User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/January

Coyote Shivers

Hi, I saw you tagged this to be wikified a couple of times (this refers to improving the format and layout). As it was just after some controversial content was added, I wondered if that was what you meant to do? Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just quick note first, I only tagged this once. Thanks for following WP:AGF. I did not see that it was a reverted edit before. I took a read of it and it seemed possible, so I then tagged it. I should watch more carefully for this, thanks for pointing it out. --MWOAP (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You tagged it yesterday, which was removed, and again today. Not a problem as the article's now been semi-protected, but I just wondered if you knew that tag is meant for problems with the layout, not the content. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, sorry missed that. I don't know why I tagged it the first time, but the second time I placed it there to wikify the vandalised content. The underline is what I was trying to get at. Wikify: "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. --MWOAP (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

huh?

I want to remove my comment on Talk:Vir_Singh_(author) because it says "please don't delete this article" when in fact I am in favor of deletion of the article. I didn't mean to blank a page, but unfortunately my ambiguous statement which is confusing and which I would like to delete is the only thing on the page. Virsingh (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with @ 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) on User_talk:Virsingh. --MWOAP (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geibeltbad Pirna

I have notified Speedoguy about the above AfD. They have done work recently (since the AfD) trying to improve the article, and so I felt that they should know about the AfD. I saw that you notified the creator but they haven't edited it for more than a year! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you all for having me as a user on Wikipedia. I intend to leave Wikipedia for a period of thirty days, to cool down from my RfA, which I would like to note I closed myself because I didn't want to get more upset and lose my cool in a comment. Also, when i have been getting on as often as I can per night and editing as much as I can, and most of my RfA opposes are because of # of edits, it is demoralizing. I really appreciate all the support comments made on my RfA. It seems that to even come close to admin, I would have several months of editing ahead, and I am not ready to give up my life just so that I can satisfy that requirement. If that is truly how the Wikipedia community feels that crazy editing for years is a good idea while ignoring everything else, I am deeply sadened by that. I have tried my best to hold up Wikipedia policy and incourage users, but Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and I think we turn away more editors than we think. Again, I am sad that I have not been able to show you that my skills follow wikipolicy enough, it might just be the way I am trying to convey it to you. At this point, I think CSD needs to be rewriten if I don't understand it. I will not be on wikipedia for a full 30 days, and I will not be responding to emails regarding wikipedia. I also will not be on chat for the time period. My page has been set for an archive of 30 days, so that I can still see any comments that come in on this page. Goodbye and good luck to you all. --MWOAP (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a bad decision on your part, although I respect it is your decision to make. There are a lot of editors who will make bad administrators, and they run for admin all of the time. You're not one of them. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about edit count, it's about showing that you've become a great editor. RfA is a hard process I don't dedicate my life to editing, nor do most people here. I know that you'll realize what this project means to you, and if you decide that it's not worth spending time one, I respect your decision. The only thing I have to say about the RfA is that RfA is a tough process, and that people will and do complain for very nitpicky things, but if you become an admin, you'll understand why. You don't have to get on each night, but just a bit every few days is plenty. The issue is not really edit count, but just the overall experience with the project. Do come back after the thirty days, MWOAP. God bless.  fetchcomms☛ 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have closed your RFA. Hope that you will come back soon - remember, adminship is not a WP:TROPHY. --Rschen7754 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the sentiments above - the issue isn't really the edit count, but your experience in admin-related areas, as well as your policy knowledge. Remember that people can only know your knowledge of policy from your actions and from your comments at the RfA. It may have been the way you phrased youself, but unfortunately I did not get the impression that you understand the policies as well as I think an admin needs to. As I said on my review for you get more involved with admin-type areas, such as more Articles for deletion, more Speedy Deletion tagging, some WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA edits. These are areas where you will show your understanding of the policies, and that you can explain (and justify) yourself.. I think your idea of going away for a bit is a good idea - although I think that 30 days is too long, and hope that you come back long before that! When you come back, if you have any questions, you know where my talk page is! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with what has been said here. Your work has shown that you are dedicated and have the integrity to do the job correctly. Unfortunately, many of the people on Wikipedia will not believe you have had enough experience with policy to not only make decisions which reflect the consensus of the community but also build on that policy to make difficult decisions in exceptional cases. I honestly feel that if there is something you don't agree with in WP:CSD, then you should try proposing a change. Helping to build policy is a great way to understand it, even if your changes don't pass. Additionally, it's a great way to get to understand community consensus, as policies rely on community acceptance to be implemented. I do hope you enjoy your WikiBreak and come back refreshed and ready to get involved again. Naturally, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry to hear you feel that way about the comments you received over at RfA. I did not participate in your RfA but I wish you luck and hope you decide to come back to Wikipedia after those 30 days refreshed and ready to collaborate with us in this project again. In regards to becoming a Sysop, give it some time, you don't need to "give up" your life to become an Administrator I'm sure you'd make a great Admin with just a bit more experience in the Administrative areas of Wikipedia. All the best, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• As you all said RfA's can be emotional. I have come around, feeling better, and ready to edit again. I did not fully mean every bit of emotion expressed in my first message. I have scratched out some parts that do not apply. Thanks for all of your support. I do intend to make some proposals in the next few days to WP:CSD. I would like to ask User:Juliancolton, User:Fetchcomms, and User:Phantomsteve to watch my contribs to see when I am ready for admin, and to let me know. I think these guys really know when a true admin comes around. Again, thanks for your supporting messages, and I am back to wiki! --MWOAP (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see that you are back! I am touched by your sentiments - I will certainly keep an eye on you if you'd like me to! However, I would refer you to my comments above: re-read your Editor Review, re-read the comments made in your RfA, get involved with admin-type areas (but don't stop the "normal" editing, as that's why we're all here):

• Watch WP:AfD, and contribute when you feel able to. It's a great way of getting to know the policies, as you will see very experienced editors and less-experienced editors (and admins, and even occasionally 'crats!) refering to policies, guidelines and essays to !vote to delete or keep. If you do contribute, try to avoid using "per nom" or "per editor-xyz" - try to give a justification for your !vote based on policy and guideline.
• Get to know the CSD! Look at some of the articles on Special:RecentChanges where the edit summary is "declined speedy" - look at the criteria used to nominate it, look at the article, and see if you can understand why it did not meet the criteria
• Watch WP:AN and WP:ANI - a lot of admins avoid these areas, as they can be a bit of a dramafest at times! See the kinds of issues that get referred to admins. If you feel the need to, contribute to the odd conversation. I don't very often contribute there, but I do watch it every so often
• WP:RFA - you might feel like avoiding this one, but I would suggest that you at least watch what is happening. See what editors are looking for in an admin, and just as importantly, what they are not looking for! If you feel confident doing so, !vote. Leave a justification. Again, as at AfD, try to avoid "per nom" or "per editor-xyz" (although if you are supporting, you can just sign it, as this would be taken as agreeing with the nomination statement) - but it is always a good idea to give a justification.
• WP:ER - in a few months, you might want to consider going for another Editor Review. Obviously, as your last one is still open (I won't be archiving it for another 2 weeks, when it'll be 30 days old with at least one review), you don't need to submit one now. Hopefully, you'll get at least one more review other than my one!
• WP:RFPP watch the page, see under what conditions pages are protected and under what conditions they are not
• WP:ADCO/RFC (admin coaching) - you might consider adding a request here. However, be warned that as there are only (I think) 7 admins actively coaching, you may have to wait a long time (there are currently 24 editors on the list, some of whom have been there for almost 6 months). Personally, I would wait until your edit count is 3000-4000+ before considering this.

Most of all... continue editing the encyclopedia!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Phantomsteve basically summed up the best places to be involved in (although it might be best not do try and do all of them at once!). Anyhow, I'll be keeping an eye out. I'm so glad you're back, because as noted in the RfA, you certainly have a clue.  fetchcomms☛ 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(Author requests open topic still, for reference - 05:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) )

Transwiki

Hi, when an article is very short and just a definition, and there is no prospect that there is more content to add, then we can decline the AFC with the dicdef reason - just a dictionary enty. However this kind of material is good for Wiktionary. Administrators from Wiktionary can transwiki the content by moving, or others can copy to Wiktionary, giving credit to original writer in the edit summary. I like to leave a WP:soft redirect from the Wikipedia article, (or AFC) otherwise the article appears to be completely gone, but others like to delete it altogether. In the case of sector sparing this has potential to have far more material added apart from a definition, for example which companies use it, history, how to calculate how much, how is it implemented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I have moved it & tag for prod. --MWOAP (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac Pro GA nom

Hello MWOAP, I'm Airplaneman. Thanks for taking on the review of my GA nomination of Apple's Mac Pro. I look forward to working with you. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Flag

Hi, I did not think removing the Irish flag was vandalism. The U.K. flag is opposite the sas which is a regiment in the British army, the provos were not part of the Irish army. Maybe I should have removed both flags. Anyway I am just posting to say I was not trying to be a vandal!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeaammoo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2010, Today (UTC)

Ok, umm... I can't revert your edits for another 24 hours, because of WP:3RR. I don't really get what you are saying, but if you could apply the applicable flags, that would be nice. If you cite me some sources/have a understandable explaination for me, I can remove the warnings from your talk page. Though I do have to leave the WP:3RR because you did violate it regardless. Throwaway85 will be watching the article as noted below. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade

I'll take care of any further reverts that may be necessary, so you don't run afoul of 3rr. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya, it would have been a bad idea to violate this myself. I specifically watched myself on this one. Please read the comment above. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It looks like Eeaammoo got the message, although I've yet to see a talk page post. You know, he might technically be right, but given the sensitivity of the subject any change would have to be discussed first. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: With_a_Girl_Like_You

You reverted my edit after my second attempt (bot reverted first attempt) on article With a Girl Like You. I'm sure that my edit may seem like vandalism to users unfamiliar with the (cover) artist in question (Yo La Tengo), but just a second of research within wikipedia validates my edit. Yo La Tengo is well covered on wikipedia, as are their two albums, Fakebook_(album) and Fuckbook. "With a Girl Like You" is on Fuckbook, not on Fakebook. I'm editing a third time. Thank you. 71.194.170.190 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Verified, thanks and sorry about that. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm

I would like to confirm my request for "English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface". -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Talk:Mac Pro/GA1}} I'll do the stuff as quick as I can. Can you please put it on hold so I have the next week to do it instead of having to finish it by tomorrow since I'm a bit busy? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 18:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Airplaneman ^talk 18:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem. I haven't even completed the review because I have been busy. I am doing bits at a time. When I do finish it, I will put it on hold for 7 days (and extend it if you need it, automatic, no need to notify). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Siva Shankar Baba

Hi

Just wanted to thank you for moving the page to the correct location for AfC submissions

Thank you and have a good day.

God'sFlute (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Siva Shankar Baba Hi

I saw the note reg. movement of article. I am sorry for whatever caused the confusion

I actually wanted to have it as a Wikipedia article,

but since I am new to all this I landed up creating it as a userpage.

I requested them to move it once again to the right location for Wikipedia Article and it is done.

Thank you for all the assistance, and sorry once again.

God'sFlute (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor that moved it (with the odd comment) beat me to it. It is already an aricle (Siva Shankar Baba). Don't worry about it, us editor's sometimes conflict. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have left a 'thank you' note in my talk page as well. God'sFlute (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

(Cleared TB. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)) Intelligentsium 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Con Artist

You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Con Artist.. An initial problem affecting a search for sourcing was that the current name The Con Artist is less than a month old. Under its original working title of The Love Child, there is plenty available that speaks toward production, cast, filming, and completion of the film. I have since expanded and sourced the article per soureces. I hope you find I have met your concerns. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated the page w/ my comments. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows Product Activation suggestions

Hi!

I was the one who nominated Windows Product Activation as a good article a few months ago, and I believe you were the one who reviewed it.

I have made numerous changes to the article since then, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think of it so far.

Thanks! --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, all issues have been more or less fixed. I'm going to repost for GA nomination, I think. --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Took up the GA myself. Will be reviewing in the next few days. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

need guidance Re: Siva Shankar Baba

Moved to User:MWOAP/Siva Shankar Baba Review

Discussion report

Awesome! I'm glad to see someone taking up the discussion report. Good luck! It can be a lot of work (depending on how broad of coverage you aspire to) but also very rewarding.--ragesoss (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning me for 3RR violations

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} MWOAP;

Please note that the three-revert rule explicitly exempts reverting blatant vandalism from the rule.

* Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting.

Look at the edits I reverted: [1] [2], [3], and[4]. They're not just vandalism- they're among the most obvious vandalism I've ever seen. Chester Arthur the first black President? Osama Bin Laden assassinated President Garfield? The "Big Pimping" party? They're blatant vandalism to anyone who sees them.

Please be more careful when using templated warnings in the future. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on talkpage. 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate HACKING article

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear MWOAP, thanks for the comments. My request for deletion is for the article named Climatic Research Hacking Incident is on the basis that there is no evidence of a hacking incident and that the University itself is not now talking about a hacking incident. My request for deletion does not cover the various other events in various other institutes which have been put together under an umrella of climate .... gates. glacier gate (IPCC) climategate (UEA and others) Darwin fiddling of the temperature data (Australian unit) These may or may not warrant individual or collective articles - that is quite rightly a separate article(s), but whatever the decision there, there is no question that the specific incident being referred to by the title: "Climatic Research Hacking Incident" is not supported by evidence. To be brutally honest, I don't really know whether we are talking a simple rename, or perhaps several other articles, or what, I'd rather not get involved in some petty politics. What does concern me, however, there is some individual(s) out there who Wikipedia are wrongly suggesting is a criminal and I don't think that is acceptable and for people to abuse procedure to prevent a request for deletion is just criminal in the literal sense (isn't prejudicing a trial criminal?) Isonomia (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) As I responded on the users talk page, I will not be getting involved. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For keeping my user page vandalism-free. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the thank you :) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

(Removed TB. 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)) Intelligentsium 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

(Removed TB. 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)) Placed by User:Thejadefalcon

Alexa Hampton page creator

Amarxsbpr (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested by me. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

(Removed TB. 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)) Airplaneman ^talk 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Isonomia

Please see my reply on Isonomia's talk page. The bottom line is that this editor appears to have something of a history of disruptive conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to Editor directly on talk page. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

Why did you revert my edit to William Riker saying it was vandalism?Andy Johnston (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no proof of it. Wikipedia reuqires that thinks are Verifiable. We also have been recieving many vandalous edits on these articles. It might of been better if I did that in good faith. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Implausible redirect

What? You tagged Whatever Happened to Dobie Gillis? as a speedy delete claiming that it was an implausible misspelling. It is the name of a movie sequel, not a potential misspelling (one that is certainly highly implausible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum If you would like to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

St Albans Cathedral

Excuse me, that is a very common name and semi-official. Please do not slap speedy deletions on any redirects without investigating them first. Simply south (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the redirect should be split into one name or the other, not both. I don't think that people are going to put down both thought. I removed the speedy, it is up to you what you want to do. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The full name on that is what occurs and so the redirect should stay. Even in common speech. The Cathedral and Abbey Church are not two separate buildings or establishments. Simply south (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just making a note above, I still hold my ground from above, but I will not change the page. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of the redirect should not change and their are redirects already for the separate names. Simply south (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my last comment on this, I think that it shouldn't be there, but that is one editor's opinion. I will not change any of them. I understand that there are two separate redirects. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Please see WP:NC#Treatment of alternative names. Simply south (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rochass

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello there, In regards to this case, you mentioned how "Cinema C also put in the paragraph about the 10 days before and sourced non-english articles." Is that concerning the Tuzla article? Because all I have done is added back the information a certain unknown user removed it, as you can see in the edit history, or more precisely, by "99.236.220.155" (probably Rochass' IP address before he registered on Wikipedia). Kind regards, --Cinéma C 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I am closing this up per the discussion on ANI. Yes that was the article, sorry I see that you were 'rvt'ing. Thanks for the note. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, that comment on ANI wasn't in any way directed at you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians

If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians recently, better check it out. The creator of the list up for deletion seems to believe you not commenting means you have possibly "changed your vote". He has a history of including loads of cruft and trivia into the main Akron, Ohio article and is taking my nomination of the list personally. Thanks for your input. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, as I can't watch all the articles I put up for deletion. I have replied there. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your additional comments. Unfortunately, this is a pretty normal interaction with the editor who created the list in terms of not understanding policy and resorting to subtle personal attacks. This has been going on for the better part of a year mostly on the article Akron, Ohio and on its talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)