileFS, I thought it would be a contribution to the community to try and improve and correct it. I'm a little disappointed that you've chosen to delete what I spent my time on - IMHO it doesn't really encourage people like me to bother improving the content in wikipedia. I'm sorry if its your "job", but its rather off-putting for rookies Artemgy (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, there's a deletion review for MogileFS up now- can you comment on it? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#MogileFS. tedder (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
CSD nom
editSecret - apologies for wasting your time with the incorrect CSD nom for the New Distances article. I had mistakenly read the criteria as "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant or where the artist's article does not exist. Lesson learned! Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
G12
editHi. Just wanted to remind you that it's not unambiguous when they assert permission. :) That's why the article had been blanked and listed at WP:CP in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations and WP:CSD#G12. The contributor had already written to verify permission when the article was deleted (Ticket:2009110410037827), though due to an unfortunate backlog in that queue was not notified that clarification is needed in his licensing statement until today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
editAs you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Dear RenamedUser jaskldjslak901, I apologise for deceiving you. | |
| JoeKole was me posing as a newbie as part of the wp:NEWT experiment. Analysis of this particular test is at Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Atama and your input would be most welcome. -- Atama頭 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
Life in a Jar
editHi! I am a new editor and I am not sure why there is a copyright issue on the Life in a Jar page that was deleted. I would be glad to make adjustments if I understood what the problem was and where the issue has occurred. I feel Life in a Jar is a very important project and needs to be included in wikipedia's database. I wrote all of the information from my own words other than the quotes listed as being spoken or written by Irena Sendler herself. I have also asked the website owner of Life in a Jar to give permission to the use of information from the www.irenasendler.org website even though I am not sure as to which area I have used information from. I did not copy and past any information on the Life in a Jar page that I created from the website www.irenasendler.org. I would appreciate any help you could provide in solving this issue. Thank you, Tikkun Olam 1910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkunolam1910 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I restored, right now it's a redirect, try to find some extra reliable sources for your article, and remove the quotes section. You could work on the Irena Sendler article yourself as well as it does need some help. Thanks Secret account 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. How does this help me get the Life in a Jar article back up that was deleted? I am sorry I am a little lost in the wikipedia lingo. Thank you, Tikkun Olam 1910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkunolam1910 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I had contested the speedy deletion to allow discussion ("hangon"). Please undelete the page. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you have evidence that the information in the page isn't a copyright violation, the article should stay deleted. If you are the owner or you recieved permission to use the information for wikipedia, follow the blue link. A hangon doesn't save the article. Secret account 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hangon explains that the purpose of it is to allow discussion. However, discussion is prevented by you deleting it together with the discussion page, where discussion had started. Please restore to allow discussion. Or please explain what you mean by "blue link" above. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It allows discussion, but a administrator still can delete the article if it violates guidelines, as this one did. I'm talking about WP:COPYVIO as the "blue link". Secret account 20:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not negating you any rights. I am just asserting that we would like to discuss it. The article was placed on Wikipedia by the owners of plazi.org themselves. Allowing discussion of deletion would be simple, please revert to deletion after discussion. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow this, and it should be taken care of and undeleted. Secret account 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed prod from Dustin Hopkins
editHello Secret, this isn't a template, just a notice that I removed the proposed deletion tag you left on this article. There seems to be a lot of coverage of the guy in the news, even for a college football player. (Without that coverage, I would have endorsed the deletion per WP:ATHLETE.) If you still feel the article should be deleted of course AfD is always open. Thanks! -- Atama頭 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
edit
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| I thought just yesterday, "wow, I haven't seen C:CSD this clear in a while...oh, wait...Secret's back!" :) Nice work. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
Didn't Ram Madhvani contain a non-copyvio version? I think I made some edits to the article before because I have it on my watchlist, and Madhvani seems notable. Theleftorium 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The version I deleted was copyvio, I'll restore a non-copyvio version that you did. Or just restart the article from scratch, which I recommend, and I'll semi-protect from the copyvio violators. Secret account 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Theleftorium/Ram Madhvani. I didn't restore the copyvio versions. Thanks Secret account 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thomas German deletion
editRe that deletion, there is two others from the same editor and from the same site. Kade Klemke and Bryce Carroll. Tyson Slattery article has the same origin but has had the copyvio removed. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your quick attention to the issue. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
CISU deletion
editDear Secret, I understand what is your role, but the CISU article refers to an italian no profit organization, added to add more information in the article List of UFO organizations, the organization CISU [2] is exactly like the British UFO Research Association web site [3] and like all the other organizations indicated in such article. So I really don't understand your action. Obviously the article need to be completed but I was thinking to do it from today. So now if you want you can do it now and in future. Thanks.--Abyssadventurer (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It didn't claim notability, the deletion tag was placed for hours also before I deleted it. I did the favor of userfying it for you so you can work on the article, as where it stands, it fails guidelines. User:Abyssadventurer/CISU. Thanks Secret account 12:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit summary
editHi there. I just want to point out, that your edit summary (not a A3) of the Chabad of South London article isn't accurate, because at the time when I patrolled that article it was empty and had no content. The placing of the WP:CSD#A3 tag thusly was correct. Amsaim (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
editI'm not sure what you mean, you're accusing me of sockpuppetry, but i've not been using other accounts to vandalize. There's someone out there following my edit history and trying to somehow frame me for vandalism. It seems that the perpetrator has succeeded in his goal. I can assure you that its not me, the user in question has made silly test edits in recent weeks to invalid wiki links on Suede band members from an I.P. address (Edits). I also noticed vandalism to the Jumper article, which i had made contributions to (Edit). They have also been following my edits to articles, which i had proposed for deletion. I actually used the wrong deletion template for those articles, without knowing so. I didn't want them to be speedy deleted, i wanted a template, which would have suggested discussion over deletion. Just incase you thought i was vandalising by misusing templates, i simply copy and pasted a template assuming it to be acceptable, obviously it wasn't. I think you'll notice from the hard work i've put into these articles that an indefinite ban would be very devastating to my reputation. I'm working hard to make articles look professional, how professional does it look if other users see that i've been accused of vandalism. I'm trying to promote certain articles for review, and i'm always making edits to articles, which are mainly music related to improve them.PhilOak (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hip hop WikiProject Roll Call
editHello, fellow Hip Hop WikiProject members!
This message is being sent out to let all listed members of the project know to re-add your name to the members list, as all current names on the list have been erased in order to find out who is still active on the project. WikiGuy86 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Article Recreated
editHi there. Just wanted to let you know that the article which you deleted in 2008 is now back up again. Amsaim (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
ReCaptcha Solver OCR
editI just wanted to inquire about your reasoning for deleting this article. You listed it as A7, even though the article was about software, which is ineligible for deletion under that category. Thanks! TNXMan 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, just a follow up, wanted to see if you've had a chance to look at this yet. TNXMan 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I saw, I tend to have a broader criteria for speedy deletion than most newer adminstrators because of experience. I do that with obvious essays, newly coined WP:NEOs and products/software usually, nothing else, per WP:SNOW. The software didn't claim notability at all, and google doesn't has much. I tend to place software with Web content of A7. I'll be more than willing to userfy though. Secret account 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Nehara Pieris
editIve just noticed that Nehara Pieris has been recreated ... do you think it satisfies the ENTERTAINER criteria now? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Been recreated word for word infact, I redeleted it and salt it. Secret account 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know I have moved and answered the query you left at User talk:Camaron on this more specific talk page. Thanks. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Midrash Samuel 2 Book I
editSome Bible translations are subject to copyright and the cited website did have a copyright notice. That's why I used the copyright violation speedy. But all is well ;) Eeekster (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition
editHello Secret, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition has been removed. It was removed by Eastmain with the following edit summary 'formatted reference to newspaper article and removed prod, since the subject's notability is confirmed by the newspaper article'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Eastmain before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
IMob
editAny chance you could weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#IMob? An editor is complaining this wasn't an A7, and I'd have to agree.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RFA
editNot at this time. Several users have suggested the possibility to me, but I don't feel I'm ready. Thanks for the offer of a nom; I appreciate it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's not a matter of being able to handle the tasks themselves; it's more a matter of me reining in my own feelings and being able to make sure that I act in a mature way in any and all situations. I get frustrated easily, so I find it's hard to do that from time to time. Until I can get past all that, I won't be standing for adminship, lest I find myself before the ArbCom. I'll keep your tutoring offer in mind; I do appreciate it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Secret... I think I've reconsidered. It may be time for me to stand for a nomination after all. As Staxringold was the first to suggest it to me, and as he and I have worked together extensively, I notified him as well. If you'd like to coordinate a co-nomination with him, or just nominate by yourself, I'm willing to undertake the trial by fire. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RFA
editThanks for the message and the expression of confidence! At the moment I am (despite how it may seem from my contribution history!) too busy IRL (year end is a crazy time for M&A lawyers) to devote the time and attention to an RFA that it requires. However, early in the New Year things will have eased up so I will reconsider then. Again, thanks for the kind words. – ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RFA again
editThere are a few problems that I would face as an RFA candidate. Chief among them is the fact that I really don't do any admin-related work; most of my contributions are in the fields of article-cleaning and content reviewing. Also, my edit count is probably lower than RFA is looking for. I'm thankful that you consider me a trustworthy editor, but I must decline a nom. Between article reviewing and real life, I can't devote the time to administration duties that they require. Thanks for offering, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Question
editWow, this is funny because I was just about to ask you if you would nominate me. I might just create the psychic barnstar right now and bestow it upon you. I would love to go through the process now, as it had been exactly three months since the last one and i've improved a lot since then. I sure hope that i've improved since it's been a while, but not too long that I forgot how to do it. So yes, I would be willing to go through the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- And yes, I also feel like I have improved a lot since then since I have put a few of those issues behind me. Also, looking back at it, I think I will enjoy some of the odd questions, like the flirtation one that I received at my last one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Will do it soon, the issue is right now I'm in class and editing with a blackberry, which is hard. Secret account 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you, reply back. Thanks Secret account 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. Do you think that I need to rewrite question one as it seemed to be the only thing without an issue. If you don't think so, could you please e-mail me what I said. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Check your e-mail inbox please. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Was that e-mail supposed to have anything in it other than what I sent? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No Secret account 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm ready to set it up now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Before I go ahead with this, I want to know what you think of a prominent user's concerns. I'm e-mailing them to you right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, you can start where Julian left off. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
RFA3
editI'm honored you feel I am qualified. I'm not closed to the idea, but I feel I've been involved in contentious subject matter in the past that might come back and bite me, and I'm not sure if this would help either. But like I said, I'm not completely opposed to the idea. Grsz11 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Secret, I see no reason why a nomination would do any harm. If you are confident in my ability and worthiness, I trust that judgement and would be honored if you were to nominate me. Grsz11 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Writing it up while we speak, answer the questions well. Secret account 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA (4)
edit You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Since you're on a nomination drive...
editI've got someone that you might want to look at. They are pretty much always on my talk page asking me to do clueful admin tasks that I can usually fulfill without a second look.
And these three guys are WPVG veterans who I also think would be good candidates.
I know, I should probably offer to nom them myself, but I am just so lazy to do anything that requires much though these days. –xenotalk 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Will look I need to create two more RFAs beforehand though. Thanks Secret account 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
With Skywalker I don't like the blank userpage, and the removal of talk page posts without archiving. Secret account 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the vote of confidence, but the semi-retired tag probably won't be coming down, at least not for a long while anyway. So I don't think I'd have the time to use the tools to the community's expectations. Plus these days I'm more interested in article writing with my limited time. Thank you though.
- On a related note, I second Xeno's recommendation of User:MrKIA11. He had a previous nomination that did not pass because of lack of experience. I'm not sure if he'd be up for another RFA though. If he is, then I'd certainly support him again as I have a lot of faith in his abilities. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
Hi Secret - thanks for keeping the UAA backlog clean. One quick question, I agree that there are some programs, initiatives, or institutions that we can give extra assumptions of good faith to, but I am having trouble seeing how this username doesn't violate both the promotional and the corporate / group clauses of WP:U - especially given their user page. Any thoughts? Am I just being too literal? Thanks. 7 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep a close eye on the contribs, California State University, seems a tad harmless. Secret account 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok - thank you. 7 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
MrKIA11 RFA
editSure, I'd be up for it again. I'll definitely spend more time to answer the questions, as last time I just answered them on the fly without researching the actual protocol since I didn't realize how in depth others would analyze them. The only other point that I still think might come up as opposition is the fact that I am almost exclusively involved in video game related articles, which some of the opposes seemed to mind. Besides that, I would think that it there shouldn't be any problems. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Mentorship
editI hope I am not intruding, but I have been looking for a mentor and found you under the list of willing adoptors, though I realize that the list is updated very rarely. I am looking for an editor well-versed in WP policies to keep an eye on me and help me better operate in non-mainspace areas, since I have been working mainly on articles and project pages for the past year and have only recently explored outside the bubble. I would also drop a few questions every once in a while and am looking for someone who won't laugh at me when they find out that I had 2 FA's and 12 DYK's without knowing what the heck a 3RR was. I am not specifically asking for you, though I would be honored, but if you could at least point me in the right direction, that would be a huge help. Mrathel (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
SineBot's signing.
editWhy did you revert its edit here? - Zhang He (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Was a clear bot mistake, shouldn't have used rollback though. Secret account 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I may ask, what's the mistake? The IP address didn't sign. - Zhang He (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ping
editI have sent you an e-mail --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Robert J. Coury
editI see that you deleted the page on Robert J. Coury on 17 July 2006 due to vandalism. Would you please let me know what type of vandalism caused this entry to be removed? Thank you.Jennjurosco (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It was general nonsense, nothing at all about the subject. Thanks Secret account 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Abd rollback right
editHi Secret - just curious as to why you've chosen to revoke this right at this time. Abd is currently banned from editing, but he hasn't abused rollback by any means (that I'm aware of, although I welcome a clarification). Since his ban expires in about 10 days, I wondered why you had chosen now to revoke it. Not planning on reversing it, or even expecting you to revert yourself - just wondering :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Bleh I thought disruptive editors don't get rollback and such, I removed it from socks, etc. Add if you want. Thanks Secret account 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)