User talk:Amorymeltzer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Amorymeltzer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I am surprised that you have been around for so many years without anyone contacting you! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi - I've granted rollback. Please review WP:RBK and ask me if you need any help with the tool. Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from a fan?

[[Thanks for your participation in wikipédia. I write this message in my country language the Portuguese, that´s ok for you? O Amor significa Love na minha língua, y significa e, e mel significa honey. Devido a ações como estas de pessoas que tentam danificar a wikipédia que acontecem muitos problemas no mundo, assim como o mundo esta acabando com as abelhas, elas estão sumindo mas isto nem é um mistério, é um sinal. Você é um grande ser, continue assim. I write this message in my country language the Portuguese, that´s ok for you?]] --Gustav Mean (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from my User page to here on 07:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) ~ Amory (talk)

Translation from Google:

Amor means Love in my language, and means, and means honey and honey. Due to actions like those of people who try to damage the Wikipedia problems that happen in the world and the world is ending with the bees, they are sumindo but this is not a mystery, is a sign. You are a great being, continue.

Thanks! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization

Hi, thanks for joining the WikiProject, I hope you'll stick around and help us provide better coverage of this subject on Wikipedia. What about space colonization interests you the most? Would you like to write new articles, improve existing ones, or do something outside article space? Wronkiew (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably be focusing (once RL settles down a bit) on improving existing articles, though I certainly hope in the process of doing so I'll find articles that need to be created. Perhaps, as I explore and expand a bit more, I'll move into the extra-article arena a bit. Regardless, I look forward to it! ~ Amory (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to be online for a bit?

Currently tackling the issues you mentioned for MissingNo., could use anything else you can hit me with or another eye at it when it's done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually heading to bed as we speak - I finished brushing my teeth and just decided to check watchlist before hittin' the hay. I'll definitely look over it again, though, for sure. I actually meant to make some changes myself but it's late! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Article's been tidied up a lot if you want to take another gander at it. Between you and me, I'm hoping when I get it done I can knock out Mewtwo and get one made for Jynx as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been following - nice to see so much work put in. I think I'll give it a good reading over sometime tomorrow when things are a bit more stable, jah? Can't wait. Oh, and congrats on the DYK nom, that's awesome. You definitely deserve it! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Sorry about the rapid-fire edit reversions on the I Dream of Jeannie page.

Forgive me ... I'm still learning the ins and outs of WP.

The edit war HAS been getting tiresome, hasn't it? LizFL (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wp:reward

totally missed the one date there! thx for catching that. The challenge still goes till July 15th. There is still one award left to awarded for that specific challenge :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Batman symbol

Regarding your closure of the Batman symbol RFD: The early close didn't hurt anything given it was bound to end that way after the full period, but your rationale for closure was not correct. RFD is Redirects for Discussion, not Deletion. Simply because it is no longer a deletion discussion is not a reason to close debate. Re-targets are valid discussion topics. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My (poorly phrased) implication was that this was something that should have just been taken care of at the redirect itself, especially once Superiority changed the nomination to retarget, as RfD is supposedly not for changing the target to a different article. My reading of the guiding principles was that as this turned from deletion to retarget, it became an issue for the talk page of either article as it was clearly not a difficult issue. I hesitated over the closure a bit, knowing it was perhaps a bit preemptive and not having a good way to explain my rationale, so thanks for the note. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Fighting

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For a keen interest in fighting vandalism, for taking up the challenges presented and most impotantly a firm dedication to protecting wikipedia from unconstructive edits, I award you this award for your efforts, kudosOttawa4ever (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Greater Los Angeles Template

Please see Template talk:Greater Los Angeles Area, and thank-you for the 3rd opinion. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Per your recommendation, I've AfD'd that article. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest paid musicians in 2008. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the note. I've commented. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonny Corndawg

Hi, thank you for your comment about citing sources. I've done a little more research and I'm going to try creating the Jonny Corndawg page again. Please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks again! Midnightchicken (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)midnightchicken

Talkback

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 01:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3O

Thanks for commenting at Talk:Perfection#3O. I have left a proposal there and would appreciate your input if you have a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

whoops!

So I noticed at the request for 3rd party input that I completely improperly added the request. I just wanted to say sorry! I'd do it on that page, but seems like a bad idea. :)Farsight001 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re:

In reply to your comment on User:Giano/The future .. nope, no correction needed. ;-) — Ched :  ?  01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Algae articles

What's going on with these? They look like they were bot created. I'm OK with deleting them as long as it's the right thing to do. Are you familiar with the subject area? Has this been discussed anywhere? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jah. Chickity check it out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. There were tons of redirects made as a result, over a lengthy time period. I went through more than 400 of 'em last night (Jclemens did most of the deletions) and there's only a few left AFAIK. FWIW, I am a biologist, which makes them easy to pick out of the crowd. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thx, I will delete away. Just checking, one never knows where an unwanted tarpit of wikidrama may lurk. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

• 125 Featured Articles
• 28 Featured Lists
• 15 Featured Topics

• 28 A-Class Articles
• 321 Good Articles
• 2 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Data suggest an increasing lack of interest
• Featured editor: Masem

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon

Thanks for the headsup. :) -WarthogDemon 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DavidClock modification

Hi Amory. I have responded to your question over at my talk page: User talk:Davidgothberg#DavidClock modification.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use quoting size

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Homo sapienses's

Great answer about the pronunciation of Homo sapiens! That was very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria h (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• 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

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Hyland

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Jxc5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About the changes made/phrases removed on Jeffrey Hyland. Thank you for your quick reply. Your feedback's very helpful. Jxc5 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please check this article again - Jeffrey Hyland?

I've substantially rewritten the book section & removed the other languages that have some promotional tone. Also tried to explain some essential aspects of the subject. I hope it's much better?.. Please let me know. Thanks for your time and guiding me through the whole thing. Jxc5 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for your support even though you're "no fan" of mine (which is fine), you interpret my actions as being biased against atheists (which they are absolutely not), and you seem to be calling me a "troll" (a troll, as I understand it, would create drama by any means necessary, whereas I am merely sharing my views, which have remained constant throughout years on Wikipedia). I will add that I can't possibly agree that my votes shouldn't be given any "weight" by the bureaucrats. If I'm way out of line, and some hypothetical vote is 99-1 with me being the 1, why are you worried about the "weight" my vote has? Keepscases (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no desire to be found guilty of hypocrisy, although I will say I was responding not to you but rather to the claims made by others. My point, however, was exactly as you say - I am in no way concerned or worried about the weight of your vote. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but go back and read your statement again; unless I'm misinterpreting something, you're suggesting my vote isn't likely to count as much as others'. Oh well, I do sincerely appreciate your support of me, especially given that you're "no fan" of mine, which I can accept and respect. Keepscases (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaseous balloon's mass

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Suppose you're standing on the surface of a balloon

Those large spheres of gas aren't made of gas as we know it. Most of Jupiter is metallic hydrogen. Stars are made of plasma and behave very differently to gasses like those in Earth's atmosphere. An Earth-sized balloon filled with Earth-like air would have a pretty low mass, even lower if you filled it with hydrogen instead. I'm not sure exactly what because I'm not sure how much it would compress under its own gravity. The density will also depend on the nature of the balloon itself. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the radius of Earth as 6371km, and a density of Hydrogen of 0.08988 g/L (massive underestimate), an Earth-sized ball of hydrogen would be approximately 10²⁰kg (if my quick math is right), a full 10,000 times less than the current Earth, but hardly negligible (compare to the mass of the Moon). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did that density come from? If that's under STP, it's pretty meaningless - why would this balloon be under STP? Don't forget you are further away from the centre of gravity than you would be on the moon, so surface gravity would be lower than you might expect. 10,000 times less density means 10,000 less surface gravity, so that's 0.00098m/s², only 100 times more than microgravity on the ISS [1] and that is often described as zero-g. It's pretty negligible, if you ask me. --Tango (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's STP. I recognize that it's a largely meaningless measurement for this discussion, but it's a useful reference frame, especially in the absence of all other information. I was going off the assumption that the density of Hydrogen at terran sea level is an acceptable estimate for the density of Hydrogen should there be an Earth-sized balloon filled with the stuff. As I implied, this estimate is in no way acceptable - the density of hydrogen at the balloon's core would be orders of magnitude greater than that at STP, only increasing the mass and therefore gravity of the balloon. It's not analogous, but taking a look at the formula for the density of air based on altitude makes it clear that as you get lower you get a far more dense bunch of air. The mass of an Earth filled with Hydrogen would probably be a lot larger than I originally calculated. The Sun's density, for example, is massive compared to the density of Hydrogen at STP. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a gross overestimate, even at the centre - you wouldn't have Earth's gravity creating that pressure. Pressure at a point is basically the weight of all the gas above that point, weight depends on gravity. I think the main contribution to the pressure inside the balloon would be from the elasticity of the balloon itself, rather than gravity. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Matheuler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied 9:15 pm, Today (UTC−4) and gave WP:3O. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFC/R problems

Please be more careful when deciding on the reasoning for closing WP:AFC/R requests. I noticed that many of your recent closings[2] were inappropriately marked as "empty submissions". Those, however, are not empty submissions. This is an example of an empty submission:[3]. Thanks for helping out, though. Cheers, I'^mperator 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean, thanks. I guess I was going under the mistaken assumption that a request where the title already exists and no reason or source are given counts as empty. Still, you are right, I should've just tagged 'em all with either "exists" or "source." Thanks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RfD: Equador, Rio Grande de Norte

Amory, I was hoping that you would reconsider (as in "consider again", not necessarily change) your "Keep" recommendation at the Equador, Rio Grande de Norte RfD in light of the additional comments there. You do mentioned that "the comma makes it less likely as a search term". Even if it were used as a search term, the search tool will recognize that misspelling and offer a link to the correct spelling (as with this "Go" with an equivalent misspelling of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte).

Please note that this redirect was not created as an intentional redirect from misspelling but was a typo during creation, and that the creator, who has recommended "Delete", would have been able to request a speedy G7 (Author requests deletion) had I not jumped the gun and made the move myself. In fact, there are no other uses of "Rio Grande de Norte" in any other article or redirect title. (I did recently correct the typo in the body of a handful of articles.)

So the redirect offers no real benefit, while (as I discuss at the RfD) it does offer "blue link reinforcement" for mistaken edits in Ecuador's prominent hatnote. Whatever you decide, thanks for considering again. -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is... eerily uncanny. You posted that literally as I was trolling the RfD page to read recent comments from over the weekend. That was definitely what I had in mind and I saw it had a few more comments. I'll be looking into it shortly! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay yeah, I changed to Delete. It was helpful for me, but there's just too much going on between the comma, misspelling, poor naming convention, and Victor's admission. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyland

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Jxc5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Follow up - Hyland's bio & other article. Thanks.

Replied at talkpage. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I left you a reply-message at Hyland's discussion page. I think it's better if I have all of our discussions about the article organized in there. Thank you for your time, Amory. Jxc5 (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Talk:Jeffrey_Hyland.
Message added 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyland images

Those pictures were sent to me by Jeffrey Hyland himself. Oh, did I miss anything? Any problem with the images? At first I wasn't able to upload them properly as I was definitely new to wiki & was my first time to do everything. Jxc5 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So they were taken by Jeffrey Hyland? He owns them? That's an issue, then, because all of the images in that article have faulty copyright information on them. They were all currently uploaded and say that YOU are the copyright owner and have released them, when in fact you have no rights to do so. Hyland himself has to release all those images. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. One rule that I overlooked. How do i get this fixed? I can also get something like an authorization letter from Hyland. If he has to release those images himself, how do i remove my uploads? What do you recommend, or better for me to do to resolve this? Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay well has Hyland actually agreed for them to be released? He must agree to the terms of a free license (preferably CC-BY-SA and GFDL). If he indeed has, then either you or he needs to email the OTRS team ASAP at permissions-en@wikimedia.org and officially release the images. If it gets taken care of quickly then everything can be fixed easily, but delaying can result in deletion until the issue gets resolved. After around 7 days they will be eligible for deletion. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's image policy, so if you want more detail I'd suggest asking at either Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia:Help desk. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just have him sign in to his account and release the images himself? Will the process be a little easier? I'll do this otherwise. Jxc5 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that too would work. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keammar Daley

I was just going to put that article on hold as well you just beat me to it good jobOo7565 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It actually happened the other way for Valuism! I was actually about to ask you a few questions on your page myself. I was looking over Zdenek Altner when I noticed you had accepted it. Is there any chance you might reconsider that move? Pretty much all of those sources fail the quick fail criteria, and the submission looks like it's really just someone complaining about the issue (phrases like "he has no chance to public his opinions in the Czech media. His only chance to publish his causa" and "Jiří Paroubek, who (as other ČSSD leaders) ignore Zdeněk Altner's activities to compund a pursuit"). I don't want to step on your toes, so do you think you could give it another look-over? And, as a favor, do you think you could give submitters a little time to write their submissions? It's a tough process, and people often write in steps, not all at once. So, declining bonfire less than 15 minutes after creation probably seems too early, as does engineers salary after five minutes. I can just imagine submitters feeling dejected after it happening before they can even try. I usually try and give them at least a full hour or two to avoid being too bitey, kind of like CSD work. Thanks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

do not worry you not steping on my toes. i would reconsider the move of that one article yeah sorry i chould check the time more often thats my fault will not happen again.Oo7565 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent, thanks so much! I really appreciate your quick response. It's really great of you to help out there, though - it's so easy for that page to get bogged down. I look forward to seeing more of your edits! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i put the other 2 articles back to pending i hope thats ok with you thanks for the heads up on being too quick againOo7565 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You rock. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I found some newspaper references for Keanmar Daley and added them. The league site at http://www.digicelpl.com/nmcms.php?snippets=news&p=news_item&id=480 lists him as a member of the national team. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yeah, thanks. I meant to move that into the mainspace today as he meets WP:ATHLETE but ended up totally swamped with work. I'll take care of it tomorrow afternoon. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo task force membership update

It's that time again to update membership status with the Nintendo task force, which we try to do every 3-4 months to keep our membership up-to-date.

All participants have been placed on an "Inactive participants" list. To confirm that you're still a member of the Nintendo task force, simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo#Members and move your name from the "Inactive participants" list to the bottom of the "Active participants" list. If you are no longer an active member in the task force, you may simply remove your name altogether. After 1 month, on October 1, all entries under the "Inactive participants" list will be removed. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Nintendo-related articles. Regards, MuZemike 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re - Rude and sarcastic comments

I agree that an acerbic style will "raise tension" of a contributor. But I also believe that allowing masturbatory, pointless, forum-bickering under the guise of well-established controversy will "raise shittiness" of Wikipedia.

Thanks for understanding! Sorry I don't have any links to wikipedia policy pages for you.AllOtherNamesTaken (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but all I'm saying is that kindness begets kindness, and you're more likely to get what you want from someone if you speak respectfully toward them. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lockwood References

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(author).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Improper usage of references. And help citing sources for articles. Jxc5 (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied 2x ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry man. I was kinda out of it last night. It won't happen again. Sorry.

Cheers, Jade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.52.152 (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. If you want to keep editing, have you thought about registering? There are a lot of benefits to registering, even if you just want to read, and more editors are always welcome! I'd be glad to give you some pointers if you'd like, so just let me know! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about joining up, but I don't think I'd have a whole lot of time to give, having just started university and all. And I don't think I have a whole lot of knowledge to contribute, y'know? I probably will join up sometime, though. And if/when I do, I'll hopefully start making constructive edits! :-D

Cheers, Jade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.52.152 (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance

Hi, I submitted an article via article for creation and It got accepted and it is posted but says Article reads may not meet Notability for Academics. Its title is: Vijay P. Parashar. I saw it was fixed by you in history. This article has over 8-10 genuine links to the faculty's profile at his University, his award, his appointment as Editorial Board Member of Journal, Chair-Elect at American Dental Education Association Section. Why is the MAY NOT MEET NOTABILITY TAG showing up when references have been provided, many external links, internal links to wiki, sources etc are provided. Please guide me. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Also I am new comer to wiki so any inconvenience and mistakes be forgiven. Thanks Aries162.116.29.69 (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the comments. Let me first off say that any mistake is just a mistake, and I forgive all mistakes immediately, although I do not believe you have made any! If I can be helpful to you in any way after reading what I've written below, whether in the context of this article or just in general, please don't hesitate to ask. Secondly, if you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to remove the tag yourself; this is a Wikipedia anyone can edit and I'm all for the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle, so feel free - you are!

Simply put, I added the notability tag because I did not feel Parashar obviously met the stated guidelines. Verifiable, reliable sources are required to prove notability, but their existence doesn't necessarily inherently show said notability (although they tend to). The problem with a lot (potentially all) of the sources found there is that they are not from third-party sources independent of the subject. The link above to reliable sources details the specifics, but can be a lot to read - I know I thought it was! In a nutshell, notability for an article is proven through significant coverage in multiple third-party sources.

Looking at the notability guidelines for academics, of the nine criteria I see five that could theoretically apply, namely 1 (significant impact), 2 (significant award), 3 (scholarly society), or 4 (affected education). Individually,

• 1 and 4 are very similar, with 1 being the more likely option here. I just don't see any evidence that his work, while excellent, has particularly impacted the dentistry discipline. Simply having publications isn't enough, they need to be very influential.
• 2 doesn't seem to apply since I don't think the Howard R. Raper award qualifies as "highly prestigious," especially since it is a $700 award to a 2nd or 3rd year student; most private colleges and universities, for example, have dozens of awards or fellowships akin to that.
• 3 seems the most likely option, but again, I don't think a subset of the ADEA is what the guidelines mean by "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." That honor is more reserved for things like the NAS.

Does that explain my reasoning a bit? I hope so. I know I referenced a lot of essays that are a real pain to read through, but I hope you can trust my summaries of them. Lemme know how you feel after reading this, I'd love to work more with you. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I did more research and found the following:

• Howard R Raper award is only given to One Person in Entire Canada and USA each year by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and its not given by a school etc and there are not that many awards as such in this field of oral and maxillofacial radiology.

• Every speciality such as Orthodontics, Periodontics, Oral Radiology has a representation in ADEA therefore becoming Chair-Elect and representing the entire Speciality in ADEA is very prestigious.

• The research publications the faculty has are in the field of dSir2 with Blanka Rogina which became hot topics and a company based on this research www.sirtrispharma.com got bought out for ~700million which is amazing.

If you think this person meets notability, please remove the tag. I dont know how to..Thanks for your help. Arien 68.111.74.74 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. The tag shows up because of the {{Notability|academics|date=September 2009}} text found at the very top of the article when you click the "edit" button. You are free to remove it, although I must say I still disagree:

1. Just because it is only given to one North American each year doesn't make it significant. I'll admit this is probably the criteria Parashar is most likely to satisfy, but I simply don't see and can't find any evidence this is a, and I quote, "highly prestigious academic award." Remember, the aaomr is only 400 people strong.
2. I recognize that every specialty has representation, but that doesn't mean anything unless the organization is extremely highly regarded, namely a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association," which I do not believe the ADEA to be. The ADEA is an educational society, and is comprised of everyone who ever enrolled at a dental school; that definitely isn't highly selective.
3. Parashar may be working in an interesting field, but the fact that a company in that field was worth a lot to GSK doesn't make his research any more significant; by that token, anyone working with sirtuins would be notable. In order to be notable based on his research, he and his research need to have coverage by "independent reliable sources," which I simply cannot find.

So there you have it. I really don't think he satisfies the criteria, although if you can find evidence that the Raper award is highly prestigious than I may change my stance. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I disagree with you and have the following info for you:

ADEA is not just a society It is:

ADEA is the sole national organization representing academic dentistry, the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) is the voice of dental education.ADEA members are more than 16,000 students, faculty, staff, and administrators from all of the U.S. and Canadian dental schools, many allied and postdoctoral education programs, and numerous corporations working in oral health education. ADEA members come together to advocate effectively for public policy issues essential to dental educators and researchers, especially access to dental care, a necessary element to improved oral health. AADSAS and DAT etc are taken care of by ADEA and its there for policy making. Being a member of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology section gets the Voice of The Speciality into ADEA for policy making.

AAOMR is definitely 400 strong coz its relatively a new speciality only started in 2003,therefore its 400 strong. Representing the Speciality in ADEA would be considered very prestigious.

He's also Editorial Board Member of Journal of OralHealth Community Dentistry.

I disagree with you regarding the award. When only one person in entire US and Canada gets an award per year its quite significant.

But it was very interesting interacting with you. Thanks68.111.74.74 (talk)

Charles Lockwood

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(author).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additional section for "Works". Thanks. =)

Replied. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I left out those that were not needed to be listed under the new section. I added a new reference material from LA Weekly. I didn't get the part when you said you removed the disclaimer. Sorry about that. I'm kind of having a bit of difficulty now trying to improve the article, enough for the flags to be removed. I think I will need your help and guidance to achieve that. I hope you won't get tired of it or me. I appreciate your inputs, suggestions and feedback. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tired?! No way! I'm a bit swamped at the moment, but I'll stop by in a day or two to check out and help where I can. It's hard! Try working on some other articles to take a break and keep your sanity. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• 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) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local Supervoid

I'm reviewing your submission, and rather than having it as a disambiguation page what about creating it as a redirect to List of voids? I think that might be more helpful/useful for readers. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ragam (Culfest)

How come u know the notability of ragam ? It is unfair to delete indian article like this --naveenpf (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All I did was mark the RAGAM page for speedy deletion as a redirect to a deleted target. The actual article Ragam(Culfest) was deleted because there was a ProD tag on it stating that it was believed to not have met the guidelines for inclusion, specifically verifiable reliable sources proving notability. This definitely had nothing to do with any articles that either were or were not Indian. There was a period of seven days during which you could have contested the ProD, but if you ask the deleting admin they may be willing to give you a copy in your userspace to work on. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dark star question

Can you tell me what differentiates Black Star (semiclassical gravity) from Dark star and Dark star (dark matter)? I'm having a hard figuring out based on the content what separates the three from each other. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it:

• Dark star (dark matter) - this type of dark star includes large amounts of dark matter, which the black star need not have. The density of this dark star is also much less than an ordinary star, and is dark, not because it is similar to a black hole, but simply because it doesn't generate much energy. It's a gas cloud that is prevented from collapsing further by thermal energy.

• Dark star (Newtonian) - this type of dark star is a construct of Newtonian gravitation, and hence is not relativistic or conformant with quantum physics. It is essentially a Newtonian version of a black hole

• Black star (semiclassical gravity) - this type of black star is a construct of semiclassical gravity, and therefore uses aspects of general relativity and quantum field theory to describe its characteristics.

• Black hole - this type of stellar-derived object is a construct of general relativity, and is built without quantum physics in mind.

• Fuzzball - this type of stellar-derived object is a construct of string theory, as an alternative to the relativisitic black hole. Everything under the radius of the equivalent event horizon is made of string matter, and the edge is not a sharp horizon, but a fuzzy surface, that breaks the information conservation paradox by allowing information to escape in a pseudo-Hawking radiation manner.

• Eternally collapsing object - this type of stellar-derived object is derived from special relativity's limit on matter travelling faster-than-light, as the theorizers propose that to create a black hole, matter must exceed the speed of light to crash into the singularity. Instead, the speed limit means that an extremely dense layer, short of creating an event horizon is created, and is eternally collapsing toward the centre, with time slowed infinitely as it collapses.

• Dark energy star - this type of stellar-derived object is derived from the mass-energy equivalency in relativity theory, by hypothesizing that matter is converted into vacuum energy as it crushes down towards the centre, thus the space within the event horizon in a different vacuum state, and having a higher energy, naturally wants to expand, the inflationary tendency cancels out the gravitational crush of the mass of the star, preventing the creation of a singularity. Since dark energy is frequently described as vacuum energy, that is the name of the concept star, because cosmological dark energy causes the universe to expand

• Gravastar - this type of star uses Bose-Einstein Condensate as the form of matter created during collapse, and supporting pressure due to Planck level exclusions to the smooth spacetime of general relativity with quantized space and time (Planck length and Planck time)

76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly comprehensive, thank you so much! So, is there then a reason to rename Black Star (semiclassical gravity) to Dark Star (semiclassical gravity), or is that definitely not an acceptable name? More importantly, have you thought about registering an account? You're definitely a great asset, and you look like you may be a great boon to to the Astronomy Wikiproject. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, all mention of the concept I found called it "black star" and not "dark star", so there does not seem to be any reason to rename it to "dark star". As the above shows, many of the alternatives to black holes are not called dark star. I would say that using the title "dark star" for the new article is infringing on WP:OR, unless a WP:RS can be found that uses "dark star" in this manner, then we'd have to determine which is the WP:COMMONNAME; as I suggested "black star" for the article name, I think that is the current common name for this particular concept.

As for creating an account, I haven't considered creating one in quite a while. I have been participating in WP:AST for quite a while, already. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You rock. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pokemon

Hi, I was wondering why you messaged me saying I was part of Wikiproject pokemon, I took my name off the list almost 2 years ago now. thanks,Wikidude57^S_BC 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. Your name was still on the Active Participants list, so it must have gotten put back by someone. Sorry for any inconvenience. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• 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) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

I see you've finally got round to adding your name to the list! So here is your official welcome :)

By the way, pages like Vyper are disambiguation pages and so can be rated Disambig-Class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks x2. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• 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) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

• 126 Featured Articles
• 33 Featured Lists
• 16 Featured Topics

• 29 A-Class Articles
• 339 Good Articles
• 3 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Video game FA maintenance
• Featured editor: Kung Fu Man

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood Opinion

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(author).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"relevant internal links"? Jxc5 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response. =) Thanks. Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(author) Jxc5 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coach

Can you be my admin coach? And BTW, IRC is worse then Wikipedia (as people are meaner and ruder!) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am flattered you would ask me (and about everyone else who responded to your RfA) I am not a sysop so it really would not be appropriate. However, I do have a piece of advice for you - let it go. People say adminship is no big deal, and they're absolutely right. Thinking of it as a goal or a badge to wear on your coat is entirely the wrong idea. Being an admin should be just another hat someone wears, albeit usually not a fun one - heavy is the head that wears the crown and all that. I'm serious though - adminship only works properly if it comes naturally and isn't forced. Go work on stuff that interests you around here for six months or more, and forget about becoming an admin. If next year it seems like something you might benefit from in your work, then sure, but don't make it your goal - that only sets someone up for disappointment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• 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) 03:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

REDACTED class of REDACTED?

So are you indeed the REDACTED of the REDACTED Class of REDACTED? If you are, then I'm the same guy who sent you a message via Facebook asking if you were the owner of this account. Man, this is confusing... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to out me, JY! Glad you found me, though, it's been ages. How've you been, Lieutenant? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. It has been a while, hasn't it? Oh, and I should have known better than to actually name the school and year I was referring to. Nice work redacting that info. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, no worries. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'm having the same problem with Civil war in Chad (1965-1979) in the 1960-1969 section of List of wars 1945-1989. B-Machine (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done It had to do with type of punctuation you used (- versus –). See WP:DASH for more info. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. B-Machine (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried doing what you did and I still don't get it. The hyphens look the same. It's list of wars 1945-1989, specifically the 1970-1979 section, Turkey-Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict. B-Machine (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they can be a real PitA. The correct link, Turkey–Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict, uses – instead of -. The latter is simply the key between 0 and = and above p and [. The – can be acheived on a a Mac by holding option while pressing -. All in all, I'd just advise going to the article and copying the title bar instead of retyping it, as that is guaranteed to be correct. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it is

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tagging all those G8's, surely one of the more "laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks". decltype (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that almost makes up for the carpal tunnel syndrome! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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) 02:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recep Altepe

Please see reply at User_talk:Alastair_Rae#Recep_Altepe. --Alastair Rae (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Also see Talk:Ege Bagatur. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I am proud to award you this barnstar for your continued work improving Human disguise. Such efforts greatly improve the project. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFC/R

Thanks for the work on those redirects; I was getting prepared to work on what looked be a long process of accepting a ton of redirects. Now I don't have to. Thanks again. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No thank you! I did a bunch of those star ones yesterday, so I didn't have to verify the sources again. I don't mind those, but I really dislike doing all the wrestling and late night TV redirects so thank YOU for taking care of all of them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• 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) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For finishing the ultra-boring task of clearing Category:Undated AfC submissions I award you the AfC barnstar. Thanks for all your work with AfC and keep it up! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Parchment worms

Thanks for creating the redirects to Chaetopterus from parchment worm and parchment tube worm. I'd like to submit the article in today or tomorrow for DYK and having proper redirects is important to a complete article, imo. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, it was my pleasure! Have you thought about registering an account? You seem like you're eager to provide some excellent content. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have considered it, and tried it, and it's not for me. I do sometimes use my account for uploads, but that's it. I appreciate all of the editors who monitor AFC and have created some of my articles and redirects in the past. Thanks, again, and keep up the good work. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you like a mop?

Replied there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea! I hope you go for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when you get back and are ready to start the RFA. MuZemike 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The redlink above is now blue. Once you accept the nom and answer the 3 questions, I'll put it live. MuZemike 22:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Best of luck, I think you'd make a fine admin.! ;) — Ched :  ?  22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Not sure how I messed this bit up [4]. I think I was trying to say who the comment was referring to and then mixed it up. Oops. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're able, can you sort out definitely who made the "pissing with a skunk bit" about McCarthy (a couple sources suggest it was said by someone else, but they read like gossip heresay and I don't trust the sources). Supposedly Lyndon Johnson said something about pissing contests with polecats. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found another source with a more exact quote regarding its usage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Supernova (Mr Hudson song).png

The image has been restored, the link on the article updated, and the redirects (unused) deleted. Thanks for the "catch" on that.  Skier Dude  ►  01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As 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) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice

I really enjoyed this. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

:)

Please press this link on 15 November 2009 at 22:32 (outside wiki links just don't work..)--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the video, too! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! (premature, that is, but oh well...)

Congratulations, and welcome to hell adminship!

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your successful RFA! Here are some infallible rules about adminship that you need to know right off the bat:

1. You will always protect The Wrong Version.
2. Always remember to assume good faith and not to bite the newcomers. You know when you're applying these behavioral guidelines diligently when the user you're applying them to is a vandal, spammer, sock, troll, or all of the above.
3. When you block a user, people will complain. When you decide not to block a user, people will complain.
4. When you delete a page, people will complain. When you decide not to delete a page, people will complain.
5. Always use clear and descriptive language when explaining someone to user who may not be aware of something.

On a (semi) serious note, you can test out the admin tools at Adminship for Dummies, and if you have any other questions at all about adminship and how the policies applicable to adminship work, let me (or another admin) know. We promise not to bite the newbie admins... MuZemike 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not premature

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andre (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Good luck with the mop. — The Earwig @ 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers ya'll! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats Amory, and thanks for the kind note. I'm sure you'll do a fine job. If you're ever not sure about something, just step away from the keyboard for a bit til you think it through, and if you ever have any questions - don't be afraid to ask someone who's more familiar with whatever you're dealing with. If you ever just want to bounce something off somebody else, I'm always a happy sounding board. Best of luck buddy. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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) 14:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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) 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:WP:PERM

Thanks for the message! My apologies to the incorrect edits I made. I will be more careful in the future. And I will take off the pic immediately! Thanks again! BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stars Redirects

I created the redirects pointing to Delta Trianguli and will gladly do the others, but I have two comments first:

• Why are there so many for Zeta Reticuli? Are Zeta1 Ret and Zeta2 Ret both necessary separately?
• Also, you may have noticed that since a lot of these start with Greek letters, capitalization will be an issue. That only really matters to most for Delta (such as with Δ Tri) but is this going to be an issue? I don't know if {{R from alternative capitalization}} is really appropriate.

Thanks in advance for your responses. Either here, my talk page, or at WP:AFC/R would be fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Zeta Reticuli has so many because it is an article for three things (1) a binary star system (2) Zeta1, a star, (3) Zeta2, a star. Some of the redirects are associated with the system as a whole, others are associated with one or the other of the stars.

Stars are frequently, but not always written, when using Greek Letters, lowercase. It isn't always the case, so the uppercase forms are also plausible redirects. I think {{R from alternate name}} would still apply, since they aren't the title the article is called right now in any case.

Zeta1 and Zeta2 are necesary separately, since in many cases "GreekLetter Constellation" does not refer to a single star system, there are several setindices on Wikipedia because of that. In this case, Zeta1 and Zeta2 are also frequently referred to separately, especially with some Ufology associated with one of the stars. And a major piece of science fiction is also associated with one of the stars.

76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! I didn't doubt the veracity of your request, but while I'm pretty knowledgeable in Astronomy the minutiae of naming conventions are not my strongest point. Thanks for confirming things. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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) 12:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checking if you got my message above

I'm not sure if you could see the new message that I posted above. I thought I'd just follow the discussion path. If that made you miss it, my fault - sorry about that. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks very much. Jxc5 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I saw it! I asked Skier Dude to comment, so I'm holding off until then. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd get back to seek your assistance again

First of all, let me congratulate you for being promoted to an admin and wish you the best of luck. I have to agree, you'll do great. One more thing, I don't think newcomers have anything to worry about being bitten when it comes to you.I consider myself a newcomer and I never saw that coming -- you've been very nice and accommodating. I truly appreciate that. Moving forward ... I guess you remember you advised me about fair use rationales regarding image's copyright? Sorry, I haven't been able to look into that further. I actually just got a note that says something about that image you brought up that would have some copyright issues being possibly unfree & needs an attention. I'm not so sure how/where I'd start to get it resolved. I am hoping that you could guide me through it? Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, Jxc5, and thanks for the kind words!

In terms of the images, here's the deal. You've uploaded a bunch of files, all of which you said that it was you who owned the copyright and was therefore releasing it. The reason why File:LockwoodTheGreenQuotient.jpg was tagged was because it is obviously a book cover, and is therefore is only Lockwood's to release. Hence, your statement on that page that you are the copyright owner isn't true, and there is no permission to use it. You can try making a Fair Use claim using Template:Non-free book cover, although I would recommend you talk to Skier Dude, as s/he was the nominator.

Branching out from there, and correct me if I'm wrong, but potentially all of your images should be deleted. For example, did you yourself take the pictures File:JHyland.JPG and File:Charles Lockwood Jacket and Tie.jpg? I'm also fairly willing to assume you didn't take pictures such as File:LEBVLaurelandhardy.jpg and File:LEBVPamelaWayBusterKeaton.jpg. If not, the copyright information on those is all wrong and needs to be taken care of. Does that make sense? Image policy on Wikipedia isn't my strongest point, so I've asked Skier Dude to comment here as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Amory. The rest of the images have actually been taken care of by Hyland. Except for his photo which I just asked him to re-upload himself. When I did upload the images, I wasn't at all aware that there were certain wiki rules about uploading images. Of course there were and should be but since I was new to wiki, I assumed otherwise and thought it's that simple. It was certainly an honest mistake and unintended negligence which is something I should apologize for. It's now File:Charles Lockwood Jacket and Tie.jpg and File:LockwoodTheGreenQuotient.jpg that I should start working on to fix. Yes, it's Lockwood who owns the copyright. So apparently, I'll have to ask him release them himself. By the way, how do I request to have the rest of the images with wrong copyright info deleted? Thank you also for asking Skier Dude for an extra hand. Your willingness to help me out here's greatly appreciated. Jxc5 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look:

File	Problems	Fixes
File:Charles Lockwood Jacket and Tie.jpg	No source, appears to be pro. headshot, was photoshopped	Supply source and go through WP:OTRS
File:JHyland.JPG‎	No source, no metadata, appears to be pro. headshot	Supply source and go through WP:OTRS
File:LEBV.jpg	Copyvio - book cover, uploader clearly not (c) holder	Supply source and re-list as {{non-free book cover}}
File:LEBV EnchantedHill.jpg	No source, no metadata, appears to be old artwork, only artist can release as "cc"	Supply source & list with appropriate license*
File:LEBVFleurdeLys.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:LEBVCarolwoodDrive.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:LEBVPamelaWayBusterKeaton.jpg	No source, either promotional image or screenshot, uploader clearly not (c) holder	Supply source & list with appropriate license*
File:LEBVLaurelandhardy.jpg	No source, either promotional image or screenshot, uploader clearly not (c) holder	Supply source & list with appropriate license*
File:LEBVEnchantedHill.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:Pepper-Shaker.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:Foothill Road Beverly Hills.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:Contemporary Masterpiece Bel Air.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:Casa Encantada Bel Air.jpg	No source, no metadata, given sepia tones, would be questioned on age as well	Supply source & list with appropriate license*
File:Colleen Moore Estate Bel Air.jpg	No source, no metadata, given model's dress, would be questioned on age as well	Supply source & list with appropriate license*
File:Art Collector's Home Holmby Hills.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:400px-Pepper-Shaker2.jpg	No source, no metadata	Supply source and re-upload with metadata if possible
File:LockwoodTheGreenQuotient.jpg	Copyvio - book cover, uploader clearly not (c) holder	Supply source and re-list as {{non-free book cover}}

• Can't tell appropriate license without the source (most would be date dependent).

I think that covers all of them - questions, put them here, I'll watch the page. Skier Dude (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Images' copyright info fixes

Hi Amory/Skierdude. Here are the images I hope I got fixed. I had the copyright holders release them themselves with what I thought appropriate license. Lockwood's headshot photo, The Green Quotient book cover photo, Carolwood Drive,Fleur de Lys, Bel Air Contemporary Masterpiece, Hyland's headshot photo - photo was taken by his wife, Lori Hyland. Does it need to be released into a public domain like it was done?; The LEBH book cover. These next photos I'm not sure what license to apply: These two black and white historical photos come from Bison Archives and do appear on the pages of Hyland's book, The Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills that was published in 2008 - Beverly Hills Hillgrove & Buster Keaton. As well as Enchanted Hill - accdg. to Hyland is an architectural drawing made by architect Wallace Neff, Sr. in the 1920s, comes from the Collection of Wallace Neff, Jr. - also appear on the book's pages. I guess the images above that I uploaded with erroneous copyright info and license must be deleted? I'm not sure how it should work. Please guide me through it. Thank you so much. Jxc5 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, that first list looks good except for File:Jeffrey Hyland.JPG - this has the same uploader as all the others yet was taken by a different person. Lori should verify with OTRS that she has released the image, or she can just reupload it herself. The two old-timey pictures are probably public domain according Wikipedia:Public domain#Photographs of buildings and the drawing most likely is (definitely if made before 1923) since I see no copyright symbol on it (©). Still, though, they aren't yours so the licenses have to be fixed. All the remaining images from the top table, then, need to be deleted from commons, right? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Amory. May I request that all the remaining images that the stated uploader was me be deleted if possible. With regards to Jeff Hyland's photo, I think I'll just have Lori (Hyland's wife) release it herself. I'll see what can be done with the artwork photo and the two black and white photos. Thank you very much for helping me out here. I think I have to say ... you'll hear from me again. =) Jxc5 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! I've deleted all of the local images, and tagged all the Lockwood dupes at commons, as well as the pepper shaker for deletion. When the proper Hyland picture gets done, is it possible to re-up with the higher-res version? Currently, the one you did is of better resolution than the one with the closer-to-correct license. So, awesome, that's all taken care of I think. Happy Thanksgiving! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the images above (table). I checked the images which copyright/licensing info needed to be corrected. I guess they're good now. Would you please double check for me to make sure they're accurate. Thanks a lot, Amory. =)I hope you had a nice and peaceful Thanksgiving.

Hyland's headshot photo

Enchanted Hill artwork

Black & White photo 1

Black & White photo 2

Jxc5 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick overview of what Amorymeltzer did, and it all looks fine at this point. Thanks for following through. Skier Dude (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IRC cloak confirmation

• Primary nick is McJohn
• Requested cloak is wikipedia/Amorymeltzer

~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jewish colonies

That's what I thought was implied, but possibly unbeknown to the creator of the original redirect, Jewish colonies is a real term for a form of settlement in the early 20th Century. Unfortunately we don't have an article about them, but there are a lot of articles covering aspects of the subject, including the one I redirected to. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RFPERM archiving

Hi there Amorymeltzer :), and thank you for taking the time to archive those requests. At the moment I'm using a semi automated tool I wrote just to lend me a hand, but it doesn't help a lot, so it would be much easier for me to have an automated tool as well :). I'll try and get around to this soon, but at the moment I'm working on two other bots(which are at BRfA), as well as a editing tool. If you do need the rfperm pages archived some time sooner, feel free to drop me a note, or if you like, I can email you the tool I made. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no rush, was just curious. I can take care of it manually for a while, so no worries. I'd be curious to see what the tool looks like, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing fancy, just designed for me to use, so it's not particularly user friendly, and a number of the functions don't work (it still requires a careful manual review of the archiving). But drop me a mail if'd you'd like it :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As do you :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Exoplanet citation

Thank you Amory, in future I will certainly do that. I very much appreciate the tip. All the best.DoktorDec (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 2#Fix it again Tony

Thank you for you well reasoned closing comments; for some reason that was particularly contentious and I learned a great deal from your distillation of the arguments. Josh Parris 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for your well thought out closing comments, it was nice to understand your thought processing in closing. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you two, appreciate it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in these few edits. I don't think if I approached G87 or their edits that it would work out well. When I took his behavior to ANI last week, nothing was done there either. You can see the discussion (if you wish) here, but be warned that it is a lot of text with no real action. Killiondude (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your sensible decision. I have now realised the significant importance of these joke-terms to this encyclopedia. In essence, if a joke can be referenced, that's OK. Case closed. And again, I see User:Killiondude making false statements about my conduct here. And by the way, that ANI he initiated was deemed unnecessary and resolved. If you ask me, the conduct of that character shows someone not worthy of Admin status. G87 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FiaT and FORD redirects

Thank you, G87, for coming here after I made that closure, although I must say I do not appreciate the sarcastic manner in which you have approached me. There are a number of issues here, and I will try my best to address them all (or at least, all the relevant ones).

First and foremost, I made the closure of that RfD in my capacity as an uninvolved sysop, having never participated in either RfD, the ANI thread, or any Fiat-related articles. That closure was made based NOT on my personal opinion (which has never been given on this matter) but rather the consensus that I saw built in that discussion. This is the key issue at stake here - my closure was made based off of what all the editors who partook "decided." That you are not pleased with the outcome is clearly a given (as given by your redirecting it), but disagreeing with it is a different matter. Being pissed off at me will do nothing - if you really, truly feel the need to blame people, blame the keep voters for having good arguments and the delete voters for having fewer and less good arguments. If you find a different consensus on that page, please discuss it in a civil fashion with me here, but only if you think the discussion (NOT your personal opinion) should have resulted in a different outcome. If after talking it over with me (and ONLY after) we are at an impasse, there is always Deletion Review, although I would strongly advise against that course of action.

Second of all, throughout the discussion, you noted the lack of a redirect at Fix Or Repair Daily. You consistently raised that flag, arguing that since the FORD redirect doesn't exist, neither should the Fiat one. That is nearly a direct reading of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a valid argument for or against inclusion or usefulness.

Thirdly, and more specifically, your creation of Fix Or Repair Daily and its insertion on Fiat Automobiles was something I specifically addressed in my closing. To quote myself, It should also be noted that in no way does this endorse the creation of other, poorly-sourced redirects that have been suggested in violation of WP:POINT. Creating Fix or Repair Daily, citing that discussion, is a blatant example of violating Wikipedia to make a point. As I see it, there were two possibilities - you either did not read the closure and made it in ignorance of my closing statement or you read it and decided to make it anyway - neither of which is particularly generous.

Fourthly, Wikipedia doesn't make jokes (or nicknames or news or anything), people make jokes, and reliable sources sometimes record them if prominent. Wikipedia includes so-called jokes IF AND ONLY IF they are notable as evidenced in sources. Fix it again, Tony is clearly an inappropriate article name but this is not an article.

With the above in mind, I have deleted the Ford redirect and removed it from the completely unrelated Fiat article (where it does constitute an attack of sorts), and retargetted the original Fiat redirect. If you would like to discuss this further, either here or on your talk page (or elsewhere) I would welcome that, but please keep it civil. Your attacks against others disagreeing with you are inappropriate, including those above. I have no desire to make more out of this than need be, so let's talk this out first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There really isnt any point for me to discuss here as you wouldn't take it on board. Anyway, I don't agree with your opinion of the delete voters having poor reasoning in comparison to keep, so glad you picked up on the sarcasm. With that decision you expect me and other "delete users" to literally "kiss your ass" like those "keep users" above? Anyway, based on your response in the RfD, I have seriously taken your views on board. So I suggest you undo your deletion of the Fix Or Repair Daily redirect, because the target page is clearly cited with reliable sources. And, according to the "consensus", as you call it, a "useful" redirect aswell. If you don't agree with the creation of Fix Or Repair Daily, you should take that to RfD, not delete. Also, it would make sense to redirect Fix it again Tony to Backronyms too. This would improve the jokebook. G87 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse my expression of thanks for a hard job done thoughtfully and transparently with "ass kissing". I had no emotional involvement in the outcome, I merely expressed an opinion. You and others might find Wikipedia more pleasant if you worked in areas where you have a lower emotional involvement. Josh Parris 03:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

Thanks 4 fixing the reference & telling me my mistake! --AquaTeen13 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I made a mistake regarding the tags. I thought they were requests for protection. The pages were flooded with vandals, and I thought I was doing the right thing. Sorry! Lol. Tribal44 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Amory, of course I remember you! No worries about the Rose and the Gray. I should have put more attention and time into it, but I think it was a bit unrealistic of me to think alums would want to post on it so often. It was a good idea in theory at least. Sorry if I'm not sending this message right—I'm new to the backend of Wikipedia and just made an account after expanding the page for The Misc, but I can see how this is addicting! Rubycramer (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a great idea! We're just lazy swine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

3O Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		Proposed by HelloAnnyong for outstanding service at WP:3O. Congratulations and thanks! TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Fantastic work on both of your parts as well! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the smile

[5] A truly priceless edit summary. Thanks for the memories... Risker (talk)

Signatures

Please change your signature, as it indicates that you are the deceased author and animal-rights activist Cleveland Amory. Dead people are not allowed to have Wikipedia accounts. DS (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nash Reference Q&A

Amory -- after reviewing my response, I wanted to thank you for your post and apologize if I was too harsh in my rebuttal. All the best. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Too harsh? You complimented me (okay fine, it was sort of backhanded) and then said what you thought! I'd have to have some real thin skin to take offense at that, but thanks for the check regardless. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding deleted redirect

Would you consider undoing your deletion of the Xerodermi pilaire symmetrique de la face redirect? Within English sources, that term is actually a well documented synonym for the condition keratosis pilaris atrophicans faciei. Additional synonyms and citations for that condition synonym can also be found within the article itself, or also within the list of cutaneous conditions. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Opps... I did not see the solitary quotation mark "Xerodermi pilaire symmetrique de la face... sorry about bothering you with that request!! ---kilbad (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

• 130 Featured Articles
• 35 Featured Lists
• 13 Featured Topics

• 35 A-Class Articles
• 347 Good Articles
• 4 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Editorial: Being bold
• Featured editor: PresN

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:02, 6 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) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback question

Hello. I have found your user-page because you are an administrator who grants rollback privileges. I am performing academic research and I am particularly focused on usage of the rollback feature. I have imported en-wiki dumps into MySQL for analysis, and flag RBs by parsing revision comments for the "automatic comment" left by RB edits.

My question: In February 2009 and the months preceding it, about 200k RBs were being performed a month. Beyond that, usage of the RB feature seems to decline sharply; in September 2009 I show only 1k RBs. Can you help me understand this? Did the automatic revision string change? Did the use of anti-vandalism bots (with their slightly altered RB strings (which I don't try to parse)) become so prevalent that no one does it 'manually' any more?

My current research has found no reason for this 200x change, and I hope you can help. Of course, your help will aid my research -- which in turn will help the Wikipedia community in combating vandalism. West.andrew.g (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think there are a number of issues at play:

• Revert bots are definitely a big part of it. The big one right at that time, I'd say, is User:XLinkBot, approved for a second task at the end of January, and has definitely made a HUGE amount of reverts. Of course, User:Cluebot remains extremely active and has, I think, improved over the past 11 months.
• You're probably also ignoring the other tools users can use, namely WP:POPUPS, WP:TWINKLE, and WP:HUGGLE (in order of increasing count). The Twinkle doesn't even require the Rollback right, but can do essentially the same thing. Huggle, on the other hand, is extremely fast, and many people easily rack up thousands of reverts a month using it (such as User:The Thing That Should Not Be).
• Probably not a big deal, but there are scripts that can change the default Rollback edit summary (mentioned on WP:ROLLBACK).

Those are my best guesses, hope they help. People are also sometimes content to just do undo sometimes. Also, be advised that deleted edits won't show up, and many pages have been deleted this year. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my butting in, March 2009 is about when the edit filters started to kick in as well. These filters can prevent certain edits from being committed (saved) to the database, which means they don't need to be reverted at all. This could also be having a notable effect, although I rather doubt it's the only cause. Risker (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your assistance. I am now parsing for (1) Huggle and (2) Twinkle rollback strings. Further, at some point, it seems a (3) Wikilink was added to the 'standard' RB string. Taking these 3 factors into account, I have monthly-counts that don't look so anomalous. There is still a slight valley in the graph at the described time, but this could well be bot related -- and I'm not particularly interested in those edits. Thanks again. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RTV and Basket of Puppies

I had been keeping a casual eye on this poster since before the last run for admin, just a funny feeling. Apparently it panned out. But, I'm confused. It seems odd for an editor to be able to abuse RTV and then go on editing with nary a word nor link to the old account. Isn't this considered socking? Was there discussion publicly on the wiki where plain old editors could see it or was it one of those private IRC deals? IOW, do I have any business at all inquiring about this or what? Auntie E. (talk)

No, you're right to be curious; most editors would admit that it is a tad... unorthodox, if you will. If you check through BoP's talk page history, you can read through the events as both blocks unfolded; clearly some thought it counted as "deceptive sockpuppetry." ArbCom is dealing with it now, so there's no need to worry or care too much at this point in time (it could, even, be counter-productive). Also, not quite sure why you chose to ask me, as I was decidedly uninvolved (maybe that's why?). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. My question at the RfA was used as evidence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Duh, Sorry, misread the tags and thought you were the blocker. That was Prodego. It's just my day for screwing up. Is today Monday somewhere in the universe? Auntie E. (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I haven't been able to thank you for all your help, your kindness and guiding me through my articles' completion. So here's a little way of showing you how I appreciated it. I hope my "thank you" is not too late. Best of luck to your adminship. I hope you'd keep your kind ways of assisting newcomers or just-started, not-so-wiki-knowledgeable editors like me. Thanks again! Jxc5 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Really it was my pleasure, always worth it. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to have a fan. Thank You. Skuzbucket (talk) 03:55, 12 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) 08:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD

Sorry I've given you so many redirects to delete at RfD. I hope it isn't too annoying. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Amorymeltzer's Day!

User:Amorymeltzer has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Amorymeltzer's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Amorymeltzer! Peace, Rlevse 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, nice and unexpected! Thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated, 'specially coming from you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:58, 18 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) 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga short films.

Added a comment to what appears to be your request, here. SunCreator (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just formatted the request properly, I didn't put it in. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your removal

Your user categories say that you are a graduate of Vassar College, which is within the geographic region where certain phrases of Yiddish have been adopted by English speakers. My statement was perfectly polite and serious.[6] You could have contacted me if you did not understand or if you preferred a different expression. I would have modified it along the lines of I saw this coming and this was what I tried to head off when I filed the MZMcBride 2 request a few days ago. Now there's quite a mess and it isn't going to clean up easily. Last night I stayed up late to complete a PowerPoint presentation for one of the European WMF chapters in an upcoming negotiation with a museum for the acquisition of media content. You could contacted me or at least have left notification. It is not a pleasant way to start a morning after serious volunteer work to discover that one's words have been blanked like a common vandal's. Please make an attempt to be more communicative. You might make the pleasant discovery of encountering a serious contributor. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right about the Yiddish! Just the other day, in fact, I myself was mocked for say "Oy." As for the comment itself, it wasn't an issue of misunderstanding. I recognize that you did in fact mean it with all seriousness, and I'm sorry your evening was so trying (albeit fantastically worthwhile), but the intent was to keep the request page from accumulating too many comments not particularly useful to advancing the case; you'll note two others were removed as well, one repeatedly. Given the particular phrase you used and the seemingly intended nonchalant usage of it, I did not think you were particularly invested in it; apologies for any offense or discomfort caused, it was not my intent, although I surely don't think I treated you like anything, least of all a vandal. Please feel free to readd a statement if you feel it will be constructive to the pending case. And, for what it's worth, your contributions were never in doubt. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:08, 21 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) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Brews Ohare topic ban

I am not that well versed in ArbCom restrictions and clerking, but I don't believe that the motions made about this case really supersede the original restriction, but ony amend it. Your striking of the restriction gives the impression that it is no longer valid, but the motion only list two minor exceptions, not the actual topic ban, creating a kind of void (and a perfect opportunity for future wikilawyering). So I don't think that this[7] was the correct edit to make. It's not a big deal if you let it be like it stands, but perhaps a better way of linking the topic ban and the motions is preferable. Fram (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

T: Cite News RfD

Please explain this Delete. Thank you. [8] Lambanog (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in the discussion was to delete. The nominator and another editor both expressed a belief that they were unused and unhelpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it change your opinion if I accused the editor supporting the delete of wikihounding? I also note that in closing RfDs according to the RfD main page one should avoid doing so if a user should say they find it useful. I have made such statement. I have pointed to inconclusive discussion on the topic that still recognizes value in the creation of a pseudo namespace for the template namespace. The reason given for the delete, WP:Cross, is more clearly applied to other circumstances. The RFD page actually makes special mention of the use I have made as a possible exception:

"It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the 'CAT:' shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own 'pseudo-namespaces'".

For these reasons I ask that you reinstate the redirects and the discussion. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, it's not "my opinion" that is in question but rather that of our fellow editors. Secondly, accusing an editor of wikihounding without providing any sort of evidence is a rather odd thing to do, if I may say so, and is uncalled for. Thirdly, yes you presented some arguments. However, the arguments against those templates (no real support for them, completely unused, cross-namespace and not CAT) were stronger and unanswered. I'm not expressing an opinion either way, and I would be remiss if I did, but I will point out that each redirect only saved you seven characters, and your above comments are over 100 times that character count. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of sending this to Delrev so it would actually be more efficient of you to simply reinstate them. This occurs to me as a case of WP:ZEAL. A generally beneficial improvement with little downside that is nominated for deletion for given reasons that are expressly provided an exception. As for the editor in question, I can provide evidence---but is he on trial here and are you willing to pass a verdict? In brief I've created 3 articles from scratch and he has nominated all 3 for for deletion. I ruffled his feathers earlier. All three were kept although in one case he succeeded in having it merged with what I consider poor results. Now back to the case at hand: can I not convince you to reconsider? You say in an attached template note "Disagree with something I did? Then undo it!" What does that mean? Lambanog (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this to WP:DELREV if you really truly disagree with my interpretation of the discussion and not the fact that the outcome was not what you wanted, which is what your motivation seems to be (based on the fact that you're providing evidence here). Seriously though, is there anything stopping you from typing out seven characters? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Try misspelling template then deleting it then typing it out again. Try doing that while working on an article with over a hundred references to get through and clean up. Water on a journey through the desert is more valuable than outside of it. Finding and checking that many references then properly citing them can take hours on top of actually writing the article. You should be able to apprehend this immediately. I remember during your RfA I was concerned with your relatively low article creation count but I supported you anyway; sadly this episode convinces me further that little history in article creation is reason to object to involvement with deletion and will make the deletion process a major issue with me. Now that I think of it this case would appear to be an interesting test question in future RfAs. Would you mind if I used it? Lambanog (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

You already blocked a sock of User:Garydubh, so perhaps, if you are still online, you would look at the activity of User talk:Macalirua also listed under the latest SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garydubh but he has been editing today and has not been blocked yet. Duck!! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And just now, his latest identity User:Ephemeri ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, got 'em both. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gotcha

Hi. I see you deleted a redirect to userspace at the above. Thing is, the page moved was at MfD and the user is seeking to evade that process. I believe the redirect should be undeleted and that the MfD applies to the page wherever it is. Sure, it's possible that the thing will be allowed to exist in userspace (transcluding it anywhere, is another matter;). Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gotcha and the links off there. WP:SMI, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah alright, I get what's goin' on. It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic (especially given the valid deletion criteria) but meh, I see the point. Restored so I can delete it again in a few days! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would, of course, prefer that the damn things be boldly deleted. See the quote on my userpage: we're letting the littluns run wild. Its Lord of the Flies around here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• 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) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for deleted article

hello I see that your in the category for admins willing to produce copies of deleted articles. If you are still doing this would you mind producing a copy of EnergyXT and possibly its history (if there is anything significant in it) at the page User:Andyzweb/EnergyXT. Thanks in advance andyzweb (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done There was no significant history, so go wild. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 23

Hi Amory, I noticed that you've removed the listings for January 23 at WP:RfD but did not close the discussion for November 9, 1985. You must have been in a hurry that day... It's still open. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the catch! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to rollback message

According to the link you gave (which, I might add, was unprofessionally done), the following applies:

"In some cases appealing a bad decision is appropriate. In this case, to avoid the appearance of canvassing, it is essential that you disclose and link to all prior discussions regarding the same issue."

Here you go [9]

I disagreed with the edits that were quoted by an admin, as to whether they were misuse. Some were completely irrelevant and that's why I'm appealing a bad decision. I'm now watching this talk page, so if you reply, I'll read it. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I found that discussion (hence my knowledge that you had it removed). If one sysop removes it and another quickly agrees, then you've got your appeal right there. It would be better, I think, to have favored the discussion on your talk page rather than moving the forum. Regardless, I am in agreement with the other two sysops, although I do thank you for your congenial efforts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what "rather than moving the forum" means, however, I'm wondering whether you have indeed read the edits that were quoted by the other sysop.

One was a straight undo, therefore not rollbacking and there was a valid explanation given.

Another was a warning to an IP for obscenities, therefore not rollbacking.

Another was a rollback of "Coleman is legend" for which a rollback is self-explanatory (one reason for usage of rollback) and another was the unneeded removal of a statement which perhaps could have been undone instead, but the end result is the same.

That's why I'm still bewildered as to why rollback was removed and why I re-requested this morning. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I of course read the quoted edits, which is why I said above that I agreed with both of the admins. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So would you like to explain to me how those edits are against Rollback policy then? I'm yet to hear a reasonable answer on that matter. The edits were in good faith against cases of vandalism and some quoted edits has NOTHING to do with rollback. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Bwilkins quoted four examples of reverted edits. In my mind, the first was acceptable on your part, although the summary could've been better. The third is not blatantly vandalous, and while not helpful it's not helpful to the adding editor to just get reverted with no summary. The second and (especially) the fourth were improper uses, as they were not vandalous edits and rollback should not have been used. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The second one IS NOT rollback. It's a straight undo. The first one is a warning, therefore not rollback. The third one was removal of silly information, as was the fourth one. Rollback allows usage when the edits are obviously needed, like in those two cases. So once again...vandalism? Paralympiakos (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my counting, sorry for lack of clarity. When I said "Bwilkins quoted four examples of reverted edits" my count was ignoring the warning, as it was not an example. Does that change your interpretation? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos did nothing wrong in my opinion. Keep in mind that he was probably assuming good faith while making the reverts. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[10] - not vandalism, is a straight undo

[11] - regarded that at the time to be silly information and so its removal went without saying in the MMA community; if not you.

[12] - again, an example of an edit that's rollback is obvious. That is NPOV and needs removing; that's what I did. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Are you... arguing with me when I'm mostly agreeing with you?
2. It was a good-faith attempt to add information to an article. Regardless of whether or not you or "the MMA community" considers it "silly," it isn't vandalism.
3. There's a difference between a non-neutral statement and vandalism.

Does that make sense? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's important to consider the history here, first we had concerns just days after getting rollback [see note on 25 Nov 2009 by the admin Glen], then a notice about breach of 3RR and another concern by another admin about marking edits as vandalism when they're not. Now we have this; ie the 3RR and marking of edits as vandalism which clearly were not (and improper rollback use) and noted by myself. Thus there were concerns raised about marking edits as vandalism at least three times by three different admins, two 3RR's, and two concerns about rollback misuse. NJA (t/c) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Amorymeltzer/Archive 1 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Night of Joy (disambiguation)

Agree it wouldn't otherwise be needed, but I was going to redirect from NOJ to Night of Joy (disambiguation). 92.0.52.136 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Love it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 92.0.52.136 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Who Is Garydubh Anyhow?

So who is he and what did he do - do you know???

why is everyone that wishes to highlight that there is valid new information that can be included in the article automatically assumed to be associated with Garydubh and why is there no proper investigation carried out - just summary execution? Isarilla (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking this user. Everyone knows that Ed Poor ain't no stinkin' monkey! 93.127.228.122 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• 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) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification requests

No you shouldn't have altered the heading of the section I put on that page. I am less than pleased that you did. I titled it about a project and then began my statement talking about "the project" and you can along and removed the name of the project. What project? Don't alter things you have not read and understood. If you think you can understand something which is not purposefully suggested to you, you should ignore it. Cheers ~ R.T.G 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:RTG/Archives/2020/August#Filing a Request for Clarification ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo task force membership update

Hello,

It's that time again to update membership status with the Nintendo task force, which we try to do every 3-4 months (though it's been actually 6 months since the last one) to keep our membership up-to-date.

All participants have been placed on an "Inactive participants" list. To confirm that you're still a member of the Nintendo task force, simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo#Members and move your name from the "Inactive participants" list to the bottom of the "Active participants" list. If you are no longer an active member in the task force, you may simply remove your name altogether. After 1 month, on 1 April 2010, all entries under the "Inactive participants" list will be removed. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Nintendo-related articles. Regards, –MuZemike 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerks

I requested and was never answered. Since then another clerk was added. Was I denied? Auntie E. (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest talking to User:Nathan. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• 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) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new article name here

Hi! I would appreciate any help you could give with the protection level / edit notices / edit intros of the following pages:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new article name here
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/my proposed article name here
• Enter your new article name here

I can't get my head around all the different system messages.

• MediaWiki:Noarticletext
• MediaWiki:Nocreatetext Not used for this purpose now
• MediaWiki:Titleprotected Not used for this purpose now

(There is some related discussion at MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext#Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0.) I was thinking that because Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new article name here now has a non-empty deletion log which shows when you try to create the page, maybe it would be better to use a different page instead? Also, now that edit notices display even when a user doesn't have the rights to edit a page, I think some of those system messages need looking at again. Anyway, don't worry about this if you are busy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Butting in: you're right, Martin, I've removed the code from MediaWiki:Titleprotected. If you want to switch the default title for AFC to get rid of the deletion log, you only need to move the old editnotice and hook it into MediaWiki:Noarticletext. And remember to salt it in advance. :)
Amalthea 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that simplifies things quite a lot. So is the code in MediaWiki:Noarticletext still required? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want the notice to be shown in view-mode (as opposed to edit mode), then yes. Amalthea 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice - that bugged me about the AfC notice. As long as a new one is going to be created, it might as well be WT:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here so that all the links on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission are the same. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Users will always come off the article wizard in "edit" mode, so for the sake of simplicity (we can now live without any special code in the interface) it could be removed I think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One other thing I will say is that I imagine MediaWiki:Noarticletext is a pain for a new user to see (on the mainspace page). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If I log out and go to submit via Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, the header is pretty large. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, either I'm pretty dense or you're not explaining clearly :) What do you mean by "header"? Are you talking about the editintros (e.g. Template:AfC editintro) or something else? MediaWiki:Noarticletext should not seen because you are in "edit" mode not "view" mode. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

→ Nevermind, I'm a fucking idiot. Ignore me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, moving forward, just to get it right the first time, replace:

{{#switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}}
| Enter your new article name here = 
  {{Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here}}
| #default = 

With:

{{#switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}}
| Enter your new article name here = 
  {{Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here}}
| Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here =
  {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here}}
| #default = 

Yeah? Yeah. Man I need to sleep more. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You were missing an equals sign, should be correct now. Amalthea 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

True enough, thanks! All done, at any rate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian arbitration evidence trim

Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearguardian / Nevetsnairb SPI

Thanks for looking into this. I just realised that another editor there, although not new and not reverting to the same version, is also a SPA with a similar viewpoint. This would be Physicsjock (talk · contribs). Is it too late to add them to the SPI? Sorry about this. Verbal chat 14:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to archive the case, but if you feel like it you are welcome to append the name and refile. That being said, while the sudden interest in Firstenberg is interesting, Physicsjock seems more concerned with sourcing and refs. I don't personally see any strong evidence offhand that indicates Physicsjock is likely to be one of those other editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave it for now. Some of their contentions are decidedly fringe and enough to make me suspect a good hand (!) account. We'll see what happens. Cheers, Verbal chat 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheese soup

Now that we have a List of cheese soups article up and running, I'm forming a cheese soup redirect to it per the RfD discussion. I'm notifying you as the closing/deleting admin to leave a record in case someone thinks this is a CSD G4 occurrence. I hope you don't mind. B.Wind (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no sweat. That was, of course, the ideal solution, but just didn't get there on time. Thanks for the notice, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi there Amory. I noticed that you blocked my IP adress for the sock 1adele9. Based on the recent discussions at my talk page/ the sock investigation were you planning on lifting that?4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the autoblock - it's automatic when blocking an account - sorry, I had forgotten about that. Since you've been editing, I presume you've shifted IPs? I've lifted the autoblock from 1dele9, let me know if the others give you any trouble. Remember, all your edits now should come from 4meter4, not other accounts or IPs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :-) I am only editing from 4meter4. I was using my iphone, signed in as 4meter4, to edit earlier until the block was lifted.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aquarpio ?

I understand that Wspock50 isn't the same user, but all of these I.P.s come from the same city and are making the same exact changes. Someone who is born in September 1965/1966 couldn't start their senior year at 15-16 in August/September 1981. Government birth records place Terry Ellis at 1963 and currently being 46. If she graduated in May/June 1982 she would have been 18 then, not barely 17. Seniors are generally 17-18 years old in the fall semester. User: Aquarpio has single-handedly been using I.P.s to reinstate changes of theirs that aren't correct and continues to undo what is correct. I would have liked this to be solved and not overlooked for Aquarpio to continue undoing material others agree with and for me to endlessly fix. The user makes no effort to communicate with me anymore and will continue to hide by using underlying IPs, despite receiving warnings.-Carmaker1 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion on the validity of sources, so here's the deal - only one IP is actively editing, and Aquarpio him/herself hasn't edited since January, so I don't know why you would expect a response. I have blocked the IP for a bit for changing seemingly referenced material without a reference. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation as they continue to log in through different I.P.s from the same city in Georgia. Another I.P[13] is now in use as they continue to violate the 3RR. I guess there might not be anything that can be done as they can continually use new I.P.s. to undo the info. Thanks anyway--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd the pages for a month, let's see if that works. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You're a savior! I hopefully won't need to fix anything again there. I'm really just interested in keeping things tidy here and adhering to guidelines at the same time.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we all? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hey, just out of curiosity, can you link me to the SPI where this was confirmed - User talk:Vote (X) for Change? Thanks - Tan | 39 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't  Confirmed since there was no CU request, but the (now archived) case link is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive. Essentially, the IPs had all been blocked for various periods, after which a few days Vote (x) for Chance created his/her account. The account's only edits have been on those exact pages (Talk:Revised Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar ) and made very similar edits as some of the IPs [14] [15]. Moreover, Vote (X) urged users to vote for the proposal initiated by one of the IPs (the account name sort of implies it too). Finally, he/she took credit for the proposal by the IP. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it; thanks for the clarification. Tan | 39 13:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly note

User talk:Whitmore 8621, the user you blocked is requesting an unblock, feel free to give your input. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Reduced to three days (retroactively). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needs extended

You were the blocking admin, and the block evasion continues.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Caught by another admin.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sort of a talkback

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Categorization, by the way... (feel free to simply nuke this edit, if you'd like)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuke it? Nah. Well, maybe if I could nuke it... FROM ORBIT!1!!!@1 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noted your most recent comment, fyi. Although I still disagree, I'm considering it and am curious to see what, if anything, my esteemed colleagues think. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a sandbox, and posted a follow up about that, to the talk page section above (For convenience though:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Categorization) I just now saw your reply above (shame on me for not checking back here...), and I agree that it would be nice to see/hear others opinions. That being said, there is WP:SILENCE...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear

In terms of the {{-}} you just added to /Clarification, what did that do for you? All it did for me was just mess up the headers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to screw around with it to get it in an appropriate place, but it prevents {{ArbComOpenTasks}} from running into (and scrunching up) {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}. What resolution do you use? I tested it on several XGA resolutions and it seemed to help, but it may have side effects that I missed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on either 1680x1050 or 1280x800, and on both it was always fine. Even now, comparing both versions (with and without) adjusting my browser gives me the same, normal results (excepting the weird, initial header). Odd. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, I won't have access to a widescreen display again until next week. I at least moved it out of the section title... that's just me being stupidly cute, anyway (or a smart-ass, same difference). If it's still messing up layout for you though, then you should just remove it. I appreciate that you didn't just go and remove it, but you probably should have if it's creating it's own problem. If you get a chance though, and if you know how to, a screen shot would help.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh. It's not worth the three buttons I'd have to press to screen shot. No biggy for me, so if it makes your viewing better than so be it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh... still, I'll talk a look at it in widescreen in a few days. It's no real trouble for me, since little things like that can break up the tedium during some weekdays (as long as nothing significant is going on; you know how it is, I'm sure). Tables are wonderful things, but sometimes they tend to get in their own way, you know?

Thank you

Thank you for the notification of the ArbCom case opening. I realise it is just process, but I figure a thank you never goes a miss! --Narson ~ Talk • 21:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for shortening my block time. --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

SPI

Please revisit the Coolio12 case and take a closer look at the contribs of the SSPs. I think you'll see there a clear pattern to the edits.User:LeadSongDog come howl 06:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the contributions of every account already, but I went and did it once more; I would not say it was "cursorily dismissed." Again, I can see no similarity between any of the accounts aside from name. There seem to be no articles or style in common between them, and only a scant few have been active in the past month or two. Moreover, only a handful are blocked so if they were all socks, we'd see them being used. In short, thinking oneself "cool" and then making one or two vandalous edits before getting bored isn't evidence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make the evidence more transparent, I thought that you had admin power tools for this sort of thing. User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

• News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

• In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

• Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

I know I'm dipping my foot into a deep pit of muck, but regarding the desysopping of User:Trusilver, was there evidence that the former admin was aware of ArbCom's stance on this matter? Or was this a case of "he just should have known better"? I am to-date uninvolved (apart from declining User:Hell_in_a_Bucket's unblock request) and would like to understand this aspect of the Brews ohare debacle. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you got the gist of it all from Ryan following the more-recent dust-up, but to answer this specifically, it's a bit of both. The whole WP:AE system is largely agreed to be less-than-perfect, but ArbCom made their opinions clear at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity, which was posted in the header at AE. The committee recently further clarified that system, but the point is that it was there, for all to read, and Trusilver went against it. As Steve Smith said in his vote on the recent motion, "Rules either mean something or they do not." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read Ryan's comment after yours. Both are quite helpful. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DC

Hey Amory. Could you take a look at User talk:DC#unblock request? DC seems quite contrite in his statement - he appears to understand he was at fault. How would you feel about unblocking him now? I fully agree with the original block, but I think it's served it's purpose now. It's up to you either way. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, cheers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

re.

sorry about that. i missed the button.--camr ^nag 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)